Afghanistan is Destroying a World Wonder

Great Debates
21

Tracer:

So the reason people get so uptight about the destruction of human constructs is because of our continual desperate search for immortality? I’ll buy that. It’s depressing, but I’ll buy it.

But to the OP . . .

They’re destroying statues. Big fucking deal. It’s not because they’re Muslims, it’s not because they’re “fascist” (which of course, they aren’t). It’s because they are the conquerors, trying to consolidate their power over the conquered. It happens, it has happened, it will happen. And anyone who believes otherwise is hopelessly naive.

Art is not sacred, it is not inviolate, it is not immortal, it has no soul. And ya know what? As long as there are people there will be more art.

Perhaps we sensitive, modern, oh-so-superior Westerners need to look to the plank in our own eyes first.

22

**

We’re not more upset about the destruction of statues than the killing or harming of people. If I could strike a deal with the Taliban where they continued thier rampage on art but agreed to revise their draconian laws I’d jump at it. The destruction of the art and the history of Afghanistan is just one more reason to dislike the rule of the Taliban, not the over-riding one.

If you define fascism as the violent rule by a political dictatorship, then yes fascist is an apt label for the Taliban.

They are acting out of ignorance. They are not acting as conqueors. The civilization that left behind the statues has long since left so there isn’t really any culture or societal element that they are trying to repress or consolidate power over. Their actions are based upon a misunderstanding of Islam.

Anyone that destroys history is foolish. It is the destruction of knowledge. It is the destruction of what has come before. Anyone that does not understand the importance of history has no real way of knowing if they are moving forward or backwards. They are returning Afghanistan to the middle ages and will suffer all the consequences of not knowing what a difficult time humanity had in that age.

23

Well, I guess it’s kind of how people felt about the Nazis. They killed a hell of a lot of people in horrible ways. But people still are allowed to get outraged at their theft of many great artworks in Europe-which are only beginning to be found.
That said, I still think it’s pretty easy to say, ‘Why don’t they revolt?’ It’s like asking, “Why didn’t the Jews revolt during Hitler’s rise to power?”

24

Well, the important thig is that the Taliban have their sovereignty.

25

Are you suggesting that the US intervenes in Afghanistan, sqweels? On what grounds?

26

Miserable short lives, of course. Yes, historic monuments are a shame to lose. Yes, “someone” should “do something about it.” Yes, fascist regimes suck, though I wasn’t aware thats what the towelheads were. I admit, though, that I am fairly ignorant as to the whole situation.

No, historic monuments are not more valuable than human life (though come on, guys, they are a bit more than a pile of rocks).

27

Blackclaw:

Even accepting that definition of “fascism,” rather than the dictionary definition, the Taliban ain’t fascist. They’re not a dictatorship.

:shrug: Whatever you say. I’m sure it’s nice to be able to call ignorant those with whom you disagree. And it’s nice you know the “true” meaning of Islam.

But look–opressing a people does not require merely crushing that people’s sacred symbols. The Taliban is indeed consolidating its power with a show of force. They are attempting to show that their way is the only way. We may disagree with them, but that’s what they’re doing.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking the Taliban are merely ignorant, unwashed hicks. They know very well what they’re doing and why. You’re welcome to think them fools, as I do. But don’t think them stupid–they patently are not.

28

Revolt is impossible if it’s against your own religion.

It would be easier to take away their towels and issue them hats, then teach them to sing in Swedish, then sell them Cola-au-lait and LP’s and…superglue and ham?

http://user.tninet.se/~prv247p/hatt/hatten.swf

29

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by android209 *

They genuinely do believe that the statues are, to some extent, an affront to their religion;
They do rather enjoy the fact that most of the world is pleading with them not to destroy the statues;

[QUOTE]

I don’t think it’s as simple as moving these statues. The Taliban believes their brand of Islam to be the one true religion, the only path to righteousness. Moving the statues, in their eyes, still doesn’t rid the world of what they consider to be the offensive depiction of living beings.

Imagine if a wacko fundamentalist Christian group gained power in the United States. Their book burning campaign begins with Torahs, Korans and other holy books. A Muslim country pleads to the United States to send it any Islamic books and art. The fundies would probably refuse – “We’re here to spread the word of Christ, not some pagan so-called prophet. The Korans are burning.” Same thing with the Taliban.

My POV, as if it matters – I agree with the folks who say they’re slapping the face of future generations. Our attitudes towards preserving the past, towards leaving remnants of the legacy of previous human generations, has changed for the better in the past 200 or 300 years. Nobody thought twice at the thought of French troops shooting the nose off the Sphinx, but a modern-day Napoleon would would try it would be deserving of the collective ire they get.

Historic preservation and archaeology are relatively recent introductions to society as a whole, and hopefully, 2000 years from now, future generations will know far more about us than we know of the ancients. Notwithstanding the Taliban, of course.

30

elmwood:

Napoleon did not, nor did any of the French, shoot the nose off of the Sphinx.

31

No matter how true it is, it ain’t true if it ain’t supported, Guin.

http://home.xnet.com/~warinner/sphinx.html

32

Those who have the luxury of questioning things beyond mere survival have the time to find practices such as these abhorrent; the rest likely do not.

Works of art such as these hold a special place in my heart because they are enormous projects prosecuted with a major objective in mind: Remember this time, through the ages. This is when we kicked some serious ass.

