I'm back in Tokyo, but Riding Sun's research assistant, the beautiful and intrepid Dusky, has filed a report from Ground Zero in Manhattan, the site of yesterday's Take Back the Memorial protest against plans to build a "Freedom Center" adjacent to the 9-11 memorial. Below are her photos. (Links open in a new window):
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Several of the protesters gave speeches. Michael Burke, whose brother, FDNY Capt. William F. Burke, Jr., was killed by the falling towers, said:
Nobody is coming to this place to learn about Ukraine democracy or to be inspired by the courage of Tibetan monks. They’re coming for Sept. 11.Edie Lutnick, sister of Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, who lost 658 employees in the attacks, added:
When you come to the WTC site, you will not be immersed with 9/11. You will be met with world politics. No one who has come to the WTC site in the last almost 4 years has asked about world politics. Why? Because it is not the appropriate place. If you want world politics, go to the U.N. 9/11 is about 9/11.As I noted earlier, I think the U.N. would be an ideal location for the proposed Freedom Center. Ground Zero, simply, should be a place where Michael Burke, Edie Lutnick, and all of us can honor the dead.
FOLLOW-UP:
Jeff Jarvis has a more detailed report.
19 comments:
A key fact is misrepresented in the story by Jeff Jarvis about the protest and in several of the previous comments here on Rising Sun.
The International Freedom Center would only be PART of the memorial.
The center will not displace any facility that is dedicated to the 9/11 victims. Claims that the center will in any way deny anyone the opportunity to focus on their status as 9/11 victims have no basis in fact. To repeat: a memorial dedicated exclusively to commemorating the victims will be built on the site and the IFC will not interfere with that in any way.
Moreover, the IFC's detractors acknowledge the IFC will present a range of views on American and world history. Their objections are not based on the factuality of what the IFC may or may not say about the history of freedom, but on the possibility that SOME of the information could be construed as critical of the U.S.
Jarvis, for example, asserts that the center might ``impugn or disparage America.'' Such a claim can only be founded on the risible misunderstanding that a factual representation of U.S. history would constitute disparagement. Does Jarvis hate America? Is he ashamed of its history?
Americans love truth. They are optimistic and confident about their history and understand that focusing on mistakes and failures is essential to understanding, progress and improvement.
Most Americans reject the idea that a sanitized, uncritical view of history honors the nation and its core belief in free speech and free thought. They know that rigging the marketplace of ideas ultimately weakens society.
Posted by bunkerbuster
bunkerbuster: What does it have to do with 9/11? Nothing. Take your political agenda and piss off.
Posted by Ayatrollah
Ayatrollah: The attacks on the World Trade Center were politically motivated and the results had a significant political element as well. Politics, of course, is only part of the story, which is why, as I pointed out, the entire Ground Zero site will not be taken up with the IFC.
The IFC's idea is that there is no more meaningful place in the world than Ground Zero to demonstrate America's love of truth and commitment to free speech, free thought and political freedom. I agree with them, if you don't, please explain why.
The political motivations of the International Freedom Center's opponents are obvious,. I have no objections to them taking a political stand on this, but let's at least be honest about what's happening here.
Posted by bunkerbuster
bunkerbuster,
I'm not sure what previous comments you're referring to, but as for my own post, I clearly stated that the protest was "against plans to build a 'Freedom Center' adjacent to the 9-11 memorial" — not that the Center would "displace" the Memorial, as you claim.
As for whether the presence of the Center would interfere with the role of the Memorial, there's a very good chance it will, particularly if it turns into a Mecca for prominent leftists to rail against American foreign policy.
Your free speech argument is a straw man. Exercising free speech and questioning our nation's history are good things, yet we need not construct a special arena for that purpose right next door to the 9-11 Memorial.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Bunkerbuster,
Try actually plugging in to the topic at hand.
IFC: 300,000 square feet, above ground.
9/11 memorial: 50,000 square feet, underground.
Please explain how this is appropriate.
