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.