Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And the destruction of Russian cultural heritage continues...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And the destruction of Russian cultural heritage continues...

Methinks that's taking this a wee bit too dramatically.


One would think that, as Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and subsequently the Soviet Union, at the time of the major events of the lifetime of Lenin, it's their cultural heritage as well, and given that it's in a Ukrainian city, it's hard to see what the problem is. It's not like he's going to Russia and doing something there to a Russia specific (as opposed to Soviet era) statue.

Yes, it is especially ironic since Lenin gave Ukraine more freedom and autonomy than it had ever had up until that point, and did a lot to encourage Ukrainian language and culture. In fact, without Lenin, Ukrainian nationalism would not even have existed in Ukraine today and Ukrainian language would be in the same position as Belarusian language, which is almost non-existant in Belarus
.
But this is not about V.I. Lenin. It is about what the statues represent, which is as you have already noted, the shared Russian/Ukrainian culture and history. Ukrainian nationalists engage in a deliberate campaign of historical revisionism by trying to destroy any traces of Russian presence in Ukraine. They are basically creating a fictional history where Ukraine has always been a nation seperate from the Russian one, rather than a place that has been connected with Russia since the beginning of Slavic history. Needless to say, this is not good for the many ethnic Russians that live in Ukraine, who are now more and more considered foreigners in their own country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And the destruction of Russian cultural heritage continues...

I think you mean the glorification of Russian imperialism.

Let us say that Pennsylvania seceded from the US, becoming an independent state. Would a statue of George Washington in Pennsylvania then suddenly become a 'glorification of American imperialism'? Because that is essentially what you are saying now.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Let us say that Pennsylvania seceded from the US, becoming an independent state. Would a statue of George Washington in Pennsylvania then suddenly become a 'glorification of American imperialism'? Because that is essentially what you are saying now.

So you view Ukraine as nothing more than a subdivision of the Russian state which is in secession? Funny. The rest of the world has a very different opinion on the soldiers you've sent into the Donbas to stoke the fires of "revolution" and flop back into the Orthodox arms of Papa Kiril and Big Daddy Poot. Next up will be RUS shooting down another passenger airliner, huh?

Can't think of a strong reinforcement of the psychology of Russian Imperialism than your statements.

You did not answer the question.
If Pennsylvania seceded from the US, would a statue of George Washington, built when Pennsylvania was still part of the US, be a 'glorification of American imperialism'?

Also, I did not say anything about my views on what Ukraine is. That is just you reading things into my post that aren't there. I am in fact, a Ukrainian citizen, and have no problem with Ukraine being an indepent state. Ukraine is a part, a region of Russia, but, that does not mean it should also be part of a unified Russian state. Before the tsars, Russia consisted of many independent states, I have no problem with that. I just don't like the historical falsification going on in Ukraine right now.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I didn't answer the question because the logic is inherently flawed.

Pensylvania is a state in the union of the United States of America. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, NOT part of the Russian Federation. The two are not comparable.

The logic is correct. Ukraine is a sovereign state right now, but until 1991 it was a state in the union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Before 1917 it was a province of the Russian Empire.
Pensylvania (or really any state that was part of the original 13 will do) is a state of the US right now, but in this scenario we are assuming a similar scenario with the US, as with the USSR. The USA collapses and a number of states decide to go on as independent states, while others stick with a new central government in Washington DC. Now are the monuments that were built by the old USA in the seceded states a "glorification of American imperialism"?

Also, you are confusing nation with state here. There are plenty of ethnic Ukrainians (the Ukrainian nation) living in the Russian Federation (which is a multinational state).

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I didn't answer the question because the logic is inherently flawed.

Pensylvania is a state in the union of the United States of America. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, NOT part of the Russian Federation. The two are not comparable.

The logic is correct. Ukraine is a sovereign state right now, but until 1991 it was a state in the union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Before 1917 it was a province of the Russian Empire.
Pensylvania (or really any state that was part of the original 13 will do) is a state of the US right now, but in this scenario we are assuming a similar scenario with the US, as with the USSR. The USA collapses and a number of states decide to go on as independent states, while others stick with a new central government in Washington DC. Now are the monuments that were built by the old USA in the seceded states a "glorification of American imperialism"?

I get it. You view Ukraine as Russian territory. Thats what your bolded statement equates.

You are incorrect. The entire world disagrees. The entire world also watched as Russia used that as an excuse to annex Crimea.

Stop using straw men, you are misrepresenting the truth.
What the bolded statement says is only that Ukraine used to be a republic of the Soviet Union and a province of the Russian Empire, but is now an independent state. That is literally all it says. You are seeing things that aren't there.

 LordofHats wrote:
Further, given current events, why would anyone in Ukraine look on a major Russian figure (any Russian figure) fondly? It's like watching a bunch of Uber 'Muricans get pissed some guy in the Middle East is burning an American flag. It screams "out of touch" and "just not getting it."

Ukraine and Russia were not seperate for most of their history. Most major 'Russian' figures are figures of the Russian state as much as they are of the Ukrainian state. Lenin was the founder of the Soviet Union, which makes him the founder of not only modern Russia, but also of modern Ukraine. Supressing communism is not democratic, it is a sign of fascism.
That aside, there are plenty of Ukrainians who do look fondly on Russian figures. Until a few years ago, they were not Russian figures at all, they were shared. The division along very arbitrary ethnic lines (often the only difference between Russians and Ukrainians is how they call themselves) is something very recent and mainly driven by rabid nationalists on both sides. It leads to ridiculous circumstances where some ethnic Russians figures can be considered "Ukrainian" while some ethnic Ukrainian figures can be considered "Russian". It is a division based on politics, not on actual ethnic traditions and self-identification.
The reason why Ukrainians would still look fondly on Russian figures is because they are also Ukrainian figures. They represent the history and tradition of Ukraine, and plenty of Ukrainians are apparently fond enough of their tradition and history, as the civil war and pro-Russia protests show. Not all Ukrainians want to throw everything away to get to the West. The democratic thing to do would be the decide the future of Ukraine with elections and referendum, not with coups, intimidation of opponents and destruction of cultural heritage.



As a side note, the Guardian has a nice article on the subject of destruction of Soviet monuments:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/soviet-ussr-monuments-should-be-protected

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ukraine and Russia were not seperate for most of their history.

And? Ukraine has been a distinctly identifiable region since at least the 16th Century. Ukrainian Nationalism is as old as the 18th (older if we choose to include Cossack Nationalism as part of Ukrainian Nationalism). To automatically assume Ukraine should see Russia part of itself is an inherently Imperialist mind set, which is no doubt bound to only further instigate negative feelings on the part of people who do not consider themselves to be Russian. It completely ignores the complex history of the region and the people in it.

Cossacks are an entirely different and also complicated matter. They are their own distinctive group, different from Ukrainians or Russians. You can't equate Cossack nationalism to Ukrainian nationalism.
Regardless, Ukraine (meaning borderland) has been the name a distinctly identifiable region since at least 1187, it was the name for the regions at the border of the Rus and later also the Polish state. The origin of the Ukrainians as an ethnic group and Ukraine as an official name for their land is much later, it only begins in the 19th century (1830 is the first mention of Ukrainians as a distinct ethnic group iirc). Regardless, the definition of Ukraine and Ukrainians has also always been very flexible, just like the borders. Parts of the region historically considered Ukraine are in the Russian Federation, Galicia never was considered Ukraine until 1939 for example, Crimea never until 1954 etc. Russia, Ukraine etc. are all very flexible terms. There is no imperialism in that, it is simple fact that large parts of Ukraine have been a region of Russia for most of their history, and that these parts of Ukraine and Russia were one single state and nation. That is not imperialism.
The only imperialism comes from Moscow, which since the 13th century considers itself the rightful ruler of all Rus lands to the East and to the West (hence the double-headed eagle). Imperialism would be to say, that just because Ukraine is Rus land, it should be ruled by Moscow as part of the Russian Federation. I am perfectly fine with there being more than one Rus state, it was that way in the past too. I just don't like it that one of those states tries to do away with its history and origins, just to establish itself as independent. If you want to call that imperialistic, go ahead. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, right?

 LordofHats wrote:

Supressing communism is not democratic, it is a sign of fascism.

This is oxymoronic. If I hold a vote and that vote says "lets suppress Communism" that vote is completely democratic and not even remotely fascist. The only way to come to the above conclusion is to have no idea what Democracy or Fascism are. Now, it might be anti-Liberty, in the sense that any sort of suppression innately involves infringing of liberty, but liberty is not an absolute in democracy.

Such a vote would not be democratic, it would be dictatorship of the majority. There is a reason that most democratic states have safeguards against such abuse of the democratic system. It violates the fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression. Remember that Adolf Hitler was also voted into power, just because you vote on something doesn't mean that the outcome can't be be fascist.

