The erection & removal of British colonial monuments in Ireland

brianthebard

marienbad wrote: »

Not really a slippery slope in a broader context. I accept what you are saying generally re history and historical sources , but forgive for saying so but are you not being just a little bit pedantic.

The statue (or house or a flag I take it) are a feature of history and may symbolise history but are not history ? Is that not hair-splitting ?

No.

Saddam like some latter day Ozymandias shoving up statues all over the place was a symbol of his power I grant you that , but that he could do so was a historical fact. Its removal was one of the most potent symbols of the conflict but also illustrated the historical change of power and the manner of its removal was alot more than symbolic. Similiarly with communist statues in the former east bloc.

yes it was symbolic; it didn't change history though, it was a change in symbols. this point has been made repeatedly at this stage.

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If this is what you think I don't 'get' then I am happy to acknowledge clearly the difference as I see it. A statue is clearly not actual historical material. Perhaps you are not understanding that the point I have consistently made is that if we remove statues we are removing the links to historical fact (not removing the historical fact).
If we remove all links to historical facts do you not feel that we would end up actually with no knowledge of the fact in question?

No. Another slippery slope I see; who mentioned removing all historical facts? How do you remove a fact? A fact isn't exclusively tangible like a monument. You've done another 180; you said that Marchdub was wrong to say you ascribed factual, historiographical importance to monuments, but you've just done it again above. the only 'link' to a historical fact is source material, primary source material specifically. A monument is not source material for a historian. It may well be for an archeologist, but that is not the point of this discussion.

Your 'suggestion' is patronising. I think perhaps this may be the root of the problem that we are having here. Much of your post indicates that you have not actually read the posts you responded to. I hope I am wrong with that but can predict your response already, i.e. I don't understand etc, etc. Perhaps I am wrong and my requested acknowledgement as given above will clear up my opinion?

Predicting someone's response is also patrionising fyi. for all your complaints about patronising you are the one who makes comments about people bringing their ball home, making up the rules, etc.

marienbad

brianthebard wrote: »

No.



yes it was symbolic; it didn't change history though, it was a change in symbols. this point has been made repeatedly at this stage.

Nor was I saying it changed history ! It was history .The physical tearing down of that statue was as much a historical event as the tanks rolling into Bagdad .

I understand the general point you are making and I agree with it, it that as a general rule the erection or removal of monuments does not alter in anyway the ''actualite'' of history as Lord Clark would have it. The classic case being the erasure of individuals from the public landscape in the Soviet Union. Trotsky may has disappeared from public view but not from history. ( though there are many examples of people disappearing from history because of such action,but I digress).

But this is not always so , we are not just talking about the victor imposing his view of the past, though the attempt to do so is history.

On occasion the symbol is the part and parcel of the event , maybe in a minor way in the grand scheme of things , but a part nonetheless.

So though I agree with your general principle as a guideline, I dont accept it as a hard and fast rule

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

No. Another slippery slope I see; who mentioned removing all historical facts?

Noone mentioned removing all historical facts until your post. I quite clearly said 'links to historical facts' on several occasions. There is a big difference in the two.

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you remove a fact?

You don't. You remove all reminders and links to that fact. I thought that was self-explanatory but I will give you an example: small town in rural Ireland- statue to local landlord in the town centre commemorating the landlord for donating land to the church for building a chapel. Statue was removed in the 1920's and nowadays only people who look into the history of the town will know about his era. As years go by this link becomes strained as living memory of this has faded. As time continues to pass this will continue until eventually all knowledge of this is gone. I should clarify that it is knowledge of the fact that is removed (in case thats not clear).

brianthebard wrote: »

You've done another 180; you said that Marchdub was wrong to say you ascribed factual, historiographical importance to monuments, but you've just done it again above.

Did i not say this clearly (quoting my last post):

A statue is clearly not actual historical material.

I said they are a link; as in an association or relationship with the fact or person who they commemorate. To say a statue is linked to a historical fact is not to ascribe factual importance to that statue and to say that I have done that is not true to my post.

brianthebard wrote: »

Predicting someone's response is also patrionising fyi. for all your complaints about patronising you are the one who makes comments about people bringing their ball home, making up the rules, etc.

It was patronising, thus I apologise.
In my defense it was retalitory.

The ball comment was a joke- obviously not very funny but I was trying to lighten the mood to avoid personal comments as that seemed to be the direction of the discussion. I can see how this would be misconstrued.

maureen murphy 1234

john jinks was a race horse

CDfm

maureen murphy 1234 wrote: »

john jinks was a race horse

John Jinks predated Andy Warhols "everyone will be world famous for 15 minutes " by 40 years.

Another side of John Jinks revealed ,politician, escapeologist,race horse and performance artist.

Is there no end to his genius.

Any information you have on the horse would be apprecited here as I can find no memorial to Alderman John Jinks

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056064820

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Noone mentioned removing all historical facts until your post. I quite clearly said 'links to historical facts' on several occasions. There is a big difference in the two.


You don't. You remove all reminders and links to that fact.

You can't remove source material though can you? Therefore you cannot remove all reminders and therefore the removal of monuments has little or nothing to do with history except to serve as an historical event in itself, which would close the circle and insure that people could not forget about the link itself.

Did i not say this clearly (quoting my last post):
I said they are a link; as in an association or relationship with the fact or person who they commemorate. To say a statue is linked to a historical fact is not to ascribe factual importance to that statue and to say that I have done that is not true to my post.

Links are not facts though and as I said you are purposively treating them as the same thing when they are very different things. Again I have no problem with you favouring the retention of monuments as 'links' to the past, but that is very different to the arguments that have been put forth thus far by you and others.

marienbad

My head is done in at this stage, I thought I was on an internet discussion forum not sitting an exam at TCD. Of course you are correct re primary , secondary, tertiary sources as used in historiography, but that is not really the issue under discussion. And this particular forum is History & Heritage , and that word 'heritage' allows an awful lot of latitude.

CDfm

marienbad wrote: »

My head is done in at this stage, I thought I was on an internet discussion forum not sitting an exam at TCD.

Trinity the biggest monument of them all.

And it is a bit like sorting, the wheat from the chaff , I love the lore side of it but am very conscious that events are more important and factual.

il gatto

personal remarks removed. Play nice or thread will be locked. Mod.

CDfm

Monuments and memorials commemorate events and individuals as opposed to being the actual event itself.

Even the romans used memorials and inscriptions to put a bit of spin on events and their depictions. So there is both spin and emotion attached. They depicted the Visigoths as barbarian and Gothic was originally a put down of an architectural style based on Roman depictions of Visigoth.

I was at a funeral a few years ago and the priest eulogised the deceased as loving driving but ommited a drunk driving accident where he killed a pedestrian.

History, being factual , has to put the emotive to one side , and recount events unemotionally. A political reality can be commented on but it should see through the political & interest group bluster and rely on truth.

Of course, bias will come out. And like a eulogy, a memorial commemorating someone or an event will be biased in favour of the supporters or the individual. You wouldn't let a good story get in the way of a good memorial.

il gatto

il gatto wrote: »

personal remarks removed. Play nice or thread will be locked. Mod.

I thought as much. Do you intend to go back through Marchdub's posts and remove every sneering jibe about other pelple's knowledge about what he laughably refers to as "historic study"?

jonniebgood1

il gatto wrote: »

personal remarks removed. Play nice or thread will be locked. Mod. (Last edited by brianthebard; Today at 13:37. )

MarchDub wrote: »

They will just continue to miss the point. Because the point apparently is that they make another unrelated point and cannot or will not understand the methodology of historic study.

I just hope that none of them is writing a history dissertation.:D

Are yous (brian & marchdub) related?? I would politely invite you to win your arguments in a fairer manner than this. It would reflect better on both of your opinions.

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are yous (brian & marchdub) related?? I would politely invite you to win your arguments in a fairer manner than this. It would reflect better on both of your opinions.

backseat modding is not appreciated. Nor is personal comments about whether people are related. I would politely invite you to consider the rules of boards again and not make comments like the above in future. Mod.

Dublin Hibby

I call for all historical connections with the UK to be ended forthwith, starting with the language we all speak.

Lets put up statues to our national heroes, such as Bertie and the two Brians.

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

backseat modding is not appreciated. Nor is personal comments about whether people are related. I would politely invite you to consider the rules of boards again and not make comments like the above in future. Mod.

Taken on board. The weight your opinion holds with this poster is directly related to the way you conduct yourself in discussions (this one at the moment). This is not back seat modding, it is my opinion and I need not continue as you will no doubt ban me if I disagree with your opinion.

CDfm wrote: »

Monuments and memorials commemorate events and individuals as opposed to being the actual event itself.
.

Agree 100% with that. A reminder of past times. I can't summarise better than this Yeats quote which he makes in realtion to Nelsons pillar-

In the Senate, W.B. Yeats suggested that “if
another suitable site can be found Nelson’s Pillar should not be broken up. It represents the feeling of Protestant Ireland for a man who helped to break the power of Napoleon. The life and work of the people who erected it is a part of our tradition. I think we should accept the whole past of this nation and not pick and choose.

Although this is related to 1 particular monument from 1 tradition he covers in his last sentence the crux of this argument

I think we should accept the whole past of this nation and not pick and choose.

http://www.ucd.ie/gsi/pdf/34-2/sack-2.pdf
Link goes into detail with alot of info on Nelsons pilar

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Taken on board. The weight your opinion holds with this poster is directly related to the way you conduct yourself in discussions (this one at the moment). This is not back seat modding, it is my opinion and I need not continue as you will no doubt ban me if I disagree with your opinion.

Even if it is your opinion it is still back seat modding. I don't expect to see another comment from you on this topic, regardless of whether it is your opinion or not, or yes you will be banned. This is your second in thread warning btw. Mod.

marienbad

brianthebard wrote: »

Even if it is your opinion it is still back seat modding. I don't expect to see another comment from you on this topic, regardless of whether it is your opinion or not, or yes you will be banned. This is your second in thread warning btw. Mod.

I am new to boards so a bit of latitude please, but how can you moderate and participate in a discussion/debate at the same time.

brianthebard

marienbad wrote: »

I am new to boards so a bit of latitude please, but how can you moderate and participate in a discussion/debate at the same time.

Very easily really, everyone else who's a mod does it as well. Btw the message you quoted wasn't directed at you, so there's no reason to take it personally tbh.

marienbad

brianthebard wrote: »

Very easily really, everyone else who's a mod does it as well. Btw the message you quoted wasn't directed at you, so there's no reason to take it personally tbh.

I know it was'nt directed at me and I dont take it personally at all,but then again I did'nt find any of the thread offensive , a bit meandering perhaps, but compared to some I have seen in my short time on here all quite mild.

But I am still in learning mode so when in Rome and all that

brianthebard

Ok fair enough first time I read your comment it seemed you took it more personally than you had. I'm ok with answering questions when they are in good faith (not 'questions' about whether me and another poster are related for instance though) but a pm would be a better way of communicating and not bringing a thread off topic in future. Thanks. B.

CDfm

marienbad wrote: »

I am new to boards so a bit of latitude please, but how can you moderate and participate in a discussion/debate at the same time.

He is a benovolent despot. :pac:

Exile 1798

Just came across an interesting article in the The Guardian about Iraq's struggle with Saddam era monuments.

Other relics have been much easier for the government to deal with, such as the Saddam statue that was toppled by US marines in April 2003, and copper busts of Ba'athist leaders that were erected all over the country. Their removal was straightforward, like lancing boils, say the men who run the country now.