Ok, ok. I can see how a museum to tolerance and peace could be appropriate. I've been to two concentration camps, and they both had museums in that vein, detailing the horrors of the camps and of the Nazi ideology. That was entirely fitting, I think we all agree.
So in that same vein, a museum at the WTC to tolerance and peace could be appropriate. If they detail the heroism, death, pain, and evil of the islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Like those holocaust museums, I learn about the heroism of the victims, the tragedy itself, and the aftermath.
Please explain to me how much of the IFC will be devoted to this topic.
I think I speak for most rational Americans when I say that the WTC memorial is about 9/11. Period.
Oh, and just in case this IFC abomination actually opens...
Does anyone know the fines in NY for:
1. Driving on the Sidewalk
2. Vandalism
3. Urinating in Public
4. Destruction of Property
Thanks in advance, I just hope the info isn't needed.
Posted by eric
GB writes: ``Your free speech argument is a straw man.''
Sorry GB, that's not what a straw man is. A straw man is a weak argument inaccurately attributed to your ''opponent.'' For example, if I said the IFC's opponents want the Heritage foundation alone to decide the meaning of 9/11, I would be exaggerating their views and, thereby, constructing a straw man. I didn't do that.
GB writes: ``Exercising free speech and questioning our nation's history are good things, yet we need not construct a special arena for that purpose right next door to the 9-11 Memorial.''
Our disagreement, then, is over whether Ground Zero is a good place to celebrate freedom. I think it is, and I've explained why: nothing says more about the greatness of America than its people's history of loving freedom and truth. The 9/11 attacks were committed by people who have little or no understanding of the power of freedom. Moreover, America's commitment to freedom is essential to the inevitability of its triumph over terrorism and Islamofascism. That is also why Ground Zero is an ideal place to showcase America's love of truth, freedom, free speech, free thought and the humility that derives from that.
Eric's argument against IFC: ``I think I speak for most rational Americans when I say that the WTC memorial is about 9/11. Period,'' is obliterated by Gaijinbiker: ``the protest was `against plans to build a 'Freedom Center' adjacent to the 9-11 memorial' — not that the Center would 'displace' the Memorial.''
The facts, then, are not in dispute: The 9/11 Memorial will be about 9/11. Period. Adjacent to that memorial, as GB emphasizes, will be a center that celebrates humanity's love of and struggle for freedom and America's unique role in that.
GB at least acknowledges his real concern here is that the IFC will be a place where ``leftists rail against American foreign policy.''
The anti-IFC effort is yet another attempt by rightists to impose their narrow political agenda on a public space. It's great that right wingers rail against left wingers--America would be a weaker country if everyone agreed on everything.
What I don't like is the sense of entitlement rightists seem to have over America's history, culture and politics. The anti-IFC fracas, like all the whining about liberal media and academia, is a perfect example of that.
Posted by bunkerbuster
A museum/center that embraces the struggle for freedom has already been built.
National Liberty Musuem located in Philadelphia honors 1000 men and women worldwide who dared to step beyond their comfort zone to make the world a better place. www.libertymuseum.org
The IFC proposed for ground zero is unnecessary besides being completely offensive to the memory of the victims of 9/11 and misrepresenting the shared history of the United States.
A far better approach to respecting Ground Zero would be as followes:
9/11 memorial: 300,000 square feet, above ground.
IFC: 50,000 square feet, underground - or not at all.
---------------------------------------------------
Adjacent to that memorial, as GB emphasizes, will be a center that celebrates humanity's love of and struggle for freedom and America's unique role in that.
Posted by skye
I'd be all for such a memorial if it devoted an entire wing (and it would have to be a large one) to the left's role in scuttling liberty around the world throughout history, and its nonstop efforts to make truth out of lies.
Posted by rastajenk
"...I think the U.N. would be an ideal location for the proposed Freedom Center"
And has been suggested recently by several sages, the ideal place for the UN is somewhere in crisis, the delivering potable water kind, not the which show should we catch and then where should we dine variety. Why not put the UN in Liberia? That's my vote. Imagine taking a place like that near social death and pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy and infrastructure. Imagine a UN post being service rather than reward.
Posted by tokyobk
...and back on point, it is ultimately an incredible and embarrassing arrogance, hubris, to do anything but a simple memorial with names and Old Glory flying overhead. Do we really believe degrees confer wisdom. It seems to be the opposite these days. That is why I think the hole in the ground is preferable to anything that can be (over) thought up. You don't have to explain anything and it is clear to everyone what that hole means.
Posted by tokyobk
tokyobk:
"Do we really believe degrees confer wisdom. It seems to be the opposite these days. That is why I think the hole in the ground is preferable to anything that can be (over) thought up. You don't have to explain anything and it is clear to everyone what that hole means."
Your comments illustrate a problem in many 1st-world societies, whereby there is so much information available about people (whether they are applying for a place at University or a job) that degrees have become a sort of short-hand by which people are measured. I've known people from Harvard who are dunb as paint, at least when it comes to common sense and intuition. Yet these same people are often given opportunities that require thoughtful consideration, tact and the ability to inspire others. This is how we end up with miscalculations like the International Freedom Center being invited (by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.) to co-opt what is inarguably one of our nation's most sacred spaces. It's about as much of a miscue as allowing a nuclear arms peddler from a former Soviet republic to 'set up shop' at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Posted by Langtry
When someone compared Gitmo to Gulag the righteous indignation spread from coast to coast at the speed of light. Somehow, though, rightwingers feel free to constantly compare the Iraq War to WWII, Saddam to Hitler and so on and so forth.
Langtry offers the latest of many: ``(The IFC plan) is about as much of a miscue as allowing a nuclear arms peddler from a former Soviet republic to 'set up shop' at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.'''
Worse, the word "sacred" keeps being used as regards Ground Zero. Surely the jihadists see it that way, but most Americans reserve the concept of "sacred" for religious matters.
Posted by Anonymous
You got that right, Langtry. GW Bush eked out an MBA from Harvard, and he makes a bucket of Sears exterior latex look like Leonardo DaVinci.
Posted by Amanda Reckonwith
Amanda.. but it seems Bush outperformed Kerry in grades while at Yale. As far as Kerry and paint metephors, the one that comes to my mind has something to do with "paint drying" as in "as interesting as." Bush is, social intelligence wise (a better indicator of success than IQ) something of a genius.
Posted by tokyobk
So was Hitler.
Posted by Amanda Reckonwith
It is historically inaccurate and irresponsible to compare the American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention center to Nazis, Stalin's Gulag, and Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot.
It IS however, accurate to compare the megalomaniacal dictator Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. That is a completely legitimate analogy.
It is also accurate to compare Hussein’s army to Hitler’s army, compare Baghdad to Berlin, and compare Iraq under Saddam to Nazi Germany. These are also completely legitimate analogies.
Senator Dick Durbin compared the treatment of dangerous enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to the death of millions of innocent people by oppressive governments.
Here are some historical facts:
Between 15 million and 30 million people died from 1918 through 1956 in the prisons and labor camps of the Soviet gulag.
A prisoner at the Kholodnaya Gora prison had to stuff his ears with bread before sleeping on account of the shrieks of women being interrogated.
At the Kolyma in Siberia, inmates labored through 12-hour days in cheap canvas shoes, on almost no food, in temperatures that could go to minus-58.
At one camp, 1,300 of 3,000 inmates died in one year.
Senator Durbin’s comparison was an astonishing, obscene piece of ignorance, and the country’s righteous indignation was the proper response to his comments.
Posted by Acroyear
``It IS however, accurate to compare the megalomaniacal dictator Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. That is a completely legitimate analogy.''
That's not an analogy, it's a comparison.
Here's an analogy: Hitler is to Saddam as an apple is to an orange.
Just as the differences in magnitude between Gitmo and gulag are immense, so the differences in scale between Hitler and Saddam are wide.
Likewise, the similarities between Saddam and Hitler resemble the similarities between Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and gulag. Specifically, Saddam and Hitler shared a similar mentality. Likewise the rationalizations for Gitmo reflect a similar mentality to the one that rationalized the gulag.
One part of the Nazi and Soviet stories that Americans in particular seem to like to forget is that both regimes were popular. Both relied heavily on cultivating an inordinate fear of outside threats for their survival and both used security threats as a rationale for barbarity.
The fundamental mentality of torturers is the same wherever they are and on whomever's behalf they torture, even when the scale is different. Just as the fundamental mentality of tyrants is the same wherever they are.
Hussein and Hitler do have at least one thing in common. Right-wing Americans were attracted to both tyrants and helped them both get started.
Not long after Reagan was appeasing Iran by giving the mullahs missiles in exchange for hostages, Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to shake Saddam's hand and reassure him that the precursors to make chemical weapons and the intelligence to target them against Iran would continue to flow from the American taxpayer. The Associated Press used to call Saddam "the Iraqi strongman" -- because he was a friend of America.
Later, when Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman and other American liberals tried to cut off U.S. agricultural credit guarantees to Iraq and impose sanctions, the Reagan/GHW Bush administration went to bat for Saddam, testifying in congress that his regime was improving and was ``an important strategic ally in the region.''
Acroyear relies on numerical comparisons to contrast Gitmo with the gulag, but numbers are curiously absent from his comparison of Hitler and Saddam.
Let me help him:
about 250,000 Americans were killed in the war Hitler started, along with the Japanese.
some 1,800 Americans have been killed in the wars America launched against Iraq.
close to 30 million people were killed in World War II on all sides. About 1.5 million people were killed in Iraq's war with Iran and its invasion of Kuwait.
Senior Nazi officials are on record saying they intended to rid Germany of every Jew and had a written plan to do that by killing them. Other statements by Nazi leaders can be interpreted reasonably to mean that they intended to kill every Jew on the planet. In less than a decade, they effectively achieved the first goal and had a very good start on the second.
Saddam conducted a brutal neo-tribal war against perceived rivals, killing hundreds of thousands over two and half decades. Saddam's biggest slaughter probably came after the first American-led Gulf War. After encouraging the Shiites in southern Iraq to rebel, the U.S. declined to offer military support to their cause. The leaders of that rebellion, their families and others were slaughtered with not a word of protest from the mouths of the Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Wolfowitz's
But readers here surely know the history and the numbers and the obvious differences in magnitude between what the Nazis did and intended and what Saddam's regime did and intended.
Posted by Amanda Reckonwith
anonymous says: "Worse, the word "sacred" keeps being used as regards Ground Zero. Surely the jihadists see it that way, but most Americans reserve the concept of "sacred" for religious matters."
Be that as it may, it's clear from my words that the expression "sacred" is not to be applied only to religious places or figures. Case in point? Many Viet Nam veterans say that, to them, the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. is a sacred place. Being there transforms history into emotion. You cannot help but be silent, or talk quietly, as you feel as if you are surrounded by the gravity of just how many lives were lost.
I think that the site of the two lost towers has the same resonance for many, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or citizens of other countries. Evil was there, tangibly, and yet at the same time there was great courage and selflessness. Quible all you want about semantics: the site is sacred.
Posted by Langtry
I sympathize with those who'd like to keep Ground Zero as uncluttered a memorial as possible to those who lost their lives in the attack. However, the nature of the attack itself leads naturally to the question WHY?
I lean to those who see merit in having one or more museums near the site that use the occasion to show the world that America is not turing in on itself, but that we are still a nation that is able to shine a mature, self-reflective light of freedom. In my mind, such a ground would be just as hallowed as one based on the view of an innocent America victimized by cowardly freedom-haters.
Posted by Tokyo Tom
Post a Comment