For this term's blog, you will explore 1 monument and write a reflection answering questions about your monument and its impact on the community.
1. Go to: http://www2.facinghistory.org/campus/memorials.nsf/Home?OpenFrameSet
2. Within the 8 sections, there are several case studies - chose ONE case study/memorial
****EVERYONE MUST HAVE A DIFFERENCE MONUMENT****
3. Read the article and explore the other resources the module provides regarding your memorial
4. In your response be sure to include the following:
- background info
- the dilemma, if any, that surrounded the building of the memorial
- its interpretation
- its community impact
- how people view the event the memorial is honoring after looking at the monument
I chose the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial and it is located in New York. This memorial was built by Nathan Rapoport who was a Jewish man in Warsaw. He was a very talented sculptor, and so when he escaped the raid and went to the Soviet Union (when the Nazis invaded Poland) the Soviets recognized him as a great artist and gave him his own studio. When the war was over, he was sent back to Warsaw and was asked to create a sculpture as a memorial for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The sculpture he made then is now the front of the current Warsaw Ghetto Memorial now. His only dilemma was trying to give his sculpture the right emotions to express how the people in the Warsaw Ghetto acted and how strong they were.
ReplyDeleteHe decided to make this memorial representational, and he wanted to have people in his sculpture. The man in front of the sculpture with his right arm bent and torch in his left is supposedly Mordechaj Anielewicz. The torch in his hand represents rebellion. This memorial now represents strength and truth and rebellion. How the people in Warsaw were not done fighting and also a reminder that this type of event should never be repeated. People look at this memorial/sculpture and it reminds them that it actually happened.It also helps other artists try to convey emotion and power into their own art work. Many people admire it and it makes them think back to the Holocaust and how many people suffered. It is a very important memorial.
I can connect the District Six museum to the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial because both events were created by people coming together. In District Six, people are fighting to go back to their homeland. In Warsaw, people were fighting to get out of the ghetto. Either way, it was protesting and working together for a better cause.
DeleteOn April 20th 1999 two boys, 17 year old Dylan Klebold and 18 year old Eric Harris strode through the doors of Columbine High School, and opened fire on the students. They ended up killing 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide themselves. To pay respect to the victims, Greg Zanis, 49, made 15 crosses. How does the math make sense? Because he made one cross for each of the victims, and 1 for each of the shooters. That was where the controversy began. The towns people were divided in the building of the 2 other crosses, saying that the shooters should not get crosses. The interpretation of the artist was that they are all victims in some way so they all should get crosses. But when the community found out that the shooters got crosses, they were outraged. They thought “Why should killers have a monument next to their victims.” When many came to pay respects, they would write derogatory saying on Harris’s and Kelbold’s crosses. One man went as far as to take them down completely. In the empty spot though, other mourners erected crosses out of twigs that were smaller than the original. One woman said that this was how it should have been in the beginning, they got crosses just smaller. Many still view the event as a tragic and unfortunate misfortune, but others also understand that the shooters were as much of a victims, as the innocent people that they killed. The boys were just victims of a different breed. In the end, Zanis removed all 15 crosses because they were causing so much trouble, which was not what he intended them to be for.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica’s post, our two monuments, and people’s reactions are on two ends of the spectrum. Whereas The Warsaw Ghetto monument brought people together, the crosses representing the Columbine shooting, divided mourners and spectators alike. Also The Warsaw Ghetto monument was built to honor a great uprising and represents hope, the Columbine crosses were to represent a tragic and sad event the shook the country.
I found this to be extremely interesting. This memorial seems relatively simple while mine is extremely intricate. I find it interesting that the designer decided to put crosses for the shooters. As I seem to always do, I can see both sides of the reactions. I just find it incredibly smart and brave of the artist. The Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial is simple, also, but it has a lot of components.
DeleteI choose the Fredrick Douglass memorial (there are more than one built). Unfortunately, Douglass was born into slavery and had to go through with living his life as a slave when he was an innocent child. He was born in Talbot Country, Maryland, where his parents gave him the name of Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey. Douglass lived as a slave for the first twenty full years of his life; he was a servant, field hand, and an apprentice in the caulking trade. During the time he served as a slave, two of his relatives, an aunt and uncle, luckily escaped from the South and reached the North where black people were accepted more as humans. Although fifteen of his unfortunate relatives were pulled deep into the South and suffered through harsh slavery, the two that escaped to go North inspired him to try his hardest to escape as well. They gave him hope. Once he reached age twenty, he had finally escaped using the travel of train and boat to reach New York City and married his wife Anna Murray who he had met in Baltimore. Soon after, they moved to a town named New Bedford in Massachusetts. There were abolitionist speakers such as William Lloyd Garrison who Douglass had started to listen too and soon became directly involved with,(the abolitionist movement)in 1839. He gave an amazing 3,500 mile lecture tour which led him to instantly get hired as a lecturer. After that, Douglass had succeeded in doing many great things in his life. He became a successful editor of his own newspaper, writer of biographies of his slavery experience, and a recruiter for black regiments during the time of the Civil War. He also successfully became an advisor to Lincoln, a Minister to Haiti, a United States Marshal and Recorder of Deeds for District of Columbia, and even more. The reason of creating the memorial for Fredrick Douglass was to represent a man who was born into slavery was able to successfully escape and make such a great difference in the world afterwards by spreading word about slavery being a mistake, helping people, and getting jobs that would do his community well. He was a man who was tortured and had to suffer for twenty years of his life, but came through and spent his life full of helping others and the world become a better place. Douglass teaches people about why slavery should never occur and helped the Government to make the United States a more comfortable and functioning country. The memorial statue represents this because Fredrick is holding out his hands like he is going to help someone stand up or give someone help, which is what he did for the people of the U.S. People view the event of slavery as non-honorable and since Douglass fought against slavery, people feel that the memorial shows that Douglass has made a great difference for the good and that is honorable.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sami's post, I believe our monuments were very different. Sami's monument was based on the murder of the teenagers and one teacher at Columbine High School and was not an honorable event. On the other hand, my monument was based an an honorable man who escaped slavery and made a difference in the world for the better. The impact of the crosses for the victims show that there should never be another shooting in school, for it is a sad event that causes deaths of innocent students. In a way, that impact could be similar to the impact of the Fredrick Douglass memorial because the impact it gave was partially to show a sad event: slavery, and that it should cease, as the murdering at Columbine should cease as well. Fredrick Douglass represented the will to fight against slavery and to show how important the man was, as he was a man who had warned many of the danger of slavery and helped others through the jobs he got and groups he joined. The victims of the murder at Columbine High just show a sad event that should never happen again.
As a response to Alex's post I think that our monuments are fairly similar because they are both made to honor someone (or a group of people)and in my monument (of the Warsaw Ghetto) they were honored for all the things they had to go through and your monument of Fredrick Douglass he was honored for making a difference in the world. He escaped slavery and Nathan Rapoport (who make the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial) lived through the Holocaust. Both men were brave and went through a tough life. Therefore my monument is not similar to Sami's as well because hers was about a murder of teenagers which does have to do with the murder of the Holocaust, but it was not even close to the magnitude of the Holocaust (or slavery at that).
DeleteI chose 9/11 as my memorial event. The article was called “Missing: How a Grief Ritual is Born” and did not specially talk about a monument for 9-11 but rather the significance of the "missing" posters hung all around New York. The article was published in the "New York Times" newspaper shortly after the horrible attack on September 11, 2001. 9-11 was an important date in America's history. It was the day when two planes were hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. Thousands of innocent people were killed. This terrorism attack affected people all around the world and destroyed many families in New York. 9-11 will never be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author wrote about all of the missing signs that appeared in New York City and the surrounding areas right after the planes crashed. These missing posters had photos and information about the missing people who were in the area when the terrorists attacked. A lot of the posters were colorful and unique, in hope to catch a person's eye while walking the streets after the devastating event. What was interesting about these posters was that the citizens of New York City seemed to know all of the faces on the missing posters so well. The surrounding communities were faced with seeing the images of the innocent people murdered, which brought them all together. In the article, the author wrote about a man with a white beard. Everyone knew this man not only because of his unique features, but also because they saw his face everywhere they went. The posters reminded the public of the tragic event that chanced history forever. Many people could not handle looking at all of the missing posters hung up in the city while others saw the opportunity to grieve about all of the losses. It was not just a name they were hearing, it was the face. Citizens were able to accept and move forward from the devastating event feeling as though they honored the gone and missing.
I can relate my response to Sam O’Toole’s response because both of our events/monuments were a way to grieve the loss of members of a community. Sam’s Columbine shooting memorial was for citizens to remember and mourn the loss of the students shot during the attack. The 9-11 article I read on the missing posters reflected on the sadness of 9-11. Just like Sam’s, the posters also gave citizens a chance to mourn over the loss of so many American’s. In both of our situations, people were murdered innocently. Both of these important events in America’s history could have been changed and could have been easily prevented.
The 9/11 missing posters and the Harburg Monument Against Fascism both represent vigilance more so than the emotional memorial of a specific event. The Harburg Monument represents vigilance against fascism and the 9/11 missing posters represent vigilance in looking for the lost and missing victims of the 9/11 attacks. However, despite this similarity of representation, the 9/11 missing posters were not a counter-memorial as the Harburg monument is. The 9/11 posters focused on the victims of 9/11 through vigilance in finding them, whereas the Harburg Monument served to bring an injustice to public view, rather than focus directly on Holocaust victims.
DeleteFor my response, I read the article "Memorials To the Events of 9/11". On September 11th, 2001, two hijacked airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. This was the largest terrorist attack on the United States ever. At least 3,000 innocent people were killed as a result of this attack. This article talked about the many memorials that were made by millions of mourning people. Posters, signs, and small memorials were all over New York City, and still are. The posters and signs were first put up in hopes of finding or identifying their loved ones body. They soon evolved into being considered memorials. This is not a typical memorial that the city or state has funded in order to build something in memory of the lost lives. These posters and signs that have been placed all over NYC have been made by victims that have been somehow affected by the 9/11 tragedy. Thousands of 9/11 memorials are all over New York City to this day. The impact on the community has been significant. People will stop during there busy day and acknowledge the lost lives as a result of 9/11. I think this kind of memorial is an example of how spending tons of money on a memorial to remember a tragic event doesn't necessarily increase it's impact on the community. There simple pieces of paper with 1-2 sentences and a picture seem to have just as great of an effect and it's something personal, coming from the heart.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex's post, I think our monuments are very different, but also somewhat alike. The Frederick Douglass memorial is representing a man who fought and overcame a tough situation. That is different than my monument, which is paying respect to people who have died in a tragic terrorist attack. The actual events that happened to cause the memorials are very different, but both of the memorials are representing something bad that has happened, and the people have tried to make something positive out of it.
I am responding to Candice's post. She chose a memorial on 9/11. I chose a Holocaust memorial. Our memorials defiantly different. Her memorial is more modern and planed than the one I choose is. When you look at the memorials one is more presentable than the other. When you look at them you would not know that they had similar meanings though. They both are to commemorate the many innocent people effected in both tragedies.
DeleteAbraham Lincoln changed the United States when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves, but gaining him many enemies. He was assassinated by John Wilks Booth because of his actions. Lincoln died a hero and won the hearts of the former slaves in America. Shortly after he was killed, an ex-slave named Charlotte Scott decided to dedicate the first five dollars that she made as a free woman to start a fund-raiser. This was used to honor Abraham Lincoln for freeing the slaves. The majority of the money came from the 180,000 black troops in the Union Army. The statue was designed by Thomas Ball, an artist from Boston who had been traveling around Europe and it was casted in Germany and shipped to Washington in 1876. Congress accepted the monument as a gift from the “colored citizens of the United States.” The statue depicts Lincoln standing over the Emancipation Proclamation on a podium and his right hand hovers over a kneeling slave that is removing the shackles from Lincoln. The slave represents Archer Alexander, who was the last slave captured under the Fugitive Slave Act. Frederick Douglas made an oration at the unveiling of the Freedmen’s Monument to Lincoln referencing the sacrifice that Abraham made for his country. This monument was dedicated to Lincoln and making black people equal in this country. The Freedmen’s Monument to Lincoln truly means that with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln freed all slaves and gave them the rights of all citizens. It is dedicated to a great man that stood up against adversity to do something completely controversial. This monument symbolizes something that completely changed the U.S., not just one single community. It did not change everyone’s views on slavery, but he was able to free the slaves. It impacted the future of the United States and how everyone viewed black people. When people see this statue, they know that it is honoring the achievements of our 16th president. They may not know that it is honoring the Emancipation Proclamation at first, but it represents how slaves were freed by Abraham Lincoln with his signature.
ReplyDeleteThe Freemen’s Monument to Lincoln can relate to Alex’s post. Fredrick Douglass lived during the times of slavery and was a leading abolitionist. He became one of Lincoln’s advisors and was personally connected to the president. The monuments are very similar because they both honor great men that were key in ending slavery. Even though they were different races, they were both fighting for the right cause. Both statues honored their contribution to ending slavery. Unlike Sami’s monument, Alex’s and the Lincoln monument were something happy. They celebrated the memory of good people that changed the world for the better. Sami’s was about an awful event that ended in the death of school children.
I also did a monument that honored President Lincoln and he truly was a great man. My monument and yours put together really depicts the true characteristics of a true hero and all of the monuments that were made in honor of President Abraham Lincoln are well deserved because he died for his country.
DeleteI read the article "The Dead Are Ever Present" which is an article about the memorials for the Rwanda genocides. In 1994 over the course of 100 days, there was a mass murder of approximately 800,000 people in Rwanda. This murder was started by the minority group, the Tutsi, going against the majority group, the Hutu. The two groups' had many years of tension built up between them. The Tutsi had ruled Rwanda for many years but the Hutu had eventually taken over the Tutsi monarchy. The Tutsi wanted to regain control over the Hutu government so they attacked. Although the Tutsi started the mass murder, the Hutu ended it. It made neighbors turn on neighbors and even friends turn on friends. Many Tutsi's would seek shelter in churches and schools from the Hutu. Despite their efforts to hide, the Hutu would always find and kill them. This genocide depopulated many places in Rwanda. All the dead bodies were simply left to decay. Now, almost 20 years later, there is still debate about what the memorials should be. Most of the memorials are the schools, churches, or other shelters where many people were killed. One memorial is a school full of skeletons. In each classroom, there are victims and because of the slow decay it is easy to tell how they were murdered. One child has a crack across his skull, which was the imprint of a machete. Another woman has her arm across her face, as if to protect herself, and one of her forearms cut off. Some people think the memorials should not be the remains of the victims because it is disrespectful to leave them out in the open. The remains should be buried as a sign of respect for the deceased. Others say the remains should be used as evidence just in case people try to deny the genocide. All the memorials represent the innocence of the people killed. They show how these people did not deserve to die. They also represent the tragic and horrific effents that took place and put Rwanda in ruins. These memorials have a great impact on their community and on anyone who visits them. For most people in Rwanda, it would be very difficult to visit these memorials as some of their family members and friends were probably killed. For the younger generation who did not live through the genocide, it is an eye-opener. It show them that anything can happen in an instant. For anyone who views these memorials it is a sad time. They look back and think about their loved ones who were killed and think about how that many people could have died in a mere 100 days.
ReplyDeleteI can make a connection to Caitlin's post because her article was about posters hanging up about missing people after 9/11. She said how it was hard for citizens to look at the posters because it reminded them of the tragic time. In my article it said how there are many memorials for the Rwanda genocide. Since there are so many, it is sometimes hard for people to avoid them. Many citizens of Rwanda do not like to think about those 100 days and I know many Amerian citizens do not like thinking about 9/11. Also, both of our memorials grieve the lives of innocent loved ones who were killed.
For this entry, I chose the case study for the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial. On April 19, 1995 at 9:02 AM, Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. This was the second anniversary of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Many believed that this was the motivation for McVeigh's actions.
ReplyDeleteBefore 9/11, this was said to be the most devastating act of terrorism on US soil. The front of the building was completely destroyed, killing 168 people.