As Iraq slowly assembles its fourth government since the fall of Baghdad in 2003, attention is now turning to the more difficult issues - what to do with the landmarks and relics that are unique to the Saddam regime but which have also become synonymous with Iraq. Some, like the crossed swords that bookend Saddam's former military parade ground in central Baghdad, are as identifiable to the capital as the Hagia Sophia Mosque is to Istanbul, or the Old City to Damascus.

Several prominent politicians, such as Ahmed Chalabi, one of the key opposition figures to Saddam, are adamant that anything connected to the executed dictator must go.

"The best talent in Iraq was ordered to produce monuments which are designed to suppress the people," says Chalabi, who headed the National Deba'athification Commission in the early years after Saddam's removal.

"This is very destructive for the psyche of the Iraqi population. This is a clear reminder of the consequences of totalitarianism and idealising a person that embodies evil. They have brought nothing to Iraq. They are not worth celebrating. They have nothing aesthetic to offer. I am for removing them."

Other men who also played a key role, first in Saddam's removal, then his trial and execution, are more sanguine.

"He was there and he ruled and he impacted on the world," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the former national security adviser who escorted Saddam to the gallows. "But he was a part of our history. He was a bad part of our history, but he made a huge difference, whether we like it or not. We need not bury the legacy of that period. We need to remember it, all what is bad and what is good and learn lessons. And the most important lesson is that dictatorship should not return to Iraq."

In 2005, the government formed a committee to oversee the removal of symbols linked to Saddam.

Ali al-Moussawi, a spokesman for the prime minister, Nour al-Maliki, underscored the dilemna. "Not everything built during this regime we should remove," he said from his office, which overlooks the crossed swords.

"There were some sculptures however that were solely about dictatorship and control over Iraq. Some spoke to dictators and battles and they should be removed. They have ethnic and sectarian meanings.

"The statues of Saddam have no place on the streets. It is not his privilege to keep them there. If they remain in the community they will provoke the people."

But Moussawi was more open to compromise over the Blood Qur'an: "We should keep this as a document for the brutality of Saddam, because he should not have done this.

"It says a lot about him. It should never be put in a museum though, because no Iraqi wants to see it. Maybe in the future it could be sent to a private museum, like memorabilia from the Hitler and Stalin regimes."

In time, the legacy of Saddam Hussein and his 30 years of brutality is likely to become part of a more detached debate in Iraq's national consciousness, much like the discussions that took place in Germany in the late 1940s after the ousting of the Nazis.

For now, though, the soul searching is being left to those who made the disputed works, and those entrusted as their temporary caretakers.
Abbas Shakir Joody al-Baghdadi was the calligrapher commissioned to work on the Qur'an. He sat with Saddam for two years after receiving a phone call from the tyrant himself.

Saddam, at that point, had decided to re-embrace with his religion after his elder son, Uday, had survived an assassination attempt.

The result of Baghdadi's work was an exquisitely crafted book that would take its place in any art exhibition - if it wasn't for the fact that it was written in blood.

"I don't like to talk about this now," says Baghdadi, speaking by telephone from the US state of Virginia, where he now lives. "It was painful part of my life that I want to forget about."

Back at the mosque, Sheikh Samarrai is nervous. He fears the wrath that will descend on him - from the government definitely, and possibly from a much higher power - if he swings open the final door.

"Even if I let you in, you would need to stand 10 feet away from the pages and they are all behind glass cases," he said. Then he makes his decision. "It is just not worth it for anyone. They will stir up too much trouble."

Some things in Iraq will take many more years to confront.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/19/saddam-legacy-quran-iraqi-government

Basically the program has been to remove the statues, rename streets and suburbs (Saddam City > Sadr City) but keep buildings and relics. Very much similar to what happened in Ireland.

owenc

Dublin Hibby wrote: »

I call for all historical connections with the UK to be ended forthwith, starting with the language we all speak.

Lets put up statues to our national heroes, such as Bertie and the two Brians.

LOL i don't think that would be very succesfull and it would waste alot of money aswell