If the 9/11 terrorists were neo-nazi’s instead of islamo-facsists, would it be reasonable for the memorial for flight 93 to be made in the shape of a swastika?
The proposed memorial is offensive and idiotic.
If my mother had wheels she’d be a bus.
A swastika would be a pretty hard shape to come across accidentally, as the shape of a swastika has several elements. But we’re talking about a freakin’ semicircle.
Do you raise your fist and curse the night sky at every quarter-moon?
The families of various victims of the crash seem to disagree with you. As do I.
You’ve got to be kidding.
Only to idiots who are actively LOOKING to get offended by something. My bedroom door is a standard 6-panel model similar to this one. As an atheist, does the very obvious and prominent cross shape offend me and cause me to accuse the manufacturer of pushing his Christian values on me? No. Why not? Because I’m not an idiot. I know the cross shape is purely accidental and has nothing whatever to do with Christianity.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to eat my croissant, watch the waning moon rise then use the outhouse. And none of those crescents will offend me, either.
Ignore the noise, folks. These venal far right-wing scumfucks** only survive by being constantly on the attack. If, as often happens, they don’t actually have anything to attack, they have no qualms about inventing controversy out of whole cloth. Mock them mercilessly and, hopefully, they’ll slither back into their slimy holes. Who knows, maybe they’ll think twice about poking their pointy heads back up again.
**[sub]NB: I want to make it clear that I am emphatically NOT referring to any Dopers with this statement, just airheaded pundits like Michelle Malkin and all the Nobel Laureates on LittleGreenFascist.com[/sub]
Three issues:
-
Is the crescent fairly described as a symbol of Islam?
Answer: yes. I can’t believe anyone seriously disputes this. -
Is the monument’s shape fairly described as a crescent?
Answer: yes. -
Is the association of Islam with the shape of the crescent so clear and overpowering that it cannot fairly be used here?
Answer: I dunno.
The hoopla and opposition to the arc is stupid. OOOH! The “arc” looks likes a “crescent”–but only after you physically change the design to make it look like a crescent.
The actual design is based on separate arcs of two concentric circles. The crescent is based on two eccentric circles.
The actual design has no taper in any aspect of its layout, a taper that is necessary for a crescent to actually be a crescent.
The actual design has an aditional feature extending from the Southern terminus of the arc in a meandering fashion toward the center of the arc, a feature that would destroy any semblance of a crescent which must have two clear points at the end to actually be a crescent. (There are no pointed shapes on the actual arc design.)
The fact that some geek can create a gif in which the arc morphs into a crescent is no more valid an observation than that a competent geek could morph GWB into a chimp or the Washington Monument into a giant phallus. The competency of geeks is not a valid measure of the quality of the U.S. President or the obscenity of the primary memorial to the first president and it has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania memorial.
Hit submit too soon.
I think the terminology is tasteless here.
The semi-circle should not be off-limits to memorial designers: it is a basic and pleasing shape. But there are many words to describe it: arc, semi-circle, curve. Choosing to call this shape “crescent” in the official name of the memorial is foolish. The design itself is not offensive. The terminology is not well chosen.
No, Bricker. A crescent is a particular type of curved shape, which perfectly fits the image linked to in the OP. But who cares? Why should the name of the shape, which is a correct and proper description of it, be offensive? You don’t see me calling a cross shape a dodecagon, do you?
This has been making the news recently since Flight 93 crashed in the mountains east of here. I was thinking about Pitting it myself, but I didn’t want to give these folks the publicity. Zoe, you’re right. Red maples are only red for a few weeks during fall. Looking out of my window, I know some of the trees out there are red maples, but, for the life of me, I can’t tell which ones. It should be more obvious in a month or so.
For what it’s worth, here’s a local columnist giving his take on the people who are objecting. One fellow who’s objecting
In other words, I gather he’s sort of the local answer to Fred Phelps.
As for what people find objectionable, here’s a comment from the daughter of one of the victims from the first cite in the OP:
No design would have pleased everyone and some people are easier to displease and offend than others. To me, it looks like a lovely design and the niches for people who want to leave tributes seems like a particularly thoughtful touch. Those who lost most weren’t offended by this design; surely their opinions matter more than someone who appears determined to hate everyone?
CJ
I’m with Bricker, here. I think the proposed memorial is rather nice sounding, and far less obnoxious than something like yet another obelisk would be.
I really hate to agree with anything that Tom Tancredo says. His oppossition to anything should be a sign that it’s a good idea. It may even need to be improved to make it more offensive to him. But, in this case, I think the name really is poorly chosen.
:eek: You know the Kaaba is a big rectangular rock, don’t you?
There you go making sense. What will we ever do with you?
You know, you’re right!
kicks down the offending Christian door and burns it
He’s just staking his claim as Third-Stupidest Doper.
Wow. This is weird. [slight hijack] I had a Dr. appointment this afternoon, and a lady was in there talking to another one and mentioned going up there to see the memorial. Her brother had been on Flight 93. I didn’t catch all of the conversation, but she didn’t say anything bad about it. I didn’t ask what she thought about it; I just expressed my condolences and surprisingly, with me being pretty near an atheist, I said “God Bless Him”. I can’t get worked up over a shape; she didn’t seem to be.
Flags of the Muslim world.
Flag of the Islamic conference (whatever that is).
The first thing I thought of when I saw the picture of the Crescent of Embrace was its resemblance to the Islamic symbol. Considering the circumstances, I think it’s an inappropriate design and an inappropriate name. It’s quite possible that many people, including the families of the victims, are not aware of the Islamic connotations of the crescent. I’m guessing there will be quite a furor as publicity about the design increases.
And another thing: yes, this is the Pit. That doesn’t make it appropriate to call someone a moron just because they have an opinion different from yours. Your opinion is not strengthened by making personal attacks on those who disagree with you over a controversial matter.
I realize you are probably referring to the contemporary manufacturer of your specific door when you made your comment about 'pushing Christian values. However, six raised panel (a k a colonial) doors were in fact Christian symbols. In fact, they were originally called “cross and bible doors”
…And so many Americans are still so bewildered about why a large chunk of the rest of the world hates us?
Could it possibly because we allow the numbfucking idiotic parts of our society to bitch and scream about the stupidest imaginable things, and then we give them credit by even listening?
It’s a fucking memorial. If you don’t like it, don’t go visit it. 99% of Americans - those who didn’t have family or close friends on Flight 93 - have no right to be bitching about this.
FWIW - I think it’s a decent design. I also think that our culture is fucked up in our need to memorialize things formally like so: apparently, we can’t remember them ourselves.
Interesting links. I can’t help but notice that only one of those crescents is unaccompanied by either stars or arabic text (neither of which appear in the proposed design for the memorial site), that one isn’t red (only two of the crescents are red, in fact), and none of the crescents have uniform thickness (like the crescent in the proposed design).
I repeat: just a shape.