[HN Gopher] Concrete clickbait: next time you share a spomenik p...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Concrete clickbait: next time you share a spomenik photo (2016)
        
       Author : omnibrain
       Score  : 122 points
       Date   : 2024-09-08 09:34 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.new-east-archive.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.new-east-archive.org)
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | > But now, argues Owen Hatherley, it is vital that we make the
       | effort to understand what they truly represent
       | 
       | Maybe this speaks of the weaknesses of abstract art when used for
       | this. No one thinks of the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Rushmore or
       | Taj Mahal or Arc de Triumph like this. In some sense, their
       | memorial status comes out in the form itself. This is not the
       | case with abstract art like the spomeniks.
        
         | jitl wrote:
         | When I first saw an image of the Taj Mahal, I had no idea it is
         | a memorial, I thought/assumed it was a classical temple akin to
         | the Parthenon. At least as a kid growing up in California it
         | seemed classic but also abstract and alien compared to the
         | strict right angles, rectangular platforms and formulaic
         | columns of similarly revered but much older
         | European/Mediterranean structures.
        
           | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
           | > I thought/assumed it was a classical temple akin to the
           | Parthenon
           | 
           | Despite not knowing the details, you knew it was designed to
           | revere or commemorate something even if you did not know the
           | details.
        
             | jitl wrote:
             | Sure, and I took the same from photos of obelisks, the
             | Washington monument, and these Yugoslavian monuments. i
             | thought you're arguing it's apparent from the form _what_
             | is being commemorated /revered, versus the Yugoslavian
             | monuments that are harder to read, and I am disagreeing
             | with that.
             | 
             | I think the only monuments that are actually obvious are
             | literal selections like statues, or Lincoln Memorial which
             | is labeled in large capital letters exactly what is
             | commemorated and why.
             | 
             | Otherwise all I can tell is "this building is special
             | because its purpose is not easily apparent (and people
             | don't seem to fit inside it?)"
        
         | anamexis wrote:
         | I don't think it's evident what the Taj Mahal or Arc du
         | Triomphe commemorate from their form, either.
        
           | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
           | It may not be clear _what_ they commemorate, but it is
           | evident _that_ they commemorate.
        
             | anamexis wrote:
             | I don't think that's evident, either. There's plenty of
             | ornate architecture that doesn't commemorate anything.
        
             | croes wrote:
             | I doubt that is true at least for the Taj Mahal and even
             | the Arc de Triomphe.
        
             | seanhunter wrote:
             | If that's true about the Taj Mahal, it's true about the
             | Spomenik also.
             | 
             | So now what? You origintally made the point to try to
             | distingish between the power of representative art vs
             | abstract art (although I'm struggling to understand what is
             | more representative about the Taj Mahal and the Arc de
             | Triomphe than these also).
        
             | peoplefromibiza wrote:
             | to me as Italian it is evident that Arc du Triomphe it's a
             | replica and that's all I can say for sure about it
             | 
             | Otoh it is quite evident to me that Spomenik monuments are
             | there to commemorate something or they would be very
             | different
        
         | failuser wrote:
         | Kind of true, but those are bad examples. Wait, is Taj Mahal a
         | monument, not a palace? Also Mount Rushmore relies on knowing
         | the faces on it, otherwise one might assume it's some local car
         | dealers. Arc de Triumph is actually abstract, how would you
         | know its purpose if you don't know the context?
        
         | pvg wrote:
         | You can just as easily interpret this as the power of non-
         | representational art to express and deal with the
         | incomprehensible. In this case it distinguishes these from
         | simply monuments to great leaders or the dead of some glorious
         | battle.
        
         | seanhunter wrote:
         | An obvious counterexample to this which speaks to the power of
         | abstract art as a memorial is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial by
         | Maya Lin which is an incredibly powerful piece of abstract
         | public memorial art, and very near the Lincoln memorial so well
         | worth a visit for anyone who finds themselves in that part of
         | Washington DC. I personally admire Lincoln greatly but of the
         | two I found visiting the Vietnam Veterans memorial a far more
         | moving experience.
         | 
         | Secondly I would say the fact that they provoke thought about
         | what they represent (rather than say Mount Rushmore in
         | particular which is a profoundly superficial public monument)
         | is precisely part of the value of abstract art. The Lincoln
         | Memorial says Lincoln was a great man. OK cool. Anyone who has
         | studied American history knows that.
        
