The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is located in Arlington Cemetery in Virginia. It is one of Arlington’s most popular tourist attractions. This monument celebrates the unknown American soldiers from Word Wars I and II, the Korean War and until 1988 the Vietnam War. The first article I found called Ideas and Trends; Laying to Rest the Last of the Unknown Soldiers is about how modern science has changed the tradition of the unknowns. New methods of DNA testing have resulted in the remains of the Vietnam unknown to be identified. Americans today are less willing to accept the idea that someone who is fighting for our country will die and never be known for their bravery or valor. The Pentagon was faced with the decision to honor the sanctity of the tomb or to honor the commitment to our nation to a full accounting of those who were missing in action. The Pentagon made the right decision when they decided to examine the remains of the Vietnam unknown. He was identified as First Lieut. Michael J. Blassie, a fighter pilot. The second article I found was not as important but I thought it was quite interesting. The article explained how the marble tomb was starting to crack and what the government was going to do to fix the cracks. A man wanted to donate a slab of marble to help his country maintain the monument but government Bureaucracy got in the way.
Now it has to go through some approval process. I t has been two years and it still is not approved.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Christ the Redeemer
The name may seem unfamiliar to many but I'm sure that most people have seen the monument. The monument is very well known, but few people actually know much about the monument besides that it looks cool, which I can't argue because it is magnificent looking. Christ the Redeemer is located in Rio De Jainero, Brazil. It was built in 1921 by a group called the Catholic Circle of Rio. Christ the Redeemer stands at the very top of the Corcovado Mountain and is 112.2 feet tall without its base and 132.7 feet with the base. It was build out of reinforced concrete with a soapstone outer layer, because the soapstone can handle extreme weather conditions better.The statue was made as a monument to 100 years of Brazil's freedom from Portugal. In 1990, there was work done to restore some of the chips an cracks to the statue and few years ago, there were some renovations to the mountain around the statue so that it was easier to assess the statue from the base.
Arc de Triomphe- A Symbol of French Pride
The Arc de Triomphe is a massive arc that is centered in one of the busiest streets of the already bustling Paris. Originally built as a memorial to those who died in the Napolean Wars, the monument has become a collective memorial to all of France's wars. In 1921, the Tomb of the Unknown Soilder was buried to commemorate those who died in World War I. As much as the site has become one of collective commemoration, it has also become a key landmark of French pride. Both the French and the Germans have held victory marches past the church and it has become a place of high nationalism for France. Which is why, perhaps, it can also be seen as a logical site for terrorism. In 1995, a bomb exploded near the site and wounded 17 people. Overall the monument has become a large part of France's national importance.
Brandenburg Gate
I've changed my topic for this final project three times so far because I haven't been able to find any information on my past monuments. But I am surprised on the articles I have found and even more surprised on how recently the Brandenburg Gate has been in the news. This article talks about the 20th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan's trip to the gate, where he gave a memorable speech and "dared" Gobachev to "Tear Down this Wall." Press came to so many conclusions about Reagan and not so much about his appeal for freedom, but rather on the legacy he would leave behind. This is a argumentative secondary article and the author of this piece seems to have a positive attitude towards the events of Reagan's trip to Berlin. Unlike the general attitude of the news, the author argues that the president sticks to his "lasting visions" and helped bring freedom to this nation. I also found this article, written less than a year ago, about President Obama's trip to the same monument. A conservative, German chancellor condemns Obama for using the Gate as a "campaign backdrop." Other Berliners say that Obama should feel free to speak at the Brandenburg gate, which is open to anyone. Not only did I not know that this monument has been in the news so much over the past few years, but it is also a very popular spot for our own presidents. Ofcourse the events of Obama and Reagan that took place in Berlin differ, it's interesting to see how people in the same community react so differently to how "public" property is used.
Battle at Stalingrad Memorial
At the end of Stalin's totalitarian reign in 1961, the city of Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd; a hasty initiative that attempted to wipe Russia clean of Stalin's genocidal fingerprints. Twelve years later, a memorial was placed in the city of Volgograd commemorating those who lost their lives in the bloodiest battle that humanity has ever seen in warfare. This memorial no doubt irritated the tender flesh of a Russian generation that was desperately trying to dissociate from the ominous nomenclature of Stalin. Recently it was reported that the war memorial at Stalingrad has been quickly approaching a noticeable state of erosion and ruin. But is this so surprising in a city that represents the very cesspool of poverty that Russia has waded in since WWII? How anxious is the Russia to restore and maintain a memorial that partly symbolizes their nation's undeniable state of despair, generated by none other than Stalin himself? My thoughts were coincidentally echoed in an art blog that called upon the memorial at Stalingrad as a reminder to the world of the horrors of the Communist and Soviet era. The art itself seemed to compel the author to declare that Russia is surely retracing their oppressive historical steps . It may be that this Russian commemoration has a deeper retrospective meaning to the world than it does to a country that hardly needs reminding of its past.
City of Petra
You might not know about the ancient city of Petra in Jordan, unless you have seen the Indiana Jones movies, but it is an amazing sight. It was built in the 4th century B.C.E. by the Nabataens and was a great trading city, but by the 12th century it was just ruins. The western world didn't know about the city until a Swiss explorer rediscovered it in 1812. Then in 1994, after Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty, Petra finally became the tourist attraction it was supposed to be. However, as Neil MacFarquhar argues in his article, A Fabled Place Forsaken, Contaminated by War, the combination of the Palestinians rebelling against Israeli occupation and the 9/11 attacks dramatically decreased the tourism in Jordan, especially in Petra. He also argued that due to middle eastern politics, many citizens don't want tourists, particularly from Israel to come back. One man was quoted saying, "I don't think people [the Israelis] will welcome ... it will be very difficult. It is difficult to forget what is happening there." It is astounding to me that the politcs and the turbulance of the middle east can even affect the tourism of an otherwise incredible ancient city.
Other articles:
Petra becomes one of the 7 new wonders
ancient city of Petra
Other articles:
Petra becomes one of the 7 new wonders
ancient city of Petra
Memorial to the Victims of Communism
Journalistic:
So far, I have been able to find some interesting information about the unveiling of this memorial. Entitled "Memorial to the Victims of Communism Unveiled in Prague" One of the major controversies came up when the Czech government was deciding who to invite to the ceremony, and they discovered that the president at the time,Vaclev Havel, had previous ties to communism, and he was not invited initially. I just find this relevant because it's evident that just the opening of this memorial had some impact on the people.
There was a lot of controversy going on in terms of women's presence in this memorial. When the sculptor Olbram Zoubek created it, he did not include any women in one of the many sculptures that he created for the monument. This stirred up a lot of feminism, because this women claimed that they had as much right to be honored by this monument as any men who suffered, because they suffered the wrath of communism as well. Just to give one example of a woman who suffered because of communism, this article talks about Milada Horakova and her connections to communism and the memorial.
Chemin Des Dames -- Commemoration and WW1
Chemin des Dames was once the road that the women of Louis XIV's court took to go to their summer homes, but more recently, it earned fame for the fact that it was the location of some of World War I's bloodiest battles. Because of its strategic location as the last ridge before the plains of Paris, lots of fighting occurred along it, and hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers lived for months on end in an intricate network of caves dug into the hillside.
Even more interesting that this, though, are the soldiers who were used in the front lines of the battle during one of the main offensives when the French tried to reclaim the hill from the Germans: Confused, scared, and disoriented, the soldiers "mutinied" and refused to fight. Although they didn't harm any French, 27 of them were still shot, to set an example for any future mutineers.
It is only now, more than ninety years later, that the descendants of the mutineers were invited to see where their ancestors were shot. This is the first time, too, that they have even been acknowledged. How, in a democratic country, can such a thing happen? How, with the press, and lately, the internet, did these deaths go ignored? In a way, this re-surfacing of hidden events shows us that although we may get mad at other countries, such as Russia, for down-playing their histories, our allies, and ourselves, most definitely, have all done the same things.
However, not much other progress has been made regarding the process of memorializing these soldiers. Every town in France has a monument to soldiers who died in WWI, but the men still aren't put on them. Didn't they give their life to the war too? Don't they count as much as others? How can they be discriminated against because of their political opinion? They lived in a democratic country, right?
Maybe not. In 1998, France's prime minister, Lionel Jospin, said that it was time to re-integrate the mutineers into the country's collective historical memory. However, the president at the time, Jacques Chirac, immediately said that remembering them would be disgracing the soldiers that did die for their country in WWI. No matter your position on this issue, though, here are some relevant sites to look about this (unfortunately, some are in French, but shouldn't be too hard to understand if you're taking French):
This article talks about the mutineers, and commemoration.
This article, from 1917 (and in English!), talks about Chemin des Dames in general.
This pamphlet, published by the French government, talks about Senegalese soldiers' role in WWI, specifically mentions Chemin des Dames. If you don't understand French, it still has some cool pictures of the Senegalese battalions.
Mamayev Hill, Volgograd, Russia
Mamayev Hill is a monument commemorating the battle of Stalingrad, which occured from 1942-1943 in Stalingrad Russia (now Volgograd.) It was arguably the greatest victory for the soviets during World War 2, and Russians felt that the great battle deserved a monument in its commemoration. The linked article comes from "The Voice of Russia," and although not too argumentative, it is interesting to see the underlying pride that seeps through the words describing the intimidating monument. Through this article one will learn that according to the author the Motherland statue commemorating the soldiers of Stalingrad is the pinnacle of Russia, exuding it's superiority and somewhat troublesome past...perhaps indicating that it has overcome these troubles (true? eh not really.)
Now, a once war torn Stalingrad is now the prosperous city of Volgograd, as seen through the lenz of this author. From looking around at several documents, it has come to my attention that Volgograd is quite the "hotspot" for tourism. This would make sense, considering the "reality" of the turmoil this city once went through, the hardship it faced, yet now it is a positive, productive city.
Ironically, today; however, the monument was in need of urgent repairs to prevent it from toppling over. The beloved monument seems to be in danger of decay due to the high winds of Russia. This obviously illustrates how old the monument is, but also how important it is to the Volgogradian people.
l'Arc de Triomphe as a Symbol
The Arc de Triomphe has been and continues to be a major symbol of what France is and strives to be. This monument dates back to 1806 when Napoleon wanted to build an arc glorifying the French army, Grande Armée. It was finished in 1836, complete with four towering reliefs along each of the sides. One of the most significant of these is La Marseillaise. Similar to the nationalistic song, the artwork symbolizes the calling forth of the people of France. Not only does the Arc de Triomphe bring us back to the nationalistic roots of France, but it also has continued to be present through out the times. For instance, during WWI an unidentifiable French soldier lost his life. By burying him beneath the monument, he symbolizes both the effort and the loss of the war. In 1961, John F Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy paid their respects to the WWI tomb of the unknown soldier. Two years later, after his death, his wife requested that an eternal flame, like the one above the tomb, was placed above his grave at the Arlington National Cemetery. Being one of the major symbols of France, many events have been centered around it. More recently, in 1995 during the time of the Algerian opposition movements, a bomb went off near the Arc de Triomphe, wounding seventeen people. The Arc de Triomphe is more over a representation of the triumph of France's past, the history through their eyes and what they strive to be.
Rhodes Memorial Sources
First I'll start off with my Journalistic piece. Unfortunately there aren't very many news articles about my memorial, so for the time being I only have one Journalistic piece. I found was a Article from the New York Times about not specifically the Rhodes Memorial, but about Cecil Rhodes himself. When trying to learn as much as you can about a Memorial it is almost just as useful to research the person or event the memorial is commemorating.
Also since the Rhodes memorial is located in Cape Town, South Africa, I found the website for the Cape Times. I found a good article about a recent defacement of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. This article would have explained a lot about how the public in South Africa viewed Cecil Rhodes. However, in order to access the article you had to pay and subscribe to the Cape times, so Unfortunately this article didn't end up working out.
Jewish Rescuer's in Yad Vashem
My argumentative article discusses how Yad Vashem honors the non-Jewish rescuers during the Holocaust. Most of these non-Jewish rescuers took in Jewish children and even families while they were on the run from the Nazi's. The question my article raises is why aren't the Jewish rescuers allowed to be honored in Yad Vashem, why are they neglected? The Jewish rescuers consist of the Jews who went by different names on the trains and searching the country for a safe haven to turn to. It sounds like the author of this article brought up this issue to the directors of Yad Vashem and the answer he received was that the Jews were simply "doing their duty" and still Yad Vashem refuses to honor the Jewish rescuers. The group of people who are pushing for the honoring of the Jewish rescuers say that they are not asking for the same major recognition as the non-Jews but would like an acknowledgement of some sort.
my other journalistic articles are:
This particular article focuses on the museum's creative way to incorporate history by using film, photographs and artifacts. This article interviews Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and touches on the architecture designed by Moshe Safdi.
This article is simply announcing the opening of Yad Vashem's new museum in which leaders from 40 different nations attended. It includes the series of events that took place at the opening of the museum and the meaning behind the events such as the children's choir. The leaders of the different nations are featured with quotes and explanations of how they feel about the opening of the new museum.
Berlin Holocaust Memorial
Memorial used as public toilet
Berlin's Holocaust Memorial has attracted millions of visitors since it was inaugurated in May 2005. However, some of these visitors have shown little respect for the memorial -- and have used it as a public toilet. The article talks about the various methods undertaken to solve the behavior.
BBC News Memorial Opening
In this article about the opening of the Berlin Holocaust Memorial it talks about the many controversies surrounding the memorial
Almost 8 million visitors since 2005
This article talks about the experiences of visitors within the memorial. It also explains the ongoing evolution the memorial has experienced.
And finally, while looking through different news articles I came across a comment by a holocaust denier that I thought was laughable, but also slightly disturbing that he actually believed what he was saying. From this news site
quote: "This blatant lie named ” The Holocaust” has been exposed, and the world needs to know that fact. Though people still fear the “Scarlet ‘A’” designation when discussing this subject, they should confidently address any medium which chooses to display Holocaust historical information with pointed questions about the lack of physical and anecdotal proof of the event. For example; No Jewish Holocaust ‘expert’ (They are ALL experts on the ‘Holocaust’) will furnish ONE NAME of a Jewish person executed by Zyklon B gas in a concentration camp gas chamber during World War 2. There is a valid why reason Jews are reluctant to provide that name: Because NO ONE, Jewish or otherwise, was executed with Zyklon B gas in a concentration camp gas chamber during World War 2. No one witnessed any gassings of Jews, no training was provided the alleged executioners (And, if one learns of the difficulties encountered with the use of Zyklon B, they would realize the futility of executing people with it)., and no budget wass set aside to fund the executions. It is quite obvious that Jews simply re-circulated their World War 1 atrocity propaganda (virtually word for word..) and gave it the ‘treatment’ to perpetuate a gargantuan lie, which has survived for decades after it was first told."
Berlin's Holocaust Memorial has attracted millions of visitors since it was inaugurated in May 2005. However, some of these visitors have shown little respect for the memorial -- and have used it as a public toilet. The article talks about the various methods undertaken to solve the behavior.
BBC News Memorial Opening
In this article about the opening of the Berlin Holocaust Memorial it talks about the many controversies surrounding the memorial
Almost 8 million visitors since 2005
This article talks about the experiences of visitors within the memorial. It also explains the ongoing evolution the memorial has experienced.
And finally, while looking through different news articles I came across a comment by a holocaust denier that I thought was laughable, but also slightly disturbing that he actually believed what he was saying. From this news site
quote: "This blatant lie named ” The Holocaust” has been exposed, and the world needs to know that fact. Though people still fear the “Scarlet ‘A’” designation when discussing this subject, they should confidently address any medium which chooses to display Holocaust historical information with pointed questions about the lack of physical and anecdotal proof of the event. For example; No Jewish Holocaust ‘expert’ (They are ALL experts on the ‘Holocaust’) will furnish ONE NAME of a Jewish person executed by Zyklon B gas in a concentration camp gas chamber during World War 2. There is a valid why reason Jews are reluctant to provide that name: Because NO ONE, Jewish or otherwise, was executed with Zyklon B gas in a concentration camp gas chamber during World War 2. No one witnessed any gassings of Jews, no training was provided the alleged executioners (And, if one learns of the difficulties encountered with the use of Zyklon B, they would realize the futility of executing people with it)., and no budget wass set aside to fund the executions. It is quite obvious that Jews simply re-circulated their World War 1 atrocity propaganda (virtually word for word..) and gave it the ‘treatment’ to perpetuate a gargantuan lie, which has survived for decades after it was first told."
Monument to Stalin - Prague
Stalin's monument has been replaced with many things, and all of them have been unable to change the fact that for seven years, a 50-meter high monument to the Soviet leader towered over all that passed. There are dark stories surrounding the statue. One news report listed the tragedies surrounding it: the death of the creator, model, and even the driver of the truck that paraded Stalin's massive, decapitated marble head through the streets of Prague after the monument's destruction. Some took these successive unfortunate events as bad omens, which only darkens the clouds hovering over the site where the monument once stood. One blogger rightly points out, however, that different people are going to have different views of Stalin, and these views will affect how they view a monument in his honor. Stalin is within living memory for many, but he is also far before the time of many. The monument is much greater of a controversy for those who lived under and remember Communist government and Stalin's rule.
When I began researching this monument, I expected to find a lot of articles discussing the stain it left on Prague--even after its demolition. I guessed correctly; there are many sources that condemn the statue as "evil" or "hated". However, these sources tend to be from outside of the Czech Republic. A contributor to one travel blog site seems to have a very strong opinion of the monument, but not once does he reference a conversation with a Prague local, whose opinion would be more relevant. Although outside opinions are key when researching how views of a man with such world importance are valid, there is a distinction to be made between opinions of Stalin and opinions of the former monument in his honor. People who view the monument as having left an ugly stain are probably more concerned with who it was commemorating. While reading an article from the New York Times, however, I saw a very different viewpoint. One man protested that monuments are history, and should be kept simply for that purpose (regardless of sour opinions of who they honor). In most sources I found, younger generations were not really concerned with the site or its history. Obviously, different generations are going to have wildly different views on a subject like this, but there is a point where they meet. Everyone in Prague, when planning to meet up at the site of the former monument, says "Meet at Stalin".
When I began researching this monument, I expected to find a lot of articles discussing the stain it left on Prague--even after its demolition. I guessed correctly; there are many sources that condemn the statue as "evil" or "hated". However, these sources tend to be from outside of the Czech Republic. A contributor to one travel blog site seems to have a very strong opinion of the monument, but not once does he reference a conversation with a Prague local, whose opinion would be more relevant. Although outside opinions are key when researching how views of a man with such world importance are valid, there is a distinction to be made between opinions of Stalin and opinions of the former monument in his honor. People who view the monument as having left an ugly stain are probably more concerned with who it was commemorating. While reading an article from the New York Times, however, I saw a very different viewpoint. One man protested that monuments are history, and should be kept simply for that purpose (regardless of sour opinions of who they honor). In most sources I found, younger generations were not really concerned with the site or its history. Obviously, different generations are going to have wildly different views on a subject like this, but there is a point where they meet. Everyone in Prague, when planning to meet up at the site of the former monument, says "Meet at Stalin".
Hands of Victory - A Painful Symbol from a Terrible Regime or a Symbol with a Lesson
Although I tried to find articles from the time the Hands of Victory monument in Baghdad, Iraq was erected, I could not. But I did find many interesting articles that were more recent about the debates going on about whether to destroy this monument or leave it up. Some see the monument as a symbol of national pride or a reminder of past mistakes. They believe that it is necessary to preserve these monuments to preserve their history. Many other people see the monument as an exaltation of Saddam's regime and find this to be a painful memory. They believe that to rebuild their country, this monument and others similar to it must be destroyed.
The new Iraqi government agreed with them and in January 2007, they started the demolition. Interestingly, just a few days later the U.S. government demanded that they stop the demolition, which brings up the question of why they would do such a thing. What does it matter to them? I can see no real reason except for the U.S. government believing that this monument will discourage the same thing from happening again. This interference of the U.S. has angered the Iraqi government though.
This debate that has risen in Iraq is not a new one. Several other monuments from authoritarian regimes are being or have been removed. It is a controversial topic, and the answer comes down to the meaning of the monument. The problem is that the monument means different things to different people. Some see it as pride, others as Saddam's vanity. With this monument, they are thinking of reaching a compromise where one of the swords is left, and the rest are melted down and made into a new arch to represent their new country without losing its history.
Two Journalistic Pieces:
Both this article and this article present both sides in the debate of whether the monuments left over from Saddam Hussein's regime should be left as a tribute to history or destroyed.
Opinion Piece:
This opinion piece written by an Iraqi sculptor discusses his view on the removal of Iraq's monuments. It does not reference the Hands of Victory directly, but it is interesting to see how artists view the subject of the destruction of these monuments.
An interesting "article" to see:
Although this article, titled the Seven Wonders of the Totalitarian World, doesn't contain much information about this monument, it is fun article to read. It has pictures of monuments to rulers we have studied and other famous totalitarian rulers. I found the one in Libya especially intriguing.
The new Iraqi government agreed with them and in January 2007, they started the demolition. Interestingly, just a few days later the U.S. government demanded that they stop the demolition, which brings up the question of why they would do such a thing. What does it matter to them? I can see no real reason except for the U.S. government believing that this monument will discourage the same thing from happening again. This interference of the U.S. has angered the Iraqi government though.
This debate that has risen in Iraq is not a new one. Several other monuments from authoritarian regimes are being or have been removed. It is a controversial topic, and the answer comes down to the meaning of the monument. The problem is that the monument means different things to different people. Some see it as pride, others as Saddam's vanity. With this monument, they are thinking of reaching a compromise where one of the swords is left, and the rest are melted down and made into a new arch to represent their new country without losing its history.
Two Journalistic Pieces:
Both this article and this article present both sides in the debate of whether the monuments left over from Saddam Hussein's regime should be left as a tribute to history or destroyed.
Opinion Piece:
This opinion piece written by an Iraqi sculptor discusses his view on the removal of Iraq's monuments. It does not reference the Hands of Victory directly, but it is interesting to see how artists view the subject of the destruction of these monuments.
An interesting "article" to see:
Although this article, titled the Seven Wonders of the Totalitarian World, doesn't contain much information about this monument, it is fun article to read. It has pictures of monuments to rulers we have studied and other famous totalitarian rulers. I found the one in Libya especially intriguing.
Peace Park (Children's Monument)
The Children's Peace Monument is part of the Peace Park in Japan, which is located in Hiroshima and dedicated to the A-bomb victims. I chose the Children's Peace Monument (also known as Tower of 1000 Cranes, Statue of the A-Bomb Children...etc) because of its moving story. The statue is specifically dedicated to Sadako, a child affected by the radiation from the bomb. She folded 1000 origami cranes, believing that it would cure her leukemia that she got from the radiation. Unfortunately she did not get to finish her goal (she passed away because the leukemia), but her classmates finished the cranes for her and now her story is well-known in Japan. The monument is surrounded by booths filled with strings and displays of 1000 cranes that students from Japan and around the world have made in memory of Sadako and the other A-Bomb children. This makes the monument an unusual one, and involves active interaction with it to keep the story alive. However, in this article, vandalism seems to be an issue in the Peace Park, although not necessarily a threat to the Children's Peace Monument. There have been several accusations of the criminals, but no one really seems to have been officially blamed. Some say that "the culprits could be deranged and disaffected members of the peace movement itself", which seems almost out of the question. The vandalism in itself is a disgrace, but the fact that it took place in the PEACE park is ridiculous. I still don't understand the motivation behind such an action, any ideas?
The Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe
All 3 articles discuss the Berlin Monument, but give completely different points of view on the subject. Press cool on Berlin memorial, a piece done by the BBC, gives an inside look as to how German newspapers perceive the new monument. Comments range from approval to disapproval of the point conveyed by the slabs, and whether there should be a memorial at all because it plays on German guilty, even 60 years after the Holocaust. These, I believe are very valid points. Although it is never too late to commemorate such atrocious acts, the design was chosen for a reason. The abstract and simple shape of the memorial is mean to be interpreted by the viewer, which I believe is a brilliant design. Blatantly pointing out what is being commemorated has been done many times before, and a new generation of Germans should feel moved to never again do such an act again, not feel ashamed for what a past generation has done.
Berlin opens Holocaust memorial
Bleak Debate in Berlin on a Holocaust Memorial
Michelangelo's David
In September of 2008 a BBC writer by the name of Mark Duff wrote an article about how Michelangelo's David, could collapse. Experts are saying that because The David is exposed to people walking past it each day, and creating vibrations the statue has become endangered. In addition to the vibrations, the marble in which the statue is made from as well as it's shape serves as threat to the statue as well. An idea of encasing the statue has been proposed, however this would cost about one million euros. Four years ago the cracks on the statue were repaired. This was extremely controversial because experts felt that they were changing the statue from it's original state. The David has been an iconic statue for 504 years (since the Renaissance), an originally served as a symbol for Florence's Republican ideals. Today it symbolizes many different ideals, and depending on whom you ask you find different answers.
Other sites on The David:
AIDS Quilt
In this article from the January 31st 2007 issue of the New York Times, the dispute between Cleve Jones, creator of the quilt, and its caretaker, the Names Project Foundation is covered. It is argued that the battle goes beyond custody of the quilt, but instead reflects the changing purpose and symbolism of the AIDS quilt as the AIDS epidemic changes. Initially, the quilt was intended to raise awareness to the AIDS crisis. However, the current purpose and effectiveness of the quilt is questioned. It is argued that the impact of the quilt has diminished because it is now so big that it is rarely seen in its entirety. Also, the quilt is very expensive and has lead the National AIDS Fund to debt. Though it is undisputed that the quilt has been a significant milestone relative to the AIDS epidemic, it is also evident that the quilt may have lost its "punch" over time.
This 1987 article from the New York Times was written when the idea of the quilt was still blossoming and the quilt was getting started. Thus, it was detailing the sentiment and symbolism of the quilt. However, it clearly doesn't anticipate any of the conflict that will arise about the quilt in future years. Therefore, it idealizes the meaning and effectiveness of the quilt while characterizing its intention.
The Boston Globe compared the emotional response to the quilt with that of the Vietnam Memorial. However, it is important to remember that the quilt doesn't represent the enormity of the AIDS epidemic because it can't and doesn't feature every casualty. However, the Vietnam Memorial does, for it lists the name of every victim. Therefore, if the two are compared, people may think that AIDS is a smaller scale problem than it truly is.
Camp Norway
There is not much to say (after trying three different opening sentences) about adding articles for others to explore about the monument Camp Norway (opened in May 1994) except that there is not a whole lot of opinion about it out there on the web (so far I will probably keep looking and find a whole bunch of stuff). There are only two explanations of why I would think that there wouldn't be a lot about it. One, there is only so much to say about it and maybe monuments in general, and two, a smaller Northerly country like Norway probably doesn't get that much attention on a National scale (I myself am a huge Norway supporter). Even so, I was able to find one good websites with the secondary article and the second news article still in the works.
(added post with a clip from a newspaper) http://www.ns1763.ca/lunenco/norwaycmp.html
Some other sites
Frantz Fanon
Frantz Fanon was a very well educated man that openly protested and fought against colonization. Frantz Fanon had the interesting tactic that violence against the oppressor was the ideal way to unify the colonized people. He used this unification to fight for independence against the colonizers. In this article we are able to see one of the speeches he gave and we clearly see that he is addressing the people to listen to him, to take action against and stop letting themselves be controlled. He is able to use very sophisticated rhetoric to convince his audience. I found it very interesting to see how he phrases things to make himself more credible. No just how he said it, but what he said as well was planned out very scholarly. All of his supporting evidence was true and clear stated. The language style he spoke in was very sophisticated and made the audience view him as the leader they needed.
Even though I do not believe that violence is the necessary method that needed to be used to unify the people to defend themselves against colonizers, I think Frantz did an extremely good job using rhetoric to convince the people that it was.
Even though I do not believe that violence is the necessary method that needed to be used to unify the people to defend themselves against colonizers, I think Frantz did an extremely good job using rhetoric to convince the people that it was.
An Unknown Shakespeare---D'Souza
In part 7 of this riveting debate between Hitchens and D'Souza at the Freedom Fest in 2008, D'Souza ends with a flurry of remarks that boil down to say: unless there was some illiterate that created a character more riveting than Hamlet then there must have been a Jesus, because there has only been one Shakespeare and I could actually have to agree with him on this one considering that there is conjecture that one man(Shakespeare) could have created so many masterpieces. I think that D'Souza is brilliant and is one of the best debaters tat I have ever, the way that he takes all of Hitchens' points and succinctly attacks them all is egregious. I truly believe that even though I am not Catholic, that he brought up questions and doubts in my mind about what Hitchens said. I was in awe at how brilliant he was, and I liked the use of the Ottomans and the Mugals...
"The Unmitigated Gall of Dinesh D'Souza"
I read an article by San Diego Reader journalist, Thomas Larson, and was quite surprised about the topic. Mr. Larson wrote a 12,000 word article profiling Dinesh D'Souza; it discussed his views, his two major books Illiberal Education and The End of Racism, and how he made his money/his family life. A week after it had been published, Larson's article appeared on Dinesh's personal website, only not in its complete form. Dinesh cut it down, removing paragraphs in which his personal life was discussed and criticisms of his arguments namely criticism of his argument that "Democrats, because they supported gay rights, are now the party of "bestiality" and sexual deviance." Mr. Larson wasn't notified of these changes, and this sparked off a big controvery. I find it interesting that Mr. D'Souza has the audacity to do such a rude and illegal act. It's even more interesting that Mr. D'Souza, who is a hardcore Republican committed to the principles of private property, would do such a thing, and then carelessly shrug it off like he did nothing wrong. The article can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)