Where Old Statues Go To Die

[JimRSmith]

Inspired by recent controversy over Confederate statues in the United States...

A few years ago, I visited Grutas Park, in southern Lithuania. It's a bit out of the way, but in my opinion, it was worth the trip.

In the highly probable case that you haven't heard of it, this is a park dedicated to Soviet era statues. There's a better-known one outside Budapest, in Hungary, too, but the Lithuanian one is a lot larger, and in my opinion, is the better of the two.

Grutas Park is a landscaped 'recreation' of Soviet Lithuania, complete with watch towers, barbed wire and 're-education facilities'. The owner managed to secure most of Lithuania's unwanted Soviet era statuary, including several rare ones of Stalin, which somehow escaped destruction in the de-Stalinisation period after the dictator's death (I never found out how, but I expect these were removed from public display and forgotten about in some locked warehouse).

It's an interesting experience, and something that I felt was worth preserving as a reminder of bad times. Bringing them all together in one place made sense to me.

I can absolutely understand why Lithuania, and other countries, removed these statues from public places. They were a constant reminder of foreign domination, and a discredited ideology. They were also only in situ for a few decades, unlike many of the statues which are under threat in the United States. And unlike the statues in the United States, they represented people like Lenin, who had little to nothing to do with Lithuanian history. They were not relevant in the same way.

One major piece of Soviet statuary had been left in place in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital, because it was the only bridge in the country that contained statues as an architectural feature. Whilst we were there, it was draped with NATO flags in a show of defiance against Vladimir Putin, and the conflict in Ukraine. Feelings ran high, and shortly after my visit, these statues were removed by the city authorities. I was glad I got to see them before they were taken down.

It's unfortunate that cultural battlelines seem to have appeared elsewhere around statues that were uncontroversial for decades. A manufactured 'crisis' is a very different thing to a decades long foreign occupation.

[NearlyNapping]

When this stuff came up in the US, I was actually wondering about the Soviet era statues and other Soviet symbolism. Now I know at least part of it.

You already pointed out some differences. As you said it was a foreign occupation. In the US, these guys were Americans. Many, like R. E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, were respected officers in the US army before the war. They were both considered some of the best generals in US history. Even internationally they are considered top generals who are studied.

With great generals whose tactics are still studied to this day, I was wondering about their home town for example. Do the people of that town have any reason for pride in one of their own who is considered in such high esteem worldwide, over a hundred years later?

I think people are thinking too narrowly. Symbolism can mean a lot of different things to different people. People can choose to see what they want in symbolism. Will they choose to see the worst, or will they choose to see something else?

[JimRSmith]

I've never been, but I understand that most of the Soviet era statues in places like Russia and Belarus are still in place.

Other former Soviet republics have removed them, for the most part, some more gradually than others. The plinths are now occupied by local heroes instead.

It feels to me as if there's a recent drive, for political reasons, to see the worst, particularly when these monuments have stood for a century or more, without people caring about the recently manufactured negative connotations.

[NearlyNapping]

Another side. Too bad art has to suffer for political reasons. I don't particularly care for the first two. But the last one draws me in artistically. It tells a story. You can practically see what Lenin is thinking.

It seems to me like people need somewhere to focus their anger. So they take it out on whatever they can find.

I wonder what people will think when they realize where the name of the largest military base in the world comes from (Fort Bragg - Bragg was a confederate general). Will they want to change the name? How far will that go? There are probably hundreds of towns and cities named after people who are somehow controversial. So do we only name towns after people who are squeaky clean? That thought makes me cringe.

Language itself is full of that stuff. There are people trying to change that also. How far will it go?

[Waffles731]

'Many, like R. E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, were respected officers in the US army before the war. '
Benedict Arnold was a great general and respected officer too in the continental army. Then he tried to sell west point, was lee a great general yes, stonewall was great too. Doesnr change the fac they were traitors, there isn't a union jack on Boston common, there shouldn't be a confederate flag nor statue to those men on city, state, or federal property

[NearlyNapping]

@Waffles731
They were not traitors, they were patriots. There were two sides. To call one side traitors is absurd. If anyone were traitors it was the north. They were the ones who agreed to slavery when it served their purpose. They put it in the Constitution and signed it. Then when it no longer served their purpose they went against that constitution.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of slavery. It was clearly legal and in the Constitution. The states had the RIGHT to decide for themselves. The north violated that right. They needed an amendment but knew they couldn't get it. So they tried to bypass the law.

When it comes to being patriots, remember that the US was a MUCH more loose federation then. People identified with their states much more than now. Patriotism with state over patriotism to the feds would not have been viewed the same way it is now.

[Waffles731]

So, it was the north who were traitors, thats why the Confederacy tried to steal both the Arizona and New Mexico Territories, if secession is legal, thats why the confederacy attacked west virginia for seceeding off of viginia to the union,
they were traitors plain and simpl

[Waffles731]

quite frankly, my dad and mom both served and my dad has told me that he wishes it was legal to punch people who claim the confederacy were patriots

[NearlyNapping]

@Waffles731
Why is the confederacy "stealing" territories any different than the north doing it? Why was the division occurring in the first place? Regardless of whether they are traitors or not, there was a reason for what they did. The reason is because the north tried to back out of their agreement.

Bottom line is that the north screwed over the south. They made an agreement when it was convenient, then tried to back out when it no longer served their purpose.

The whole argument that the south were traitors is based on the presumption that the North was in the right and the South was in the wrong. It's based on the presumption that the North had some kind of legal authority to decide what the southern states could do. But they had no such authority. They broke the Constitution, and the states who wanted to retain their rights are the traitors?

Actually, in 61 years I never even heard this thing about the South being traitors. Sounds like revisionists at work.

[Waffles731]

I'm sorry, the only revisionism is the one you have fallen for, the lost cause of the confederacy, it started with jim crow and hit big around birth of a nation

[NearlyNapping]

@Waffles731

You are confusing slavery and black issues with the Constitution. That's what clouds the entire debate. Moral right and wrong is a separate issue from legal authority.

Take away the emotional issues of slavery and blacks. A rough modern comparison could be made to states like Washington and Colorado. There is an issue of federal authority vs state rights. The legal authority is more vague in this case. But what if the feds had allowed those states to have marijuana at the time they joined? What if it was written in the Constitution and agreed to by all parties?

Even currently the legal authority is highly questionable. But if it had been written and agreed to ahead of time, it would be completely clear that the states had the right decide for themselves.

You see the same kind of thing internationally with the US thinking it has some kind of moral authority to push it's morals on autonomous states who have the right to decide for themselves.

[Waffles731]

Lee, jackson and all the rest of the higher ups are traitors who should have been hung, they fought against THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY SAID FUCK THIS WE WANT SLAVES.
They were traitors and you are a traitor lover

en.wikipedia.org/.../Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[Waffles731]

the only reasons to defend them are A. You hate the United States, B, you hate black people and think they should have been slaves

[Waffles731]

I got ancestors on both sides and my confederate ancestors were traitors.
My Union ancestors, one died at andersonville, the other lied about his age to join the 4th minnesota volunteer infantry

[NearlyNapping]

@Waffles731
Or C.
Because I believe in states rights. There is nothing revisionist about that.

You aren't even being rational. You are drawing conclusions that can't be drawn. You are conveniently ignoring every point I've made.

I'm sure you're aware that state rights comes up a LOT in modern debate and has nothing to do with the Civil War or the South. It's a very big issue today, just like it was a big issue over 200 years ago.

The Articles of Confederation vs the Constitution are historical fact, not revisionist history written two hundred years later. It's about state rights and were at the very core of the early debates on the formation of the country and how it will be structured.

But of course you'd rather jump to all sorts of other conclusions without having a shred of evidence that it's true.

They had a RIGHT to say fuck this we want slaves because that's what was in the contract. There was a legal way to change the contract, but the North simply tore it up instead.

[GirlNextBored]

Thanks Jim, I found this extremely interesting, and very unique look at a topical circumstance here in the US. Great myTake, I enjoyed it

[JimRSmith]

Thank you very much, nice to be appreciated :)

I posted quite a negative question yesterday, so I decided I should make amends by doing something a little more 'intelligent', let's say.

