Arc de Triomphe Research Questions

Most of my research questions, about the Arc de Triomphe in France,  center around how the French people see the monument and the significance of the monument in French nationalism .

What events have occurred in history relating to the monument?

What do these events show about how the French feel about the arc?

What type of feelings does the arc convey within the French people?

Has is become more of a tourist site, or is it a more somber and reflective place?

How does the arc compare to the Eiffel Tower, in terms of conveying French pride and nationalism?

Do the surroundings or the location of the arc affect the overall feeling or purpose of the arc?

Does that fact that it commemorates many different wars make it even more important or give it even more weight to the French?

Overall, I want my thesis to express the importance of the monument to the French and the affect it had on French nationalism and pride since it was built.

The Berlin Wall

My research questions revolve mostly around what the different reasons for building the Berlin Wall were besides to stem the flow of people moving from East to West Berlin, and the hypothetical question of whether wall was built for more political reasons than economical. Here are some of my questions: If the education systems in both East and West Berlin had the same drawbacks and benefits, would this have lessened the so called "Brain Drain" and therefore prevented the building of the wall? Was the economy of East Berlin deteriorating fast enough to justify the building of the wall or were there other reasons? Was the Berlin Wall, in a way, used as propoganda to alienate the "other side"? And finally, how big of a role did the espionage during the cold war play in the decision to build the wall? I think that these questions make my project interesting because instead of exploring the straight up facts about the building of the wall, I get to look at varying opinions on the wall and put together different pieces of evidence to draw my own conclusion on it.

The Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall

If you search on any website for news regarding the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, it is unlikely that you will get more than a few results. It is somewhat understandable for it to be relatively less controlversial, seeing as it is 1. largely unopposed by the general population of China, and 2. young (for a monument, at any rate). However, one would think that there would at least be some internationally-generated controversy surrounding the monument; There isn't. One of the questions I plan to investigate for Part 1 of my research project is: "Why is there a lack of controversial stories on the news about the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall?"

Another question I have regarding the Memorial Hall is: "What is the current situation regarding the Memorial Hall? Is there renovation, or popular culture, or other goings-on featuring the Hall?" My reasoning behind this question is that since the monument has been up for around 25 years now, and no major renovations, news stories, etc. have occured. Is the monument simply sitting "dormant", and not dynamic like other monuments?

A third question I have (which is one of the ones I am more interested in) is: "Why was the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall built so late (1985) after the end of World War II?" My preliminary research informs me that around 1985, Japanese politicians were attempting to rewrite the Nanjing Massacre in Japanese textbooks as a minor "incident", and to downplay its importance in the war. This would lead the Chinese government to create the memorial to remind the rest of the world that "We're still here, don't forget about us!", and to try to prevent other countries from following the actions of those Japanese politicians. Also, another sub-question relating to this question is: "Who exactly was behind the birth of the idea to create the Memorial Hall?"

The Monument to Stalin - Prague

The Monument to Stalin--though it is no longer standing--is still a great controversy in Prague. My questions largely revolve around public opinion of this monument and the repercussions of building it and how they have changed over time. That is to say, how has opinion about the monument changed since it was commissioned? How has it remained the same? What is it about this monument (aside from simply who it commemorated) that allowed it to leave such a lasting mark on a society it was in for a mere seven years and that never really accepted it? (In other words, why isn't a monument that was so short-lived forgotten, especially because it was a monument many would rather not remember?)

Final Project Research Questions

The 228 Peace Memorial Park is dedicated to the thousands of protestors who were killed in government crackdowns on rioters beginning on February 28th, 1947.  For a long time this topic was illegal to discuss in Taiwan, with disobeyers arrested and jailed, but it was recently, and completely unexpectedly, made discussable by the Taiwanese government.  The main questions I want to answer with this project are:

1.  What government was in power during the 228 Incident, and what tension led to it?

2.  Why was the topic recently un-tabooed?

3.  What does the architecture and design of the memorial park and statue represent?

I believe that all of these questions are intriguing, as well as relevant to an in-depth study of the park.  In learning about the park, the first question seeks to uncover the details of the original event.  The second question relates to the park's relevance to today, since the recent buzz about legalizing the discussion of the incident is certainly important.  And the third question applies to the unique layout of the park relative to the others in Taipei, and the commemorative statues in the middle of the park.

Stalingrad Memorial Research Questions

In our research of the WWII memorial at Stalingrad, we hope to fully understand the meaning of the memorial to the world and Russian people. In order to achieve this understanding there are necessary questions to ask throughout the process. These questions include:

- What does the memorial represent to the Russian people regarding their past?

-To the Russians, is the memorial a symbol of triumph or despair, heroism or destruction, what is the general mood?

-Is the memorial more of a tribute to the general struggle in WWII, or simply a form of Russian nationalism commemorating its own efforts?

-Does Russia recognize its Stalin-era past through this memorial?

-Why is it maintained so poorly?

-Who built/funded the memorial, and who were primary backers?

-Has there been a transition in the perception of the memorial's symbolism/significance from generation to generation?

Mamayev Hill -- Why?

