I’m rapidly approaching the opinion that all memorials should be square, black, monoliths with the names of the dead carved in block letters, alphabetized by last name. One paragraph to describe the events, in bland historical terms. Done, end of story, quit whining.
If that’s not good enough for you to bother visiting, who cares? I don’t. Visit because you want to remember the people, not because you want to see spectacular architechtural design.
The sorts of things I propose would influence … and would this one. As you put it, you want people to “mourn.” I don’t, or at least not in the way you do. I don’t think any possible design could be devoid of message or meaning(s); whether or not a “meaningless” monument is desirable, it is not possible.
The point of a republic is not to say the state or the collective people cannot believe in anything – presumably a republic can be expected to believe in republicanism, even if not all its citizens do. Presumably the state’s belief in the virtue of free speech trumps someone’s belief in the sin of blasphemy. The point of a republic, rather, is ensure that 1) the people decide what the state believes in, and 2) the state does not overreach the bounds that the people set for it.
This issue falls well within 1). We, the people, through public discussion and our elected government, are deciding what we beliefs should be reflected in our public spaces.
I think it looks like an impact crater with windchimes. I don’t think it’s a terrible looking memorial, but surely I’m not the only one who thinks a crater might not be the best way to remember a plane crash. Or maybe it is, I’m not really up on memorial design.
OK, well then let’s get down and dirty.
I do not support this war, and I think anyone who would use these people’s grave site to forward their political agenda are abominable people. If this memorial is about “influencing” people to support America invading whatever middle eastern country they feel like, I will not support it. I refuse to vote for a government that supports such an action. Courage, etc. are all great ideas for a memorial. The “war on terror” and the associated bullshit isn’t.
Not only because of my own opinions, but also for the sake of the families that need this site far more than I do. If my mother died and every time I visited her grave I saw a loving ode to, say, the Vietnam war, it would tear me apart.
Nor would I, and I do support the war. You are the only one who has made that connection.
I was thinking something that would express our feelings about the terrorists while also being functional - a row of toilets dedicated to their memory.
May I make a point? The people who died in the plane crash were human beings. Everyone who died in the terrorist attacks was a human being. Of course they were Americans, but they were also human beings. A memorial to them must recognize that they shared the identity of human being with six billion other people on the planet. A memorial which ignores this aspect isn’t a memorial to the victims of the terrorist attacks. A memorial that’s trying to communicate: “We’re proud of our might and we love deriding and destroying our enemies” is only glorifying someone’s projection of what the victims should have been.
Not all the victims of the terrorist attacks glorified power, not all of them loved derision and destruction. We’re building a monument to people, not to visions of glory.
Yes. The terrorists were human beings too.
May I make a second point? A statue depicting the passengers storming the cabin, you say? We don’t know that the passengers stormed the cabin. The accepted narrative of what happened on that plane is a work of fiction built on a skimpy collection of facts.
Third point and then I’ll quit.
Yes, it is so hard. The crescent in this case not be accidentally construed as an Islamic symbol, only willfully misconstrued that way. There’s no way that a thinking person could believe that the monument was designed with the intention of being an Islamic symbol. Crescents are everywhere. You can’t get rid of them all just to avoid offending anti-Islamic feelings. What comes next, blowing up the moon so that people don’t have to see an Islamic symbol in the sky?
Why?
My grandmother was also a human being; did we err by not inscribing “citizen o’ the world” on her tombstone? Are we wrong if we honor Lincoln or Washington or King as great Americans, or is it only permissible to honor them as global citizens? The passengers shared all sorts of identities, from college alumni to religious affiliation to favorite sports teams. I would expect, however, that something built in their honor by the *US government * would honor them primarily as Americans, especially since that had more to do with why they died than any other affiliation. If the UN wants to do the same, they’re free to do so on their own dime.
I take it you’d advocate that Auschwitz should honor the memory of the guards who died, there, too?
There’s no need to exclude the middle. When I see Pearl Harbor or D-Day or Civil War memorials, I don’t see anything anti-Japanese, German or South in them. I do not see hate or anger or “glorification of power.” Does anyone?
I do, however, see glorification of courage and selflessness and resolution and sacrifice and love of country. And I am glad I do, because these are good and noble virtues. No, they aren’t the only virtues, but they are the virtues that the people we are memorializing modeled in their dying acts.
I’ve seen several dozen Holocaust memorials all over the world. I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen any that derides the Nazis or celebrates their destruction. In fact, I cannot recall any memorial to any event, anywhere, that takes such an approach. When people die by needless violence, the memorial should logically be devoted to mourning the loss of human beings because that theme and only that theme prompts viewers to consider decreasing needless violence against all people at all times and places, which is the only way to decrease and eventually eliminate said violence. It is, I would venture, the theme that the bulk of those who died would pick, if we had a chance to ask them at the very last minute of their lives. I frankly doubt that any spent their last conscious thought being glad that they were Americans (or having any opinion about holding any artificial identity). Most belief systems, secular or religious, agree that what happens at death and beyond does not depend on national identity.
What bothered me about that whole brouhaha was that some geek who got hung up on the word “crescent” wrote a .gif to deliberately distort the image of the design to create a false image that made it look like the crescent in the flags of a very few majority Muslim nations (none of which had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and all of which–with the possible exception of our ally Pakistan–are clearly secular societies), and a whole bunch of ignorant people had knee-jerk reactions to condemn an image for a relationship that never existed.
It would be the equivalent of someone including a fish or an anchor in a memorial to Matthew Shepherd and having a bunch of idiots begin foaming at the mouth over the “Christian” symbols even though Fred Phelps has never included a fish or an anchor image in his attacks on homosexuals and the idiots who tortured Mr. Shepherd had no connection to any church that ever employed the fish or anchor symbolism.
Again, you are excluding the middle: there is a huge range of options between derision of our enemies on the one side and unalloyed sadness and pacifism on the other.
Put it this way: are these memorials acceptable?
All celebrate Americans who died. I have no real problem with any of them.
If these are acceptable,and you would like something similar for flight 93, we have no disagreement.
If these are acceptable,but you would NOT like something similar for flight 93, why is it different?
If these are not acceptable, I think we will have to agree to disagree, and I’ll suggest that your sentiments are at odds with the vast majority of the citizenry, and that in a republic, the sentiments of the vast majority tend to be honored.
Don’t be absurd. Memorials are not dedicated for the benefit of the dead. To steal a line, their purpose is for the living, rather, to be dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought so nobly advanced.
I think furt’s last answer says a great deal in a few words.
I know I’m treading terribly close to Godwinistan here, but let me recall the Battle of Mers-el-Kebir, early in World War II. France had just signed the Armistice with Nazi Germany, and British vessels and planes were sent to disable the French Navy, which it was feared would be used by the Germans against Britain.
Two French sailors were killed in the attack. Their families asked that at their funerals, their caskets be draped with both the Tricolor and the Union Jack.
There is a very profound symbolism in that. In death, the issues that divided us in life are transcended. Nobody approves of the motives of the four hijackers. But to include them and their deaths in what is memorialized, rather than demonizing them, says something very important … and very positive.
Nobody here has advocated demonizing them. Do you find any of the memorials I linked to above to be demonizing to anyone? This is a straw man.
I agree.
I disagree.
Puh-leeze. We have the final phone calls. We have the fact that the plane suddenly went down immediately afterwards. Alternate theories on what happened are for people who think that “Occam’s Razor” is the brand name of the box cutters used by the terrorists.
If anyone bothered to actually read occasionally, they’d notice that neither the current proposal nor the previous one had more than 40 markers. :rolleyes:
I noticed that and am pleased. My objections are about the tone and mood of the memorial; others are claiming that there ought to be 4 more markers.
See the OP.
I stand corrected: there is one sentence in the OP containing the word “derision.” If everyone agrees that the OP is entirely correct with the exception of that on sentence, I guess we’re all on the same page. Somehow I suspect that isn’t the case.