What's interesting about the article is that the author focused on the spontaneous memorial which followed the event, rather than the memorial itself. After the bombing, a chain link fence was set up in order to keep citizens away from the rubble as teams worked to clean up. However, many people viewed it as a shrine, using the fence as a sort of memorial ground. On the second anniversary of the bombing, the Governor Frank Keating encouraged people to leave objects at the fence in spontaneous memorial. Eventually, a large chunk of the fence was incorporated in the final memorial of the bombing. This memorial helped the public to grieve, leaving behind mementos in order to pay tribute. The spontaneity of this first memorial depicts the public outcry at the event, showing the immense grief from those affected.
I related the memorial to Caitlin's entry regarding the 9/11 memorial. Both memorials were in response to acts of terrorism on US soil. The two memorialized events were attempts to make political statements against the US, as well as spark rebellion. However, the groups involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a part of Al Qaeda. The bombing in Oklahoma City was the actions of a single man, in response to a fire two years prior to the event. Both events were said to be the most devastating acts of terrorism in the US.
I read the article "The Burghers of Calais" which talks about a sculpture that was made to commemorate an event that happened 500 years before. That seems like a ridiculous thing to do because no one would remember and event from 500 years ago but what happened was truly remarkable. In 1347, King Edward III kept the town of Calais under his control for eleven months. Since the town of Calais was so isolated from the outside world, it was running desperately low on food and water and did not see any help coming from France. To save their community, six men or burghers promised themselves to King Edward III in return for the safety of Calais. The King ordered them to wear plain clothing,a noose around their necks and the key to the city. The six men went off to be killed and accepted their fate. Kind Edward's original intent was to kill the men, but his wife would not let him for it would be a bad omen.They returned to their city as heroes.
ReplyDeleteThe sculptor decided that her would sculpt the moment the men realized that they were going to be killed and he tried to capture the men's emotions.When the town finally received their sculpture they were not completely pleased with it. They felt that the sculpture over stepped his boundaries. He had no idea what emotions were going through the volunteer's heads at the time and he should have sculpted them more like heroes than afraid men.I can relate this to Sams memorial. No one really understood the sculptors intent. In Sams memorial, the sculptor had 15 crosses because even the shooters at the columbine were victims themselves. Many citizens did not think that this was an appropriate show of respect because the shooters were murderers not victims. In my memorial, not many citizens understood the intent of the memorial. The sculptor wanted to show others that the men who risked their lives were very emotionally and physically afraid, so he sculpted the men looking terrified. Many citizens were outraged by this because their heroes should not have been viewed as afraid but as strong and brave.
This is similar to the Robert Gould Shaw Memorial because in both, Shaw, and the six burghers, were prepared to die for their country. They probably did not want to die, but they were prepared to. By offering themselves to save their town, the burghers accepted the sacrifice. And by going into war and leading the regiment, Shaw accepted that he could be killed in battle, but fought for his country anyways. However, a big difference is that the six men promised they would be killed, but Shaw did not ask to be shot.
DeleteThis is similar to the South African Courts memorial because in both they were helping there people through struggles. Yeah they are somewhat similar.
DeleteI chose the case study about District Six. District Six was a small area in Cape Town, South Africa that was home to a diverse group of citizens. On February 11, 1966, however, a law was passed that allowed anyone who was not a white citizen to be forcibly moved out. After the removal of black citizens, protests began and the whole district basically became barren. By 1970, only a few churches remained. In 1988, the people of District Six decided to pass a museum for District Six. Initially, it started out as a small exhibit in a church, but so many people came that it turned into a full blown museum. The museum has become a focus point for activist groups. In 1997, a trust was founded to rebuild District Six. The museum is a symbol for the people and interest of District Six and many plan to move back there as soon as they are legally allowed to.
ReplyDeleteI read the article "For Those Who Cannot See". This memorial was created by a high school student in Washington D.C. It is a representation of what fallen soldiers will not see, like their families or friends. The memorial is crushed glasses from all eras on a gray board, with the quote "Keep your eyes open for all those that were closed." The memorial is also related to bullying, and how there are those who do not, or choose to not see because of indifference, ignorance, tolerance, or being too busy.
ReplyDeleteI can relate this to Alex's post about Frederick Douglass. He was a very brave man who stood up for what he believed in, and thought that everyone should be seen, just like the artist who created this memorial.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne type of monument is an counter-monument. A counter-monument is a monument meant not to remember or honor something, but to bring something to public view. Many counter-monuments are temporary so their effect is dramatic and people do not become accustomed to seeing the monument and become numb to its message. For this reason, many Holocaust monuments are counter-monuments. The Holocaust was such a traumatic time for most people that a monument to honor it would be disrespectful. An example of a Holocaust counter-monument is the Harburg Monument Against Fascism. The Harburg Monument Against Fascism was built in 1983 in the neighborhood of Harburg in Hamburg, Germany. The monument was designed by Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev–Gerz. The Gerzs decided against the original memorial site of a pleasant park and instead decided to built the monument in the crowded, busy neighborhood of Harburg. They did this to reflect the chaos of fascism. Furthermore, putting the monument in a secluded park may have discouraged people from going to see the monument and it would have discouraged people from viewing it as a counter-monument.
ReplyDeleteThe Harburg Monument Against Fascism is a twelve-meter high, four-sided, steel column covered in a layer of soft lead. The lead was added so viewers could write their name and message pledging to prevent fascism. The memorial was also built to be lowered into the ground over time and so all sections of the stone monument could be written on. The monument now rests under a glass plate at the top of a staircase with only the top point of the column visible to the public.
