Must they stay or must they go? I can understand that some monuments are really grating to some people, I know it would bug me no end to see a statute of _________ (insert name) every day. On the other hand, some of those figures were important to what we are today, and I can identify with it. Now that Malema and Hofmeyer jumped on the bandwagon I fear that the time for a compromise is over. What a compromise to keep most of us happy, I’ve got no idea. But what do we do now? Would a strong leader be able to cut through the crap and sort this out? Just replacing one culture’s icons with another is just going to feed the flames I think.
Couldn’t give a shit who’se face you fashion into some physical material form, or who’se face in material form gets taken down.
That this kind of stuff bothers anyone at all is more annoying than anything. That the govt will now have to spend a bucketload more of non-existent taxpayer cash to “fix” this problem is deplorable. Wanna “fix” the “problem”? Get a charity together and take private cash until you can erect your own statues. I’ll be sure to not care then too.
That many of the protestors are on Rhodes scholarships adds bonus entertainment value, regardless of what you think of the dead guy.
The EFF supporters are in the process of removing the monuments without adding to the tax burden.
I like the idea of housing all the offending statues in a park somewhere, but mostly because of their artistic value. This has been proposed a few times, but such a project will cost a lot of money: initially in getting the statues to the park, and then as a running expense in controlling the concomitant pigeon influx.
…which brings us the biggest monument of them all…the Voortrekker Monument??? Look out for a race war!
Who does it belong to? Maybe all the old statutes can be moved there and Hofmeyer and leftovers of the AWB can put up a lager? around it.
Not if you listen to all the suggestions that old monuments should be replaced with new ones. Guess it depends on who you ask.
I’m pretty much with BoogieMonster here: I couldn’t possibly care less.
The rightwingers are amusing: when it was announced that Rhodes had to go, lots of Afrikaners angrily phoned radio stations to complain about this assault on their history. They clearly don’t have the foggiest clue of their history.
For Oom Paul’s own safety, it’s probably best to move him to the Voortrekker Monument or some such place, but I suspect Hofmeyr and friends don’t want that. Only a question of time before the venerable old gentleman and his guards become scrap metal - wait and see.
Perhaps they should compromise and put a statue of Freddie Kruger on Church Square. It would surely reflect the country’s mindset more accurately…
Onthou die Afrikaners was nie 'n homogene gemeenskap gewees nie, en daar was veral 'n skeiding tussen die van die boererepublieke, en diegene in die kuskolonies. Rhodes kon ongetwyfeld baie van die Kaapse Afrikaners onder sy volgelinge tel, en dit was juis met hulle ondersteuning dat hy eerste minister van die Kaapkolonie geword het. Rhodes was dus glad nie so volksvreemd aan ten minste 'n gedeelte van die Afrikanerdom as wat mens dalk sou verwag nie, en speel wel 'n groot rol in hul geskiedenis.
http://www.mieliestronk.com/cjrhodes.html
Oom Paul’s is a huge effigy, and cannot be moved very far. Such monuments are known as statues of limitations.
then there’s the oxwagon kraal at Blood river…will make many brass bullets from them.
Why don’t they take that bunny that they grinded out of Mandela’s ear and braze it into Oom Paul’s? That way everyone should be happy at minimal cost.
Great… Maar: WHO CARES?! Ek kan nie jou geskiedenis aanval nie, dis te laat!
My punt is dis als 'n bakleiery oor niks, oor standbeelde, fisiese drogbeelde van dooie mense wat hulle deur middel van wonder-denkery dan sodanig ophef of afbreek. Hoekom voel enigiemand 'n fok of daar 'n standbeeld van Rhodes is? Maak dit hom meer awesome? Maak die afbreek van sy standbeeld hom minder awesome? Hy word definitief glad nie daardeur geaffekteer nie, Hy’s baie baie dood. Niemand se lewe word skielik omgekeur as die standbeeld dan nou weg is nie… Wat verander daadwerklik aan enigiemand se geskiedenis of die standbeeld nou daar staan of nie?
Die hele bohaai herhinder my persoonlik aan die Gulliver storie.
Is daar vir jou waarde in die beelde van aapmense wat in museums uitgestal word, en indien wel, hoe verskil sulke beelde dan wesenlik van enige ander beeld wat ten doel het om die mens aan sy geskiedenis herinner?
Rigil
Rigil, ek sien nie die verband nie. Die doel van beelde in museums is om so akkuraat as wat moontlik is, objektief te toon hoe dinge waarskynlik is of was volgens ons beste huidige kennis. In teenstelling is die doel van openlik vertoonde standbeelde, gewoonweg om subjektiewe en kunssinnige waardebeoordelings (bv. eer of oneer) te lewer oor idees, konsepte, dinge of (spesifieke) persone.
Die doele is dus m.i. heel verskillend.
'Luthon64
En, as ek mag vra, wat sal jou die meeste raak: die verwydering van 'n museumuitstalling onder druk van 'n groep geafronteerde christen fundamentaliste, of die verwydering van 'n publieke standbeeld vir politieke redes? En as daar wel 'n verskil is, is dit as gevolg van die verskillende doele soos jy hierbo verduidelik het: objetief vs subjektief?
Verskoon my dat ek na Engels oorslaan, ek vrees my Afrikaans sal onvoldoende wees.
I disdain wanton destructive behaviour when the only aim is to destroy (rather than to make way for something better). Generally speaking, I think the destruction of a work of art such as a statue or sculpture would disturb me more because the expression of its essential meaning is unique, making the destruction more directedly personal. In comparison, a museum exhibit merely seeks to portray a fact or clarify an explanation through a visualisation of it, and attacking the visualisation leaves that fact or explanation entirely untouched. The museum exhibit can be recreated without any irrecoverable loss, which is unlikely in the case of a statue.
There is also a significant subjective contextual prioritisation that is to be considered. Think of museum exhibits in Ken Ham’s Creation Museum vs. a statue of Thomas Jefferson vs. exhibits in the Natural History Museum vs. a statue of Joseph Stalin. Different individuals will react differently, depending on their own personal preferences.
For what it’s worth, I think the present fracas about statues in SA is symptomatic of something deeper and far more disturbing: Social polarisation as a result of growing discontent about this government’s predictable and ongoing failure to deliver on its extravagant promises of the past. The only winners will be those occupying seats of social, political and/or economic power.
'Luthon64
Ek heg nie enige emosie aan beide nie. As die beelde van aapmense in die museum verbrand word kan hulle volgende week deur nuwes vervang word, want nie ek of enigiemand anders heg emosionele waarde daaraan nie. Maar as dit by standbeelde kom, dan skielik is die emosies hoog, klaardenkbaar want mense heg 'n deel van hulle identiteit (ten goede of slegte) aan hierdie beelde… Let wel, nie die persoonlikheid nie, aan die beeld self.
en indien wel, hoe verskil sulke beelde dan wesenlik van enige ander beeld wat ten doel het om die mens aan sy geskiedenis herinner?
PRESIES! Maar soos jy kan aflei uit die verduideliking hierbo, dalk nie soos wat jy bedoel nie.
Die aapmense was waarskynlik aansienlik meer ordentlik as Rhodes. 
Indeed, though I am not sure the plan is to destroy the statues. Only to move them somewhere else. I feel the same way about statues of Lenin or Saddam: they were works of art and it is a pity they were wantonly pulled down.
But I do not mind at all if they move them somewhere else. Especially Rhodes, who for may people surely would be the equivalent of a statue to Hitler in Berlin.
For what it’s worth, I think the present fracas about statues in SA is symptomatic of something deeper and far more disturbing: Social polarisation as a result of growing discontent about this government’s predictable and ongoing failure to deliver on its extravagant promises of the past. The only winners will be those occupying seats of social, political and/or economic power.
Yup; they cannot have a middle class house and car, so now they take it out on a few statues. The, er, pigeons are coming home to roost now for the ANC government…
Of course the whole thing also brings into play the question of “being proud of your heritage.” I am not proud of my heritage, because I played no part in it. Perhaps what people mean is not so much that they are personally proud of the achievements of the people portrayed in public statues as that they intensely identify with those people and what they stood for.
Now I find that in most cases, I do not feel any such intense identification either. We tend to commemorate frickin’ militarists and politicians in statues. I would say that I do intensely identify with the heritage of the western world, but what I identify with is the very best of western culture, not some of the blots on its history, or its petty party politics. Thus I prefer statues of Beethoven or Einstein.
Thus I would suggest that in South Africa we erect statues to people whom everyone can identify with. It is of course true that thus far we have not exactly produced a Beethoven or Einstein yet. Still, South Africa has produced a whole host of scientists, artists, writers, musicians and social workers, of all races, that are worthy of being remembered.
Alas, I can guarantee you that when the ANC government redresses the balance in public statues, they’ll do so by having third rate sculptors cast yet more statues of controversial politicians. At my and your expense.