Certainly there are other major objectives, religion of course being the primary driver of many of our largest and most enduring works.

Think about the infrastructure that must underly the construction of such works: labor must be organized; trade must be organized; an entire subset of the population–designers, engineers, workers, artisans and artists–must subsist on the work of others while such a thing is constructed. A society must have the surplus of muscle and brain power to construct such things. The existence of such works implies one thing above all others: civilization.

The other side of the coin, however, is not so pretty. What happens when civilization, as I so snootily define it, is beyond the grasp of those who live in the very shadow of such relics? Are they inspiration? Perhaps not. Perhaps they are they looming symbols of opression, exploitation, and interference–especially interference. One might not be able to construct such masterpieces, but one might be able to make a statement of one’s own: destruction, erasure. A fresh start on the same ground without the demons of the past casting their own silent, vaguely superior, input into the argument. I do not believe the people who would so these things are so simple as to be acting purely from malice. They are trying to carve their own path into the future, and their past haunts them.

It breaks my heart to see such a thing done to innocent piles of rocks, for they are no longer merely piles of rocks. They are the testament of a people long past, who left their statement hewn into the very earth: we were here. But on the other hand, when a fiercely independent people such as the Afghans once again rail at the intrusion and intervention of other peoples–as they have traditionally done for centuries–I can understand why they consider such acts necessary.

They are trying to make a place that I’ll never understand, but I would like to think I understand why they do such things.

I wish they would reconsider.

33

Whoever pointed out that they are just rocks is right. I speak as a buddhist. These are not just my rocks, but everyones’. They only have the meaning that you make them to have.

However, the Afghani are destroying what took time and work from others. This should not be accepted. Many years and countless people worked to make these. Are we to stand by as the relics of another age are destroyed? This is not a good thing. To try and save these things is not only the right thing. It is the human thing to do. The quality of mercy is unstrained. The Taliban is doing this to seek recognition as a government. How we should deal with that, I know not.

The concern over human vs. rock is very apparent in this debate. I would gladly trade these artifacts to get rid of the oppressive government. But I believe that the rocks should be protected, as they are not just rocks, but visible signs of past people’s work and suffering. They are not just a show of faith. They are a show of human-ness.

34

If you want to get technical they are a theocracy, a religious dictatorship.

I make no such claim. But when every other Islamic nation in the world condemns the action, it’s a fair bet that the Taliban got it wrong.

As I pointed out before, they are destroying the symbols of a culture that no longer exists. The Taliban consolidated it’s power in the area it controls long before it went on its statue killing rambage. They already control almost every aspect of the populations’ lives.

From: http://www.nutshellnotes.com/afghanistan_text.htm

I have yet to see any proof that would indicate otherwise.

35

Guinastasia wrote:

Pshaw! Next you’ll be telling us that aliens from Zeta Reticuli didn’t build the pyramids.

36

I’m sure the Afghans are real scared. I’m not mocking you (much), but it’s far more likely that you (or I) would be the ones having their testicles used for polo practice (or whatever suitably grotesque customs the Afghans have for torturing their enemies).

So would you be willing to DIE for those statues or have your children die protecting them? I like history too, but I would rather not become a part of it right now.

37

This whole issue disgusts me. Not because I don’t think it’s a sad and terrible thing, but because of how the attention has been captured.

Westerners: “No! No! Don’t tear down beautiful statues! Oppress your people, murder your women, but don’t tear down statues! No! Let’s get involved!”

Ick. Repulsive. Revolting. Let the entire women’s issue there slide by, but get angry over the tearing down of statues. Brilliant. Don’t get me wrong–I fully think that the loss of the statues is indeed terrible–but if you’re going to get angry, get angry over the rights that have been swept away, over the people who have been murdered by oppression in the name of religion. Not statues. Ick.

38

Snickers, I think you’ll find that many people have been condemning the Taliban for years now, for their support of terrorism and for their absolutely dismal human rights record. This is just the latest horrible thing they’ve done, not the worst. It’s basically a symbolic issue, and the rest of the world is taking basically symbolic action over it–a lot of “condemnations” and “official outrage”, but no one’s launching air strikes over stones.

The destruction of the statues does say something about the sort of people the Taliban are. As Heinrich Heine said, “Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people.”

39

And let’s not forget, folks, if we’re throwing around blame for the horrors inflicted by the Taliban, to save some of that blame for the shortsighted US/CIA policies that funded, armed, and trained so many Islamist rebels in Afghanistan. Now I’m certainly no admirer of the Soviets’ 1979 invasion of Afghanistan or its establishment of a puppet government there, but that’s no excuse for the CIA’s myopic “the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend” support of the militant fundamentalists. From a Washington Report review of Ahmed Rashid’s 2000 book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia:

So the atrocities of the Taliban, and other Muslim fundamentalist groups, arose in part from the US’s determination in the 1980’s and 1990’s to undermine Soviet expansionism—at any cost. Well, this is what the cost turned out to be. Maybe this should inspire us to ask whom else the US is giving money to—for unimpeachably patriotic causes, of course :rolleyes:—who may turn out to be a big foreign-policy embarrassment to us. (Colombian drug war, anybody?)

40

Or Castro? Or Noriega? Or Pinochet? Or Ortega?
Blackclaw, whatever you say, Sparky. I’m sure the members of the Taliban leadership would be happy to listen to you explain their motives to them. :rolleyes: