9/11 Memorial & International Freedom Center

[hvp05]

I have heard various reports that there is a controversy over exactly what kind of memorial should be built at the site of the World Trade Center. It is easy to get upset when addressing such a sensitive topic/event, but this is especially so when there appear to be under-handed sociopolitical forces imparting influence.

On last night's "O'Reilly Factor" Bill O'Reilly had a segment about this, bringing head-to-head leaders from each stance. Here's the synopsis from his website:

A museum called the International Freedom Center is being planned for Ground Zero in New York City - its exhibits will reportedly include feature Native Americans, slaves, and others who were denied their freedom. Some 9/11 families complain that the museum has been hijacked by ideologues. Anthony Gardner, whose brother was killed at the World Trade Center, laid out the families' arguments. "The cultural components of the International Freedom Center have no relevance to 9/11 whatsoever. We're not saying these institutions shouldn't exist, but they don't belong on this sacred ground." On the other side, civil rights attorney Michael Gross argued that the goal is to transcend 9/11. "What we want to see here is something larger, a representation of man's fight for freedom forever. What happened on 9/11 is on the same level with fights like the Holocaust, the Indians, and lynching." The Factor declared that any 9/11 memorial should focus on that one horror. "If I went to a memorial at Ground Zero and I saw exhibits about Native American genocide and lynching of blacks, I would be personally offended. I would say that's inappropriate at that site."

I typically agree with Mr. O'Reilly and so I do here as well. He pointed out that [financial] contributions [for the IFC] have been presented by only liberal groups, none conservative.

And I have to ponder the motivations of those behind the IFC. Why the need to remind us of and encompass the details of Native American oppression, slavery and the Holocaust at a 9/11 memorial? During his interview, Mr. Gross seemed to fall back on crying about censorship and a "we can build it so we will" attitude, which is pretty baseless.

In my opinion, if they glaze over those topics they do them only injustice. If they go into full detail the memorial-museum may become too far-reaching and virtually collapse under its own mass. And in either circumstance they risk watering-down the events of 9/11, which are supposed to be the whole impetus.

Shouldn't the 9/11 attacks alone be enough to create a powerful, patriotic memorial? Or does incorporating a spectrum of struggles for freedom actually aid in putting 9/11 in perspective whilst we consider others who have suffered?

Related article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/06/21/ground.zero.plans/

 

[mv_princess]

Nowi maybe too young to really grasp, much of our history as a country...But i do very much grasp 9-11. And what i dont understand is why we can't rebuild the towers, Show the rest of the world that we arent push-overs. I think we should have a memoiral, to honor those we have lost, but i can't believe we couldnt rebuild the towers, in honor of them...

 

[ylexot]

Nowi maybe too young to really grasp, much of our history as a country...But i do very much grasp 9-11. And what i dont understand is why we can't rebuild the towers, Show the rest of the world that we arent push-overs. I think we should have a memoiral, to honor those we have lost, but i can't believe we couldnt rebuild the towers, in honor of them...

Rebuild the towers (two of them instead of the single tower idea) and make the first couple floors a museum/memorial to that historic tragedy.

 

[Railroad]

Rebuild the towers (two of them instead of the single tower idea) and make the first couple floors a museum/memorial to that historic tragedy.

Got MY vote!

 

[BuddyLee]

As of right now it's just a blank hole in NYC, merely a dead construction site and nothing more. It looks like crap and something needs to be erected sooner than later.

 

[hvp05]

As of right now it's just a blank hole in NYC, merely a dead construction site and nothing more. It looks like crap and something needs to be erected sooner than later.

Have you been there? I was there two months ago and it's hardly "dead". Hundreds or even thousands of visitors stop by to see the site every day because it is regarded as "sacred ground". And as this article specifies, the cornerstone for the new structure has been set.

The topic of the article is how Donald Trump wants to rebuild the original towers + about 10 stories. But, since the 'Freedom' design has been approved and passed into the construction phase, Trump has essentially a nil chance of his idea being instituted.

Something will be built there, no doubt. I was really curious what people thought of the memorial aspect of the reconstruction. I think an educational section along with a simple rememberance area of those who perished -- perhaps an area like "the Wall" in D.C. -- would be the best route. It hopefully wouldn't be a depressing space, but certainly emotional, patriotic and expressive of the resilience that helped NYC and America rebound. It shouldn't be political, overtly religious or exhibit other characteristics that may polarize visitors feelings because all those folks that died that day were from a variety of political, ethnic and financial backgrounds and slanting that would be dishonorable.

 

[BuddyLee]

Have you been there? I was there two months ago and it's hardly "dead". Hundreds or even thousands of visitors stop by to see the site every day because it is regarded as "sacred ground". And as this article specifies, the cornerstone for the new structure has been set.

The topic of the article is how Donald Trump wants to rebuild the original towers + about 10 stories. But, since the 'Freedom' design has been approved and passed into the construction phase, Trump has essentially a nil chance of his idea being instituted.

Something will be built there, no doubt. I was really curious what people thought of the memorial aspect of the reconstruction. I think an educational section along with a simple rememberance area of those who perished -- perhaps an area like "the Wall" in D.C. -- would be the best route. It hopefully wouldn't be a depressing space, but certainly emotional, patriotic and expressive of the resilience that helped NYC and America rebound. It shouldn't be political, overtly religious or exhibit other characteristics that may polarize visitors feelings because all those folks that died that day were from a variety of political, ethnic and financial backgrounds and slanting that would be dishonorable.

I was there about three weeks ago actually. The site itself is a dead construction site, didn't look like too much hustle and bustle to me. Yes, there were a lot of tourists outside looking in but not much happening on the inside from what I saw.

 

[hvp05]

I was there about three weeks ago actually. The site itself is a dead construction site, didn't look like too much hustle and bustle to me. Yes, there were a lot of tourists outside looking in but not much happening on the inside from what I saw.

It may appear inactive due to the fact that they had to upgrade the design to address certain "security issues" uncovered in the initial blueprint. Also, I'm not sure the general design is 100% approved, thus why the plans are still being contended...

I don't really care if they've laid any mortar yet or not. That's not why I started this thread. Perhaps others are not as irritated by the IFC as I am...

 

[BuddyLee]

I don't really care if they've laid any mortar yet or not. That's not why I started this thread. Perhaps others are not as irritated by the IFC as I am...

I don't care about the mortar either, it could be a little more presentable though.