Used for its original intent, the harburg Monument Against Fascism served its purpose to make people aware of the dangers of fascism. However, some people wrote hate messages against Jews and neo-Nazi slurs on the stone. This made some anti-fascist groups angry because the comments made by hate groups and anti-semitic individuals dishonored the victims of the Holocaust and the victims of Hitler’s fascist reign. Despite these concerns, many people still viewed the monument as serving its purpose of standing against fascism. The monument continues to give the Harburg community and many other people a sense of safety from fascism.
The memorial that I chose was the Burghers of Calais. This memorial is located in Calais, France. This memorial commemorates the six burghers in Calais during sieghe around the time of the Hundred's Years War by King Edward III of England. During this time, the town was struggling to survive that the six leading citizens (burghers) would turn themselves over to Edward but their town would be free. He accepted the offer, and then asked the six burghers to come to him in simple clothing. These citizens believed that they were soon going to die. But when they got to the kingdom, Edward's wife told them that they would not die because it would interfere with the birth of her child. The six burghers then returned to their town and they were crowned heroes.
ReplyDeleteOne dilemma that occurred was that people believed that the faces of the six citizens did not depict their faces when they were walking to their death. Its interpretation was to show the civic pride, heroism, and patriotism of the six burghers and how they saved the whole town from dying. The monument had was that the monument was agreed to put at front of the town hall at eye level but when it was received it was put on a pedestal up high where people were not able to see it. In the 1920's, it was taken off its pedestal and was put at eye level.
I can relate to Alex. I can relate to Alex because they are both depicting important people in history. Although, Alex's monument is about a man during American history, it can be related because they are landmark people in history.
I read about the Robert Gould Shaw Memorial. This memorial in honor of the leader of the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts; he led some of the first African Americans to fight in the Civil War. On May 23, 1863, Shaw and his men started off into the war. Sadly, in July, Shaw stood in the front of his troops when they entered a battle, and he was shot and died. The memorial was built on May 31, 1897, across from the Massachusetts state house on the Boston Common. It shows Shaw riding into the war, while his regiment walks beside him.
ReplyDeleteThe Robert Gould Shaw Memorial represents the bravery that he showed by leading his regiment, and dying for his country. Even though African Americans were discriminated against at the time, Shaw still took the lead during the war, instead of hiding behind his regiment. People view the event of Shaw dying during battle as tragic, and courageous. The memorial was sculpted by August SaintGaudens. Throughout the community, it is often referred to as one of the most important sculptures in the city, and as one of his best pieces of art.
I chose the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial. The bombing itself took place on April 19th, 1995 in Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh parked a rental truck in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and set off a fertilizer bomb which killed 168 people. During demolition of the building, a metal, chain-link fence was put up to block the public from interfering. Within hours people came and hung pictures, notes, cards, stuffed animals, key chains, anything they could on the fence. The memorial that is there now has part of that fence in it and people still come and leave notes and momentos. There is also a large tree and terrace that is deemed the "Survivor Tree". The tree overlooks this huge grass field that has empty chairs for each of the deceased. At night, the bottoms of the chairs are lit with a faint yellow light. From what I have read, it seems that people find the memorial incredibly moving. You will find this quote all over the website for the memorial: "We come here to remember those who were killed, those who survived, and those changed forever. May all who leave here know the impact of violence. May this Memorial offer comfort, strength, peace, hope, and serenity."
ReplyDeleteThe Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial can relate to the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial because both memorials were built to create peace, serenity, and to honor those who lost their lives. Both memorials also consist of more than one part. One difference is that the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial was made to honor those who survived as well as died, while the Vietnam Memorial was mainly built to honor those who had died in the war. There was a controversy over whether or not the Vietnam Memorial should recognize the survivors too.
DeleteThe monument that I chose to read about for this assignment was the monument to the alleviation of pain. It was made in 1868, to represent the discovery of ether being used as a type of anesthetic. This was a large discovery in the world of science and medicine. The discovery was made 1866, with the memorial built just two years afterwards in 1868. There was a bit of controversy over the topic of who really discovered ether. Four doctors claimed to have discovered it. During the huge dilemma, one of the four doctors killed himself because of the stress. During the building of the memorial, some religious people were reluctant to believe that the discovery of ether in itself was a good thing. They claimed that trying to conquer pain intruded on God’s prerogatives. To satisfy most people, the monument that was created depicted that of a good Samaritan helping an injured man, a very biblical image, instead of just a doctor with a glass tube containing ether. This was so that the community was able to interpret it in two different ways, hopefully making everybody happy. Many scientists and doctors view this memorial as the start of the modern day of medicine.
ReplyDeleteMy monument’s impact is much different than that of Caitlin McGowin’s. Her monument was made to make a memory of the tragedy that was 9/11, while my memorial was to celebrate a new beginning in the field of science. While my monument was a bit controversial, Caitlin’s brought people together in a time of need. I think that they would impact the community as a whole in a different way.
For this assignment I choose the Memorial at Treblinka. The Memorial at Treblinka is a Holocaust memorial in Poland where rests 850,000 Jews that were gassed and burned. This memorial is to commemorate those who have died during the Holocaust, but especially those at Treblinka. The Holocaust was a very traumatic event that will hopefully never happen again. This memorial does just that because it says “Never again” at the base of the obelisk in Yiddish, Polish, Russian, English, German, and French. The memorial is supposed to symbolize a cemetery. There are 17,000 jagged stones, 700 of them with the names of Jewish villages and communities in Poland that were effected by the Holocaust. I would think that the community and everyone around the world when going to this monument are deeply moved. this just show a small precent of those who have died during the Holocaust period. Because of this memorial the world will be reminded that a horrible even like this should NEVER happen again.
