HOT TAKE: Should we destroy history? (Part 2)

Hi guys! Today we're back with part 2 of our HOT TAKE episode on whether we have the right to destroy history. In this episode we're going to look at our last 2 historical sources: Exhibits, including Hitlers Entartete Kunst & the President's House Exhibition, as well as Art/Sculpture, ranging from Mao's cultural reforms to the Bamiyan Buddhas AND the most written about example, statues of slavers/colonisers. Thanks so much for following along and contributing to this deep dive, it means the world! If you also want more Hot History you can follow along on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/hothistoryclub/?hl=en, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.tiktok.com/@hot.history?lang=en and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@hot.history and of course, right here! Til next week, Ainslie x

• 0:00Speaker 00

  All right, guys, so I'm back for part two in the same fit. But I will say it is a day later and somehow in the 24 hours that passed from when I filmed part one to part two, I've caught some fragrant strand of the Black Death. So if I sound really nasally or like I'm gonna self combust at any point in time, now you know why. But let's get into the history and ignore that, guys. Roll the tape.

• 0:43Speaker 00

  Hi, guys, and welcome back to Hot History, your corner of the internet where we cover all the things in history that you probably should know but don't. I'm Ainslie Harvey, your hot historian here, ready to cover part two of our deep dive on whether we have the right to destroy history. So in part one, we looked at two sources, structures and documents, from the Berghof to Old Penn Station and Queen Victoria's Diaries to Mian Camp. And now we are going to look at our next two sources, which are exhibits and art slash sculpture. So let's dive back in with exhibits. And I do appreciate here that these aren't cut and dry sources in and of themselves as

• 1:27Speaker 00

  they're made up of a variety of other kinds of media. But I felt this was really important to talk about because it is a great demonstration of, one, revisionist history, and, two, it's actually our most recent example here. So I felt it was really timely. So let's chat about the exhibition titled The President's House: Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation. So this was opened in 2010 at Philadelphia's President's House, the site where George Washington held nine enslaved Africans while he was president from 1789 to 1797. Originally, there was very little mention of this fact at the site, which led historians, activists, and the Black community at large

• 2:09Speaker 00

  to push for a dedicated exhibition about the lives of these nine individuals, the result of which is the 2010 exhibition, which confronts the difficult contradiction that the nation's first presidents promoted liberty while also enslaving people. Now, as all exhibits and public mentionings of slavery do, the President's House exhibition received its fair share of backlash. But the grand crescendo came in January this year from none other than current President Donald J. Trump, who ordered the exhibition's removal under his executive order of restoring truth and sanity to American history by promoting a more patriotic interpretation in national parks and government buildings,

• 2:52Speaker 00

  i.e. an attempt at revisionist history where slavery is in the fine print because it makes us all feel bad, right? Now, this, of course, was met with widespread condemnation from National Park Service workers and people with half a brain cell, who argued that the White House was attempting to rewrite history and overstepping its reach. However, the administration fought back, arguing that it alone can decide what stories are told at National Park Service properties. The result saw the city of Philadelphia sue the Trump administration over the matter, accusing the Department of the Interior, which oversees National Park Services, of breaking the law. The case was then seen by senior U.S. District Judge Cynthia Roof,

• 3:37Speaker 00

  who granted an injunction ordering that the materials be restored while the lawsuit proceeds. In her ruling, Roof said, "As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 now existed, with its motto 'Ignorance is strength', this court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical fact, but it does not." Now, I want to be clear about this. When we go through the pros and cons here, I am talking about other people's points of view, not mine, okay? So let's start with the cons. Why did the Trump administration want this exhibition taken down?

• 4:22Speaker 00

  Well, as I said, Trump invoked this action under his executive order of restoring truth and sanity to American history, believing that spaces which speak about slavery only encourage an abrasive narrative which furthers divisions in a country already suffering with national unity. A great example of this, according to Trump, is the 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize-winning initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019 to mark the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. This project aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very centre of the national narrative.

• 5:03Speaker 00

  However, Trump does not believe this is right or helpful tweeting on September 6, 2020, that he would defund the Department of Education if they implement the 1619 Project, which promotes the liberal indoctrination of American youth. In a statement released by the White House, Trump instead wanted to promote a more balanced, accurate, and patriotic curriculum in American schools by minimising the impact of slavery and racism on American history. So a con, then, for keeping this kind of exhibition in his eyes, is its ability to fuel division and destabilise American nationalism. The second part of this statement is that it allows other stories to be shared, or, as Judge Riff put it, "having the exhibits replaced by an alternate script", which is

• 5:48Speaker 00

  a plausible assumption at this time. However, what that script is and whose stories would be selected aren't detailed. But based on the push for a more patriotic curriculum, it's highly likely another exhibit about George Washington, of which there is already significant coverage and contribution to the historical record, could be expected. Now, as I said, I disagree with all of that, and I truly believe that exhibits and in-person activations that explore difficult topics, whether it's the Holocaust, or slavery, or colonisation, or, you know, even witch trials, are essential, because we often need to see it to believe it. Another great example of this, and apologies for the tangent back to structures for a minute here,

• 6:32Speaker 00

  but is plantation houses. So many of these have been reframed and repurposed as celebrity wedding venues or golf courses, with the history being either lightly glazed over or deliberately removed. Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively famously got married at a plantation house, not knowing the horrific history of enslaved peoples on the property. Coming out with an apology years later, saying it's impossible to reconcile. What we saw at the time was a wedding venue on Pinterest. What we saw after was a place built upon devastating tragedy. We're ashamed that in the past, we've allowed ourselves to be uninformed about how deeply rooted systematic racism is. And this is what happens when that history, however dark,

• 7:17Speaker 00

  or abrasive, or unpatriotic, isn't called out. We forget it. And if it's forgotten, the likelihood of it happening again skyrockets. Now, this may sound dramatic, but it is the truth, guys. While this exhibition was briefly closed, a handwritten sign was left by a worker saying slavery was real. Speaking to how even in 2026, we need to defend the reality of a 400-year-long suffering, which saw more than 15 million men, women, and children be enslaved. So, physical evidence and the public spaces educating us on the realities of slavery are essential to capture the true history behind nations,

• 8:01Speaker 00

  which is never and will never be perfect. All that censorship and revisionist versions does is open the door for making the same mistakes once again. So clearly, my verdict here, guys, is that this exhibition and all physical experiences which deal with slavery are absolutely essential. There is zero reason or any government official which trumps this. No pun intended. Now, another very, very famous case of exhibitions being used for political gain is Hitler's Entartetkunst exhibition.

• 8:38Speaker 00

  So this is not an exhibit being torn down because of what it represents, but rather an exhibition being put on to make a political statement. So, the Etat des Kunst, aka Degenerate Art exhibit, was staged by the Nazis in 1937 to display over 600 confiscated modern artworks which Hitler believed promoted degenerate values. A failed art student himself, Hitler hated the German Expressionist movement which boomed throughout the 20s, preferring classical works featuring either military scenes, landscapes, or idealized physical portraits, which supported his beliefs of order, strength, and compliance.

• 9:17Speaker 00

  So the aim of this exhibition was to contrast these dignified pieces against the degenerate art to justify their removal, which is exactly what happened, with many of the works displayed, including pieces by Picasso and Chagall, being sold abroad or destroyed after more than 2 million people visited the exhibition.

• 9:40Speaker 00

  So let's do our pros and cons, but not for the art, for the exhibit specifically. Now, number one con here is that this exhibition was less about art and more about politics. Hitler understood that art at its core is deeply political through both the subject matter and the identity of the artist who created it. And he went to extensive lengths to push the narrative that the artists and supporters of this modern work were Jewish, using the term "degenerate" to brainwash people before they even set foot inside. And it is really important to remember here, guys, this is not a free society, right, where you can have opinions and, and subjective disagreements.

• 10:24Speaker 00

  There were literally Nazi guards inside the exhibition, watching to ensure people had the right reactions here. No art in any medium should be wielded as a sword by state authorities, especially when it's the creation of independent human artists, and not some sloppy state-made propaganda. Which is con number two. This wasn't just an exhibit, guys. It was a test. Many of the artists who were featured were banned from ever working again, losing their jobs at art schools and museums, and in some cases, even losing their lives. Many went into exile, including Max Beckman, who was lucky enough to see the writing on the wall,

• 11:09Speaker 00

  literally, and left the day the exhibition opened. Another artist, Paul Klee, also fled to Switzerland after being harassed in the streets. And the justification for all of this was the pain and outcry their work caused to the German people at the Antartikinst. And the last con here is that no art, unless it promotes hate such as the swastika or ISIS iconography, for example, should be banned. Because the cornerstone of every great democracy is the freedom of speech. We cannot exist without expression, whether that's through political commentary in the press or social commentary on canvas. All art is a statement,

• 11:52Speaker 00

  one which fills us with a deeply emotional reaction, often way more than words can. So the weaponization of this exhibition is just a clear trampling of not only democracy in practice, but the very ideals of free will and free thought. Which leads us to the pros in keeping the exhibit, of which I only see one, and even then it's a stretch, but let's try. Is that governments have always had a say in what art and exhibition takes up public spaces. Look at the Eiffel Tower. Right? It is a symbol of great modernity and recognized the world over. Well, it actually started as an exhibit for the 1889 World's Fair, after which it was determined to be of such great value

• 12:36Speaker 00

  by the government of the time that it was kept. And like I said, she's an icon to this day. You look earlier at things like the Statue of David by Michelangelo, which was commissioned and paid for by a division of the local government looking after the churches of Florence. Governments have always applied their own subjective views on the selection of public displays and, while yes, Michelangelo was created and displayed with beauty and honour in mind, not label degenerate dude, for example. But the point can be made that the Nazis were simply doing what other governments had done for centuries before.

• 13:13Speaker 00

  So what's the verdict here? Well, I don't think there's any world or realm where this is acceptable. It laughs in the face of the very principles of democracy. It's not presenting fact, like the Philadelphia slavery exhibition, for example, it's merely a government and, to be honest, just one guy applying his subjective opinion and forcing it down the throats of the public. The great irony of this is that if you went based on ticket sales, which, by the way, there were nearly three million sold, the Etat des Kunst is one of the most successful exhibits in German history.

• 13:53Speaker 00

  Which ties in perfectly with our final source, art and sculpture. And this was one that you guys quoted to me the most. So should we keep or destroy the statues of slavers, colonizers and otherwise nasty people? Now, this is a conversation that has dominated the modern media landscape, but it really is one as old as time, so much so that the ancient Romans had a name for it. Demnatio memoria, aka condemnation of memory. Now, this was often practised when an emperor or official fell from favour. For example, when Emperor Gaita's statue was torn down after he was killed by his brother Caracalla in 211 AD.

• 14:38Speaker 00

  And yes, if those names sound familiar, those are the emperors in Gladiator 2. Other societies have also done this, including the Pharaoh Thutmose III, who ordered many of Haechepsut's statues destroyed or hidden, and that's before you get to the Christians who tore down statues of idols in pagan churches before converting them to Christian ones. So this definitely isn't a new phenomenon. However, the modern conundrum we face today in regards to keeping or destroying history in this regard isn't necessarily the tearing down of monuments from prior regimes, but rather, as one of you put it, what we do with statues that try to glamorise or

• 15:19Speaker 00

  celebrate people like Hitler, which in many cases are quite literally put on a pedestal in positions of glory in public. This reached a boiling point after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, when demonstrators removed or vandalised statues associated with slavery and colonialism, including a bust of Belgium's King Leopold II, the infamous ruler who owned the Congo Free State, resulting in the deaths of somewhere between 10 to 15 million Africans. The bust was on public display at a park in Ghent, Belgium, and was damaged by red paint, graffiti and cement. Another example is the statue of famed slaver Edward Colston, which was dumped into Bristol

• 15:59Speaker 00

  City Harbour in the UK, an act which resulted in almost 70 tributes to enslavers and colonialists being removed or altered in the following six months. Another example which has definitely, I think anyway, garnered the most attention is the enormous equestrian statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which has been on display in Richmond, Virginia since 1890. He, of course, was one of the Confederacy's staunchest defenders, fighting for a system built on the back of slavery. BLM protesters in 2020 pushed for its removal, which saw at least 168 other symbols of the Confederacy taken down, but the statue remained, after a lawsuit filed by a group

• 16:41Speaker 00

  of Richmond residents fought for it on historic grounds. It was eventually removed in September 2021, when Virginia's Supreme Court dismissed the case and paved the way for the monument's removal, an eventual melting down, where it will now be turned into a new monument to commemorate the lives of those lost under enslavement within the US. Which begs the question, is this a destruction of history, or is this thoughtful repurposing?

• 17:09Speaker 00

  So let's look at the pros and cons for keeping these statues. Now, con number one, of course, is that it glorifies the acts and values of these individuals. The Lee monument, for example, was erected in 1890, a time where Confederate symbols provided a rallying point for advocates of Jim Crow laws who pushed for racial segregation and encouraged white supremacist terror, which, according to data compiled by the University of Missouri, resulted in more than a thousand black Americans being lynched. Richmond Governor Ralph Northam spoke on this, saying, "Symbols matter, and for too long, Virginia's most prominent symbols celebrated our country's tragic division and the side that fought to keep alive the institution of slavery by any means possible."

• 17:55Speaker 00

  Which reveals con number two. These statues no longer reflect modern values, and as such, serve no role in modern society in their current position. The very best example of this is in that same Lee case. A hundred thousand spectators turned out to the statue's dedication, but when it was close to being removed, the counter protest, labelled "Unite the Right", saw a thousand protesters turn up to try and save it. Plain and simple, right there, numbers don't lie. Also, in the case of the Ludwig II bust here, the argument isn't that the bust isn't significant to the historical record. It's that it's totally insensitive to be in a public park

• 18:36Speaker 00

  with little kids running around catching butterflies and couples getting engaged. It comes down to context. That bust should absolutely be preserved, but it needs to be in a museum, within the context of a slavery exhibition to educate, not glorify. Or as one of you put it, "I think it's appropriate to remove these from a glorified state, but instead of destroying it right away, I think it could be important to keep somewhere like a museum that pays proper tribute to the victims of these atrocities and to serve as evidence of how we got where we are." But not everyone agrees, presenting multiple counter arguments for keeping the statues,

• 19:17Speaker 00

  one of which is that just because it doesn't represent what society currently believes, it doesn't mean it's not valuable to the historical record. These statues give us an incredible peek through the looking glass, back in time at what prior societies valued.

• 19:33Speaker 00

  To them, these men were heroes, economists, leaders of industry and as such were glorified on pedestals, literally. Which was largely linked to a lack of education of the realities of how these men obtained their positions. And the removal of their statues will only add to this lack of education. Plus, under this logic that we should remove them because we no longer believe what they did, the Sphinx should also be destroyed or moved, as society isn't made up of half-men, half beasts. So in this case, just because we don't believe the same things now as we did then, doesn't mean we shouldn't keep the memorials for education's sake. The next pro for keeping them, which is kind of similar but a lot more charged, is the

• 20:17Speaker 00

  belief that this is an attempt at revisionist history which minimizes the actions of these great men, for those on audio, inverted comma, fingers in action. Now, the Smithsonian speaks about this point actually, saying critics of removal sometimes describe it as a censorship or rewriting history, which I do understand, right? Just like the example with the slavery exhibit at President's House in Philadelphia, which Trump wanted to remove on the basis of minimizing the role of slavery. To pro statue groups, their removal minimizes the action of these men. You are removing them from the public sphere and therefore lessening the awareness of their stories.

• 20:57Speaker 00

  P S, insert huge, bombastic eye roll here, because we have more sources about these fuckers than I've had hot dinners, but that's their point of view, which again, we did use in the Philadelphia example, although under far different context. So what's the verdict here, Davis? Well, I think it's similar, in many ways, to me and Kev, in the fact that the original, without analysis or critique, is just a harmful, poisonous thing that doesn't deserve a role in the public sphere. In this case, I think statues of terrible people in their original form also should be on display, glorified on pedestals up above us all. Rather, they need a new context, a museum or exhibit where they can be used to capture

• 21:40Speaker 00

  the values of the time and provide education on how these people were glorified in the first place. One of you put this perfectly, saying, "I do think, however, they still are important sources for us to learn from, but away from spaces of glory and pride, which can only cause pain and create further ignorance without the context behind it." Our next example for art/sculpture being destroyed, which is probably the most classic case here, is Mao's Cultural Reforms. Now, some of you may have heard of this before, but for those of you who haven't, Mao Zedong was the first leader of the People's Republic of China, coming into power on October 1st, 1949, after decades of civil war and political instability, which saw the ideals of communism

• 22:24Speaker 00

  eventually gripe the nation. Under his rule, Mao envisioned a China built on collective ownership, revolutionary equality, peasant-led socialism, and most importantly, the destruction of traditional and capitalist influences, all of which eventually led to his decade-long Cultural Reform. This is largely seen as Mao's final attempt to solidify his legacy as the true leader of Chinese communism. And he urged the Chinese population to, quote, "clear away the evil habits of the old society by destruction of the four olds: old ideas, old customs, old habits, and old culture."

• 23:07Speaker 00

  So basically, an almost total purge of anything deemed by Mao's Red Guards to represent traditional or capitalist ideas, with the majority of objects destroyed coming from China's imperial era, which was seen as a symbol of the old feudal system. This included everything from palaces, like the Old Summer Palace built by Qing Dynasty emperors in Beijing, to art, manuscripts, spiritual sites like the Confucian temples in Qufu, which dated back to 478 BCE, and statues, including a statue of Confucius that stood for centuries, which was destroyed in November 1966 by more than 200 Red Guards.

• 23:51Speaker 00

  It was a brutal decade with priceless cultural heritage dating back centuries being burned, buried or butchered alongside teachers, writers and musicians who were publicly humiliated in violent struggle sessions, highlighting Mao's belief there is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake. And now a lot to unpack here, guys. So let's start with the cons for keeping the art and artifacts. Obviously, having to put on our Chinese Communist hats to do so. So con number one for keeping these pieces is similar to the Winter Palace example from earlier. It is a symbol of the old regime, which no longer reflects the ideology or values of the state.

• 24:34Speaker 00

  So through their destruction, the party is able to live by its purposes. I think the best example in this case is the Confucius temples in Kyiv, which I spoke about, which was dedicated to the renowned educator, philosopher and government official, who was largely considered the primary symbol of the old system in China as his teachings of order, ritual and duty, aka Confucianism, were adopted as the official state ideology of the imperial system, which ruled for over 2,000 years until the fall of the Han Dynasty in 1911. So basically, Confucius became their Czar Nicholas II, if you will. This perfect embodiment of the traditional hierarchical, social and political structures of old China

• 25:19Speaker 00

  and as such, any objects relating to him became a target, the Confucius temples being one of them. Which was so badly brutalised that historian Vera Schwartz tells us some remnants were literally slashed with knives by Red Guards. But this extended well beyond Confucius. Classical ink paintings tied to feudal culture were burned. Ming and Jing Dynasty vases were smashed, imperial jewellery and sculpture was sold and traditional theatre and opera were replaced with state sanctioned versions. It was a true and total purge of the old in exchange for the new, which is our second con for keeping these artefacts. They no longer served the needs of the modern people.

• 26:00Speaker 00

  In Beijing alone, four thousand nine hundred and twenty-two of the six thousand eight hundred and forty-three officially designated places of cultural or historical interest were destroyed, making way for new housing, offices and entertainment venues. Under Mao's cultural reforms, this great simplification reflected the modern world, pushing the belief of what's history when you can have progress, which actually was a real concern at the time, we have to remember. At this point in history, China was largely an undeveloped, poor and unindustrialised nation in comparison to its neighbours. So Mao's cultural reforms were his way of trying to drag China forward both symbolically,

• 26:43Speaker 00

  by the total eradication of imperial symbols and physically, by repurposing this space and replacing the art slash symbols with those that promote a productive and prosperous modern communist state. Now for our pros for keeping these items. Well, I think it's pretty obvious here that they represent some of the greatest examples of art and culture in the world. Throughout its long history, China has produced everything from incredible silk garments to masterpieces in gold and jade alongside the finest porcelain in human history, hence why we call it Fine China. I always think, if we had one big museum, which represented

• 27:25Speaker 00

  earth and humanity and we had to go and like, present it to aliens or something, right? What would we put in it? I'd say we'd have an iPhone, a rocket, a constant loop of you'll always find your way back home from the Hannah Montana movie, and a very, very large exhibit on China. It truly is a cornucopia of some of humanity's greatest art and craftsmanship. So even if you don't agree with the politics of the system in which they were made, or the politics of the subject of that artwork, such as the Confucius statue, they're still integral pieces of cultural heritage.

• 28:03Speaker 00

  And if you don't want them on display or open to the public, then fine, but close them up, leave them as is. After all, they wouldn't be who they are, for better or worse, without these pieces of their past, which you simply cannot eradicate or change, no matter how many artworks you burn, or temples you pull down, or statues you smash. Now, the next pro for keeping all of this has to do with historiography more specifically, so the study and science of history. Now, I know we've spoken a lot on this podcast about the fact that men make up the majority of historical record, but one of the other things which make up the majority of the historical

• 28:46Speaker 00

  record is Western accounts, especially from the 18th century onward, where Westernized sources were better preserved and digitized. But they by no means have more history. China specifically has some of the world's longest continuous written records spanning over 3,000 years, or at least they did until large parts of it were burned in Mao's Cultural Revolts. But putting the written word aside for a minute, author Puck Angerman tells us of the devastating vastness of arts and objects that were also destroyed in this decade, saying, "In the city of Tangjin, the loot, including personal belongings, cultural artifacts, art,

• 29:24Speaker 00

  etc., was enough to fill fifty-two warehouses, or sixty thousand square meters of storage space." We are talking about literally tons of gold and silver and millions of books and antiques. Just for reference, that's about the size of the Pentagon, but full of priceless artifacts which were just burned or destroyed or shipped off and sold for profit around the globe. It's a huge blow to the historical record, which already suffers in representation between Western and Eastern history. So what's the verdict? Well, I don't see any realm where this doesn't happen. Mao was in his final years looking to solidify his legacy and future-proof communism in China,

• 30:07Speaker 00

  and this was, in his eyes, the necessary step to do so, which is obviously one of the greatest defeats of the historical record in all of Eastern history. It is absolutely devastating and in no world should the cons ever outweigh the pros of keeping cultural artefacts of such significance. Which is why, before we get to our final example, I want to talk about UNESCO. So I'm sure we've all heard of UNESCO before. Standing for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, which took shape around 1942 during the height of the Second World War, when countless buildings, works of arts and cultural sites were being ravaged and destroyed.

• 30:50Speaker 00

  Largely inspired by the works of the MFAA or Monuments Men, whose job it was to hunt down stolen Nazi art, sculptures, manuscripts and more, UNESCO was officially formed on the 16th of November 1945, where it was announced by Ellen Wilkinson, the UK's Minister of Education. And I'm gonna play you a snippet of that speech now.

• 31:10Speaker 01

  In the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, are agreed and determined to develop and to increase the means of communication between their peoples and to employ these means for the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other's love. In consequence thereof, they do hereby create the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

• 31:49Speaker 00

  So basically, UNESCO was formed on the belief that peace could not rely only on military or political agreements, but also on protecting shared culture, knowledge and international cooperation. Now, the first charter of this dealt with the protection of paintings, sculptures, museums and monuments and was signed in Hague in 1954, introducing consequences for damage, theft or destruction, which included international prosecution, sanctions and fines. The next which followed is the famed World Heritage Convention of 1972, which introduced the World Heritage List, a distinction of sites considered essential to humanity's cultural heritage, including the Acropolis, Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of

• 32:31Speaker 00

  China, the Pyramids of Giza and Petra in Jordan, just to name a few. And the penalties for destroying these babies are amongst the highest in the world, including, but not limited to, charges of war crimes and fines which, in Australia, exceed a million dollars for individuals and 10 million for corporations who damage or alter world heritage sites. Now Mao's cultural reforms occurred between 1966 to 1976, so all in the time that UNESCO was operating. But China still had no real consequences from the destruction of several sites, including the Confucius temples. Which brings the real problem to light here.

• 33:11Speaker 00

  The UN and UNESCO have no real power because they have very limited enforceability, especially when something is destroyed within a nation's own boundaries.

• 33:22Speaker 00

  The only time action is ever successfully taken is if destruction happens during armed conflict, in which case it can be tried as a war crime under international law. For example, in 2016, when extremist leader Ahmad al-Faqi al-Madi was convicted by the International Criminal Court for destroying protected mausoleums in Timbuktu, Mali. But UNESCO can't very well go march into a region and detain the leader of a state who, you know, have destroyed sites within their own boundaries. Which leads us to our last example and possibly the one that brings the greatest sadness: the Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan. Now I'd wager a bet here that you've never heard of these, and I absolutely don't blame you.

• 34:05Speaker 00

  They're largely forgotten or hushed up, so what are they? Well, the Bamiyan Buddhas are a set of Buddha statues carved into the sandstone cliffs of the Bamiyan Valley of Afghanistan, built at some point in the 6th century. Enclosed between the high mountains of the Hindu Kush, the Buddhas are works of pure art and reflections of the greatness of human ingenuity. Standing at 124 and 180 feet tall respectively, they are quite literally carved into the side of the rock face, with intricate details being chiselled out to give the effect that these giant stone statues are coming forth from the centre of the earth. But what are a pair of Buddhas doing in Afghanistan, I hear you say? And it's a good question.

• 34:51Speaker 00

  There are actually numerous Buddhist monasteries and sanctuaries within the region, dating back from the 3rd to 5th century BCE, a time where Indian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Islamic influences dominated the area, which was known as ancient Bactria. So these Buddhas capture a truly fragile point in human history where you have a healthy and working intersection of cultures and religions moving through the region. Something which is increasingly hard to picture in today's day and age. But here they are, standing for over a millennium, surviving everything from Mongol ruler Genghis Khan's destruction of the city in 1221, to Mughal Emperor Orang Zayd's 17th century

• 35:33Speaker 00

  attempt to use artillery on them, and of course, just the sheer destructive natural forces of the desert. But there was one force which they could not sustain: the Taliban. Coming to power in Afghanistan in 1996, the group established a strict Islamist regime after years of civil war, one which promoted the complete and total elimination of other religions and their idols, including the Bamiyan Buddhas. The international community feared the worst for the statues, but surprisingly, years passed and they remained untouched. However, as the 21st century ticked over, mounting international pressure to save the

• 36:14Speaker 00

  statues rose, which Sayed Hashimi, a Taliban envoy, said was the tipping point for Taliban leaders to destroy the site with explosives and artillery. He said the decision was made out of rage when a foreign delegation offered money to preserve the ancient works while a million Afghans faced starvation. Though other reports said it was debated for months, after which the Taliban decided the statues were adulterous and destroyed them. Now, if you're watching, you'll see just how devastating this was, but if not, imagine this incredible statue carved out of stone, and then imagine a big old hole in the side of a mountain. We are talking total annihilation here, one which had no real consequences.

• 36:59Speaker 00

  Yes, there was immense international backlash, and the case did influence the way UNESCO prosecuted acts of cultural destruction in conflicts in future, such as the Timbuktu case I mentioned. But there was no legal or economic consequences for this crime. After all, they were committed within the borders of a state under the directive of that state's controlling government. So what do we do here? Well, let's work through our pros and cons of keeping the statues and see if we get anywhere there. So, con number one of keeping the statues is what the Taliban said, right? It is insulting to the dominant faith of modern Afghanistan.

• 37:42Speaker 00

  Buddhist principles are not a part of their society and even though the Buddhist statues wouldn't be worshipped in any way by Islamic peoples, their existence as idols of other faiths is outlawed and therefore abrasive to their region's practice. Now again, I don't think this or, you know, really understand the inner workings of the faith in this way, but this was one of their points. The next one, which I don't want to say is fair, but I do think it is an interesting point of view, is that the destruction was a symbolic demonstration to the international community of their misplaced values. Sayed Hashemi, that same Taliban envoy we quoted earlier, said that the decision to blow the statues up was made in a rage after huge donations were offered for the statues' salvations.

• 38:27Speaker 00

  Meanwhile, living, breathing Afghan people were starving. On this, he said, "When your children are dying in front of you, then you don't care about a piece of art." Again, very likely this is propaganda and how does the blowing up of some statues feed Afghan kids? It doesn't. But in this specific regard, the destruction is used as a mirror on how the international community treats the living in the present versus the dead or inanimate of the past. Take the UNESCO Director General's quote here as an example of this. He said, "Words fail me to describe adequately my feelings of consternation and powerlessness as I see the reports of the irreversible damage that is being done to Afghanistan's exceptional cultural heritage."

• 39:11Speaker 00

  But he didn't say anything about Afghan kids starving or the subjugation of the population under religious extremism, which, again, not the job of the UNESCO Director General. But I do think it is an interesting, albeit propagandist, point of view here. Now, the pros of keeping the statues, which again, we've spoken about before, right? Just because you don't agree with something, or it doesn't represent your faith, or politics, or sexuality, or race, or whatever, right? There's no reason to go and destroy something that has stood since the 5th century. Generally, I'm of the opinion, and I think this is a good baseline here, that if it survives Genghis Khan, it has the right to live on forever. Especially given the technological marvel that it is.

• 39:55Speaker 00

  I'm pretty certain we could barely hand carve a statue in the side of a cliff with cranes, safety harnesses and Makita batteries today. Let alone do it in the 5th century with none of that. It is a universal cultural marvel which should be protected under UNESCO, who should have the teeth to actually do something about its destruction. But they don't. Because if they start invading sovereign states, however misplaced those regimes or governments may be, and ripping leaders out of their beds in the middle of the night and extraditing them for cultural crimes against humanity, what happens when a politically motivated official gets elected to UNESCO?

• 40:37Speaker 00

  And uses the organisation as a means to just do whatever the fuck they want? And yes, the argument is, well, they can't invade anywhere unless there's means to do so, aka the Bamiyan Buddha's being destroyed. But what's to stop other regions blowing these sites up and blaming it on the nation? It is murky, grey, cloudy and whatever other euphemisms we have, right? For something that's not clear. It is troubling and we don't necessarily have the answers. So our second pro in keeping them is the other side of the values/needs of modern society. These statues are in the middle of the fucking desert. Yeah, they're not in a metro area or taking up space in some region needed for

• 41:22Speaker 00

  transport or storage or housing. They're literally carved into the side of a cliff face. So unless the Taliban intend on putting a school in the side of a cliff, it's just destruction for destruction's sake. Plus, unlike the Burghof example, they're also not a place of veneration for Buddhists in the modern age, which can cause in-person tensions or offence within the region. While the site was of religious significance as a sanctuary for monks and pilgrims, it has not acted as that for many years, long before the destruction in 2001. So what happened to the site after this? Well, like a nasty bout of gout, the Taliban are back in charge of Afghanistan, and eager to present a softer image to the world,

• 42:06Speaker 00

  running the Bamiyan site as a tourist attraction, with tickets being given out by soldiers under a white Taliban flag. A UNESCO rep in Kabul had said that the current focus on Bamiyan is on stabilizing the niches where the statue stood, and preparing an open-air museum, rather than reconstruction. So what do we do here, guys? Keep or destroy? In cases like this, I'm almost always going to say keep, especially given there is no modern use of repurposing for the Bamiyan space, and no actual spiritual veneration to cause in-person conflict which would escalate to further war. Like I said, it's just destruction for destruction's sake, one which UNESCO, despite retrospectively listing the statues

• 42:49Speaker 00

  as World Heritage Sites in 2004, has no real authority to protect or defend with the actual real-world consequences. Which brings us back to our question: Should we destroy history? Well, as I said at the top, I think it's absolutely case by case, which is what makes it so hard to do. We've spent almost two hours now covering in detail the pros and cons of multiple examples across multiple sources from multiple different periods. And while, yes, the vast majority of cases always favor keeping it, there are compelling arguments for destruction in some cases. Ones that we cannot glaze over in the modern world, or, as one of you said,

• 43:33Speaker 00

  we risk no longer studying history and instead becoming it. But, as a good hot historian, of course I want to keep everything. I want to go to the Burghof, even if it's just some charred remains. I want to marvel at the Bamiyan Buddhas, I want to take a train into old Penn Station, and I want to be able to see this so-called degenerate art. But we can't. Because individuals, governments, armies and authorities have made the decisions before us. And in their minds, the cons do outweigh the pros. And we can't change that. It's gone, with the wind as ash and dust and rubble swept away with the tides of time.

• 44:16Speaker 00

  All we can do is ensure we learn from it and do our very, very best to protect what we have left. For, as UNESCO says, heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today and what we pass on to future generations. So how do we do this? Well, I think first and foremost, education is necessary. How do we make heritage codes, UNESCO listings and conservation laws easier to understand and more accessible? Should we be educating in schools? Or is there more we can do in the digital space to reach around the globe? Next is how do we give UNESCO more power to enforce consequences without making it some dictatorial, overlord regime who can march into a state and do as they please?

• 45:02Speaker 00

  Now, I don't know the answer to this. I'm not an international rights lawyer and Amal Clooney was busy today, so I couldn't phone her up and ask, but I am keen to hear your guys' perspective. And the last thing I think it comes down to is how do we get more people invested in our historical past? I genuinely believe one of the greatest threats to humanity is a fundamental lack of understanding and a fundamental lack of interest in our history. Where we've come from, the mistakes we've made, the battles we've won. We are so consumed today by the devices and appliances of the present and distracted by the possibilities and enticements of the future, which we always should be.

• 45:45Speaker 00

  But we do all of this without consideration of our past. In many ways, our own engagement with the historical record is personified in the destruction of these sites and artefacts. They're discarded, maimed, forgotten, blown up. So how do we get more people engaging in history?

• 46:05Speaker 00

  Well, I selfishly like to think that digital media like this podcast or other incredible historians and creators online are doing their fair share. But if we can do more, then please, absolutely let me know your thoughts and ideas. I think it does start in the classroom though. We have outdated syllabuses, which create unengaged students which result in ignorant adults. And with our cultural and natural heritage being both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration, plus the most important sources for the historical record, we cannot continue as we have, or we may never have anything left. And that brings us to the end of another episode of Hot History. Thank you so much for following along with me on this one.

• 46:49Speaker 00

  It was big, our first two-parter. And make sure to tune in next week because we are looking at the most expensive party in modern human history. The 1971 Iranian celebration.

• 47:02Speaker 00

  As always, guys, if you're looking for some more hot history before then, you can follow us on Instagram at Hot History Club and on TikTok at Hot.History. It has been an absolute pleasure getting down and dirty in time with you and I will speak to you all shortly. Thanks, guys. Love you. Bye.