 LordofHats wrote:

The division along very arbitrary ethnic lines (often the only difference between Russians and Ukrainians is how they call themselves)

That's the same BS logic people use to declare there's no such thing as a Palestinian, or a Kurd, or an Armenian.

It is not.
Ukrainians are very real. The only thing I am saying is that the only distinction between Ukrainians and Russians in many cases is self-identification. Many Ukrainians have Russian, rather than Ukrainian as their first language, and since Ukrainians and Russians are culturally and genetically indistinguishable, having the same historical ancestors, that makes the only remaining distinction one of choice. There are families in Ukraine where the parents are Russian, one son is also Russian, but the other Ukrainian. It is all a matter of self-identification.
This is not the case with Kurds and Armenians, which are very clearly defined ethnic groups surrounded by unrelated ethnic groups.

 LordofHats wrote:

It leads to ridiculous circumstances where some ethnic Russians figures can be considered "Ukrainian" while some ethnic Ukrainian figures can be considered "Russian".

That's more the result of Russia's own complex history than anything Ukrainians have done specifically. Especially with both nations seeing Kievan Rus as integral to their ancient origins, and the fact that the region of Ukraine has constantly shifted back and forth between control of numerous states, 'Russia' being one of the most significant.

Kievan Rus was the first Rus state. Which makes it the first Russian and Ukrainian state. Both nations were one back then. Russians and Ukrainians are modern subgroups of the medieval Rus people. Making a clear distinction before the 19th century, that is revisionism because a seperate Ukrainian nationality did not exist yet, they were Ruthenians, a term which also applied to Russians, Belarusians, Rusyn etc. It is complicated, but it shows that Russians and Ukrainians are not clearly defined groups.

 LordofHats wrote:

The reason why Ukrainians would still look fondly on Russian figures is because they are also Ukrainian figures.

Some Ukrainians would seem to disagree.

Indeed they do. And others do not. Ukraine is a divided country, it always has been. There are massive historical and cultural differences between the historically Polish west and the historically Russian east. Only in name is it a single country.

 LordofHats wrote:

destruction of cultural heritage.

It's only cultural destruction because you disagree with it. Recasting a Lenin Statue as Darth Vader is chalk full of culture. Just not necessarily culture you like. And that's setting aside of course that there's nothing culturally significant about Lenin Statue #78914, making it's destruction utterly meaningless in any scale of the scheme of things. Let me know if someone tries to blow up Red Square, or the Church of Ascension.

Maybe to you there is nothing culturally significant about that Lenin statue, but to some there is.
I would have no objections against replacing one of the many statues of Lenin with a statue of Darth Vader (feth, that is awesome), but the problem is not this one statue, it is a systematic destruction of Lenin statues and other historical Soviet symbols.

wow...
Did I really just spend 2 hours writing a post on Dakka?
I need to get a life

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

The ban of all communistic is it a freedom?

Yes, absolutely. Next question.


feth Marx. feth Lenin. feth Communism. feth the Soviets.

Russian Imperialism kept Eastern Europe as an occupied region for decades, was responsible for the deaths of millions via starvation, and attempted to crush the collective individual potential of entire nations. Stop with your Chomskyesque Ruskie nationalist "whataboutism."

Thanks.

I have no idea what Noam Chomsky has to do with Russian nationalism, but since he is one of the most respected scholars in the world and the founder of modern linguistics, I will take that as a compliment.
Also, "collective individual"? You are starting to mess things up. And if you really are of the opinion that banning a political ideology is freedom, you truly scare me. But for now I will just assume Poe's Law. (please say it is Poe's Law).

timetowaste85 wrote:It's hard to take anyone seriously when they claim that voting is fascism instead of democracy at work.

TTW85 votes for Vader statue. TTW85 is a dirty fascist. Yay!! I'm a fascist because I voted!!

no setting up straw man, that is mean.
That is not what I said. The claim was that something was not fascist because it was voted on. My argument was that even things that have been voted on can be fascist, not that voting is a form of fascism.

LordofHats wrote:That's not really an integral aspect of a Fascist Government though. In the 20s and 30s, everyone was tough on communism except for communists! Fascist states only stand out because they went so far as to violently stamp it out, but violently stamping out political movements with other ideas is what Fascism does and they stamped out a lot more than just Communists. Fascism isn't against communism, it's against anything not Fascism.

Fascism is a lot more against communism than it is against others. How often did Hitler or Mussolini rage against the evils of conservatism or capitalism rather than 'jewish-bolshevist-communism' I ask you? Fascism is not necessarily against anything not fascism, as fascists have worked with other political groups in the past. Anti-leftist and anti-communist rhetoric on the other hand has been an integral part of every fascist party ever.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 JamesY wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:

The ban of all communistic is it a freedom?

, and attempted to crush the collective individual potential of entire nations. Stop with your Chomskyesque Ruskie nationalist "whataboutism."

Thanks.

You do realise that this is how a very large proportion of the world feels about the US? Between military interventions in Africa and the Middle East, and the establishment of huge tax free manufacturing sites in the East that see hundreds of thousands of workers work for below living wages, and with no export taxes to allow the governments to invest in education, health or housing, the US is far more guilty of your accusation than Russia.
Lenin stood for the rights of the working man against a sovereignty and won. He set the foundations for every one to prosper by hard work. Ideals that are very similar to the US. Those ideals never came to fruition we know, but he is hardly the appropriate symbol for Ukrainians to be attacking.

It's also very interesting to see so many Americans, coming from a country that at my last check has 14 of the top 15 universities in the world, loose all respect, ability to consider a rational counter argument, and show so much ignorance at the mere mention of Russia.

That's sort of our shtick.
Lenin was not a nice man by any measure, but he could have done a lot worse. Stalin, on the other hand, was a fething murderous psychopath.

Lenin was a very, very nice man measured against those who came before and after him. Tsar Nicholas was a opressive despot who let the people starve to death while he was eating of golden plates, Stalin was a opressive despot who let the people starve to death to get rid of potential political opponents. Lenin at least tried to set up a democratic system and had the excuse of a devastating civil war when the people starved to death.
Lenin had many genuinely good plans and ideas, which were never realised because he became ill and afterwards Stalin destroyed all of his work (Before his death, Lenin actually tried to warn the other revolutionaries for Stalin. Unfortenately Stalin intercepted the letter) Lenin was turned into a symbol of a regime he himself would have despised. He is a bit of a sad character really.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I have no idea what Noam Chomsky has to do with Russian nationalism, but since he is one of the most respected scholars in the world and the founder of modern linguistics

BWUAHAHAHAAHAHAA!

You are serious? "Respected"?!?!??!?!? He's universally despised outside of anti-Western far-left communist circles. He hasn't published any worthy research in over 30 years. Name one concrete contribution Chomsky has made to academic, technology, research, or progress forward? Just another obstructionist bolshevik throwing "whataboutism" around like its meaningful.

Ha, "father of modern linguistics" HA! You drinking your own kool aid, bruh.

Nice try, but now you went too far out. It you go too extreme it doesn't look believable anymore.
Here, this is from the Massachutets Institute of Technology: https://mit150.mit.edu/infinite-history/noam-chomsky

Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor of linguistics emeritus at MIT, widely known as the father of modern linguistics, a philosopher, prolific author, and globally influential political activist.
He is one of the most widely quoted intellectuals living today and probably one of the most interviewed.
Professor Chomsky holds a PhD in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania; he joined the faculty at MIT in 1955 and was appointed full professor in 1961.

Still no idea what this guy has to do with Russian nationalism though.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Freakazoitt wrote:


and take your time with the announcement who shot down the plane. let's wait for the final report of investigation.

You cannot be serious. The investigation stated MH17 was shot down by a Russian BUK missile, fired from a battery manned by Russian military. Just like every investigation before it.

Pretty sure the investigation only concluded that it was a Russian-made BUK, not who fired it. So this:

You're wrong. There was a full series of satt photo's showing the BUK unit in question being moved from RUS territory, over the UKR border, and the path of the fired missile. Obviously, Russia Today does not post these details so I can see how you would be unaware of them. Glad Dakka is here to help educate folks.

Your government shot down a passenger liner because they can't stand the fact that Ukraine doesn't want to be a vassal state anymore.

There was no such thing in the investigation. I watched the presentation, and it was all over Dutch news, so I would have known. You are also wrong about the way RT operates. They would certainly post it, but give it a twist making Ukraine look guilty instead.
Thirdly, it has been quite obvious from the beginning (assuming the tapped conservations are not fakes) that it was the seperatists who shot down the passenger airplane by accident, believing it to be a military aircraft. You make it sound like there was a direct order from the Kremlin to shoot down the airplane, which is the lamest conspiracy theory I have heard in years.
Glad Dakka is here to help educate folks