Mosul falls to Islamist

[AniThyng]

Why should we be sentimental about physical buildings and objects that hold no other intrinsic value beyond intangible historical value if there is progress to be made? How is this different from someone lamenting that the youth of today have no respect for tradition and culture and religion?

An old man sitting in his rocking chair bitching about kids these days is just someone who doesn't like change. He's not lamenting the loss of culture exactly, he's just pissed that the next generation don't agree with his values and viewpoints. That is a far cry from being concerned about the destruction of an artifact or location that can be studied so we can actually gain insight into where we came from and learn facts about the past that may have remained hidden until that point.

There are very real practical benefits to be had by studying the past. I don't think you should be so quick to discount the value of knowledge and education just because the concepts are less tangible than an office building or a coal mine.

I would equate it more to eliminating traditional gender roles or things like allowing gay marriage, these are very 'tangible' aspects of culture we are this very day tryingto tear down. we don't buy "but it's tradition", so why not for old buildings and artefacts?

[Siege]

Why should we be sentimental about physical buildings and objects that hold no other intrinsic value beyond intangible historical value if there is progress to be made?

Because what you in a spur of the moment define as 'progress' may in a mere few decades not be considered progress at all. In the sixties and seventies the Dutch tore down a great many historic buildings in the name of progress and modernity. Those buildings were replaced with construction that is now reviled as cheap, unliveable and hideous. Congratulations, you've filled the city center with cheap tosh, and by doing so you've denied future generations the opportunity to decide for themselves whether that centuries old monastery you thought could just be torn down was maybe worth keeping around.

We can't fossilize cities, but we still owe it to our children to act responsibly for the history that surrounds us. Because once it's gone it's gone for good, no amount of second thoughts will bring it back, and so it behooves us to consider at every turn the possibility that what we call 'progress' may in fact be nothing more than impetuous whimsy.

Historic buildings aren't just kept around for the sake of keeping them around, they are an immediate, physical reminder of what's come before, a link to a history that all too often already exists only in dry textbooks nobody reads. No-one's claiming we need to preserve every historic building, but as the number of such buildings drops over time the importance of each one goes up, and so the argument for tearing it down needs to be correspondingly more powerful.

And that's quite apart from more mundane reasons such as that these buildings increase a city's attractiveness to tourists (generating revenue), liven up neighborhoods and make them more attractive to live in (attracting people, reinforcing real estate prices, generating even more revenue), and so on. If all the old stuff was torn down not a damn soul would go to Paris or Rome on holidays, much less want to live there. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that these buildings serve a clear economic purpose beyond their intrinsic historic value.

[Thanas]

Siege, you said it better than I could, so thank you for that.

[Elfdart]

I've long suspected that there is a faction in the US government that wants this sort of disorder and chaos in the Middle East, and has since the oil embargo of the 1970's. During the embargo there was deep, deep resentment at how much control OPEC had over a resource seen as essential. Strong governance and peace in the Middle East means that the US has to negotiate just like everyone else for oil.

And you are correct, which is why Uncle Sam loves stirring up trouble with other oil-producing countries.

That doesn't mean a particular president, or a particular administration, holds that position just that I don't think the US government sees true stability in the Middle East as in the interests of the US, unless the US is in control. Thing is, the American people aren't interested in occupying and colonizing another part of the world right now, or paying the price in blood and treasure that would require in order to do the job "properly". The effort is half-assed so the results are half-assed.

They raped Iraq to the degree they needed to to make sure that (a) Iraq would never be in a position to dump oil on the market, driving down prices and (b) profits will go to Exxon/Mobil, Shell, et al. That's why the US government wants to keep Iranian oil off the market, too.

But that speculation aside, it seems to me we were better off with Saddam in charge in Iraq. Sure, the guy was despicable and his sons probably worse, but people were able to exist and make a living under his regime. All we've really done over the past decade is get a fuckton of people killed and lot of shit destroyed.

Gene McCarthy said it best: "Few things in human history have been as destructive as British map-makers."

I really don't see how the US gets out of this. Oh, sure, we could just up and leave, but the result would be a bloodbath.

See above. Iraq is going to be a charnel house no matter what America -Fuck Yeah! does. When you assemble a monster out of bits and pieces like Dr Frankenstein, it's inevitable that little girls are going to be thrown in the river and drowned.

Between the war, the bombing campaigns and the blockade, over three million Iraqis have been killed, including over 500,000 children deliberately starved to death under the sanctions regime (which Rep. David Bonior rightly called infanticide masquerading as foreign policy). Now Lyndon Baines Obama is only sending "advisors"...

If I had a barf smiley I'd use it here.

I don't know - maybe letting the artificial borders fracture and the place reform under more sensible alliances would lead to long term stability, or at least more stability that there is at present. I just don't see that happening peacefully, or without protests by governments fearing their nations would fracture next.

Until Americans realize that our country is too small, too poor and too ignorant to rule the rest of the world, we're going to get more of this.

[AniThyng]

Why should we be sentimental about physical buildings and objects that hold no other intrinsic value beyond intangible historical value if there is progress to be made?

Because what you in a spur of the moment define as 'progress' may in a mere few decades not be considered progress at all. In the sixties and seventies the Dutch tore down a great many historic buildings in the name of progress and modernity. Those buildings were replaced with construction that is now reviled as cheap, unliveable and hideous. Congratulations, you've filled the city center with cheap tosh, and by doing so you've denied future generations the opportunity to decide for themselves whether that centuries old monastery you thought could just be torn down was maybe worth keeping around.

We can't fossilize cities, but we still owe it to our children to act responsibly for the history that surrounds us. Because once it's gone it's gone for good, no amount of second thoughts will bring it back, and so it behooves us to consider at every turn the possibility that what we call 'progress' may in fact be nothing more than impetuous whimsy.

Historic buildings aren't just kept around for the sake of keeping them around, they are an immediate, physical reminder of what's come before, a link to a history that all too often already exists only in dry textbooks nobody reads. No-one's claiming we need to preserve every historic building, but as the number of such buildings drops over time the importance of each one goes up, and so the argument for tearing it down needs to be correspondingly more powerful.

And that's quite apart from more mundane reasons such as that these buildings increase a city's attractiveness to tourists (generating revenue), liven up neighborhoods and make them more attractive to live in (attracting people, reinforcing real estate prices, generating even more revenue), and so on. If all the old stuff was torn down not a damn soul would go to Paris or Rome on holidays, much less want to live there. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that these buildings serve a clear economic purpose beyond their intrinsic historic value.

Well yes I agree you have a point, and that there are a lot of significant structures that should be kept (or at least, the facade kept and the interior gutted and upgraded to modern standards), is it not also true that concluding that a particular urban redevelopment project was a foolish decision the kind of thing that is only clear on hindsight? I mean sooner or later decisions need to be made about land use. These strike me as familiar in the sense of arguments about how 3rd world countries must somehow both manage to preserve their heritage AND modernize - tear down their old buildings and forests and build new apartments and factories, and also somehow preserve our culture AND modernize. Something somewhere has to give. If we want people to embrace freedom of choice and democracy, the cultural shackles that dictate we listen to our elders OR ELSE have to go. And that might even mean smashing the past - that *is* why communist china had to crack down on religion to such an extent that overseas chinese are *more* culturally traditionally chinese than chinese themselves!

Or I suppose the real lesson is keep the outside facade, change the interior (i'm sure most historic buildings that are actually in use in europe keep the outside form, but have completely redone the interior so they aren't, like, unlivable for modern people).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well yes I agree you have a point, and that there are a lot of significant structures that should be kept (or at least, the facade kept and the interior gutted and upgraded to modern standards), is it not also true that concluding that a particular urban redevelopment project was a foolish decision the kind of thing that is only clear on hindsight? I mean sooner or later decisions need to be made about land use. These strike me as familiar in the sense of arguments about how 3rd world countries must somehow both manage to preserve their heritage AND modernize - tear down their old buildings and forests and build new apartments and factories, and also somehow preserve our culture AND modernize. Something somewhere has to give. If we want people to embrace freedom of choice and democracy, the cultural shackles that dictate we listen to our elders OR ELSE have to go. And that might even mean smashing the past - that *is* why communist china had to crack down on religion to such an extent that overseas chinese are *more* culturally traditionally chinese than chinese themselves!

Or I suppose the real lesson is keep the outside facade, change the interior (i'm sure most historic buildings that are actually in use in europe keep the outside form, but have completely redone the interior so they aren't, like, unlivable for modern people).

Well you have to remember that Asians and Westerners have very different attitudes with regards to keeping old historical stuff around....

[madd0ct0r]

yeah, the westeners already knocked down most of their during post war development. The asians are still developing?

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, traditions hold no intrinsic value. In man cases destroying a part of the tradition is necessary to move forward, in the moral dimension too. This is why many nations that underwent a series of rebellions against tradition are in a much better shape that those ruled by hardcore traditionalists.

[Thanas]

Actually, traditions hold no intrinsic value. In man cases destroying a part of the tradition is necessary to move forward, in the moral dimension too. This is why many nations that underwent a series of rebellions against tradition are in a much better shape that those ruled by hardcore traditionalists.

Depends on what shape the revolution takes, don't you think? The 68 generation destroyed a lot of tradition without destroying historical buildings.

Well yes I agree you have a point, and that there are a lot of significant structures that should be kept (or at least, the facade kept and the interior gutted and upgraded to modern standards), is it not also true that concluding that a particular urban redevelopment project was a foolish decision the kind of thing that is only clear on hindsight? I mean sooner or later decisions need to be made about land use. These strike me as familiar in the sense of arguments about how 3rd world countries must somehow both manage to preserve their heritage AND modernize - tear down their old buildings and forests and build new apartments and factories, and also somehow preserve our culture AND modernize. Something somewhere has to give. If we want people to embrace freedom of choice and democracy, the cultural shackles that dictate we listen to our elders OR ELSE have to go. And that might even mean smashing the past - that *is* why communist china had to crack down on religion to such an extent that overseas chinese are *more* culturally traditionally chinese than chinese themselves!

Or I suppose the real lesson is keep the outside facade, change the interior (i'm sure most historic buildings that are actually in use in europe keep the outside form, but have completely redone the interior so they aren't, like, unlivable for modern people).

Modernizing does not take tearing down the past, nor does it necessitate it. Rome is quite modern (in fact, it has working wifi in trains, something Germany apparently is unable to offer on a consistent basis). Too often this becomes a lazy excuse aka "progress dictates that we chose the easy way".

[Siege]

I said nothing about traditions, Stas. I said history, that thing you're doomed to repeat soon as you forget it. History doesn't exist solely in books, it's not just the past, it's all around us. History informs every single detail of the world as it exists today, and it would do our species good to be more cognizant of it. It might help us not make the same dumb mistakes over and over again.

Well yes I agree you have a point, and that there are a lot of significant structures that should be kept (or at least, the facade kept and the interior gutted and upgraded to modern standards), is it not also true that concluding that a particular urban redevelopment project was a foolish decision the kind of thing that is only clear on hindsight?

No, that's too easy. You can't just do whatever pleases you and then throw up your hands and say 'how could I have known?' when it doesn't work out. That kind of attitude is roundly mocked when it's expressed by (former) supporters of the '03 invasion of Iraq. Due diligence should be performed before irreversible action is taken. 'I could not have foreseen' is the excuse of the incompetent. The history of nations should not be trusted to the hands of incompetents.

These strike me as familiar in the sense of arguments about how 3rd world countries must somehow both manage to preserve their heritage AND modernize - tear down their old buildings and forests and build new apartments and factories, and also somehow preserve our culture AND modernize.

Far too often 'modernization' boils down to 'tear down everything and replace it with parking lots and McDonalds'. That's not modernity, that's just stupid.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

yeah, the westeners already knocked down most of their during post war development. The asians are still developing?

In many Asian nations, Asians generally only care about making money. Anything that stands in that way gets knocked down.

[Mr Bean]

yeah, the westeners already knocked down most of their during post war development. The asians are still developing?

In many Asian nations, Asians generally only care about making money. Anything that stands in that way gets knocked down.

Say that out loud in a public place and see if people wince and turn around because that sounds racist as hell.

[AniThyng]

Well that's hardly surprising, east Asians are stereotyped as both caring only for wealth AND being massively racist for a reason. ( disclaimer: we are both eat Asian)

[Mr Bean]

Well that's hardly surprising, east Asians are stereotyped as both caring only for wealth AND being massively racist for a reason. ( disclaimer: we are both eat Asian)

Great and now I found out AniThyng is a cannibal

[K. A. Pital]

I know you were not talking about preserving tradition but rather material legacy, Siege. However, one is often inseparable from the other in the moment of teardown. Now churches look like harmless artifacts; back in the days of the French Revolution they weren't. Same goes, for instance, for the colonial legacy of the West in Asia. Some choose to preserve it, others preserve only parts and yet others destroy it completely. All approaches have a logic behind them. Even the destruction by islamists has one - to start from scratch only with islam. Radical islam may not seem a worthy foundation, but it does not mean everyone who starts from scratch has a bad idea. Some make something decent after the carnage of politically or economically motivated destruction dies down. Others don't.

All other things being equal it is much better to preserve than destroy, and I agree with that. But the world rarely has the 'all other things equal' precondition in practice.

[AniThyng]

Well that's hardly surprising, east Asians are stereotyped as both caring only for wealth AND being massively racist for a reason. ( disclaimer: we are both eat Asian)

Great and now I found out AniThyng is a cannibal

Well the other stereotype is that we'd eat anything...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Say that out loud in a public place and see if people wince and turn around because that sounds racist as hell.

I'm Asian. A lot of Asian stereotypes do hold true for a damn good reason. Heck, in my own country, so-call "cultural heritage" is now extremely touristy and very very... not authentic.

And yes, Chinese people do eat anything that walks, and Koreans apparently eat live octopuses and at one point of time, Chinese ate live monkey brains.......

[Broomstick]

And yes, Chinese people do eat anything that walks, and Koreans apparently eat live octopuses and at one point of time, Chinese ate live monkey brains.......

My experience with Chinese and their cooking is that they in no way restrict it to things that simply walk. Generally, anything that doesn't move faster than a human being is fair game, a quite a bit that does move faster still winds up in the wok. Mode of transport is irrelevant.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And yes, Chinese people do eat anything that walks, and Koreans apparently eat live octopuses and at one point of time, Chinese ate live monkey brains.......

My experience with Chinese and their cooking is that they in no way restrict it to things that simply walk. Generally, anything that doesn't move faster than a human being is fair game, a quite a bit that does move faster still winds up in the wok. Mode of transport is irrelevant.

I think the only things that aren't eaten are the animals that are very poisonous.

Though the Japanese have the honor of having made Fugu a delicacy.

[ray245]

I'm Asian. A lot of Asian stereotypes do hold true for a damn good reason. Heck, in my own country, so-call "cultural heritage" is now extremely touristy and very very... not authentic.

That's not the worst thing that has happened here. There are numerous incidents whereby historical artefacts uncovered by construction crews were thrown into the rubbish bin before any member of the local archaeology community even heard about it. Although in the case of Singapore, there was a systematic rejection of having a history prior to the arrival of the British by our founding fathers. They saw the idea of having a history prior to the colonial age as not being helpful in the formation of a modern nation-state.