[goaded]

Some of the Confederate statues on public land in front of courthouses were put up in the 1960's, that's only decades ago. The latest monument (although I don't know how tasteful it is) was put up in 2012.

www.splcenter.org/.../whoseheritage_splc.pdf (Pages 12/13, 30): Springfield, Tennessee, Confederate Monument, Monument/Courthouse 2012

upload.wikimedia.org/.../...fedarate_monuments.png

[goaded]

img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/apQN1GB_700b_v1.jpg

[JimRSmith]

Thanks for adding that graph - it's pretty interesting.

I would have assumed that the 1960s saw the spike because of the centennial of the Civil War, although others would doubtless see it as related to opposition to desegregation.

There are usually different ways to see the same thing, and lots of different viewpoints could be correct as to the motivation.

[goaded]

Usually people celebrate and memorialise winning a war, not losing it, so a spike in memorials for northern soldiers and generals would make more sense. That said, why anyone would want to celebrate a war against their own countrymen seems wrong.

(I would be interested to see if there was a similar spike for memorials in the north, I doubt it happened, but I don't know how to find that information.)

[JimRSmith]

I've always seen it as a good way to commemorate the past, without necessarily making modern value judgments about which side was right and wrong.

The US seems to have managed this better than many other countries have. I do think that according both sides respect has been pretty pivotal to this.

It's still pretty raw (and to be honest, I'm not sure that it's actually worked at all), but you see similar things in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

[goaded]

Germany doesn't have any memorials to the Third Reich, just to their victims; there's a metal sculpture in a town near me that explains the how and why there is no longer a Synagogue in the town, for example. Giving Nazis a place to rally around is generally a bad idea.

The value judgement when putting up the statues was "The South shall rise again!", a hundred years after the war was lost; it's not unreasonable to say "not like that", fifty years later.

[JimRSmith]

I don't think the Third Reich is a good analogy with the Confederate States of America.

I know various people would *like* to make that analogy, but any smart person knows that it isn't appropriate.

[goaded]

I was referring to them as a losing side (and since I live here, it's the first one that comes to mind). The fact that both thought of large groups of people as less human than their people is just an extra. One moved on in a couple of decades, the other still contains significant groups being dragged along kicking and screaming over a century later.

[DonkeyRick69]

Goodtake. I laugh at all those that were in favour of taking down the confederate statues and monuments as they finally come to the conclusion that it's not going to stop there, basically nearly every statue and monument celebrating post 1970's America and American icons will have to be torn and there are calls to tear them down. For instance devout Christian Martin Luther King wasn't in favour of gay marraige so his statues and monuments must be torn down.

[Rissyanne]

Lol...

[Barrabus_the_Free]

Unfortunately, that pic is pretty accurate...

[goaded]

Pretty funny. :)

But (you knew there had to be a but, right?), who wants to cover up the plaque on the base?

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

[Rissyanne]

@goaded that is what is going to end up happening. I don't blame here for hiding. What's next... graves of confederate soldiers? Book burning?

[goaded]

No, and no. Nobody is trying to re-write history other than those on the right who are trying to pretend the the civil war wasn't about slavery and that the statues weren't put up to remind black people of "their place".

"Our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Alexander Stephens; Vice-President of the Confederacy, March 21, 1861
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

[Rissyanne]

@goaded you are so full of shit. This isn't going to stop here. Next will be books graves then they will ban you from saying anything about the confederate flag. And do you work for Wikipedia? Those statues have been their for years... now all of sudden they want to take them down? No they are just acting like children because of the election. They all ready want to get rid of the first and second amendment.

[goaded]

Some people like to know where I got my information from, so I provide links, and Wikipedia is the quickest place to look things up and confirm (or correct) my memory of details.

Texas has been re-writing history:
"Students in Texas are required to read the speech Jefferson Davis gave when he was inaugurated president of the Confederate States of America, an address that does not mention slavery. But students are not required to read a famous speech by Alexander Stephens, Davis’s vice president, in which he explained that the South’s desire to preserve slavery was the cornerstone of its new government and “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” "

Texas' secession statement includes: "a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery — the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits..."

[Rissyanne]

@goaded And Hillary called black men Super Predators. I dont understand why all this is a big deal now. I wouldn't talk about colleges... liberal colleges are the worst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3SdJhJ2lps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW_ySMRuOnQ

[Rissyanne]

If you want to talk racism... it can be against whites also.

[goaded]

I wasn't talking about colleges (but yes, weird), and I'm not going to defend the Clintons when it comes to criminal justice reforms except to say the reforms were popular with a lot of people back then (yet another case of a Democratic president getting done what a Republican president would probably have been rightly blocked from doing).

I was talking about children's textbooks in Texas.

Do you agree that the primary reason for the Civil War was the continuation of slavery?

I don't see how anyone can read Texas' Declaration of Causes and decide otherwise (the word slave appears 16 times in three pages). www.tsl.texas.gov/.../2feb1861.html

[Rissyanne]

@goaded I believe that had something to do with it. But not entirely. And remember it was the republicans who freed the slaves. Democrats fought to keep them. But about text books. There are a lot of people that don't think homosexuality or transgenderism should be in text books. It goes against their religious beliefs.

[goaded]

The trouble with those beliefs, religious and otherwise, is that they are denying reality; there are people who are transgender, there are even more that are homosexual, and it's no coincidence that the slave-owning states were on one (the wrong) side of the civil war and the non-slave-owning states were on the other.

As to the republicans freeing the slaves, while true, they were not today's republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds

[Rissyanne]

@goaded reality? Then you need to talk to transgenders. They don't live in reality.

[Rissyanne]

Is this what you wanted?
www.usnews.com/.../feds-texas-man-tried-planting-bomb-on-confederate-statue

[goaded]

No. The same way I expect you didn't want someone to be killed in Charlottesville. Sane people don't want these things to happen, but we can have an understanding of why they do.

It's another example of damage to property rather than damage to people, though.

[Rissyanne]

@goaded I don't care why they are doing it. How come these statues are all racist?
If someone breaks into your home are you going to have a conversation on why he is doing it?

[dataminemebby]

It's a shame that historical cultural art, good or bad, has come under such fire.

Just like the statues of the ancients that are largely ignored by politically-driven masses, these statues are relics of the past depicting those who have done no personal harm to those living today.

At the very least... They belong in a museum!

[ThisDudeHere]

Dont' remember the last time I saw Lenin anywhere in Riga, come to think of it...

[JimRSmith]

I *think* the only Soviet statue left in Riga is the Latvian Riflemen Monument, in the centre behind the Town Hall.

I also remember a toppled Lenin dumped behind the castle in Cesis. I think I have a photo of that somewhere.

[matchrestore]

Other than the statue destroyed by protesters last week, all of the confederate statues that have been removed still exist, most in storage awaiting a new home. This home will likely be a museum setting, like the sculpture park you wrote about.

[zagor]

I assume the statues weren't lifelike in that Stalin was about 5 ft 6. The actors who portrayed him in movies of the time were much taller.

[JimRSmith]

No, there were literally hundreds of statues in the park, and I can't remember any being life size.

Part of the whole idea was to make the individual feel small in the presence of the state, so being big was an important part of being a Soviet statue. Same with the monumental architecture - lots of buildings with vast amounts of empty space within, for the same reason.

[FatherJack]

Been to the one in Budapest , had to change my then baby son's nappy ( diaper ) in a corner of the park , near a statue of the mass murdering Stalin... sums up how communism made the lives of ordinary people... ie shit !!

[DonRomeo]

Interesting place - especially if theyre quite close together. Many people know of such places, due to the appearance of one in Goldeneye.

[Likes2drive]

Interesting and informative mytake, it's good to see that they don't forget the past and created an outdoor museum someone else

[akadatank44]

Thats good. We need to learn from our and other peoples mistakes. Not throw them out and wash are hands and thoughts I them.

[disgustingweebtrash]

The Soviet statues should be put in a museum instead of being ripped and destroyed, same for Confederate statues.

Oh well..

[sjoes006]

Museums of course! RIP if they are left with one at all.

[John_Doesnt]

Most old statues go on some old racist's front lawn. I'm sure there's a Hitler statue somewhere with some guy who looks like Dr. Krieger.

[Waffles731]

We don't fly your flag on Boston common so why should we keep statues of traitors

[404filenotfound]

This was a great take, thanks or sharing!

[yulbsari]

Wow! Interesting take!

[sedrftvgyhujik]

they look like they have another few hundrad years

[jacquesvol]

interesting

[CT_CD]

Thanks Jim