Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic US Citizens: Take back the memorial

Came across this link today: Take Back the Memorial

This is what they intend to do with the memorial at the Twin Towers.

Whether you think we're at fault for the 9/11 attacks or not, no one in those towers or planes deserved to die, and it's a dishonor to their memory to turn the memorial into a subtle lesson on our "errors". The innocent victims should be remembered and the rescue workers honored for their bravery. There are other places to make the sort of point the IFC wants to make.

I felt this was something more people should be aware of--US citizens can even do something about it.

Doranwen

I agree that the 9/11 Memorial's primary purpose (and focus) should be in remembering and honoring those who died and those heroes who risked and sometimes lost lives to help. I think the memorial should contain much to demonstrate to everyone the scope of the disaster so that those of us who were not there and those who come in the future will have some idea of what happened.

That being said, I do think there is enough room for a secondary exhibit that speaks to the pursuit of liberty. I guess, though, that I'd much rather see this taken in a positive approach rather than the negative approach that the IFC seems to be heading towards. Rather than show atrocities that mankind has inflicted upon itself, I guess I'd rather see how the human spirit has triumphed over adversity. Instead of focusing on the Holocaust (I've been to Dachau - I've seen what horror occured there), for example, I'd rather see exhibits about the Allied soldiers who stormed the beaches in Normandy. That kind of thing.

What bothers me is what seems to be a very unequal division of the space that will be devoted to the two different exhibits. I would like to think that at least half and hopefully even more of the space would be devoted to the 9/11 tragedy specifically with a smaller portion given to a museum/exhibit along the vein of what the IFC wants to do.

Lynn

When I first heard about this, I was absolutely stunned and couldn't believe anyone would want to do something like this to desecrate the memories of those who died there. Why would someone want to see something about concentration camps or Wounded Knee or slavery when the expectation would be a memorial dedicated to 9/11 victims? The ACLU and their cohorts can take this exhibit somewhere else.

The President, Governor Pataki, and Mayor Bloomberg need to stand up and say an emphatic no to this politically correct exhibit.

I agree with some of the points, but I have to say, they're not making it easy for me to agree.

The memorial should, ideally, be apolitical. I'm not sure how possible that actually is, though, especially with people so ready to attach political motives to anything they don't like.

I also doubt it would be possible to come up with a memorial that would satisfy everyone.

I would like to see more space and thought devoted to 9/11 itself, rather than this more conceptual and indirect take on things.

I don't think, however, that it's wrong to have a secondary exhibit about the lessons to be learned.

So, I don't agree with the current focus, and I do think it could be done better. OTOH, I think the objectors could do a better job, too. It's hard for me to side with them when, despite claiming to be apolitical, they repeatedly attack liberals. "With apologies to our blue friends?" If you need to apologize in advance, maybe that's a sign that you shouldn't say it in the first place?

The second article you linked to (and which is prominently linked off the first one's homepage) is even worse. It lumps all liberals together in one pot, makes hyperbolic claims about their stances, and seems to imply that anyone who disagrees with the government, even about contravertial issues (issues which, BTW, have no real place in this discussion), should have all their opinions discounted.

Similarly, I don't see what the ACLU (or "their cronies") have to do with anything.

The memorial should be apolitical. It should be a monument to the tragedy, the lost lives, and the heroes. Taking time out on the side to promote thought and discussion about the lessons to be learned (to help prevent similar tragedies in the future) is not necessarily a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the main focus.

Attacking liberals, however, is not a good, productive, or apolitical way of making that case.

"Killing masses of innocent people is wrong" is not a political message. "9/11 isn't the only time when masses of innocent people were killed" is not a political message. "At one point in our history, our ancestors killed masses of innocent people, and that was wrong, too" is not a political message, nor does it in any way imply that the 9/11 attacks were justifiable.

Now, whether or not those messages should be included in the memorial is debatable, but the debate will go a lot better if we all leave politics (and our feelings about people with differing political views) outside.

Paul