ReplyDeleteSydney's post about the Memorial at Treblinka shows an excellent point, that not all memorials are intended to showcase a positive event in history. The Holocaust is certainly a significant time which should be remembered, but not in a positive aspect. By establishing the Treblinka Memorial, people now and in the future are impacted by the genocide which happened and are deemed responsible for preventing it from repeating.
DeleteThis is similar to the article I read about the Voortrekker Memorial. Although the Voortrekkers worked to oppress the people of South Africa, the establishment of their memorial remains important. It has grown to signify far more than the supremacy it was intended to, but rather shows the potential the country has to continue progressing. The monument has become a symbol the South Africa's strive towards equality, and like the Treblinka Memorial, a reminder as to something which "should NEVER happen again."
I think that Mike's memorial has some of the same characteristics as my memorial, The Vietnam Veterans's Memorial. The first thing that stood out to me was that not all of the people who died could be represented. Only about 57,000 people were represented at the Vietnam's Veteran Memorial out of the 2.7 million men and women who fought in that war. I also think that war should not happen again but there is still war around the world. Like Mike's memorial it says never again. I completely agree with that; however, there was sill a few genocides after the Holocaust. It is very sad, just like the young men and women dieing in wars.
DeleteSydney's post about the Memorial at Treblinka is very similar to the memorial I posted about, The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. Both memorials have to do with remembering people who have died innocentally. I think that both of the memorials serve great purposes to educating people about the events and that it is also great car realize the reality of wars and tragedies.
DeleteThe Monument that I chose was The South African Constitutional Court. This Court started out just as a Constitutional Court, it didn't really come to be the South African Court until 1995. In 1993 they had a small little court which wasn't in association with the South African part. Once they became a real court they had eleven judges. Those first judges could serve one term that lasted 12 years. The Judges were given other jobs to keep the court up and running. One of the judges Albie Sachs, a white activist was nearly killed trying to defend the South African people. He wanted to make a new symbol for this court and so he tried to make the best symbol he could. Since they were a new court they wanted something different because they were doing everything a new way. It took a very long time for them to get this Logo just right and once they did they loved it. Through the whole thing there is different meanings to the figure. They have different objects and each one is a different theme. It was perfect for there organization. The Monument of this court was represented for all the South Africans.It seemed like they had no trouble with making it. The only trouble they had was inside the organization itself.
ReplyDeleteThe article I read was called “Voortrekker Monument is Symbol of Past." This is a monument currently located in South Africa which has begun to pose debate. Originally, the Voortrekker or Pioneer Monument was built as commemoration to a movement referred to as the Great Trek. The Voortrekkers were seeking a way to evade the increasing English settlement, and chose to migrate towards central Africa. These regions, however, were dominated by black African Nations, and the Voortrekkers were seen as invaders. The monument had been built as a reminder of the Voortrekker’s strength and courage in their migration, but did not successfully achieve this. Once the Voortrekkers became the dominate race, the black natives were forced to follow in the set laws of inequality and oppression. Because the Voortrekkers had been able to take over so much power, the Pioneer Monument became nothing more than a symbol of tyranny. In 1994 Africa was able to hold its first multiracial elections, putting an end to the white supremacy. However, the Pioneer Monument remained a burden, becoming the site of various protests, rallies, and riots. It is easy to argue the monument should be taken down, having had symbolized the Voortrekkers as a superior race, and brought many hardships on the people of South Africa. Others will argue the monument acts as a memorial to the prior power of the Voortrekkers and is a way to acknowledge their final battle before they were rid of their government positions. One South African citizen, Tshoma, thinks that although there were flaws, the monument is well- deserved, “These settlers did not have a right to oppress us, but they do have a right to a monument celebrating the bravery of their people. I'm glad and proud that it is kept in good shape as a thing of beauty for all South Africans to visit and enjoy.”
ReplyDeleteThe monument that I chose was the Lincoln Memorial. President Abraham Lincoln otherwise known as "Honest Abe" will always be remembered as a great man who helped our country in many ways and he was somebody that made a great impact on the country that we know today. During the time that President Abraham Lincoln was in office the Civil War was taking place so it was obviously no walk in the park to be president at this time. President Lincoln, managed to abolish slavery but in the process he lost his life and was killed for the love of his country. The monument was started in 1914 and finished in 1922 and it has thirty-six marble columns surrounding it to represent the thirty-six states that were in the Union at the time that Lincoln died. Inside of the monument there is a nineteen foot statue of Lincoln sitting down and around him on the walls, are his words, from his famous speech, The Gettysburg Address.
ReplyDeleteFor this assignment I chose the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Jan C Scruggs was a veteran of the Vietnam War. He provided the influence to build this memorial. Due to Scruggs efforts, The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Funds was established. Congress approved the fund and they granted a sight for it on the mall of Washington DC. The monument had certain restrictions and they are as follows: it could not contain political views, military content, it had to blend in with surroundings, include the names of the dead women and men as well as the missing, and it had to have character within it. However, there was a dilemma. There was 1,421 submissions of designs for the memorial. A girl called Maya Lin won for the design of the memorial. Many people did not like her because she was an Asian. "She was called a “gook,” an Asian woman from a “hippie Ivy League school,” an “aesthetic elitist forcing her art and commentary” on others." (http://www2.facinghistory.org/campus/memorials.nsf/Home?OpenFrameSet) Because of this, trying to create the monument was tough, and it turned to be a battlefield of political views. There was also another dilemma. The monument had to have a statue with three soldiers and a flagpole, by this, they were showing respect. In the end, the memorial was made up of three different objects. One was the wall, the other one was the three soldiers with the flag, formally known as the Three Servicemen Statue, and the Vietnam's Women's Memorial. The Women's Memorial was presented by Glenna Goodacre. The memorial is interpreted by the public as a remembrance of the war where many Americans fought, died, and were not found. Even with the massive wall only 57, 661 men and women were represented. These were the people that died. About 2.7 million Americans fought in that war. This memorial has a big impact on citizens and veterans alike in the community. You can find relatives who passed away in the war. It also impacts the community because it is such a strong remembrance of a bloody and gruesome war. People also view this memorial in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteThis monument is similar to the monument I chose, the Harburg Monument Against Fascism because names are a big part of both of them. While the Vietnam memorial has the names of all of the deceased men and women on it's wall, the Harburg monument is carved with the names of the citizens and visitors to the monuments.
DeleteThe monument that I chose was the Aschrott-Brunnen Monument. In 1908, a successful Jewish bussinessman funded the creation of a fountain in Kassel, Germany. Since it was a present from a Jew, Germans tore it down. Later in the 1980s, the people of Kassel wanted to create a monument to remember the founders of the town. Horst Hoheisel was the artist hired to create the piece. He created a replica of the original fountain as a concrete shell and buried upside down in the exact spot the original was.
ReplyDeleteHorst's goal was to create a piece that showed loss and emptiness, and remembers the town's forgotten past. The fountain reminds everyone of the Holocaust and Kassel's history, which is important to not forget. It helps people realize the importance and the impact the Holocaust had on history.
I think Candice and my monuments are somewhat similar. Both represent tragedies that happened in history that no one will forget. The posters from 9/11 are different than my fountain though. Many people put the posters up but only one man made my fountain. They are both still there to this day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI can connect Sam Gustafson's post to my post because she says that a Jewish man made the Aschrott-Brunnen Monument and because he was a jewish person the people took it down. This is segregating against Jewish people. This is similar to mine because it was a battle between Zulus and the English to stop slavery and slavery was segregation against the blacks. In both of the stories about these monuments people were abused and hurt just because of their skin color and religion. They were not treated equally.The thing that is different between our stories is the new creater of the monument in Sam's blog wanted to show people emptiness and sadness in the monument. In my story my monument wanted the people to feel good and happy about the outcome of the event.
DeleteThe monument I chose is the Memorials at Columbine High School. On April 20, 1999 at 11:30 am, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, arrived at the school dressed in black coats and carrying loaded weapons. They started randomly firing their weapons in the parking lot and made their way to the cafeteria and then the library. They killed one teacher and twelve of their peers before they killed themselves. The SWAT also found over thirty booby traps and bombs in the school, which had been set up over time by the two boys. The police later found the diary of Eric holder, in which he explained his hatred for all of mankind and how he wanted to follow in the footsteps of Hitler and the Nazis, but kill everyone, not just Jewish people.
ReplyDeleteThe memorial for this tragic event was created at Clement Park, right across the street from Columbine High School. A carpenter from the Chicago area created this memorial. He constructed fifteen large crosses to remember the fifteen that died during the shooting. The interpretation of this memorial was to honor the life of each victim with a cross. However, there was quite a dilemma over this memorial and a lot of controversy in the community. Not everyone liked the memorial. Everyone wanted to honor the tragic event and memorialize it, but no one seemed to agree on who should be memorialized. The two crosses that were built to remember Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were removed by one of the parents of one of the victims several days after the memorial was built. Because of this, people often debated who should be honored and remembered in the memorial and who should be removed.
I can connect my article to Kayla Monteiro's article about the Burghers of Calais. These relate because in both articles, the citizens of the towns did not completely like the memorials. The citizens in Kayla's article did not like the memorial because they felt it did not depict the faces of the six burghers correctly, and the citizens in my article were divided and could not agree on who should be honored in the memorial.
For this blog I chose to write about the Voortrekker monument. It was built in the 1930’s to represent and remember the story of Great Trek. This story took place in the 1830’s. The monument is built on the highest hill in Pretoria, South Africa. The whole event happened because of one main problem, dissatisfaction. More specifically the dissatisfaction was caused by the English trying to end slavery and the slave trade. The monument is called the Voortrekker Monument because the farmers that were using black slave labor on their farms were soon called Voortrekkers. Zulus was a name of a guy who had the land in his procession and him and the Voortrekkers soon had a conflict with each other. A couple of Voortrekkers went with their leader on an adventure and while they were traveling they were ambushed. The people who were waiting for the Voortrekkers and the leader to return got killed as well, all five hundred of them. After this happened there was a new leader of the land. His name was Andries Pretorius. The Voortrekkers ended up going against Zulus and defeated him in the Battle of Blood River. The Voortrekkers killed 3,000 of 10,000 men on Zulus’s side. When the Voortrekkers won the battle they said that they now had an agreement with god. This is when the blacks were now considered equal with the whites. Its interpretation of the monument is pretty simple. Today this monument shows the people that they did have problems with slavery back in the days but because of this event everyone is equal.
ReplyDeleteToday this monument means a lot to the community of Pretoria. It represents the race and religion back in the early years and how to treat everyone the same. The blacks are no longer under control of someone else. The people of Pretoria view this monument with respect to its story. They love seeing it and after they look at it, it reminds them of the event that changed slavery in their country forever.
For my article, I read about the Memorial at Treblinka. It is located in the rural northeast Poland. It was a center where about 850,000 Jews were gassed and burned. It was considered one of the most deadliest concentration camps. The Germans liquidated the camp and then burned it. They then planted trees on the soil to cover the graves. But in 1957 James Young wrote that you could still see sun-bleached skulls and bones poking out of the ground. In the late 1950, ideas for a memorial started and the Warsaw Regional Council selected the design, sculptor Franciszek Duszenko, and architect Adam Haupt. The design would be 17,000 stones and 700 of them would have names if Jewish villages that were liberated during the Holocaust. This design was meant to look like a cemetery. This idea was so that the people who were gassed and died had a proper resting place. Their would be a twenty-six foot obelisk with a menorah carved on top. The words "Never Again" would be written on the bottom. The memorial was completely finished in 1964. James Young stated that it was "possibly the most magnificent of all Holocaust memorials". Many people in Poland go to memorial to remember the innocent people who suffered and died their. Both architects put man hours and work into this sculpture. They felt like they needed to make the sculpture perfect in order to rightfully honors those who dies during the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteI can connect my article to Candice’s. Our articles are two different subjects, but both memorials have something in common. Her memorial was about the hijacked planes on 9/11, while mine talked about the gas chamber during the Holocaust. Both memorials represent innocent people dying in a tragic way and trying to remember them in a peaceful way.
The monument I chose was the Hamburg Monument Against Fascism. This monument was built in 1983 in the city of Hamburg, Germany. It was designed by Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev–Gerz. It was decided by the designers that it would be what is called a counter-monument, which is a monument not just made to remember something, but to actively involve the citizens with what it stands for. The monument is a lead coated, 12 meter high steel column which over time was lowered into the ground. Before it was lowered however, people were allowed to write their names in the soft lead as a promise to stay vigilant against fascism. There was some conflict with the monument, though. Many people wrote anti-Nazi comments and symbols, and anti-fascism groups were upset because the monument did not honor victims of fascism. However, this is what the designers wanted. They wanted to citizens to be involved and engaged. This is why the monument was placed in an "ugly" part of town instead of a park, allowing people to leave their mark on it. The monument is no longer visible today as it has been lowered into the ground, but this way it forces people to remember on their own what the monument stood for, and why it is important in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI chose to read about the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial in Washington, DC. This monument consists of three parts: Maya Lin’s Wall, Frederick Hart’s Three Servicemen Statue, and Glenna Goodacre’s Vietnam Women’s Memorial. The first controversy with the building of this memorial was that Yale University student, Maya Lin, was Asian, so she was called many names. The second controversy was that the memorial could not contain any political or military content, must contain the names of the dead and missing, harmonize with its surroundings, and be reflective in character. The interpretation of this monument was to recognize the men and women who served in the Vietnam War. Some people think that this memorial should recognize the over two-million servers who came home instead of just the dead and the missing. People seem to have more of an understanding of how severe the Vietnam War actually was after seeing the memorial. I think that the memorial brings peace and preservation to this event.
ReplyDeleteI read the article about the statues of Stalin. These statues were put up during the lifetime of Stalin. These were put up to make him appear as a good leader. in 1956, during the Hungarian revolt these statues were torn down. This was an attempt to reshape history, showing Stalin as a better leader. This did not seem to change people's views about Stalin in the Soviet Union, though it was intended to help people remember Stalin differently, so the soviets who created this failed at their intentions.
ReplyDeleteI can connect this to Diana's article about the Voortrekker Memorial, because both the monuments were constructed, to symbolize the power of different groups of people. Diana's article explained monuments to represent the Voortrekkers, and mine explains monuments to represent Stalin.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe 'monument' I chose was not actually a monument but a memory building, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The museum was built in the mid 1990's to highlight the tragedy and horror of the Holocaust and to let people remember. The Holocaust was known as the largest Crime Against Humanity ever committed, killing millions with as much purpose as the simple statement of "I don't like you."
ReplyDeleteThis monument was built with consideration of the delicate emotions surrounding the event. Instead of trying to shove those emotions away and make USHMM a regular museum, the USHMM architect, James Ingo Freed of Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, wanted to bring those emotions out. He developed a certain intricate flow of the museum, the museum is described as "open-ended" in order to help resonate memories and that it does.
A year ago, on a class field trip I went on, we visited the USHMM. The architecture and the exhibits put you in a saddened trance, you want to stop looking because everything is terribly sad, but it is just too interesting to stop. It was a very respectful memorial, tasteful and not trying to cover up any scars, everything was out on the table.
I can connect this to Katie Magner's comment on the Memorial of Treblinka, both memorials constructed in memory of the Holocaust. In contrast, the Memorial of Treblinka is a respectful memorial for individuals who suffered due to Treblinka while the USHMM is to resonate on the past and the mistakes in order to evoke emotion and truly learn from history.
I read the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It is located in Washington, D.C and has three different parts it consists of; the Maya Lin’s Wall,the Glenna Goodacre’s Vietnam Women’s Memorial, and the Frederick Hart’s Three Servicemen Statue. After Jan C. Scruggs (a veteran of the Vietnam War)provided the first guidelines for the memorial, the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Fund was established. A student at Yale University named Maya Lin had a final exam which was to create a design for the Vietnam Memorial. Maya won the competition and that is why today it is called Maya Lin's Wall.
ReplyDeleteThe wall contains 2.7 million names of Veteran of who died and who were missing in the Vietnam War. After seeing the wall itself, it really shows how many people cared enough to give up their lives to fight for their country. I think it was a wonderful idea and educates many on the reality of wars