missed opportunities
Jamie's Jamey's questions regarding the context of Mount Vernon bring to mind a more recent example of politicians, in the name of "patriotism," mangling an opportunity for a historical site to actually illuminate history (rather than water the message down to the most easily digestible, comfortable-for-the-conscience version of events and perspectives):
In September 2005 then Gov. George Pataki evicted the International Freedom Center (I.F.C.) museum from it’s designated plot on the memorial site for Ground Zero. Earlier that June, Pataki made demands that both the I.F.C. and the Drawing Center (which also lost it’s spot at the planned memorial) guarantee that exhibits shown there would not offend 9/11 families or others visiting the nearby memorial.
Pataki explained, “I view that memorial site as sacred grounds… and we will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America, denigrates New York or freedom, or denigrates the sacrifice or courage that the heroes showed on Sept. 11.”
In the same June 25th piece, the New York Times describes an article that The Daily News published prior to Pataki’s comments that criticized a then current exhibit at the Drawing Center, siting artwork that “seemed to mock President Bush and depict torture at the Abu Ghraib prison.” (Among the works were some that “appear[ed] to make light of President Bush’s description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the Axis of Evil”). Pataki and 9/11 family members who vocally protested the presence of both cultural institutions highlighted these examples as inappropriate and unpatriotic, and used them as reason to oust both the I.F.C. and the Drawing Center.
Think about that argument carefully: according to Pataki et al, it’s unpatriotic to criticize a U.S. President or address factual events. Yes, the torture at Abu Ghraib was inhuman, criminal, despicable, ugly, unforgivable, and shameful; but it happened on our watch. Attempts to bury or ban or erase that truth is another shameful act in and of itself.
Pataki got his way, and plans for the I.F.C. were scrapped, and the Drawing Center was forced to look for another home. The intention of the I.F.C., to create “a living memorial in which the story of Sept. 11, 2001, would be told in the context of the worldwide struggle for freedom through the ages,” has certainly been lost. Instead, the memorial and its surrounding establishment will likely fit the ideal described by Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 widow who led the opposition to the Freedom Center:
“The International Freedom Center was an obstacle not simply for the families, the first responders and all those who were personally affected by the events of Sept. 11, but for all Americans who will be coming to the World Trade Center memorial to hear the story of 9/11 and that story only.”
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the myopic approach. Nevermind context, freedom of speech, lessons learned, and mistakes made. We just want to focus on our loss and our triumph, and nothing more.
Oh, and there will be a place to shop.
I think the closing sentence in a New York Times opinion piece summarizes my disappointment best: “At best, ground zero has lost the ability to stand for freedom of speech, that most American principle. At worst, it risks becoming a deeply fragmented place, divided between mourning and shopping.”
In September 2005 then Gov. George Pataki evicted the International Freedom Center (I.F.C.) museum from it’s designated plot on the memorial site for Ground Zero. Earlier that June, Pataki made demands that both the I.F.C. and the Drawing Center (which also lost it’s spot at the planned memorial) guarantee that exhibits shown there would not offend 9/11 families or others visiting the nearby memorial.
Pataki explained, “I view that memorial site as sacred grounds… and we will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America, denigrates New York or freedom, or denigrates the sacrifice or courage that the heroes showed on Sept. 11.”
In the same June 25th piece, the New York Times describes an article that The Daily News published prior to Pataki’s comments that criticized a then current exhibit at the Drawing Center, siting artwork that “seemed to mock President Bush and depict torture at the Abu Ghraib prison.” (Among the works were some that “appear[ed] to make light of President Bush’s description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the Axis of Evil”). Pataki and 9/11 family members who vocally protested the presence of both cultural institutions highlighted these examples as inappropriate and unpatriotic, and used them as reason to oust both the I.F.C. and the Drawing Center.
Think about that argument carefully: according to Pataki et al, it’s unpatriotic to criticize a U.S. President or address factual events. Yes, the torture at Abu Ghraib was inhuman, criminal, despicable, ugly, unforgivable, and shameful; but it happened on our watch. Attempts to bury or ban or erase that truth is another shameful act in and of itself.
Pataki got his way, and plans for the I.F.C. were scrapped, and the Drawing Center was forced to look for another home. The intention of the I.F.C., to create “a living memorial in which the story of Sept. 11, 2001, would be told in the context of the worldwide struggle for freedom through the ages,” has certainly been lost. Instead, the memorial and its surrounding establishment will likely fit the ideal described by Debra Burlingame, a 9/11 widow who led the opposition to the Freedom Center:
“The International Freedom Center was an obstacle not simply for the families, the first responders and all those who were personally affected by the events of Sept. 11, but for all Americans who will be coming to the World Trade Center memorial to hear the story of 9/11 and that story only.”
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the myopic approach. Nevermind context, freedom of speech, lessons learned, and mistakes made. We just want to focus on our loss and our triumph, and nothing more.
Oh, and there will be a place to shop.
I think the closing sentence in a New York Times opinion piece summarizes my disappointment best: “At best, ground zero has lost the ability to stand for freedom of speech, that most American principle. At worst, it risks becoming a deeply fragmented place, divided between mourning and shopping.”