At the time it was built, Mamayev Hill was the tallest monumental structure Russia had ever seen. It was built after a time of seemingly endless economical and political turmoil, but still stands tall today, marking the struggles, and the victories of Russia's past. Yet there is ambiguity surrounding this monument that I plan to attack.

1) How was Russia able to invest in the massive monument, and was the population pleased with the investment?

2) How is the monument perceived today among Russians?

3) Are there other monuments of Russia that compare to it's (Mamayev Hill's) stature? If so, are they similar to the Hill in the sense that they celebrate a military victory of Russia?

4) The statue itself does not look or seem to have any connection to the battle of Stalingrad. Why is Mamayev Hill structured the way it is?

Questions 1 and 2 are challenges, for they include takes on public opinion, something that requires investigation through speaking to the population or looking through interviews. These type of questions; however, are the most rich with information, and I feel public opinion is especially important with a project that has to do with introducing a memorial to a large scale population.

Camp Norway

I have a couple questions about not only my monument but what it commemorates.  First:

1. Why would the Norwegians be one of the few groups who really tried to resist the German rush?

2.Is this the only considerable monument for the Norwegians (or one of the select few?

3.  Why is the monument in four different places, multiple monuments?

Although I could take a guess on the answer to number one, but  I would have to do some more research to back it up.  There are also probably more questions to be asked as research continues, but these preliminary ones will hopefully start me off.  Norway is a very underrated country and is still pretty successful in terms of the map that we saw in class, I hope that I can do it the justice that it deserves.

The Berlin Wall

Research Questions:
Could providing different conditions have stopped the fleeing of the people from East Germany to West Germany or was the construction of the wall necessary due to the change being a radical idea to the controlling power of East Berlin?
The fall of the Berlin Wall happened in the time period of the fall of the Soviet Union. Was this a coincidence? If it wasn't, how did the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union influence the fall of the Berlin Wall?
What did the alliances between France, Britain, and the U.S. have to do with the tensions that were introduced after the end of World War II?
How was Germany limited by this wall?
How did other countries get involved by this wall?

What makes my monument interesting is that it wasn't build to memorialize something. It was built for separation of one people from another. Even though it has long been destroyed, when we hear the words "Berlin Wall" we immediately think of a stone wall painted by graffiti. I want to know if there is something else present except the stone blocks that we see today. It is even in the news today because the painters that painted the wall the first time are being hired again this summer to repaint the wall.I am interested in this great monument because I know little about something that is recognizable around the globe.

Hands of Victory - Research Questions

After doing some more research about my monument, I have changed my research questions significantly. Now the main focus of my questions is how does this monument exemplify the Iraqi identity (or lack thereof)?

Iraq is a country filled with various different ethnic groups (Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds), mainly because it was "created" in 1920 when the British merged two regions of the former Ottoman Empire together. Because these ethnic groups have so many differences, there had always been tensions in Iraq. After being an independant nation since 1932, one has to wonder why the people of Iraq are still divided and have not yet developed a national identity?
The Hands of Victory can help us understand this because it shows the effect authoritarian regimes have had on the Iraqi people. This monument, meant to symbolize the Iraqi victory and be a form of nationalism, contains Saddam Hussein's fingerprints rather than representing the nation. This makes me wonder what effect does national art geared towards one person have on developing the identity of a large, diverse group?
This monument is very controversial today because the Iraqi government wants it to be torn down so they can start a new country with a blank slate, but the U.S, government isn't allowing this. This leads to the question what role has Western influence played in shaping the Iraqi identity?

Chemin des Dames

I have many questions regarding Chemin des Dames; most of them deal with its memorialization over time.

1 - Was anything built on the site right after World War I?

2 - If not, was there anything there until the current museum, which opened in the last decade?

3 - What became of the site during World War II?

4 - What's the issue with the memorialization of the mutiny that took place there in 1917?

5 - What's the controversy regarding Senegalese troops and Chemin des Dames about?

6 - If there wasn't anything on the site until now, why was the museum randomly commissioned?
7 - What does reading the memorial's websites & publications tell us about the way that they want us to portray the conflict?
8 - How do two leading French newspapers, one conservative, and one liberal, agree and differ about the issue?

El Angel de la Independencia Research Questions

I have a general direction I want to head toward in my research paper, but its not very specific so I have a lot of questions in mind. I am just interested in researching a bit about the Mexico's War of Independence, but I want to look deeper at the monument and the people's involvement with it.
What is the significance or representation of each object on the monument?
What people and event is it commemorating and why?
Why was it built in 1910?
How did the people react to the construction of the monument?
How big or important was its opening ceremony?
How important is its location?
How do people use the monument in their daily lives?
What does the number of restorations it has had say about it?

Research Questions

Questions:

1. How did the French families deal with the war?

2. How did they determine who won the battle?

3. How did they decided to make the monument?

These are my research questions for my project. My first question gives insight to the battle off the battlefield. Knowing this can be just as important as knowing what happened on the war front. My second question makes sure I have some closure on to how the battle ended. My third and final question allows me to know why this monument is important to the French.

Battle of the Bulge Q's

My questions are basically to the builders, the veterans that built it, and the effects it has on the community.

Where did the veterans get the money to build the monument?

What were the reasons for the lay out of the monument?

Do people visit this memorial regularly?

Who designed the monument?