Friday, July 29, 2005
A Sense of Proportion at Ground Zero - New York Times
A Sense of Proportion at Ground Zero - New York Times: "But this is not really a campaign about money or space. It is a campaign about political purity - about how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war. On their Web site, www.takebackthememorial.org, critics of the cultural plan at ground zero offer a resolution called Campaign America. It says that ground zero must contain no facilities 'that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events.' This, to us, sounds un-American."
Isn't it interesting that when Richard Clarke spoke to the committee that it was all about the 9/11 families, but now that it is about a museum unrelated to 9/11 at that site that the 9/11 families are misguided or giving false impressions? To clarify, this is not just for the famlies of the victims, it is for everyone, so it should not just be their opinions that matter. Having said that, there seem to be a lot of ordinary, unconnected (to 9/11) Americans who agree that the museum should be elsewhere. There is no shortage of space in major cities all over the country to house such a museum. They seem to be urging the planners to merely plan that for another space, and not use those federal dollars for such an exhibit. There is nothing un-American about that request. To have what may be or possibly could be seen as anti-American historical exhibits worries many of us. Touting the wrongs Americans have made over our history seems in bad taste at the site of a tragedy where the perpetrators were using those very historical events, among others, to justify their actions. The fear is that what is planned there, these exhibits, would give aid and comfort to the very ideology that caused the tragedy in the first place. Maybe it is too early to have a sense of that, but when I saw the planner/President of the association in charge of this space speak to Neil Cavuto, he gave me little solace that their plans were anything but exactly what Debra Burlingame suggested. By many, she is dismissed out of hand, because she spoke for the President at the Republican National Convention. We all may need to become more familiar with both sides of this battle. How we design the legacy of this event, how we are portrayed and who is making these plans could affect us all.
Isn't it interesting that when Richard Clarke spoke to the committee that it was all about the 9/11 families, but now that it is about a museum unrelated to 9/11 at that site that the 9/11 families are misguided or giving false impressions? To clarify, this is not just for the famlies of the victims, it is for everyone, so it should not just be their opinions that matter. Having said that, there seem to be a lot of ordinary, unconnected (to 9/11) Americans who agree that the museum should be elsewhere. There is no shortage of space in major cities all over the country to house such a museum. They seem to be urging the planners to merely plan that for another space, and not use those federal dollars for such an exhibit. There is nothing un-American about that request. To have what may be or possibly could be seen as anti-American historical exhibits worries many of us. Touting the wrongs Americans have made over our history seems in bad taste at the site of a tragedy where the perpetrators were using those very historical events, among others, to justify their actions. The fear is that what is planned there, these exhibits, would give aid and comfort to the very ideology that caused the tragedy in the first place. Maybe it is too early to have a sense of that, but when I saw the planner/President of the association in charge of this space speak to Neil Cavuto, he gave me little solace that their plans were anything but exactly what Debra Burlingame suggested. By many, she is dismissed out of hand, because she spoke for the President at the Republican National Convention. We all may need to become more familiar with both sides of this battle. How we design the legacy of this event, how we are portrayed and who is making these plans could affect us all.
