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

Episode Date: May 17, 2026

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, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and of course, right here!Til next week, Ainslie x

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 going to self-combusts at any point in time, now you know why. But let's get into the history and ignore that, guys. Roll the tape. Visit BetMDM, Casino and Tech.

Check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. 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 Ainsley 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 Berghoff to Old Penn Station and Queen Victoria's Diaries to Mien, Camp. And now we are going to look at our next two sources, which are exhibits, an 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 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 to push for a dedicated exhibition about the lives of these nine individuals, the result of which is the 20th. 10 exhibition, which confronts the difficult contradiction that the nation's first president's 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. in history by promoting a more patriotic interpretation in national parks and government buildings, 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, who granted an injunction ordering that the materials be restored while the lawsuit proceeds. In her ruling, Roof said, as if the Ministry of Truths, 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 comments. Why did the Trump administration want this exhibition taken down? 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 an issue 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. 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 minimizing 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 destabilize 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 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 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 an in-person activations that explore difficult topics, whether it's the Holocaust or slavery or colonization 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, 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, 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, which is never and will never be perfect. All that censorship and revisionist versions does is open the things. 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 Entartekonst exhibition. So this is not. 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 Atartat 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 idealised physical portraits,

which supported his beliefs of order, strength and compliance. 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 Chagal, being sold abroad or destroyed after more than two million people. visited the exhibition. 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 subjective disagreements. 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 authoritative. 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, 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 swastigger or ice. 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, one which fills us with a deeply emotional reaction, often way more than words can. So the weaponisation 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 prose 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 recognise 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 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, well, 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. 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 nearly 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 Atartat Kunst is one of the most successful exhibits in German history. Are you one of those media strategy people, click?

through slides, scrolling spreadsheets. Yes? Good. This is for you. Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different, locked in, loyal, invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to. And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo.

So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify advertising. You're among fans. 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 slayers, 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 Memore, aka condemnation of memory. Now, this was often practiced when an emperor or official fell from favour, for example, when Emperor Gator's statue was torn down after he was killed by his brother Caracalla in 21 AD. And yes, if those names sound familiar, those are the emperors ingadiator too. Other societies have also done this, including the Pharaoh Tupmost III, who ordered many of Hachepsot 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, is it 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 glamourise or 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 vandalized 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 part, 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 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 of Richmond residents fought for it on historic grounds. It was eventually removed in September 2021, when Virginia's Supreme Court disneyed, miss the case and pave the way for the monument's removal and 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? 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 Monumentary. 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, 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 the second 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, 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, one of which is that just because it doesn't represent what society currently believes, it doesn't mean that it's not valuable to the historical record. These statues give us an incredible peek through the looking class, back in time, at what prior societies valued. 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 is it 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 belief that this is an attempt at revisionist history, which minimises 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.

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? Devis. Well, I think it's similar, in many ways, to Mien Kempf, 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 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 slash 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 1, 1949, after decades of civil war and political instability, which saw the ideals of communism eventually grip 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-lawful. 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. 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 Beijing dynasty emperors in Beijing to art, manuscripts, spiritual sites like the Confucian temples in Kufu, 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. 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 arts sake. And now a lot to unpack here, guys. So let's start with the cons for keeping the art and artefacts. 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. 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 Kufu 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 Tsar Nicholas II, if you will. This perfect embodiment of the traditional hierarchical, social and political structures of all China, and as such, and the 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 jewelry 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. In Beijing alone, 4,922 of the 6,843, 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 an unindustrialized nation in comparison to its neighbors. So Mao's cultural reforms were his way of trying to drag China forward both symbolically, 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 golden 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 Earth and humanity and we had to go

and like presented 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, there's still integral pieces of cultural. heritage. 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, there 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 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 reports.

But putting the written word aside for a minute, author Puck Engman tells us of the devastating vastness of arts and objects that were also destroyed in this decade, saying, in a city of Tengen, the loot, including personal belongings, cultural artefacts, art, etc, was enough to fill 52 warehouses, or 60,000 square metres 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 artefacts 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, 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 prose 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 Organization, which took shape around 1942 during the height of the Second War when countless buildings, works of arts and cultural sites were being ravaged and destroyed. Largely inspired by the works of the MFAA or Monumentsmen, 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 going to play you a snippet off that speech now. 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 people. the purposes of mutual understanding and a truer and more perfect knowledge of each other's lives. In consequence thereof, they do hereby create the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. 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 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 19. 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. 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.

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-Faiki Almadi was convicted by the International Criminal Corps 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 Bamayyan Buddhas of Afghanistan. Now I'd wager a bet here that you've never heard of these. And I absolutely don't blame you. They're largely forgotten or hushed up. So what are they? Well, the Bamayan Buddhas are a set of Buddha statues carved into the sandstone cliffs of the Bamian 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 here. 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 chiseled 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 Buddhists doing in Afghanistan, I hear you say? And it's a good question. There are actually numerous Buddhist monasteries and sanctuaries within the region, dating back from the third 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 Genkhas Khan's destruction of the city in 1221 to Mughal Emperor Orangzab's 17th century 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 Buddhists. 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 statues rose, which Syed 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. 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. Buddhist principles are not a part of their society and even, though the Buddha 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 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. Syed Hashimi, 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 statue's salvations, 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. 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 isn't 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 fifth century. Generally, I'm of the opinion and I think this is a good baseline here, that if it survived Genghis Khan, it has the right to live on forever, especially given the technological marvel that it is. I'm pretty certain we could barely hand-carve a statue in the side of a cliff

with cranes, safety harnesses and bequita batteries today, let alone do it in the fifth 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 misplace those regimes or governments may be, and ripping leaders out of their beds in the middle of the night and extrading them for cultural crimes against humanity, what happens when a politically motivated official gets elected to UNESCO and uses the organization as a means to just do whatever the

they want. And yes, the argument is, well, they can't invade anywhere unless there's means to do so, aka the Bamin Yom 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 euphonisms 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 slash 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 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 Berkhov 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 soft image to the world, running the Baminian 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 Baminian is on stabilising 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 Baminian 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 as World Heritage Sides 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? 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 favour 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, we risk not

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 Berghoff, even if it's just some child remains. I want to marvel at the Bamingham 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 the same, 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. 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? 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 guy's 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. 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 artifacts. They're discarded. maimed, forgotten, blown up. So how do we get more people engaging in history?

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 our history. Thank you so much for following along with me on this one. 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. 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.HotHistory.

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. Hey, y'all, it's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder, what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair.

With Wayfair, there's no what if. style you love and quality you can trust. Visit wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home.