Revisionist History

c.p.w.g.w

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Franco’s Grave has become a shrine and a place of focus for those that want Spain to return to its fascist past.

It isn’t about trying to erase the past, it’s about not wanting it repeated.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern. Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down". Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.

Sand

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move. They're afraid of a dead man.

c.p.w.g.w

Odhinn wrote: »

It's not forgetting, its putting things in their place and context. The confederates lost the war, and it was a war in which race was a prominent concern. Having them honoured by statues is a ridiculous slap in the face for the afro-american population of those areas - essentially "lie down croppy, lie down". Ifyou want to worry about history being written "by the victors", then you might direct your attention to statues of lloyd george, churchill. cecil rhodes and so on.

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

The irony of the op complaining about people trying to re write history and then attempting to do it himself should also be noted.

Sand

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

They have an issue with them too. They're just starting at the top of the list.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move.

Having a massive monument to a man who ran death camps is "utterly pointless and divisive" at this point in time.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

Bit of a wild claim there. Personally I'd be for the removal of both.

c.p.w.g.w

Odhinn wrote: »

Bit of a wild claim there. Personally I'd be for the removal of both.

But surely an open discussion about both the good and bad carried out by such leaders is very important and a lot more productive in learning from the mistakes of the past

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

Having a massive monument to a man who ran death camps is "utterly pointless and divisive" at this point in time.

And yet people wander about with Che Guevara T-shirts, who admitted himself they killed so many people they didn't have time to determine if they were guilty of any crime or not.

More specifically, the Republican government Franco defeated massacred prisoners and carried out atrocities too. People with blood on their hands are buried throughout the world. It's all ancient history at this point. But the backers of this move communicate their weakness to be so afraid of a dead man.

As I said, a conservative Spanish government can just as easily move his body back. It might even play into their hands as a campaign promise.

Odhinn

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

But surely an open discussion about both the good and bad carried out by such leaders is very important and a lot more productive in learning from the mistakes of the past

Never said there shouldn't be discussion of the facts.

sand wrote:

More specifically, the Republican government Franco defeated massacred prisoners and carried out atrocities too. People with blood on their hands are buried throughout the world. It's all ancient history at this point. But the backers of this move communicate their weakness to be so afraid of a dead man

Spain has never come to terms with the civil war, and there are legal barriers to that happening.

Sand

Odhinn wrote: »

Spain has never come to terms with the civil war, and there are legal barriers to that happening.

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

Harry Palmr

Franco was a little man in a big tomb, he needs to be in a little tomb.

Odhinn

Sand wrote: »

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

There were never laws in place against the discussion of napoleonic wars or wars of succession, or laws preventing investigations of crimes committed in the course of those wars. Nor are there statues and mausoleum glorifying napoleon in spain, afaik.



It's not revenge against one man, its to put him and the regime he wrought in its proper place.

c.p.w.g.w

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The same people who call the removal of the Confederate statues have no issue with the statues of Churchill or Lloyd George. It's pretty big double standard.

Didn't know that there were statues of Churchill and Loyd George in the U.S.

If they were statues of them here in Ireland (I am open to correction) I would say that plenty would want rid of them especially as Churchill was one of the main antagonists in the creation of partition and the starting of the Irish civil war due to his threats at the time.

As to Franco himself, he committed treason by launching a coup against the democratically elected government of his country and had he lost would have most likely been executed. He would have been in the history books either way, nothing changes with his burial place being moved other than annoying people who admire him.

whisky_galore

Nice timely distraction from what is going on elsewhere.

c.p.w.g.w

whisky_galore wrote: »

Nice timely distraction from what is going on elsewhere.

Catalan unrest?

biko

Moving the body of a Spanish dictator doesn't mean history is rewritten.
Sure, today many probably don't even know about Franco anyway.

James Brown

Sand wrote: »

His body was moved by an act of a socialist government, sympathetic to the cause of his vanquished enemies. His body can just as easily be moved back to its original tomb when the government changes. The only thing those behind the move can be counting on is that his family are so traumatised by the initial move that they are exhausted by it and give up.

It seems an utterly pointless and divisive move. They're afraid of a dead man.

It's more important than the man. It's a burial tomb to give honour. No place for a fascist.
On a much much lesser note, it was disgusting to give Haughey a state funeral with all the bells and whistles or the inclusion of Redmond getting pride of place during the 1916 centenary celebrations. That's your revisionist history right there.

blanch152

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

c.p.w.g.w

blanch152 wrote: »

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

Destroying history isn't the correct thing to do...it's almost Orwellian

El_Duderino 09

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

So today Franco was exumed and moved to a private burial ground.

Spanish Civil War finished 80 years ago, what does moving his body achieve. Does it make it harder for people to remember Franco's actions.

History is very important going forward, as history does repeat itself and if we continue to sweep it under the carpet, or remove it from public view, it makes it harder to see the signs of history repeating itself.

Seen it state side with Confederate statues being remove. It seems that the west only wants to forget certain types of history.

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Yeah but the English have so little awareness of their own history that it’s irrelevant. The man on the street would probably know DLG was a prime minister but would never hear about the bad things he did.

So his statue isn’t a warning to not repeat past failures. It’s the opposite. It’s already brushing the bad parts of history under the carpet and pretending it was all roses.

The symbols are not the history. The history still has to be told and learned if it’s to be remembered. And there’s no need to put a tyrant like Franco pride of place to remember not to repeat the mistakes that lead to his rise.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

We in Ireland need to follow their example and get rid of the nazi collaborator Sean Russell’s statue.

Well done, Blanch. A very, very, very really special well done. All the statues, streets and institutions still named after the mass murdering British royalist colonial cult in Ireland in 2020 and all you can propose is Russell, a man who didn't even have the luxury of collaborating with Nazi Germany for as long as the British state itself collaborated with Nazi Germany, lest we forget.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Well done, Blanch. A very, very, very really special well done. All the statues, streets and institutions still named after the mass murdering British royalist colonial cult in Ireland in 2020 and all you can propose is Russell, a man who didn't even have the luxury of collaborating with Nazi Germany for as long as the British state itself collaborated with Nazi Germany, lest we forget.

This thread was about fascists - Franco in particular - until it was hijacked by the knee jerk rabid anti-Britishness prevalent around here. I am just bringing it back to our own fascists. If there are any statues to Eoin O’Duffy, they should be taken down as well.

whisky_galore

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread was about fascists - Franco in particular - until it was hijacked by the knee jerk rabid anti-Britishness prevalent around here. I am just bringing it back to our own fascists. If there are any statues to Eoin O’Duffy, they should be taken down as well.

Templemore garda college still has an area named after him.
Not surprising, the pub republicans will always try to crowbar in how they hate Brits so much into every thread, as if we needed reminding. It's tired and boring now.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

Its never come to terms with the Napoleonic wars or the War of Spanish Succession either. At some point you have to acknowledge the past, but focus on the future. Lets be clear - "coming to terms with" is just code for neoliberalism trying to win the narrative having lost the war. The Republicans lost the war 80 years ago. Taking ritualistic revenge against a dead man's body does not change that. Get over it.

Neoliberalism isn’t what you seem to think it is.

alastair

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Destroying history isn't the correct thing to do...it's almost Orwellian

We got rid of lots of imperial statuary decades ago. When society changes, it’s perfectly understandable that they don’t want edifices to ideas they’ve jettisoned around them.

alastair

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Yet in London you have statues of David Lloyd George who was prime minister when the English used enturement camps in Wales for the "prisoners" of the 1916 rising...they were pretty much camps that were akin to the camps the Brits used in India which were very close to Nazi death camps.

The winner really does write the history and it's starting to get a little worrying.

Speaking of re-writing history...

There was one singular internment camp in Wales - and it was nothing like a Nazi death camp, or indeed an Indian or South African one. Nobody died at Frongoch, and Lloyd George actually sent everyone back to Ireland the month he became prime minister. He subsequently interned Sinn Fein members alright - but they mostly went to English prisons. The Welsh camp was never re-used.

c.p.w.g.w

alastair wrote: »

Speaking of re-writing history...

There was one singular internment camp in Wales - and it was nothing like a Nazi death camp, or indeed an Indian or South African one. Nobody died at Frongoch, and Lloyd George actually sent everyone back to Ireland the month he became prime minister. He subsequently interned Sinn Fein members alright - but they mostly went to English prisons. The Welsh camp was never re-used.

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

careless sherpa

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

The camps in Wales were akin to the camps used in India which were very close to Nazi camps(aside from the gasing)

Whatever about the conditions in the camp, the idea of throwing everyone in together so there could be political education, organisation and consolidation seems absolutely crazy. I wonder did they not see a flaw in the practice