 |  |  |  |
Victoria Park controversy
Submitted by amelia does on February 6, 2007 - 2:40pm.
tags:
Hello
I am researching the history of London's Vic park for an art project. I want to hear from fellow londoners:
- What would you change about the park?
- Any interesting stories relating to the park and its events?
my main point of interest is drawing attention to 2 of the park's FIVE war monuments: the canons and the Boer War statue. Neither of these wars have a significance ot London and both were British colonial attacks, why are we celelbrating or tolerating this awful regime in our park?
- Did any of you know the history of those monuments? do you think they belong in our park?
I have similar problem with the tank, which was brought in in 1950 and is lovingly referred to as the Holy Roller. This to me is rediculous, but it seems to fit right in in a city where tanks are manufactured.
- What do you think of the tank?
one last note: There are two groups who I think deserve monuments in this park:
1) the First Nations peoples who have shared the land with colonizers and immigrants. I am trying to get feedback on a way to talk about this subject that will be appropriate and progressive.
2) in 1855 over 700 escaped slaves took refuge in the old army barracks at the park. I think a monument to the underground railroad (those who made the journey and those who helped) would be a much more positive and relevant monument than 3 giant canons that destroyed a Russian village 150 years ago for the glory of Britain.
feedback please!
No votes yet
Trackback URL for this post:
http://londoncommons.net/trackback/2059
a permanent reminder
Jim Taylor, writer of the column 'Across County Lines', wrote a piece in todays LFP about the tanks as memorials, called "Tanks for the Memories". He talks about the value of the tanks and an exchange program involving Gr. 8 students between London and Courseulles-sur-mer, located on a shore in France all Canadians know as Juno beach.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Across_County_Lines/Taylor_Jim/2006/11/08/2276695.html
Support the those darn troops, ok?
Thanks for the link to the artical and for keeping up interest in this discussion Anthony. After reading it I am not sure what to think about veterans educating children. Frankly I have spent the past few months removing dozens of yellow ribbons from cars, vans and SUVs that seem to be rampant in this apparently military-loving city. An eleven year old girl I know was wearing a support the troops t shirt and I asked her why, and she said "they are peace-keeping". The troops slogans, symbols and propaganda started of course in the US and has bled into this country. Most of us do not really understand the war, or any war for that matter, although we seem to have strong enough feelings about it (without ever experiencing it ourselves) to take part in a senseless advertizing campaign. We have a simplified good guy bad guy mentality because we do not experience war's complexity from our new cars and warm houses.
If children are being given tshirts to support troops without understanding the complexity of war, and adults contunue to plaster american-inspired propaganda on their pollution mobiles we are not getting it. These incidents may seem harmless but I am beginning to think that the homogenous symbol, the yellow ribbon, is a lot more dangerous than it appears to be. Support the troops should not be aligned with REAL causes such as AIDS and cancer (red and pink ribbons). The real cause behind the yellow ribbon has become too obscure. Does it mean:
Help keep up good morale (respect and glory) for soldiers sacrficing their lives ?
Perhaps they should be saying:
Bring the troops home ?
Here is what i think it means:
1. the soldiers are our heroes, (the same way a cop who shoots an indian (dudley george) and then dies in a car accident is a hero).
2. the soldiers need to go out into the world and do something, so that makes them brave, no matter what it is they are actually doing (romanitic)
3. canadians are just as important as amercians (so lets align ourselves with our bigger tougher brother)
what do you think?
Amelia writing as Amelia
Thanks everyone for cominuting the debate. I would like to respond to two of your comments:
Calien your post is f-ing brilliant and hilarious.
Justin: you seem to be uncomfortable with artists questioning monuments in the park. This discussion is one (very important) aspect of thr REASEARCH going into my project about the. I have also been reading and taking materials directly from City sources to use for the work.
If anyone is uncomfortable with somehow unqualified artists who have never served for the military commenting on our public space then here are a few other labels to consider me under before you call me an artist:
female
diasbled
poor
university graduate
professional documentary film producer and consultant
Londoner for 23 years
Canadian
babysitter
Thanks everyone!
Amelia - It's not that I'm
Amelia - It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it. I was just blowing off steam about some overtly political art that I've seen. I'm just saying that if one is creating political art that is intended to engage people and have them take it seriously then it would be in one's best interest to ensure that the work can be vigorously defended.
Also, not saying you're unqualified, man! Sounds like you're really getting into this, it'll be interesting to see! Please let the Commons know if/when you're going to exhibit!
I'm an artist who was
I'm an artist who was honourably discharged from the Canadian Forces about 40 years ago. My take on this is that the monuments are dated and passe. I mean, really, cannon from the Crimean war? Who are there left to honour apart from a generic sense that once people fought and died in the Crimea? This wasn't even a Canadian conflict. The war took place between 1854 and 1856. Confederation took place in 1867. The tank is clearly a WWII war machine most likely attributable to the First Hussars a regiment located here in London. A monument to the Boer war is similarly out of place. Yes, the British Empire did engage the Boers in S.A. in the late 1890s, and yes, Canada had come into being (but, still at that time a Dominion of Britain), but how is that conflict relevant today? WWII was to be, it was said at the time, a war to end all wars. Hmmm, it didn't seem to go that way. If we are to have war memorials, why not ones that are at least commerative of a more modern Canadian experience of international conflict?
My vote would be to provide statuary and memorials to peace, not war. Peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace denotes an entire range of international responses that Canada is not altogether on-board with. Aid and the exportation of appropriate technologies is not notable in this country. Instead of a maiden passing a wreath of some sort up to a male sapper, why not a memorial to some great Canadian peace advocate?
As others have pointed out, and as a father of three, I dispair of the tendency of children to play on an obsolete weapon of destruction. Were it my call, I would keep the cenotaph as a memorial to all soldiers, but clear out the other junk to make way for more enlightened artwork.
Cheers
Charles
******************
ART MATTERS!!!
The New is Now!!!
Modern Art Rules!!
I like your post too,
I like your post too, Cailen. Have you ever seen the work of Artist Anitra Hamilton? You can google her and I think you would find her work most interesting. Take a look at her "bomb ride."
Cheers
Charles
ps, thanks Amelia for letting me "play through."
******************
ART MATTERS!!!
The New is Now!!!
Modern Art Rules!!
Anitra Hamilton
Hey Charles, thanks for suggesting Atintra Hamilton, I really like the work I've seen of her's on the internet. The bomb ride makes me think of that scene from Dr. Strangelove where the guy rides the bomb near the end. I'm also enjoying these new pieces you're posting, I'd like to see some more of your work. I hope you've got some shows coming up in the near future!
Bomb Ride
Anitra is tres cool! I actually saw a website posting about her in which the image of Maj. King Kong is shown departing from the B52 by way of nuclear (nukular?) vehicle. I believe the ride actually functions and it costs$2 per ride.
She also covers hand grenades with egg shells and she has her famous "sachel gallery" that she carries around with her. In it is is found various pieces by artist friends. If you track her down, she will show you what's in the bag.
I am currently in the Minitures Show at the Art Exchange on Wortly road. There are two works of mine, both tiny "constructed images." I don't have any other local exhibitions scheduled at this time, however, I will be in a group show in June in Toronto at the ACA Gallery, Queen W. at Jarvis. It is actually a few doors east of Jarvis on the south side. I will be having another show at the Landon Library about this time next year, and I will be exhibiting a few works at the RSF. I am also working on a few other opportunities to show.
These latest works are being prepared for "Contact," Toronto's annual photographic expo. I'm submitting a package to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority in conjunction with that event. I will post all my upcoming shows here.
Thanks again, Cailen, for the positive input and if you ever need anything for a poster, just let me know.
Cheers
Charles
******************
ART MATTERS!!!
The New is Now!!!
Modern Art Rules!!
get rid of the tank and the cannons!
i have a big problem with the tank and the cannons. they're so LAST CENTURY! i say out with the old and in with the new! i really think we need some more up-to-date weapons of mass destruction showcased in victoria park. i remember being a little kid hanging out on the "holy roller" when glass tiger played the park years and years ago. no one wants to listen to glass tiger these days and i'm sure no one wants to see an ancient 1940's tank looking all old and ugly either. let's get with the times whether it's symbolic or not. how about getting some of those fashionable cruise missiles the americans used to bomb afghanistan? or how about a mock up of the nuclear warheads north korea detinated? i wouldn't be caught dead seen near the "holy roller" these days, but i'd love to rock out at sunfest standing on a nuclear warhead!
death machine fashion tips for 2007:
i like the colours on this one
extra fins for extra peace keeping
this anti aircraft gun could help control the squirrel population but we might have to turn it off for the balloon fest
[This is Thomas accidently posting under Amelia's profile]
[This is Thomas accidently posting under Amelia's profile]
BRILLIANT! I'm all for it.
Or, if we even want to remain last century, we could satirically put an atom/hydrogen bomb in the park. Maybe, then, people would know what our civilization has stood for. How WWII was supposedly finally won by dropping two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, comprised of innocent civilians.
We could even ask, London artist, Joseph Hubbard to use the atom bomb replicas that he made for his WMDs AND PARANOIA exhibit.
Tank
The tank never made me insane, wanting to kill, or think the military runs the show. Had no influence over me becoming an Officer or anything like that. All I did was think that was what they fought with in WW2, and left it at that. I guess in thought of what the majority is suggesting here, to me if that is the way its going to be, might as well get rid of guns for Police Officers. It’s a symbol of violence; especially with the heightened crime rates in London through armed robberies and the like.
Hey Darren,I totally agree
Hey Darren,
Sorry I should have been more specific.
I totally agree with you that it has different effect on everyone.
The problem I raised is that the tank is simply being there without a description of the fact that the tank was used to shoot people, destroy houses, and driven over soldeirs, so children can play around it or sit on it, but cannot comprenhend what really is.
Again,every parents educate their children in different ways,but at the same time, to generalize, I think the majority of children (especially male) are likely to be exposed to war videogames or toys (guns,tanks,etc...), and having spent that age myself,those materials do attract them. It is correlation of such culture and leaving the interpretation of the tank to children.
I'm not opposed to the idea of having it to remind people we will never repeat the horror of the war with memories of veterans, but I believe it is our responsiblity to educate children that it exists for such reason.
Moreover,I personally would love to see Police Officers with no guns. It is nothing but a symbol of violence indeed. Sad reality but I think one of the reason London is experiencing the high crime rate is because of increasing social/economical inequality that drives people to such activities, and I must wonder why the goverment spend their money for bombs rather than improving social services to prevent such violence.
Kota
"IT IS A DEATH MACHINE"...
the new "No Blood For Oil"? The thing that pisses me off about most overtly political art is that there is no impetus for any sort of robust research methodology, and, combined with the "everything I say is special" arrogance of the typical artist (and I'm saying this as an artist myself), most of it comes off as either vituperative and didactic or mushy and uninformed.
If artists want people to take them seriously then they have to treat their work seriously as well. You should be able to vigorously and logically defend your work. All the bullshit "divinely inspired" attitudes have to go. Let it die out with the billions of idiots still painting ab-ex shit and thinking it's still relevant.
tank
In my opinion, what we must recgonize is the culture that we live in today, where children can easily access to violent video games,Bullywood (did I spell it right?) films, and news media.
I think the tank in the public space could have much effect on children who are constatly exposed to such culture.
Therefore I believe the tank should be removed unless the city provide more information for children to be educated about what exactly it did rather than unclear idleness of it.
Kota
out on a limb
Those who fought and died are of course special citizens. Although I think that we over-glorify what was only a few years, weeks or months of their lives. There are museums and monuments dedicated to veterans and their wars, and also a national day. Ordinary citizens (parents, teacher, workers) who contribute to society usually only get a grave when they die. (Caucasian) Vets are taken care of by the government of Canada for life. They have been celebrated and respected PUBLICLY for decades. I am not proposing that this changes. I am proposing that we citizens need to think critically about the monuments. There is no need to suggest that anyone here is missing the point of the monuments: ie to remember the dead. Is one day a year not enough to remember wars that were faught sixty years ago and more? Rememberance day is a part of our culture and will be for a long time.
This debate had stirred some interesting opinions and ideas. The monuments need to be questionned because they represent important ideas, ideas that can be destructive, arrogant, old-fashioned and dangerous. The Boer war monument and the canons represent a fascist regime comprable to ancient Rome, Nazi Germany and presently the American forceful intsallation of 'democractic' rule in other countries.
I do not have the power to take the tank out of the park. It belongs in a War Museum, not in a place where we celeberate life, culture and nature and where children play. My task as an artist is to re-imagine and to transform. The park was originally a military garrison, then the city bought the land to transform it into a walking garden, and it was a place where bands played almost daily for many years. It is an inportant part of London that should be a place for all people to express themselves. But it is a limited space that will change. Should change occur at least we can say that we have an opinion about it. Lets not forget also that it is a home to plants, trees and animals, and a shelter to (most unwelcomed) homeless Londoners and travellers from time to time. It is a gathering place, it is Public Space, and therefore should reflect the desires of the public body.
If any of you are pissed about my apparent disrespect for the military I have two words for you: Ipperwash and Christiania.
Like Victoria Park, these two places were once home to abandonned military bases. Christiania is a self-governing neighborhood community in Denmark (Copenhagen). Ipperwash was of course Native land until the government took part of it by force to use as a military base. The land was never given back and as a result a police officer shot and killed a man named Dudley George.
HOW ABOUT A MONUMENT THAT IS NOT A DEATH MACHINE!
ideas?
Perhaps you need not add
Perhaps you need not add yet another monument to the park. If the present monuments are perceived as celebrating death machines or the cult of militarism a more effective tatic may be the detournment of monuments already in the park. This aim could be be readily achieved without the risky proposition of directly altering altering the monuments themselves (and inviting the wrath of the community).
------------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush
NEW Monuments/More public art!
Thanks for the comment Alex. That was apart of the original post. I'd like to see people's perspectives on what other monuments they might want in the park. I'd personally like to see some more public art and some monuments regarding the issues of diversity and solidarity.
This post unfortunately has become overwhelmed a little too much with the discussion of the tank, but perhaps it needed to happen. I mean that I'm definitely glad this discussion occured.
detournment
Could you explain 'detournment' for those of us who may not be as familiar with art theory or the Situationist International?
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Sure thing, In brief,
Sure thing,
In brief, detournment is short for the reuse (negation and subversion) of preexisting aesthetic elements. One of my favourite examples is Situationist filmmaker Rene Vienet’s film “Can Dialectics Break Bricks?” which is simply an overdubbed kung-fu film that explores the ideas of resolving conflict though dialogue rather than violence, class struggle, spectator-spectacle relationship (available on UbuWeb) – and its pretty damn funny to boot! A great contemporary example of detournment are the surveillance camera players of new york. As the name suggests they are a group that uses the city’s growing surveillance isystem to stage plays (such as 1984) using printed placards and a few props and additionally provides informational tours of areas of the city under surveillance. In an interview I did with Brown a few years back he provided a good description of the way in which the SCP uses the tactic of detournment:
“One of the successes or striking features of the SCP is that the group proves (yet again) the incredible value and productivity of Situationist concepts and uses of détournement […] Everything about a typical SCP performance is detourned: the stage is produced by detourning the purpose of the cameras; the plays are either détournements of existing literature (Beckett's Godot produced with no words) or détournements of certain existing concepts (God's Eyes on Earth).”
So detournment could be something as simple as say, adding a swing to the end of a tank barrel - otherwise making use or subverting an object, space etc. for a purpose other than what is intended.
------------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush
A thousand "Thank you very much"s
Thank you very much...
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Frankly I find this
Frankly I find this conversation disturbing. Here is what happens when you remove such items from the park. The senior citizens of this city uproar. Ever been to the Vet Hospital near Victoria? Go and talk with those people and ask them what you plan to do. I know for a fact (since I've talked with them many times) they would not agree. Those are the people that should make that kind of decision. Not people who havent been in combat, been in a military uniform ,etc.
why?
Why do you think that is a decision only to be left up to combat soldiers? This public space is community property. I have no direct problem with the men who are in the military. It is the political forces that use these men for aggressive, violent, profiteering motives that cause me rage at the continued glorification of killing and dying for your country. It is the sympathy for the recipients of our military force that makes me question how we can continue to convince ourselves of the need for war. It is not common men who tend to benefit from war, and they pay the cost in blood and money.
A proposal
If the tank (etc) stay in the park, why not put up a very visible sign beside each of these war-related objects that says "war is hell" or "war is bloody murder" or "no more horrible military bloodbaths" or "peace now!"
Such a sign would show respect for the dead -- in my opinion.
Meanings
What do the tank, the War Man statue, etc. in Victoria Park mean to most people who see them? (Not "most" London Commons users; "most" people period.)
Surely the many people who pass through or near to Victoria Park form a lot of different impressions about the war-related objects in the park, but are some impressions more common than others? Some views about the tank (etc) have been posted to this thread, but how typical are these views?
What the tank (etc) mean to the few of us here on the London Commons isn't very important, in my opinion. What matters -- to me, anyway -- is how most people react to the war-related objects in the park.
I find the tank to be
I find the tank to be disturbing. I guess, for me, the fact that there is not playground and so children play on a tank upsets me on several levels. I am a feminist mama of a boy and I don't want him to beleive that war and fighting are good or even normal things (normal in the sense of being "natural"). I beleive in teaching children, especially boy children, to value peace, cooperation, fairness and to be critical of war and violence (but in this context especially male violence which in our society is too often directed against women). I find it visually disturbing to see children play on something that is used to murder people. I think it desensitizes children to war machinery: my kids have no idea what it is but some children play with war toys, play war video games, and watch news with images of war.
When my family moved to London, Victoria Park was our closest park and we had no place for Eli to play (I do not let him play on the tank). That doesn't create a sense of community for families who live centrally. In my opinion, it really sucks. I would rather see a playground than a tank in Victoria Park!
Victoria Park
Roland Parris
Victoria Park was originally a Garrison of British soldiers to defend Canada from the Americans. When the Garrison was removed it became a park named after Queen Victoria.
The canon were from the Crimean war in the mid 1850's when the British allied to the French went to war with the Russians. The Russian canon were likely captured and would have been considered trophies of war. The Canadian colonists of that time would have been primarily of British origin in Ontario ( a part of Upper Canada the other part being Quebec ). The brits would have been proud of being a part of the empire and would have considered it an honour to receive the canon. The Crimean war was when Florence Nightingale took over the hospitals for the sick and wounded of the war and established the ground rules for modern day nursing and nurses
The Tank in the park is a Sherman named for an American civil war general and was used by the !st Hussars on D-Day and the liberation of France in 1944. The hussars whose history goes back to mid 19th century used to ride horses but they graduated to tanks. The ironic name given by the soldiers who rode the tanks were " Ronsons" (is that cigarette lighter still used? ), gasoline powered they had a nasty habit of going up in flames when hit by enemy fire, if you survived being hit the chances were that you would severely burned.
The Boer War memorial is to a war between the British and the Boers who were Dutch, it was a war to decide which group of colonists would control South Africa. After a couple of years of fighting the resolve was that both groups shared power and ruled the Blacks. As during the the Crimean war the Canadians were Pro British participated on their side and erected a memorial for those who died in the war.
I believe that the memorials should stay as they represent a reminder of a period of history when the vast majority of Canadians were proud of being a part of the Empire and gladly participated in it's wars. They should be used not to glorify war but as tangible evidence of how evil empires are and how foolish it is for Canadians to be a part of the American empire and to join them in going to war.
response and thanks
Thanks for your input everyone. I can’t help but respond and I hope you are not offended.
First, what I meant by the First Nations people who share the land with colonizers and immigrants is this: certainly people indigenous to this continent did not choose to be colonized, controlled, robbed and murdered. The Canadian government continues to disrespect these people in so many ways. The government should not exist in the way that it does, assuming absolute control over people and place. Some day I hope we will form people’s governments to coexist peacefully, but alas I am no politician and can’t speak further here on this subject.
Why we love the tank
-it has always been there as a part of our park (familiarity)
-it is a reminder of those who gave their lives in WW2 (and WW1)
-we are strangely afraid of change
Why we should not love the tank:
-it is a death machine
-it is not and never will be a peacekeeping mechanism, it is a giant moving gun
-the very same death machines that are being used in the middle east RIGHT NOW to destroy people and cities are being manufactured by General Dynamics here in London
-its presence creates passivity and complacency towards war because it is largely regarded as a plaything for kids and a piece of furniture in the leisure setting
-to change our (London’s) trademark: conservative values, complacent attitudes
-do we have a gas chamber or a guillotine in a park? The tank is a SYMBOL of MAN’s power over NATURE (perfect in a landscape setting!) and fellow MAN and woman, the perfect killing machine: invincible. It represents capitalism and our technocratic values.
The city and the park is a place to observe nature and to celebrate life, so it should reflect who we are and what we value. If we desire to sit in a park with a death machine and three canons pointed at our children because it reminds us of our departed soldiers then I am clearly living in the wrong country. I appreciate the Cenotaph because it is a monument that is observed, a remembering ritual that people participate in yearly. It is an appropriate and healthy aspect of our lives.
My mother is Dutch and therefore I especially appreciate the new monument to the liberation of the Netherlands. I had an uncle, her brother, die for the Dutch Army in the war with Indonesia, a colonial war on Indigenous peoples just like the Boer war. The Boer war was not fought by Canadians to save peoples lives (like WW1 And 2) it was part of Britain’s century-old destructive colonial regime. Again, why do we tolerate monuments that breed complacency towards war?
A friend of mine who is gay once told me that he is offended by the Boer war statue because it is so patriarchal and hyper-heterosexual. Why is a woman dressed like an ancient goddess reaching up to touch a full uniformed soldier walking with a huge f-ing gun?
Holy Roller and Holland, then off on a tangent or two...
You mentioned your appreciation of the liberation of the Netherlands... Holy Roller was actually a part of that. I don't mean in some sort of abstract 'helping to win the war' sort of context, but in actually in being a part of pushing the German's out of The Netherlands. Chaam, the Lower Maas, the area around Nijmegen, Keppeln and Apeldoorn were all places where Holy Roller would have been present.
You also mentioned that "it is not and never will be a peacekeeping mechanism, it is a giant moving gun". well...
That's a French tank on UN Peace keeping duties in Lebanon near the end of the recent Israeli-Lebanese war, blocking Israeli vehicles from penetrating further into Lebanon. It's one of the most modern and powerful tanks in the world for that matter. Part of Peace Keeping is the threat of force: In that either the Peace-Keeping force will use force to prevent one side from passing through the Peace-Keepers to attack the other side, or that an attack on the Peace-Keepers will result in retaliation from their home-country or the armed forces of other nations. Armoured Fighting Vehicles like this and others, such as LAVs that were built here in London, are as much a reality of Peace-Keeping as they are of War-making.
This discussion sort of leads me into something I was thinking about a few days ago. Over the past couple of years, I've had the opportunity to participate in a few workshops that included an exercise that many of you are probably familiar with: An imaginary line is drawn down the middle of a room, with one wall representing Extreme Violent Action, and the opposite wall representing Non-Violent Action. As a scenario is read, participants are asked to move to a spot in the room that reflect where they believe the action would fall on this scale of violence. The thought that occurred to me that it would be interesting to add a second axis to this, and ask people to rate the actions based on where they perceive them between being justifiable and reprehensible at the same time as they move along the violence/non-violence axis. So, if the north and south wall of a room represent extreme violence and non-violence respectively, the east and west walls would represent justifiability and reprehensibleness (it's sort of like the difference between the political spectrum and the political compass). I think the same sort of analysis could be used here.
Or, are there diffrences between 'Violence' and 'Force' (or similar differentiations between violence and something else) that I'm not picking up on?
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Mike, I don't want to get
Mike, I don't want to get into the details of the peace-keeping efforts you speak of because you might very well know the situation better than me.
All I'll try to mention in reply is that I hope you are aware of all the peace-keeping efforts taken in vain, that have been apart of what's euphemistically called "regime change". I'm pretty sure that you're even aware of at least a few of these. But I would like to remind you that war is chaos and that whether you call it National Defense or Peace-Keeping that we are stil talking about War. I have a friend who was stationed in various African states apart of Peace-Keeping efforts. He would tell you without doubt that he was simply yet another tool in a huge game called: neo-colonialism.
One example of euphemism at work (and this is one of 100s):
UN Peace-Keepers are currently involved in regime-change in Haiti right now (American and French forces have been there as well). The other day, UN soldiers managed to kill 28 innocent civlians in cross-fire between them and ... what appears to have been innocent civilians. Peace-Keeping is a euphemism Mike.
I know you know this. These are soldiers, trained to kill if they don't succeed with their limited conflict-resolution skills which are rarely deployed due to the frailty of human perception, especially in situations of war (or "regime-change"). Diplomacy and solidarity are the real solutions at the end of the day, Mike. A new political economy based out of entirely different set of incentives and values will bring about peace in this world.
Take note that the orignal post did not entail: 'let's simply debate the existence of the tank in the park'. Try to imagine, within the limited space, that will change over time, what you want in the park to celebrate what kind of world you want to live in, what you value and respect. Do you want us to celebrate General Dyamics? Do you want us to remember the wars which emerged from the cesspool of colonialism and corproate capitalism with a tank? Don't you think that there might possibly another monument (perhaps artistic or more amiguous) that we could construct to remember such things?
'let's simply debate the
'let's simply debate the existence of the tank in the park' may not be the thrust of the thread, but it was the subject of the post I was responding to. In this instance the perception that a monument or memorial related to War or the Military can only represent Death, Killing and Violence (or militarism). That is one of many opinions of what it represents. To some it represent heroism and sacrifice, to some it can serve as a reminder of our history and evolving attitudes towards War, Violence and Militarism (as Roland points out), and to others it can represent a good place sit and read a book...
I defiantly recognise and concede that there have been failed peace-keeping efforts, and peace-keeping efforts undertaken when the opportunity arose to surreptitiously support nationalist or neo-colonial interests while presenting these efforts as endeavours in peace. But, I don't concede that these examples can be taken to represent the idea or practice of peace-keeping as a whole, or provide enough justification to scrap the idea. A number of incidents where UN peacekeepers were able to be captured and detained because their 'rules of engagement' did not allow them to use their weapons, even in self-defence could be seen as evidence that even soldiers are capable of non-violence when they are told not to fire.
The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't think everything military is militaristic. I think it's a lot less black-and-white then that. Is it morally reprehensible to use force in order to prevent greater violence? Is it morally reprehensible for military force to be used to kick out an occupier? is it morally reprehensible for an outside force to do just that? What are the limits of conflict resolution? Is it always limited to non-violence? and what should happen when Non-Violence fails? Examples as extreme as Rwanda, and as close to home as conflicts that can erupt at the Unity Project are enough to convince me that non-violence cannot always be relied upon exclusively and sometimes intervening in a conflict with force is sometimes necessary to prevent grater violence.
On the subject of the Cannons in the park and the Boer War Memorial, who dose removing these objects from the park erase that history or rectify it? Would another approach be to educate people about what these monuments represent? and about the detrimental affects of Imperialism?
I think there is a difference to be distinguished between a Tank displayed as a memorial, a LAV III displayed as a recruitment tool at the market, and a Stryker rolling through the streets of Najaf. To me, the link between Holy Roller and GDLS is tenuous at best. Also, I don't find attempts to reduce or overly simplify object in the park with epithets like "Death Machine" and "War Man Statue" particularly convincing or helpful to a debate on the future of the park. To be honest, when I see or hear simplistic descriptions like that, my first reaction is to dismiss them as reflecting a lack of understanding to the history and background behind the monuments. I realise it's probably an attempt to convey some strong ideas regarding these objects, but it comes off as almost childish. It's really hard to take seriously.
There's still lots of room in the park, enough for a playground or other monuments and memorials, although they would likely face resistance as did the memorial for the victims of Violence Against Women. The park dose not and is not monopolised by it's military heritage or by military related memorials, they are just part of the park.
For me, commodification of the space contributes more to a Tragedy of the Commons (no pun intended) then the presence of memorials and monuments.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
tanks in a park
I don't think calling a military operation "peacekeeping", will make it any more humane. One side always is being more represented, and the chosen battles are for the sake of powerful interests. The concept is fine, it is in practice that it is extremely prejudiced.
Having tanks in a park is very different from other places. It is accepted as sanctioned, esteemed, and glorified. It convinces people that we are right in our might, and there is no greater glory than to die for your country. This is what makes me sick. If they are in a museum to save the history is fine. To have a memorial to lost lives, without promoting the very undertaking that saw them sacrificed, would be a better honour.
War memoribilia has no place in a public park, if you ask me.
call it a super-happy-fun pillow-fight for all I care...
I don't think call a military operation "peacekeeping" makes it any more humane either. Nor does calling it "liberation", or "rebellion", or "uprising", or "revolution" (or Revolucion for that matter)... What I think does make that difference, are factors like how it's carried out, why it's carried out and what's the likely outcome if it wasn't carried out at all.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
all in a name
My point is pretty close to yours. I agree that calling an operation by any particular name doesn't change the human costs. However, I think the point for me is that in almost all cases, that I'm aware of, it is for elite benefit that these operations are sold to the people under false pretences, under misleading names like 'peacekeeping'. A 'rebellion' 'revolution' or 'uprising' would seem to imply that it is the general population turning this table around. That may not be more humane, and often isn't, but I think that the moral and social justification is lightyears beyond what has been sold to us in recent history. All violence or coercion (authority) must be rigorously questioned and held up for scrutiny and critique.
All about elite intrest?
By all means, enlighten me as to what elite business interests were supported by peacekeeping missions in the Balkans, Cyprus, East Timor, Cambodia, Guatemala, Sudan, Chad, Angola, etc... I realise that in the case of some African countries where peacekeeping has occurred, diamonds and modest oil reserves are present, but these only seem to represent a 'drop in the bucket' of the global economy... Where as Nigeria which sits on one of the worlds largest proven oil reserves, has yet to have peacekeepers on its soil (despite a civil war and numerous coups). What about situations where the lack of intervention (be it peacekeeping or something more aggressive) would result in greater violence or injustice?
No doubt, many many wars and conflicts are fought as extensions of economic imperialism and neo-colonialism. But that doesn't make all conflict the same. Like I said before, I don't believe everything related to the military to be representative of a militaristic doctrine.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
cost/benefit
It is always elite interests. It is a coldly calculated cost/benefit ratio. Always.
The powerful interests across the world extend into areas much more diverse than just oil and diamonds. If you want to understand the nature of power, then watch "the Godfather". Same shit. Washington is Brando. If their guy is in there, human casualties won't factor in until the outside pressure makes it undesirable to continue. The very selection of who gets protection is a farce. There may be a couple of examples in the last century of actual intervention purely for the sake of human suffering, but I'm not aware of any that we have been a part of. And I would bet that if there were, the cynical power interests would be hedging their bets by backing the other side financially. Or outright securing one side's interests. I mean,most of the 'bad places' in the world have been created or allowed to ferment by the western powers, in their own interests. The list of the world's dictators reads like a who's who of American puppet regimes. Think of the Arab dictatorships. It is always in the interests of the, largely American, elites.
[This is Thomas accidently posting under Amelia's profile]
[This is Thomas accidently posting under Amelia's profile]
Mike,
You're are absolutely correct when you state that liberation movements can be justified in using violence. Everything you said about just violence is acceptable. However, I don't think anyone would argue that. What I'm arguing is that the tank should perhaps be in a less central location, perhaps in a museum. In other words, I'd rather see Victory Park adorned with monuments/art celebrating peace and solidarity; the values that I think, as a community, we should all be striving towards.
Monuments and Public Art Installations are artifacts that help civilizations speak to themselves - and to their descendents - about themselves. We should be remaking Victoria Park - and all other public spaces - to the beat of a new tribal drum. We need to outstretch the ways of the colonial/war paradigm, while reaching towards the models of a globally cooperative mileu.
London's mileu must change or apathetically remain inside a corproate/retirement utopia.
Removing reminders of the past is the answer?
So how is it that these reminders of our past don't fit into the idea of our 'civilisation speaking to itself'? Weather it's seen as a 'reminder of triumph' or a 'reminder of past mistakes' is really up to people's own interpretations. It almost seems as if you want to protect people from making their own interpretations about these objects, and replace them with object that will be interpreted in a way more agreeable to a sanitised world view... Is the problem that you don't feel the public at large has the capacity to take a critical look at the history behind these monuments? Don't forget, we're all part of the "80%", but we still educated ourselves and came to our views of what the world can be. I have no doubt that others are capable of doing the same if they choose and if they haven't already.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Memorials
I find these tributes to our participation in the imperial adventures of the British Empire most offensive. While some may see these as reminders of our 'liberation' of Europe from the Nazis, I would see it as part of a militarization of our society, and the begining of joining the American Empire. How do we celebrate it without recognizing our part in war crimes, and our role in the post war world? Honesty is an obstacle.
I am having great difficulty imagining a memorial to First Nations. I am really having trouble with saying that they "shared" their land. I mean, how would that be worded? "To the tribes formerly of this land who generously shared their land, by agreeing to be decimated, slaughtered, rounded up into tiny enclaves, and surrender all culture and dignity in the name of a superior Euro expansion project." Honesty would be an obstacle.
The idea of a tribute to the Underground Railroad is more pleasing. We are also very near 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' in Dresden. Very few seem aware of the incredible history that has played out in this area. Again, serious honesty may be an obstacle.
How about a monument to the workers? To the workers of the factories, the surrounding fields, the labourers who have built everything we have, those who have toiled in our service (not just military), these people are deserving of recognition are they not? Teachers, nurses, carpenters, janitors, farmers, roofers, firemen, and how about volunteers?
well...
I think some of you are missing the point of these war memorials.
They're not there to celebrate or glorify war, but to remember the people who died in these wars.
And whether it was a 'just war', or a violent act of colonization, these were still real people, and we shouldn't forget them.
Holy Roller
The Cenotaph (at the corner of Dufferin and Wellington) was built in 1934 and serves as the focal point for Remembrance Day ceremonies. The inscription says "In Honour of those who died in war and conflict"
The Holy Roller is significant to one of the Local Regiments, The 1st Hussars. Apparently, it's the only tank from the Regiment to make it from the Invasion of Nomandy through to the end of the Second World War.
The name Holy Roller comes from the Tank's assignment to the regiment's Head Quarters squadron. There's a practice in the Canadian Army of giving vehicles names that begin with the same letter of the Squadron they belong to. so vehicles from 'A' Squadron would have names like "Angel" and "Anaemic" and Vehicles from HQ Squadron have names like "Holy Roller"
Holy Roller returned to London from Europe in 1946. It was originally placed at the Western Fair Grounds in 1949 before being moved to Victoria Park in 1950 as you mentioned. If your looking for more info, you could probably contact the 1st Hussars association.
The memorial for the Boar War may also reflect a local connection through the 1st Hussars, the Royal Canadian Regiment (which also has a local presence) and other units that have since ceased to operate in and around London . I'm not sure whether or not the RCR was stationed here at the time though. I know some 27 soldiers of the 1st Hussars went to South Africa, along with other local soldiers from other units.
The the presence of the cannons seems kind of weird to me. I don't really know what the local connection to the Crimean War would be. Maybe there is one, but I can't find it. perhaps it has to do with the British regiments that were garrisoned here at the time. These are 2 captured Russian guns and one British gun. Apparently Sir John Carling had a lot to do with them being brought here. The Carling's were the owners of Carling Brewery here in London and owned the Land that Wolseley Barracks now sits on.
Do these Monuments belong in our park? Personally, I think they do. I hope that reminders of the cost of conflicts makes it harder for politicians to get us into new ones...
This site has a little info on this and some of the memorials in the park.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
The Cultural Dominatrix
Personally, and regardless of its historical context, I see the tank (like other monuments in Victoria Park) as a symbol of complacency, but in particular as a euphemism for war. I think Anthony said this better than I can but I'll add a little of my thoughts.
I once heard an anthropologist say, on CBC radio, that (metaphorically) our civilization should have 'question marks for monuments.' He proposed this because of how amalgamated our cultures are becoming - often in a very violent way. A good question mark is: which culture's monuments should we allow to dominate our society today?
Because of how detrimental corporate capitalism has been to the cultures and traditions of the world's people, complacency to a world order of militarism and economic bullying (still) underlies our culture. Thus, we should be asking people the question: "what kind of monuments do we want to represent ourselves with?" That of the war-machine or of peace and solidarity.
I personally desire to live in a civilization that cares about peace and equality. So where are the monuments that celebrate these things? Where's our public art? Where are the monuments that celebrate what people in World War II were supposed to be fighting for?
What about monuments that express our desire to make amends with the Indigenous people of this land we live on?
I hope that someday people might be able to really think about what it means to have a machine of death in the most central public place in our city, and maybe, what we might replace it with. Remember, war is hardly over. World War II gave the U.S. government and its corporations what Hitler would have gladly settled for: literally half of the world's wealth. Like Anthony says evidently, we are living in the continuation of a colonial rule of law. During WWII the U.S. was busy settling business in the Middle East and the developing world, constructing the frame-work for a consumer economy that to this day survives off of the war, desparity, resources and labour of people in other (most always poorer, colonial) countries.
Military tanks are being produced by a factory in this city, owned by General Dynamics, a multinational corporation - that's apart of the war machine that still thrives today. Why do you think Germany's economy flourished just before and during WWII? Largely, if not mostly, because they were letting corporations build weapons and tanks. I'd argue that today we don't live in a nation that doesn't operate entirely different from Mussolini's Italy. The tanks built by General Dynamics, today, are being sold to the U.S. government and elsewhere, used in the oppressive war against Iraq and the war on Afghanistan. I do not want any more children to grow up in a society that is complacent/unaware to the war machines in our midst; who then will idly consume their life away while their government gives away tax breaks to the affluent white men that run the world's economy unjustly.
Tanks maybe belong in a museum, but not in the central public space of our city. This is where we are to worship our culture, celebrate our diversity, that is, all our converging histories, cultures and traditions in all their vitality.
I’ll end by revealing that every so often I glance at that tank I'm reminded of this statement that’s tattooed in my head: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face - forever."
Out with the tank and in with solidarity, the reality of war is the chaos and infinite darkness it disseminates virally. Too much smoke and mirrors.
People have family who have
People have family who have died in all those conflicts. I'll be damned if those monuments leave the park, for shame of something that happend a long time ago.
I agree
I agree, the monuments should stay. The tank for example, even though it appears to be a symbol of militarism is a reminder of Londoners who lost their lives liberating Europe from the Nazis. From what I understand it was sent here by either Dutch or Belgian people grateful to the 1st Hussars.
It would be really nice to see two new monuments like Amelia suggested.
Jeremy
The Boer War
Before I begin, please do not misconstrue my comments as justification of this colonial war. I only offer my thoughts as possible reasons for why the monument is there in the first place.
The Boer War was the first major international war in which Canada was involved. Britain asked for our help and while PM Laurier wished to keep us out, many felt differently including a vast number of English Canadians who still felt some affinity for Britain. Without going into a history lesson, we did send quite a few volunteer troops (for that time period) and 277 were killed.
I would say that this is the basis for the monument in Victoria Park; we lost 277 soldiers in our first international war as a new country. Once again, I am not personally justifying the monument or condoning the Boer War. I'm just simply offering a probable reason for why it is there in the first place.
On another note, I agree with you that monuments to local First Nations peoples and London's involvement in the Underground Railroad would be better suited on a humanistic level.
Tank
"What do you think of the tank?"
I think it's a nice place to sit. It also happens to match my outfits on most days.
Other than that, it has no significance to me, likely because I don't know much about it.