Destruction of art, statues, literature in history
Discussion
In the obvious context of the current wave of BLM-inspired pulling down of statues and removal of old films from streaming services, my OH and I were having a conversation about historical precedents for this, e.g. Nazi book-burnings, Spanish Inquisition etc.
(Rather bizarrely, this surprisingly earnest conversation was shouted between us while we were cleaning the house but in different rooms)
Clearly every movement or society in history that has indulged in the banning/censoring/destruction of art or literature has done it for the best of reasons, in their view and clearly they thought right was on their side. If they in turn looked back at historical precedent, no doubt they said "ah, but this time it's different".
So my question for the more historically knowledgeable people on PH is this:
Have the destroyers of art/literature in any form (statues/books/paintings/whatever) in the past EVER been judged to have been in the right by those who study history?
For the life of me I can't think of an example.
Are the current wave of statue destroyers/film banners going to have a moment of clarity before the world goes completely nuts, and be like:
EDIT: I should add that I haven't really started this thread to talk about the rights and wrongs of the current protests, as there are already threads on that topic, and insofar as the OP has any right here, I'd rather it discussed historical equivalence. Well, it's worth a try.
(Rather bizarrely, this surprisingly earnest conversation was shouted between us while we were cleaning the house but in different rooms)
Clearly every movement or society in history that has indulged in the banning/censoring/destruction of art or literature has done it for the best of reasons, in their view and clearly they thought right was on their side. If they in turn looked back at historical precedent, no doubt they said "ah, but this time it's different".
So my question for the more historically knowledgeable people on PH is this:
Have the destroyers of art/literature in any form (statues/books/paintings/whatever) in the past EVER been judged to have been in the right by those who study history?
For the life of me I can't think of an example.
Are the current wave of statue destroyers/film banners going to have a moment of clarity before the world goes completely nuts, and be like:
EDIT: I should add that I haven't really started this thread to talk about the rights and wrongs of the current protests, as there are already threads on that topic, and insofar as the OP has any right here, I'd rather it discussed historical equivalence. Well, it's worth a try.
Well, history is written by the victor.
But why do people fear history? I can not quite fathom the concept of destroying history instead of seeking to learn from it. And we should know the good and the bad of history, people were different, social mores were different, it is in my view wrong to view someone as bad when they conformed to the social mores of the time. But those who stood against what was wrong at the time were of course the heroes.
But why do people fear history? I can not quite fathom the concept of destroying history instead of seeking to learn from it. And we should know the good and the bad of history, people were different, social mores were different, it is in my view wrong to view someone as bad when they conformed to the social mores of the time. But those who stood against what was wrong at the time were of course the heroes.
Yes but to rephrase my question: have book-burners and art-destroyers ever been viewed as heroes by history?
I suppose the guys that pulled Saddam's statue down in 2003 and hit it with shoes were on the side of right.
Maybe there's an honourable exception for statues of former dictators.
I suppose the guys that pulled Saddam's statue down in 2003 and hit it with shoes were on the side of right.
Maybe there's an honourable exception for statues of former dictators.
Nobody has destroyed statues or burnt books in this country yet. The acts of lawlessness, including pulling down and drowning the fellow in Bristol, scribbling nonsense on other statues, attempting to set alight a UK national flag on the cenotagh, and the student revolt at Oriel College to displace Rhodes is but a childish tantrum compared to the real destruction of art, books, historic references, and entire ethnic groups in other places around the world.
When the rabble are at the ramparts seriously intent on destroying our history, let me know, I shall load the cannon and start boiling oil to pour upon their misguided heads.
Meanwhile, keep calm and carry on!
When the rabble are at the ramparts seriously intent on destroying our history, let me know, I shall load the cannon and start boiling oil to pour upon their misguided heads.
Meanwhile, keep calm and carry on!
There isn't a direct historical parallel for "taking films off Netflix", the nearest one I could think of was the banning or burning of books.
Again, without referencing the current strife too often, in 100 years will history students be nudged to admire Gandhi or people who wanted his statue pulling down?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershi...
Again, without referencing the current strife too often, in 100 years will history students be nudged to admire Gandhi or people who wanted his statue pulling down?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershi...
pequod said:
Nobody has destroyed statues or burnt books in this country yet. The acts of lawlessness, including pulling down and drowning the fellow in Bristol, scribbling nonsense on other statues, attempting to set alight a UK national flag on the cenotagh, and the student revolt at Oriel College to displace Rhodes is but a childish tantrum compared to the real destruction of art, books, historic references, and entire ethnic groups in other places around the world.
When the rabble are at the ramparts seriously intent on destroying our history, let me know, I shall load the cannon and start boiling oil to pour upon their misguided heads.
Meanwhile, keep calm and carry on!
As history is mentioned in the titles of this thread, I feel it reasonable to mention that book burning, the destruction of statues and the defacing of paintings and similar works of art have gone on through the ages in this country. The influx of christians give us the first recorded evidence of it, and, it has to be said, they were the majority offenders. From roman times onwards they've liked nothing better than a good, wholesome, destruction of learning and art. There was the defacement of tessellated floors, wall paintings, statues considered idols by those who eschewed such abominations - apart from those of Mary, Jesus and various saints of course - to even bibles. Can't have the plebs reading the manual and discovering stuff. Most priests couldn't read latin so it'd be a bit unfair to have others who were going to be preached to keep a list of goofs. When the rabble are at the ramparts seriously intent on destroying our history, let me know, I shall load the cannon and start boiling oil to pour upon their misguided heads.
Meanwhile, keep calm and carry on!
There's a certain irony in the fact that those who destroyed the works of art and statues in Greece - it didn't do to be Aphrodite in them days - didn't take to kindly to Cromwell (Tom) doing the same and then the protestants putting the final nail in. Then along came the other Cromwell, with his puritans, and they dug it up and did the same again.
Those of us in this country can't claim any superiority.
Historians wouldn't support from the POV that it's removing future history. But it has happened all the time by cultures- see Rome where Christian churches are built on the foundations of pagan temples.
Maybe the pre-Roman Britons were terrible people, the Christians obviously felt so for centuries. But even were that so, which historian or archaologist wouldn 't wet themselves at the discovery of amonument or artifact which explained anything about pre-Roman culture.
Nazi emblems were destroyed in a conscious effort to erase a culture which had brought much damage to Germany. Had they won, we'd have been building them everywhere and guys like Edward I would have the expulsion of the Jews listed as an example of how forward thinking he was by the populus, whilst guys like Wilberforce would seem like wet lettuces.
I think it only becomes lamentable when we're far enough removed from the events to be unaffected emotionally. In 2000 years, the Holocaust will be a footnote, seventy years ago you had actual Nazi's walking around the streets of Germany.
The historian values it for what it tells us about the culture that made it. Not because they agree with those values.
It's the non historians who build these things and tear them down.
Maybe the pre-Roman Britons were terrible people, the Christians obviously felt so for centuries. But even were that so, which historian or archaologist wouldn 't wet themselves at the discovery of amonument or artifact which explained anything about pre-Roman culture.
Nazi emblems were destroyed in a conscious effort to erase a culture which had brought much damage to Germany. Had they won, we'd have been building them everywhere and guys like Edward I would have the expulsion of the Jews listed as an example of how forward thinking he was by the populus, whilst guys like Wilberforce would seem like wet lettuces.
I think it only becomes lamentable when we're far enough removed from the events to be unaffected emotionally. In 2000 years, the Holocaust will be a footnote, seventy years ago you had actual Nazi's walking around the streets of Germany.
The historian values it for what it tells us about the culture that made it. Not because they agree with those values.
It's the non historians who build these things and tear them down.
Iconoclasm is an interesting one: in the original context of Byzantium the iconoclasts were viewed in certain quarters as being a force for good in that they targeted the veneration of paintings in their own right as opposed to the written word of God.
While it didn’t do much for the advancement of artistic form, it theoretically allowed better assimilation of Jews and Muslims who regarded divine imagery as antithetical to their religions, and it pinned back the power and influence of monasteries who were prime producers of icons.
While it didn’t do much for the advancement of artistic form, it theoretically allowed better assimilation of Jews and Muslims who regarded divine imagery as antithetical to their religions, and it pinned back the power and influence of monasteries who were prime producers of icons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff