originally appeared at irrussianality 




following the recent kerfuffle in russia over a statue of ivan the terrible, the issue of monuments continues to make headlines. two differing approaches to historical memory are on display. both create their own historical distortions. by eradicating monuments of an entire era, one paints that era as bad in every single way. by sanctifying an autocratic ruler, the other whitewashes the imperfections of the past. 




according to the ukrainian television station espreso tv , the last remaining statue of lenin in ukraine, located in the town of novgorod-severskii, has been taken down. there were once more than 2,000 lenin statues in the country. as a result of a 2015 law prohibiting communist memorials and symbols, ukraine is now lenin-free. 




meanwhile, a bell-tower dedicated to russia<u+2019>s last tsar, nicholas ii, was formally opened in the crimean capital, simferopol, on tuesday. attending the opening was duma deputy and former chief prosecutor of crimea natalia poklonskaia, who has acquired something of a reputation as a monarchist, and whose idea the bell tower was. poklonskaia told reporters that, <u+2018>for me, my colleagues and friends, this isn<u+2019>t simply a bell tower, but an entire church. and this church is not simply a building but a holy one, in which will be carried out, with full rights, all the services and liturgies as laid down in the church canons.<u+2019> 




the first story illustrates an approach to historical memory which is destructive and coercive; the second an approach which is constructive and voluntary. if there is one thing the participants can agree on, it is that they aren<u+2019>t fans of communism. but as these examples show, the victors of today<u+2019>s memory wars aren<u+2019>t always the victors of tomorrow<u+2019>s.
crimea and ukraine fight a war over historical memory - paul robinson
noauthor