Roman God-Like Man.

"A monument is not a descriptive account of history, but instead a historical artifact that tells a story about power."

I have a new bucket list destination: the Citadel Museum.

The eight-ton Lenin's head used to be attached to the statue of the Soviet leader that stood at Leninplatz, in East Berlin, which as you'll recall is where I worked while employed for three weeks by the parks department in the capital of the GDR in the summer of 1989.

The statue was taken down after unification in spite of neighborhood opinion in favor of it remaining, and it would appear to have been dismembered. The head was exhumed in 2015.

I highly recommend clicking through and reading the article.

The Museum Where Racist and Oppressive Statues Go to Die, by Daniela Blei (Atlas Obscura)

Germany has found ways to display problematic monuments without elevating them.

LAST YEAR, URTE EVERT RECEIVED a 400-pound church bell imprinted with a small but unmistakable swastika, and she faced a conundrum. Evert is the director of the Citadel Museum in the Berlin suburb of Spandau, and the bronze bell—cast in 1934 for the ascendant Nazi regime—hung at the nearby Evangelical Church of Hakenfelde until the astonishingly recent date of 2017. Evert hoped to add the Nazi artifact to the museum’s permanent collection of toxic monuments: busts of militaristic Prussian rulers; statues of Aryan athletes and warriors; and an eight-ton granite head of Vladimir Lenin, which took two years of political and bureaucratic wrangling to dig out of the ground. But first, Evert had to weigh the risks of exhibiting a church bell installed during the Nazi period. What would the bell represent, and what could visitors learn from it? And could it become a kind of shrine for members of far-right or neo-Nazi groups?

Evert’s job at the Citadel Museum, which is housed in the former provisions depot of a Renaissance-era fortress, is to critically examine the culture of monuments. Rather than scrubbing the area of statues that symbolize racism, antisemitism, and other forms of violence and oppression, the museum aims to contextualize the past, putting uncomfortable realities on display in productive, educational, and sometimes challenging ways.

“Inside the museum, visitors confront at eye level statues and monuments that used to represent power,” Evert says. “You can touch everything. Nothing is put on a pedestal. You can talk about what makes you mad.” Since December, the Nazi church bell has been on permanent loan. It inspired a special exhibition on Spandau’s churches under National Socialism, a collaboration between college students and the museum ...

... The idea for a museum of spurned monuments came from Andrea Theissen, the former director of the Spandau Citadel, who curated the opening in 2016. Each statue was left in the condition she received it—many were dismantled under orders from the Allies—complete with bullet holes and damage from bombs. The museum’s message is clear: A monument is not a descriptive account of history, but instead a historical artifact that tells a story about power. In a setting that invites scrutiny, visitors can study Berlin’s monuments to grasp more clearly who had power and how that power was used.

A wee rant: Why must we have statues of "famous" people? Can't we just have art instead?

Rather than argue about which statues to remove and which to keep, I'd rather have a discussion about why humans deploy statuary as propaganda markers to begin with, a habit that strikes me as similar to dogs marking territory with urine.

Face it, there's a considerable difference between art for the sake of art and statuary for the sake of establishing what is "true." Michelangelo's David is an idealized male form. It celebrates itself. Southern cities dropping statues of Civil War "heroes" during the 1960s? That's so-called art for the sake of societal control.

Why do we do this? The planet is filled with statuary capable of being defined or redefined into repugnance, because after all, doesn't each triumphant victory arch ever erected have the side purpose of provoking the defeated?

Ordinary working men and women have created the planet's wealth -- and the rich folks (generally men) who exploited them get the statues. The same goes for street names; the best are simplest: Main, Market, Oak, Riverside and the like. Naming them for actual people is fraught with peril if objectivity is the aim, because those chosen are flawed by nature.

As I've pointed out many times, a person born in Berlin during World War I, and residing in the same building until his or her death in the mid-1990s, might have enjoyed as many as five different street addresses based on which ideology ruled at the time.

One of these days, our munificent municipal mediocrity will generously allow his fans and campaign donors to erect a statue in his honor.

And I will figure out a way to topple it.

A thought for independent downtown business owners: Those favoring an equitable distribution of power must begin by organizing themselves, so as to achieve it.

Last night I had a few words to say about the forthcoming demise of NA Social, and my comments have generated varied responses.

This is good. It's why I write in the first place. It was my aim all along to follow last evening's post with this one, so to extend the discussion, it's important not to confuse the overarching issue.

A political scientist named Harold Lasswell defined politics as "who gets what, when, and how," and concurrently, the late Tip O'Neill was fond of repeating the axiom, "all politics is local."

So: Politics is power, and politics is local.

Kelly's original experience with Develop New Albany was about local politics, in the sense that Develop New Albany, with whom she butted heads, is an organization with "official" power derived from City Hall. In effect, City Hall has "recognized" DNA as the holder of certain powers, and understandably, DNA protects the power it has gained.

Unfortunately for DNA, the power it has gained falls almost exclusively into the realm of glorified prom planning committee. This is a favorable outcome for political power-brokers, but unfortunately it results in DNA neglecting other aspects of its Main Street mission -- to its detriment.

After Kelly's horrific experience with Taco Walk, she created NA Social, a very informal and highly creative pop-up concept, which in the eyes of some constituted a challenge to the power held by DNA.

In some ways it may have been true, and in others not; Kelly herself may or may not have had the interest or ability to nurture a long-term challenge to DNA's sanctioned pre-eminence. She may or may not have cared.

These distinctions aren't important. What's important is that power once acquired seldom is relinquished without a negotiation (at the very least), and often action of a more direct nature. If nothing else, Kelly proved that.

Personalities aside, the existence of two similar entities (NA Social and DNA) should not have been an issue. But pie slice dimensions obviously still matter, and given the realities of an evolving scene, dissonance probably was inevitable.

As I've said many times before, and it's a plain, simple fact, the fundamental problem with an organization like DNA tying itself so closely with City Hall -- this one or any other one -- is that when DNA asks a business to "join," the business faces interpreting an unspoken and delicate question: Will refusal to "join" be interpreted as withholding tribute from an incumbent mayor's power structure? 

Politics is power, politics is local. Don't think for a millisecond that the prime possessor of political power at this moment (Jeff Gahan) isn't aware that an organization like DNA can be exploited to enhance his own power. It can be, and it is being.

The difference between this unquestionable reality and the classic experience of paying protection money to the mafioso is one of degree alone. The basic principle is exactly the same.

In turn, this is why I've always advocated that independent business owners have only one true path if they wish to protect and advance their interests as stakeholders: join together as indies to create an indie business association, which organizes indies to assist indies. 

As it stands, the city's current political power-brokers agree publicly that somewhere north of $50 million (it might well be twice that) has been invested during the past few in the general vicinity of downtown ... by indies. This outstrips government's own investments by a huge margin.

What these same political power-brokers won't concede, at least aloud, is that if the extent of these investments were to be backed by an independent business alliance looking out for its own interests, spheres of influence (read: power) would be altered overnight.

Another simple fact: Among those City Hall operatives currently representing the city downtown, not one has been an entrepreneur, an independent business owner/operator, or anything at all apart from an emissary of political power. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, nor right about it. It's neuter. However, I'd suggest it's a telling commentary that people unaware of what indie operators experience are constantly eager to offer advice to those who are.

One undisputed practice that unites all of this:

"divide and conquer"

To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful, so that they cannot unite in opposition.

Even as "divide and conquer" occurs downtown insofar as City Hall's relationships with its constituents are concerned, another factor has disrupted what formerly was a more collegial, egalitarian setting -- maybe for the better, maybe not.

I refer to a more opportunistic class of potential investors, less motivated by the entrepreneurial zeal of current stakeholders, and interested primarily in the percentages as they pertain to profitability. Power is money, and money talks. Speaking only for myself, I'm forever suspicious of talking about money, and money alone.

But being divided and lacking a common vision is an invitation to those viewing what we've built as a vehicle for profit, absent the equity so many smallholders have invested along with their cash.

My conclusion is that NA Social is like a band that came along, had some hits, played some shows, then disappeared again. Comebacks are forever possible, but as I can say from personal experience, the sole necessary ingredient for a comeback is going away.

Anyone desiring independence during at a time when the chosen and anointed few typically behave like the Ticketmaster/Live Nation monopoly will find it's not easy. Stop allowing yourselves to be divided and conquered by those who derive their power from your labors. They can't do it on their own, so why allow them to charge you so that they claim credit?

And I'm not talking about DNA, either. Those favoring an equitable distribution of power must begin by organizing themselves, so as to achieve it.

SHANE'S EXCELLENT NEW WORDS: "What does the word ‘whore’ actually mean?"

"Language is an important battle ground in the fight for social equality. As the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure argued, ‘language constitutes our world, it doesn’t just record it or label it’. Language is fluid and malleable; it drives social attitudes, rather than simply expressing them." 
-- Dr. Kate Lister

To begin, the author and her work.

Kate Lister started the Whores of Yore project in 2015. The project aims to give voice to the voiceless, to start a much-needed conversation on the history of sexuality, the plight of modern sex workers, and, ultimately, to extract the prudish stick from the arse of society. The archive provides a platform for academics, activists, sex workers, and archivists to share their experience, research and stories around sexuality and sex work.

This essay is worth reading in its entirety. I'll try to sketch the parameters.

“Tis Pity She’s a Whore”: the ‘Whore’ in Whores of Yore, by Dr. Kate Lister (The Whores of Yore)

Germaine Greer once said she would ‘rather be called a whore than a human being’; but, what does the word ‘whore’ actually mean? Where has it come from, and what does someone have to do to earn that particular title? Why was Joan of Arc, who died a virgin, called the ‘French Whore’? And why was Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, attacked as the English Whore’? The revolutionaries called Marie Antoinette the ‘Austrian Whore’; Anne Boleyn was the ‘Great Whore’ and Air America host Randi Rhodes came under fire for calling Hillary Clinton a ‘big whore’ in the 2016 American elections. Perhaps we think we know perfectly well what we mean should we ever choose to drop the w-bomb, but the word is historically and culturally complex. This simple monosyllable is loaded with over a thousand years of attempting to control and shame women by stigmatising their sexuality.

Diving into the deep end ...

The truth is that I should not have used ‘whore’ in whores of yore; it’s not my word, and if you’re not a sex worker, it’s not yours either. It’s a term of abuse that sex workers hear every day by those seeking to devalue them and shame them. So, why did I call this project whores of yore? ‘Whore’ is a very old word, with a complex and powerful history, and that’s what I wanted to bring to this project. To my ears, whore is an archaic, slightly humorous word, like strumpet and trollop – but, that simply isn’t the reality for many (and a mistake on my part). I have had feedback from many sex workers questioning my use of the term, and for a while I gave serious consideration to changing it. But, the history of that word is an important one, and one that I want to retain, and emphasise. Debate around what ‘whore’ actually means is a conversation worth having.

The word is so old that its precise origins are lost in the mists of time, but it can be traced to the Proto-Germanic ‘horon’, or "one who desires". It also links to the Old Norse hora "adulteress," Danish hore, Swedish hora, Dutch hoer, and Old High German huora. Going back even further to Proto-Indo-European language (the common ancestor of the Indo-European languages), whore has roots in ‘Ka’, meaning ‘to like, desire.’ Ka is a base that has produced words in other languages for ‘lover’, such as the Latin carus ‘dear’; Old Irish cara ‘friend;’ and the Old Persian kama ‘desire.’

‘Whore’ is not a universal word; the indigenous Aborigines, First Nation people and native Hawaiians have no word for ‘whore’, or indeed prostitution, as they do not share the West's shaming of sexuality. It is interesting too that 'whore' is almost exclusively a feminine insult. I accept that 'man-whore' has now entered modern language, and certainly 'son of a whore' has been an insult historically directed at men; but 'whore' is absolutely an insult directed at women. But, 'whore' is not the exclusive preserve of men, to hurl at unsuspecting women at will; women have called each other whores all throughout history. Historical court records are full of defamation cases of woman calling each other 'whores' and all manner of other sexual insults. Tudor women were regularly brought before the courts for defaming other women as 'hedge whores', 'begger whores', 'drunken bitch whores', 'black mouthed, witch whores'; and in 1627, Isabel Yaxley complained of a neighbour alledging she was a 'whore' who could be 'fucked for a pennyworth of fish'.

(snip)

John Webster’s The White Devil (1612) explores narratives around badly behaved women. In one memorable scene, Monticelso defines what a whore is ... Monticelso doesn’t admit it, but what is driving this rant is a fear of women, fear that they can wield power over men; they can ‘teach man wherein he is imperfect.’ Here, whore is not a sex worker, she is a woman who has authority over a man, and must be shamed into silence at all costs. Historically, ‘whore’ had been used to attack women who have upset the status quo and asserted themselves, usually in an attempt to reassert sexual control and dominance over her. But, unlike the word ‘prostitute’, whore is not tied to a profession, but rather to a perceived moral state. Which is why many trailblazing women, with no connection to the sex trade, were attacked as ‘whores’; Mary Wollstonecraft, Phulan Devi, even Margaret Thatcher were all labelled whores by those who were angered at their power. Maybe 'whore' has less to do with sex than we think.

Let's end this edition of Shane's Excellent New Words with a number.