         | mikrl wrote:
         | Perhaps that was intentional, or came from a collective
         | subconscious desire to commemorate, yet also to forget and move
         | on.
         | 
         | Interwar abstract art such as cubism had twisted and distorted
         | figures, some was a reaction to the twisted and broken bodies
         | of the veterans of WW1. Hitler hated that style of art because
         | he saw it as disparaging veterans, war-glorifier as he was.
         | 
         | It would make sense that a 'progressive' regime would want to
         | break with traditionalism and create its own novel style of
         | monument. You see this trend in a lot of postwar aesthetic
         | movements, like the failed housing projects of modernism. They
         | don't glorify anything; they exist imposingly and have a strong
         | bias to function. Yet this itself is dehumanizing in its own
         | way.
         | 
         | Tl;dr: traditional aesthetics glorify the nation and the state,
         | including its human flaws. Abstract art tends to dehumanize
         | itself as a way to avoid these flaws, especially in the wake of
         | major human catastrophes.
         | 
         | The Soviet and Fascist styles of art which glorified the party
         | and its base straddles both sides.
        
         | jameshart wrote:
         | I don't know about that - do you know which triumph the Arc de
         | Triomphe commemorates? Isn't it just as much seen in a meme
         | form as an example of just 'grand classical European
         | architecture', divorced from its Napoleonic imperialistic
         | origins and not considered in terms of the fact that the French
         | defeat of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz, at the cost of
         | thousands of lives, and leading to the fall of Vienna, which it
         | was commissioned for, was not a politically neutral event.
         | 
         | Does the fact that the French tomb of the unknown soldier from
         | World War I was created beneath it change the meaning of the
         | arch?
         | 
         | It seems to me it's a pretty complex, abstract object whose
         | story isn't easily reduced to a simple meme either.
        
       | polypodiopsi wrote:
       | To me the authors accusatory tone seems misguided and, indeed,
       | clickbaity (people love to hate)- which is a shame, since the
       | information about the architectural sculptures called spomenik
       | the article offers is pretty interesting. I believe that the
       | interest in the purely formal qualities of thise "spomeniks" is a
       | proper appreciation. Getting people interested by these offers an
       | entrypoint into a deeper engagement with their historical
       | background and the representational purpose. "its great that
       | pictures of spomeniks are circulating, you might wonder what the
       | meaning of those seemingly alien structures in the nowhere
       | actually is" would be the proper cause for propagating these
       | information imho. Its actually remarka le about these memorials
       | that they manage to get their image circulating.
        
         | Oarch wrote:
         | I agree. If you're familiar with the author this is quite
         | typical of his output.
        
           | peterstjohn wrote:
           | If you think that of Owen's output, for heaven's sake I fear
           | for you if you ever read a Jonathan Meades article...
        
         | izacus wrote:
         | It bothers me more than it should that he calls them
         | "spomeniks", because that's literally just a word meaning
         | "monument" in the local languages.
         | 
         | It's like someone going "did you know American monuments are
         | known as monuments locally?"
        
           | grujicd wrote:
           | While that's true that we use word spomenik for all
           | monuments, I think outside of Balkans it's now recognized as
           | a word describing specific abstract and grandiose type of
           | monument. So world (or Internet community at least) took our
           | word and appropriated it to mean something else.
           | 
           | Anyway, if someone visit one of Balkan countries and ask to
           | see spomenik, expect locals to be confused and would not know
           | what exactly you mean.
        
             | pvg wrote:
             | _Pametnik_ would like to have a word!
             | 
             | More seriously, I think you're exactly right about the
             | adopted internet-English meaning of 'spomenik' and the
             | article is right to make a distinction between this
             | particular (and much more interesting) variety and your
             | more generic strictly-regime-sponsored concrete artblob.
        
             | izacus wrote:
             | Hence why I said "bothers me more than it should". Language
             | lives and I know english took upon a certain meaning. It
             | still tickles my brain wrong :)
        
           | debugnik wrote:
           | This is common with loan words, though: Sahara, chai, manga,
           | naan, salsa... They're all generic words which non-native
           | speakers attach context to.
        
           | literallycancer wrote:
           | Yeah, people obsessed with Russia, and sometimes even normal
           | experts studying Russia tend to use Russian words that way.
        
         | toddmorey wrote:
         | Yeah what's the name for this accusatory tone highbrow
         | clickbait? There's a companion article on the shame you should
         | feel about "ruin porn" because surely you feel "desire to gloat
         | over the decomposing corpse of the West's former Communist
         | enemy."
         | 
         | I can say I've never felt that but have enjoyed the sort of
         | x-ray view you get of the structure sometimes + imagining what
         | it was like at full splendor. To me it's a combined feeling of
         | wonder and loss.
        
       | jitl wrote:
       | I'm grateful to learn a more detailed and contextual history of
       | these monuments; I've only appreciated them through the
       | "clickbait" lens as "Tito's monuments" as the article says.
        
       | jepix wrote:
       | We took the chance to dig and reveal the backgrounds of spomenik
       | while enjoying their extreme skateability on our skateboard
       | magazine here: https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/novo-spomen-a-new-
       | memory
        
         | qup wrote:
         | Nice website, nice article, kudos.
        
           | jepix wrote:
           | Thanks! We also shot a short movie of the Novo Spomen tour if
           | you are interested here: https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/watch
        
             | alfanick wrote:
             | Thanks for sharing, very nice insight into the culture :)
             | Tried to subscribe, my Stripe doesn't seem to work well
             | with Apple Pay
        
               | jepix wrote:
               | It's not your Stripe >> Apple Pay. We only accept
               | subscriptions for Italy as it would be too expensive
               | outside the country. Sorry for that!
        
         | nkko wrote:
         | trivializing their purpose and the suffering they represent is
         | selfish, the act of skateboarding on these monuments is deeply
         | troubling
        
           | jepix wrote:
           | Well, actually it was not trivial at all and we had big
           | internal discussions on how to do that properly and
           | respectfully, taking the chance to let our readers (that
           | follow skateboarding) know what lays behind these monuments.
           | I do really understand what you write, but I am also grateful
           | for having been able to discover history in that way.
        
             | lores wrote:
             | You respectfully skated over monuments to the dead? What
             | culture do you come from, if I may ask?
        
         | rospaya wrote:
         | What are the ethics of skateboarding in a death camp or over
         | graves of people that died fighting fascists? What's the
         | skateability of Dachau? Does Treblinka need a half pipe so it's
         | not forgotten?
        
           | actionfromafar wrote:
           | Hm, that made me pause. But it still feels different.
           | Treblinka was not built to celebrate and commemorate a win
           | against fascism.
        
       | krupan wrote:
       | I lived in and have returned to visit former Yugoslavian
       | countries over the past 25 years and until just now had not come
       | across these spomeniks. I'm glad I was able to learn the true
       | stories about some of them at the same time. Overall I'm pretty
       | disappointed in the weird vibe of the article. This statement was
       | particularly confusing:
       | 
       | "Yet not only in Croatia, but in France, the USA, Britain, real,
       | open fascism - fences, walls, racial laws, deportations, camps -
       | is once again mainstream."
       | 
       | Deportation camps are once again mainstream in these countries??
       | Are they? And "once again" as if they ever were mainstream? Did I
       | miss something?
       | 
       | That kind of makes me doubt everything else said in the article.
       | Overall the article seemed to be very anti fascist (great!) and
       | pro post WWII communist (not great) even seemingly celebrating
       | Yugoslavia's defeat of the Allies?
       | 
       | Anyway, I would love to see more simple explanation of each
       | spomenik like this article gives for some of them (artist,
       | purpose of the monument, dates, etc.). Anyone know where to find
       | that?
        
         | krupan wrote:
         | And yes, I am aware that in Croatia there was actual Fascism
         | complete with camps and everything around WWII times. And yes
         | those other countries in the list also rounded up groups of
         | people into camps at the same time period, but I would not have
         | called what the US, Britain, and France did Fascist or
         | mainstream back then, and I'm not aware of anything like it
         | today.
        
         | davedx wrote:
         | Deportation operations and camps in the UK:
         | 
         | https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/rwanda-plan-explained-why-...
         | 
         | https://www.gov.uk/immigration-removal-centre
        
         | hungie wrote:
         | The U.S. is absolutely creating deportation camps, and there's
         | a national zeal for evicting people here. It's, unfortunately,
         | bipartisan.
         | 
         | The conditions in U.S. camps are dire, children sleeping on
         | bloody straw, smeared with feces. Families separated. Food,
         | water, and shelter inadequate to sustain life in the deserts
         | where these camps are.
         | 
         | In Britain, the attitude is similar pro deportation, but the
         | refugees aren't put into camps as far as I know. However, the
         | buildings that they are in have been subject to attacks and
         | arson.
         | 
         | The "once again" probably refers to both the historical
         | mainstream opinion that Japanese migrants should be moved to
         | concentration camps within the U.S., and of course the
         | mainstream beliefs in Nazi Germany.
         | 
         | (Note, I'm not trying to draw any parallels between any of
         | these camps. Please don't infer that I'm calling anyone nazis
         | except the nazis. These examples can all exist and be over the
         | threshold of "cruel" without needing to be compared to one
         | another.)
        
           | luckylion wrote:
           | > The U.S. is absolutely creating deportation camps, and
           | there's a national zeal for evicting people here. It's,
           | unfortunately, bipartisan.
           | 
           | I believe the point the comment was making is that no
           | reasonable person would call the existence of walls or
           | fences, or the deportation of illegal/undocumented immigrants
           | fascist (even those who believe that free migration is a
           | human right), or that "racial laws" are mainstream (except
           | maybe in affirmative action, but it benefits PoC so the
           | author of the article most likely wouldn't consider it a
           | racial law).
        
             | swiftcoder wrote:
             | > no reasonable person
             | 
             | How very no-true-scotsman of them.
             | 
             | I think you'll find that quite a few reasonable people
             | consider mass internments and deportations to be pretty far
             | along the spectrum towards fascism
        
               | luckylion wrote:
               | I doubt that I'd consider them reasonable, unless your
               | "fasiscm spectrum" goes from 0 to 100 and it's
               | "somewhere". Then yes, _everything_ is on that spectrum,
               | it's just that a lot of things are < 10 and some things
               | are > 90 and if you say "well, they're on the spectrum
               | towards fascism therefore they are fascist", I wouldn't
               | label you reasonable.
               | 
               | And if you think that deportations are > 90, you have no
               | idea what fascism is.
        
         | medo-bear wrote:
         | In Croatia there arent any camps and the country is very
         | peaceful. However there are plenty of neo-Nazis, especially
         | amongst football supporters and even some political groups
         | (part of the government). There are also some people that the
         | government is too affraid to touch, given their war veteran
         | status and public popularity. In the article bellow is a photo
         | of one such person, called Marko Skejo. The picture tells a
         | thousand words
         | 
         | https://www.index.hr/mobile/vijesti/clanak/video-skejo-i-hos...
        
           | mrkramer wrote:
           | And there are a lot of people that write crap about Croatia
           | around the Web just like you. There are neo-nazis even in
           | Russia....so what we should do about that?! Get a grip.
        
             | medo-bear wrote:
             | Dude Croatia is a member of the EU. Do you really want to
             | compare it to Russia? In Split there are Nazi murals that
             | the government is too afraid to touch. This guy who tries
             | his best to look like Hitler gathers dozens of idiots in
             | Split every year to mark the commemoration of founding of
             | the Croatian Nazi state and no one dares to do anything
             | about it. I love Croatia, but this is a real problem
        
               | mrkramer wrote:
               | But Croatia is not a runaway wayward EU member, it has to
               | comply with EU standards and EU laws. I mentioned Russia
               | because Hitler wanted to annihilate "Slavic race" and
               | Russian state and even there you have people glorifying
               | Nazism.
        
               | medo-bear wrote:
               | Laws exist. The point is that the Croatian govermnent is
               | very affraid to enforce them
        
               | jq-r wrote:
               | Or even worse, laws are selectively enforced.
               | 
               | You've been downvoted in your root comment because people
               | latch onto that neo-nazi definition but missing forest
               | from the trees. The far right over here is powerful,
               | organized and very vocal. The football matches are just a
               | social overpressure valve so the fans are constantly
               | fighting between themselves instead of taking to the
               | streets to protest the political/economical issues. And
               | the government likes it that way.
        
         | skybrian wrote:
         | This all depends on what is meant by "fascism" and
         | "mainstream." The author seems to have viewed immigration
         | restrictions as fascist.
         | 
         | It seems like it would be better to discuss immigration policy
         | and enforcement directly (when someone wants to do that) rather
         | than having meta-discussions about what category it belongs in.
        
         | CodeMage wrote:
         | The way I interpreted that sentence is not that fascism was
         | established and flourishing back in 2016 when this was written,
         | but rather that the fascist ideals and concepts were being
         | openly pushed without (enough) sanction by the mainstream.
         | 
         | The reason why I interpret it that way is simple: when fascists
         | are actually in power, there's no such thing as "mainstream"
         | anymore. Authoritarian rule means that there's only one correct
         | way of thinking and behaving, and everything else is a crime or
         | heresy or "evil", depending on the specific flavor of
         | authoritarianism. "Mainstream", on the other hand, implies that
         | there are other views and that they can be discussed.
        
           | vuln wrote:
           | Glad we've never had that in the USA
           | 
           | /sarcasm
           | 
           | > Authoritarian mean there's only one correct way of thinking
           | and behaving, and everything else is a crime or heresy or
           | "evil", depending on the specific flavor of Authoritarianism.
           | 
           | Oh wait, that sounds exactly the like the United States. If
           | you don't believe what 95% of the "mainstream" media is
           | pushing you're labeled all sorts of things. The biggest on is
           | conspiracy theorist, when all it take is ~ 6-9 months before
           | the conspiracy theorists are proven correct. Let's not get
           | into how often the terms racist, fascist, and nazi are thrown
           | around when people of opposing views disagree. Somehow it's
           | almost always the one side slandering, due to lack of
           | argument.
        
       | JoeDaDude wrote:
       | The Spomenik Database for those inclined to learn a bit more:
       | 
       | https://www.spomenikdatabase.org/
       | 
       | Casual trivia: The film Last and First Men consists primarily of
       | slow pans of Spomeniks.
       | 
       | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8015444/
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | I am glad to learn this.
       | 
       | From what I understand, the Ustase (I think they were Croatian),
       | were so brutal, they sickened the Gestapo.
       | 
       | Tito held Yugoslavia together, but that unity couldn't survive
       | his passing. They've been fighting each other for so long, that I
       | suspect the original reasons are lost in antiquity.
        
         | pvg wrote:
         | "ancient hatreds" is a readily-reachable trope in such contexts
         | but it obscures far more than it clarifies. Plus in most such
         | cases, it's usually oversimplifying and inaccurate to the point
         | where it's best avoided. Ancient hatreds didn't cause, say, the
         | Ustase.
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | I personally think they are meaningless, but they are used to
           | justify current hatred.
           | 
           | Tribalism is very human, and results in the worst fights.
           | 
           | I grew up in Africa, and saw what tribal hatred looks like.
           | Not pretty, but Africa doesn't have the monopoly on it.
           | 
           | We have tribes all over Europe, and America. The behavior is
           | exactly the same, everywhere.
        
         | samastur wrote:
         | I'll bite, how long?
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | I dunno. You'd probably have a better idea.
        
             | samastur wrote:
             | Sorry, I came off antagonistic in my first reply.
             | 
             | I'm always open to be corrected, but as far as I know
             | nations that formed Yugoslavia haven't actually fought each
             | other meaningfully before WWI and even in that war
             | Slovenians, Croats and Bosniaks were not involved
             | independently, but as subjects of Austro Hungarian empire.
             | There certainly wasn't the kind of animosity displayed as
             | for centuries between France and England or France and
             | Germany (as just two examples). It was really WW2 where one
             | can observe the viciousness beyond fighting one's enemy.
             | 
             | I have my own views why things went south so badly and I
             | agree with you that it was inevitable for YU to fall apart,
             | but I find the often expressed argument that people living
             | in our parts always did this very unpersuasive.
        
               | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
               | Good point, and I appreciate the correction.
               | 
               | In the West, we have a term "Balkanization." I had
               | assumed that it's fairly old.
               | 
               |  _[UPDATED TO ADD]_
               | 
               | In Africa, many of the really vicious tribal wars, date
               | from the colonial times.
               | 
               | The colonial powers leveraged old tribal animosity. It
               | was a way to keep their colonies from concentrating on
               | them.
               | 
               | Demagogues, conquerors, and dictators have always known
               | how to leverage old resentments, and fan them into a
               | conflaguration.
               | 
               | Like I said, this behavior is very human, and we're
               | seeing it on this side of the pond.
        
         | literallycancer wrote:
         | Chris Marshall from New York Oblast :)
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | We have a _lot_ of warring cultures in NY, so I guess
           | "oblast" is appropriate.
        
       | samth wrote:
       | History is of course valuable to learn, but as a criticism of the
       | work this is almost precisely the "turn to the camera and say
       | that he's the same kind of communist I am" tweet made flesh.
        
         | jonathrg wrote:
         | The referenced tweet:
         | https://x.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/965640850578575362
         | 
         | > Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit
         | iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther
         | turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then
         | specified hes the exact kind of communist i am
        
           | refulgentis wrote:
           | I really appreciate you were able to recognize the tweet and
           | give some context. I'm a bit slow, especially on Sunday
           | mornings :) -- I still don't understand what OP means.
           | 
           | Do you have any ideas? Maybe its commie talk to say these
           | aren't related to WWII?
           | 
           | Or maybe they find the article political?
           | 
           | Seems pretty straightforward to me, guy from country says
           | people from other countries turned something complex into
           | something simple for clickbait, documents it.
        
             | jonathrg wrote:
             | I actually have no idea, I was hoping someone else could
             | fill us in.
        
       | RandomThoughts3 wrote:
       | That's a political article masquerading as being about
       | architecture and art.
       | 
       | > Monuments built by the Nazis stand alongside those built by and
       | for their victims. It is comparable to placing a photo of Yad
       | Vashem alongside images of Albert Speer's Zeppelinfeld, as if
       | they were the same thing.
       | 
       | Because they are the same thing. It's grandiose architecture
       | commissioned by 20th century autocrats.
       | 
       | > a major problem is also the depoliticised framing of the
       | monuments. Left without any indication of what they commemorate,
       | or even of who designed them, the results are "deliberately
       | oblivious" to the anti-fascist struggle that they commemorate
       | 
       | As it should be. Don't get fooled by the article author tentative
       | to rehabilitate and separate socialist art from the rest.
       | Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian even when they are
       | communist.
        
         | peoplefromibiza wrote:
         | > socialist art from the rest. Totalitarian regimes are
         | totalitarian even when they are communist.
         | 
         | Setting aside the fact that socialism and communism are not
         | exactly the same thing, this simplification of yours is wrong.
         | 
         | Would you say that the Colosseum, the Altare della Patria, and
         | the obelisk with the inscription 'Dux' referring to Mussolini,
         | all monuments that can still be visited in Rome today, are the
         | same thing because they were all built long before Italy was a
         | democratic Republic?
        
           | RandomThoughts3 wrote:
           | > Setting aside the fact that socialism and communism are not
           | exactly the same thing, this simplification of yours is
           | wrong.
           | 
           | Nothing to set aside and nothing wrong here. Socialist
           | realism was the official art doctrine of the USSR - _guess
           | what the second S is for_ - and it's usual to call all art
           | commissioned by the socialist states as socialist art. Tito
           | and his regime were definitely communist however. But let's
           | brush aside this part of your comment.
           | 
           | Would do you good to actually be right when you want to take
           | this kind of tone, just saying.
           | 
           | > Would you say that the Colosseum, the Altare della Patria,
           | and the obelisk with the inscription 'Dux' referring to
           | Mussolini, all monuments that can still be visited in Rome
           | today, are the same thing because they were all built long
           | before Italy was a democratic Republic?
           | 
           | But certainly, yes, in more way than one.
           | 
           | Obviously, contrary to the structures mentioned in the
           | article and which are the object of my comment, they were not
           | built at the same time so they share different architecture
           | characteristics but they do share some common purpose.
           | 
           | So yes, despite your argument being completely unrelated to
           | what's being discussed, I wouldn't be shocked to see them
           | juxtaposed in an architectural book for sure.
        
             | peoplefromibiza wrote:
             | > Would do you good to actually be right
             | 
             | As the rule of this web site states _Please respond to the
             | strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says,
             | not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize. Assume good
             | faith_
             | 
             | As a matter of fact, I don't know about you, but I come
             | from a communist political tradition which is different
             | from the socialist one, the two split in 1921 you can call
             | them both socialists but their stories are not _exactly_
             | the same thing, notice the emphasis on exactly.
             | 
             | USSR was a travesty of communism, it was state capitalism
             | in disguise and some of the leaders of the communist party
             | of my country told that to the Russians you can look up the
             | most notable one, Enrico Berlinguer, his opinions and his
             | acts of political bravery.
             | 
             | To put it simply: Erich Honecker, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che
             | Guevara, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev
             | had very different ideas on what socialism was and and how
             | to implement it (and in fact we talk about Stalinism,
             | Maosim, Titoism, all different ways to interpret the
             | Marxism-Leninism which is the more correct definition
             | here).
             | 
             | you simply missed the context which is Europe of the past
             | century, not the perceived idea of socialism through the
             | modern media.
             | 
             | > I wouldn't be shocked to see them juxtaposed in an
             | architectural book for sure.
             | 
             | You are wrong my friend.
             | 
             | They are not the same thing because one represent the
             | grandiose empire that once roamed on the same soil we
             | Italians were born and raised on and its history span over
             | 2 millenia, a lot of things happened to it and around it to
             | the point that it is just a symbol of the city of Rome now
             | and nothing else, the second it's actually named Vittoriano
             | but it has become known as Altare della patria because
             | after world war 1 the _Unknown Soldier_ was buried there as
             | a memorial of the soldiers that died during the war, the
             | last one is a vanity project of one of the worst dictators
             | that ever lived and we kept it because our historians
             | believe that even the history we don 't like preserve our
             | shared memories and can lead people to not make the same
             | mistakes of the past.
             | 
             | The intent is as important if not more than just the
             | architecture.
             | 
             | Most of us Romans care more about the statue of Pasquino
             | and Giordano Bruno than St. Peter's because they mean
             | something to us and represent who we are and why we are the
             | way we are, even though St. Peters is obviously a lot more
             | popular. Another example is The D'Annunzio mausoleum and
             | residence, Vittoriale degli Italiani, despite being a
             | wonderful place to visit, it sparks controversy due to
             | Gabriele D'Annunzio's association with and influence on the
             | early fascist movement in Italy.
             | 
             | Again intent and purpose have meaning too in arts.
        
               | RandomThoughts3 wrote:
               | Before I even bother replying, to come back to my
               | original point, the fact that the communists are out in
               | full force to defend the article confirms to me that the
               | point of it is only tangentially related to art and as
               | everything to do with Tito rehabilitation which is nearly
               | as abhorrent to me as actually believing in communism.
               | 
               | > USSR was a travesty of communism, it was state
               | capitalism in disguise and some of the leaders of the
               | communist
               | 
               | Come on. Even for a teenager, that would be cliche.
               | 
               | I don't really see anything in the rest of your comment
               | which I really want to dignify with a detailed reply. It
               | is an unconvincing answer to a point I never made
               | considering being similar is not being the same.
               | 
               | I'm genuinely amazed anyone could qualify the Roman
               | Empire and its diverse history as grandiose however
               | especially someone who fancies themselves communist (or
               | maybe I am not and both actually come from the same lack
               | of critical reading of history - would somehow make
               | sense).
               | 
               | I'm definitely not your friend however.
        
       | pacija wrote:
       | Ovene Srbine, neka si im rekao istinu svaka chast! Svi su ovi
       | spomenitsi u setshanje na zhrtve fashistichkog terora, a ne za
       | lajkove i klikove. Pobedili smo fashiste onomad, i pobeditshemo
       | ikh ponovo!
        
         | 082349872349872 wrote:
         | I'm guessing that's the sr., not the hr. version? (certainly
         | not the en.)
         | 
         | PS. looking at the girl who accompanies Mme Dion from taxi to
         | stage at the start of
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CwpCNThO4 : was her outfit a
         | yugoslav school uniform?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-09-08 23:01 UTC)