I have been wanting to write a blog about one particular subject matter that had particularly bothered me for a while now, simply because of the presumptuousness behind the actions. That would be the destruction of important historical sites. It has happened in particular in unstable regimes in the Islamic world in recent years.
Now, don't get me wrong. This is not an anti-Islamic rant, or any such thing. This is particularly geared towards intolerance of all sorts towards anything that does not happen to reinforce one's own beliefs, and Christians certainly were guilty of that throughout history. Mexico City has a church built out of Mayan ruins, if memory serves correctly. Many wonderful, beautiful, and priceless historical sites have been damaged or destroyed because of intolerance, and usually, this has been religious of a sort.
Sometimes, it is simply neglecting to acknowledge the greatness of a place, such as the Great Zimbabwe, which was fairly well known, but which many whites in particular simply passed by, refusing to acknowledge the importance of, because it might get in the way of viewing blacks in Africa as completely uncivilized and barbaric, and in need of whites civilizing them. Perhaps that falls under the category of racism, rather than religious intolerance. Either way, they both fall under the same kind of ignorance and presumed superiority, don't they?
Yesterday, I wrote about what seems to have been the greatest year of change and monumental events during my lifetime, 1989. The seemingly simultaneous revolutions that swept through Eastern Europe and ended the historical dominance of the Soviet Union in it's traditional sphere of influence in the latter half of the twentieth century was unlike anything else that had really been seen in recent history.
But the closest thing to that that I have seen might have transpired last year, during the so-called "Arab Spring", when, once again, revolutions broke out simultaneously in several different countries at more or less the same time. It began with one man burning himself in protest in Tunisia, and then spread to Egypt, to Libya, to Yemen, and several other nations. One of them includes Syria, where the struggle continues, and has erupted into outright civil war, seemingly.
I will not focus this blog on those events, so much as on one particular outcome of the war in Syria, perhaps an unintended consequence of the conflict. It was an event that almost everyone could agree was terrible, and both sides blamed the other for it. No matter that nobody wanted credit for it, it did nevertheless happen. Is happening.
I am talking about the destruction of a historical site. It is not the first time that this has happened in the Islamic world. Hopefully, however, it will be the last, but time will tell.
In 2001, it was the Bamayan Buddhas in Afghanistan, during the days of the Taliban rule. Earlier this year, it was Timbuktu, towards the end of the takeover of Muslim extremists in Mali. Now, it is the ancient marketplace of Aleppo, the historical souk district, which was a UNESCO world heritage site.
The extent of the damage to these historical places of beauty is truly staggering, and of course, the damage is permanent.
Sure, there was talk of the possibility of rebuilding afterwards. But really, how can you blow up statues that are well over one hundred feet, and then simply rebuild them after the fact?
Now, of course there are aspects of these events that I will not presume to understand. I am not from any of these places, and there are reasons for everything, right? How can I possibly know what it would be like to live in a country like Afghanistan, that has known war now for so long, that perhaps most of the population never could remember a time when the nation was at peace. I don't know what it would be like to live in an African nation like Mali, which is mostly covered by the Sahara Desert, and to have a historical site like Timbuktu within the nation's borders, nor what it would truly be like to see a civil war break out, and see the nation taken over by a group of young, militant Islamists, who subsequently began to destroy that historical place? Can you imagine living in a place like Syria, which was stifled by a violent dictator, or President for life (which basically translates to the same thing)? President Bashar al-Assad is known for his brutality, but then again, so was his father, who was President/dictator beforehand. They both relied on a heavy hand to rule over their nation, and when challenged, like Assad was challenged during last year's "Arab Spring", he turned towards violence as the answer. Just lately, Turkey seems to have gotten involved, so that Syria's civil war now truly has the possibility of spreading outwards, allowing the instability to grow. It's hard to imagine living under such circumstances.
Yet, some people most assuredly do live like that. Many are fighting, and they are indeed brave. We have seen just how ruthless Assad has been, in slaughtering his own people, essentially. More recently, the old, historical marketplace of Aleppo was at least in large part burned to the ground and destroyed. It will probably never be the same again. It is not clear who is responsible, as both sides blame the other. Yet, someone is responsible, and it is hard to imagine the level of arrogance and hatred that must have been involved by whomever was responsible.
Once these places are gone, they are gone. It's not like we can simply rebuild them, and they will be the same as they were. Their destruction becomes part of the history and legacy of these places, and that is truly horrible. On top of the suffering that the people of these nations have to endure, and that those responsible are making people go through, they are also seemingly saying that they have the final say in history, that perhaps everything in the region's history was mere prelude to this moment. For example, in Afghanistan, the Taliban felt that it was not only their right, but their duty, to leave their imprint on the nation. In following their course of extreme interpretation of Islam, women essentially lost all of their rights and became relegated to second class citizens, losing their right to vote, to go to school, to dress freely, and to even go outside and do what they wanted without a man's approval. Men had to grow out their beards to a certain length. In the last year of Taliban rule, those who were not Muslims (granted, there were not many by that point) had to wear identifying yellow markers, much like Jews had to wear the yellow Star of David during the days of Nazism in Europe. Not only did the Taliban do all of that, but they blew up the Buddha statues in Bamiyan, as well, under the pretense that they were icons of another religion, and thus anti-Islam. Never mind their historical value, which was priceless. Never mind the possibility that future generations could benefit by seeing that Afghanistan was more, and had more to offer, than the Taliban allowed Afghans to see at that time.
We can see pictures of the Buddha statues these days, but they are gone now, destroyed. There was talk of rebuilding them some time ago, but frankly, how realistic is that? It's hard to imagine.
The same can be said for those other sites, now destroyed. They're not coming back. Arrogant or not, when these places are destroyed, it is meant to be forever.
Yes, it is hard for me, who has always known the relative stability of living in a wealthy Western nation, to imagine living in such places. Hard for me, also, to understand the religious hard-line mindset, of the fire and brimstone variety, when that was never something that I believed in. That is certainly not restricted to the Middle East or the Islamic world. There are plenty of Bible Thumpers and such here in the United States. It's hard for me to imagine being able to relate to some of my own countrymen, as far as that goes. I mean, really, who can take someone like Pat Robertson seriously? Who could take one of those doomsday prophets seriously, after the end of the world did not come in May of last year, and when the new date, scheduled last October, proved not to be the end of the world, either? Wasn't it clear that no one was supposed to know the exact hour, after all? Yet, we all want to know the answer definitively, and it takes such arrogance.
Throughout the Muslim world, there were protests, often violent, against a b-rated movie made in the United States that is, evidently, anti-Islamic. It was considered blasphemous, and sparked all sorts of outrage and protests. There was also a French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, which published cartoons which added some fuel to the fire, evidently. I will not presume to understand the mindset of people (I believe they are in the minority of these countries) who feel that a b-movie that most Americans had never heard of, and would never have heard of had it not been for these protests, necessarily translates to an entire nation being anti-Islamic, and then demanding that America prove that it is not against Islam by banning the movie. Whether or not they like or understand it, the United States does have free speech, and such a film is protected. Same with France and those cartoons. There is nothing saying that they cannot show these things, yet the protesters in those countries want to force the hand of the West, and essentially make them show signs of respect towards Islam, towards Allah? Many of those protests turned violent, and quite a few of the protesters seemed filled with hatred. Is that supposed to get people to look at their religion with renewed interest and understanding? I'm not sure I understand the situation, because it seems that there would have to be more to this story than this.
All that said, what I do understand is that there is absolutely no excuse for the destruction of historical sites, particularly by temporary regimes who probably understand only too well the temporary nature of their power, and decide to have a more permanent impact. Like Hitler towards the end, who once he understood that he would not be considered the world's hero and liberator, instead went the other way, and decided that if he would be seen as a destroyer, he would go down as the most destructive man the world had ever seen. Hitler wanted to destroy everything that he could, and much of Germany lay in rubble as a result. Some of those places were historically priceless, and it constituted nothing short of a crime. On top of the millions of lives that he destroyed, and the millions of others that he disrupted, he left a permanent mark based upon what he physically destroyed. After World War II and the Holocaust, there was a strong sentiment among many that "Never Again" would such suffering be allowed to happen.
Well, that ended up being a lie, of course. There was such suffering, in places like Biafra, Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, and elsewhere - and that does not even include the massive starvations in Africa and Asia. It might not have been through death camps, as happened in the Holocaust. But human beings turning away from the suffering of other human beings is, unfortunately, a reality throughout history.
The destruction of historical sites constitutes suffering and deprivation on another level, as well. It might not be hurting people, specifically, yet it is nothing short of a crime. Hitler and the Nazis made a point of destroying historical sites to suit their own purposes. Perhaps, we could imagine, that "Never Again" could be applied to such actions, as well. Places of historical richness can remind us that there were other times, and that some things will continue to stand, to see better times. When they are destroyed, it is not just the physical place that is destroyed, but hope for a better future itself. It is a shame that, on a more limited level, this is an aspect of history that seems to continually be repeated, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment