Via Malkin, here is the proposed Flight 93 Memorial:
For obvious reasons, this has sparked an immediate controversy, and Malkin has the link round-up. I am a little nonplussed, and really don’t know what to think- was this just an accident, and oversight, a lack of awareness of the importance of the crescent as a symbol?
Bryan Preston’s reaction will probably be more typical:
“What next–a holocaust memorial in the shape of a swastika?”
I’d be really surprised if the “controversy” extended to more than the usual gang of the Perpetually Outraged.
I think the whole crescent controversy is beyond silly.
I’ve never understood why Flight 93’s heroes didn’t get a lot more attention. Everyone on that flight who fought back deserves their own memorial.
A bit of a difference between a crescent and a swastika. Just a little bit. Probably not the best design for the memorial, but I really doubt that the guy set out to place a Islamic religious symbol as the memorial when he designed it. It’s called a coincidence. Contrary to popular belief, they do, occassionally, occur.
Well, the reasons may be “obvious” for some, but not to me until I read the link. Then I thought, “give me a break.”
First, it’s just ridiculous. What’s next? “Moon banned over U.S. for crescent shape”? “Pillsbury forced to stop selling crescent rolls”? Anybody who sees that design and immediately thinks of Islam has way too much time on their hands.
Second, I think it’s a big mistake to equate Islam with terrorists, although some of the P.O.’ed may like to do so. 9/11 terrorists represent Islam as much as Eric Rudolph represents Christianity. I do have to wonder about anybody who sees “Islam” and thinks terrorist.
I didn’t even se the crecent until you mentioned it. I just thought it looked bland.
The crecent shape is a mistake. The terrorists who killed them did so in the name of allah. This does not make all muslims terrorists, but it does mean that using the symbol that the terrorists used to justify their murderous acts, as a form of memorial to their victims is just stupid.
It won’t be built and if it is, it will be vandalized or burned to the ground.
“Crescent of Embrace” is a pretty dumb, but innocuous mistake. Would anyone have even made the connection if it was called “Arc of embrace” which sounds better anyway.
I didn’t even see it as a crescent until I read it.
Easily fixed: Have the figure of a cat jumping over it.
I think you are right, but to those who would vandalise and burn it to the ground, I would hope the dismal irony of burning a memorial for these heroes to the ground would perhaps stop them. No…it wouldn’t.
I don’t have words for the type of person who would desecrate a memorial for victims of terrorism because they felt offended by the design.
I’m getting a little weary of the outrage. At first, I was on the side of those argued they didn’t want the WTC memorial to be inappropriately politicized, but as the list of demands grows, my tolerance for them lessens.
It’s hard to believe that we are marking 9/11 this year with a giant pro-war march and country music concert, and yet it’s a crescent that is the outrage of the week. The crescent, standing alone, is not even the symbol of Islam; the symbol of Islam is a crescent moon with a star. Are star-shaped patterns inappropriate as well?
I missed the crescent thing myself, but now that you mention it, this does seem a poor idea.
And I wouldn’t be so sure the designer wasn’t playing a little joke.
I wondered where the crescent thing came from, and apparently it’s a Byzantine symbol adopted by the Ottomans after 1453, so it stands for Islamic nationalism more than Islam per se; the Wiki article linked says that Islam actually rejects “holy symbols.”
Add me to the chorus of people who stared at it and thought, “What’s the issue?”
If people have an issue with it, change it. I din’t see it so it didn’t bother me, but now that it’s pointed out everyone will see it. Change it to a circle or lose that part all together. Make it a non issue.
Malkin’s readers, and the conservative blogosphere, sure are outraged. How about the victims of the crash?
These folks sure don’t sound offended, Shouldn’t we care more about whether we’re honoring the victims and their families, as opposed to whether Michelle Malkin perceives an insult?
Why a crescent, anyway?
Well, how offensive of that land to be shaped like a crescent. Cue the outrage.
I didn’t even realize what it was or what it “looked like” until I read what somebody else thought it looked like.
The thing just looks ugly. That’s what’s really wrong.
Yeah, I didn’t immediately think of Islam. I just thought it looked incomprehensible and ugly.
The rendering is rather odd looking, but it might be that the actual landscaped thing would be very effective.
When people first saw the renderings of the Vietnam Memorial, some thought it hideous. But I don’t know anyone who has walked it, including me, who didn’t find it stunningly effective and moving.
I don’t think most people can make the leap from artist rendering to imagining the reality of the finished thing.
But remember — Michelle Malkin has the ability to channel the dead.
Just as she told us that Casey Sheehan was ashamed of what his mother was doing, I’m sure she’ll summon the spirits of Flight 93 to let us know they disapprove of the memorial and now hate the relatives they left behind.
ppGaz..I agree with what you said there…I was thinking and remembering the same thing. The Wall was very controversial when it was first proposed (and eventually, the folks that wanted it got their statue). But there is nothing more powerful than walking up to the name on the wall you are looking for, being able to touch that name. It is a personal and immediate thing. Simplicity and granduer, and solemn dignity.
Does that account for the crazed expression she carries around on her face?
She and Ann Coulter both look like they have live electrical wires up stuck up their butts.
Just to play devil’s advocate here: if you must have a memorial, why not put a crescent in it, to symbolize unity between the U.S. and the world’s Muslims against terrorists?
Shouldn’t we care more about whether we’re honoring the victims and their families, as opposed to whether Michelle Malkin perceives an insult?
Well, the memorial isn’t really about the victims or their families, though. It’s about restoring national pride. That’s why we won’t have a huge, expensive memorial to people killed by Katrina or other natural disasters.
Personally I think the $10 million might be better spent finding a competent DHS director, but if we absolutely must have a memorial, we should consider why it is the nation wants it in the first place.
The memorial isn’t about the victims? Who are we memorializing, then?
Watch this on Sunday night. I can’t really get outraged at the memorial, I just don’t feel like it. Is the crescent the shape of the crash from overhead? Not enough info to get outraged, yet.
I’m still trying to see a crescent in the strip mine, and failing. Nor do I think “Islam” when I see a common geometric shape.
But I’m quite sure we should inspect all our WWII monuments for signs of an circle — that’s a Rising Sun, the symbol of fascist Japan, you know.
The crescent shape appears to be more of a seating area around the place where plane crashed into the ground. (Called “The Bowl.”) The designers appear to be trying to find a way to protect the integrity of what happened at the site in terms of the result of the crash while building a memorial around it so people could visit. Why a crescent?I’d bet it has more to do with how pleasing a shape it is and how it would allow the flow of people traffic to cluster in the middle seating area rather than at the edges than trying to mimic the symbol used by most islamic nations.
Ehh.. whether it was intentional or not, I saw it right away and think it’s just a bad idea all the way around.
The memorial isn’t about the victims? Who are we memorializing, then?
The next couple of sentences in my comment already answered this question…
Well, I disagree, then. I think a memorial is to memorialize the victims. If you want to think it’s all about you and restoring your “national pride,” that’s your right.
This is just my opinion, but if there is some kind of memorial to the victims, I think it should be one that focuses on how proud everybody is of them, and how they are true heroes (in a time when that word is tossed around so loosely.) I just think that the memorial should be designed so as to inspire pride instead of sadness.
Of course, some of us have been mentioning that for years. And then we got called “terrorist sympathizers.”
For me, the bigger problem would be that it looks like a crater. Of course, most people looking at the memorial won’t be doing so from thousands of feet in the air, so it might not be as obvious.
SeesThroughIt, why are they suicide-bombing Indians then? Oh, must be Kashmir! What about the problems in China? Don’t you see that India was a wannabe-socialist state for most if her existence and China is no Western country herself?
Is it just me or does that ‘crescent’ look more like a crater?
Looking at the layout and reading the Flight 93 families’ opinions, I reserve the right to withold judgement. At least until the actual artist’s rendering of the memorial is found.
Oh right, Malkin links to it, doesn’t she? Let’s take a look-see.
Seems like the crescent is supposed to be made out of living maple trees. And it’s not even the main part of the memorial, either. That’d be this “Tower of Voices, containing 40 wind chimes — one for each passenger and crew member who died” mentioned in the same graf. Nothing to be concerned about here, is there? A stand of maple trees and a tower.
So all I see is that this is a problem with symbolism. And remember, the second most powerful social coup available is to take the symbols of one culture and redefine them so completely (see: swastika) that the old definition is forever forgotten.
I remember the huge controversy over the Vietnam memorial. Veterans screaming and yelling about it being a hole in the ground, dishonoring the dead, being designed by a refugee, yada, yada. Go figure.
It’s generally accepted that Michell Malkin is a raving lunatic. This example of faux outrage is just another example of she lives up to that perception.
I fear that some, in the rush to be reasonable, have discounted the amount of thought that goes into every aspect of a memorial plan. It is certainly quite possible that this was inadvertent and that observers taking offense are finding it where it shouldn’t be found. While it is abusrd to suggest that it was included as a sly sponsorship of Islamic principles, it is possible that it was a deliberate incorporation of some kind of idea of healing and reconciliation.
“it stands for Islamic nationalism more than Islam per se”
Not so much Islamic nationalism, more like Turkish nationalism.
My complaint about the crescent is that it looks like the demarcation of the debris field left by the crash. Which may be what it effectively is, but it seems a bit macabre.
It’d be like paint blood spatters on Dealey Plaza.
Well, that explains why Bush wants to go to the (crescent) moon. Osama must be hiding there!
I missed the part of the quote that says none of the bombings are religiously motivated. You didn’t come right out and say “Therefore Al Qaeda’s ability to recruit suicide terrorists to kill us can’t be linked to a Western military presence in Saudi Arabia”, but I infer that that’s what you meant. If that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry, but if you did mean that, could you explain your reasoning? I can’t quite follow the logic.
It’s not just you. Seems a little macabre to me, but then again you really can’t tell how it will actually look from that model.
IIRC, the Chinese and Soviet flags have or had crescents too. I guess there are many others. I’m not bent out of shape over this because crescents appear in many contexts. But, I do think it should be changed to something less controverial.
Sounds like the origins of Christmas.
Any memorial for the victims is ok in my book. I don’t really care what it looks like. I still think the plane was shot down before they had a chance to do what they wanted to do though. ‘They’ being the heroes not the pussy scum who hijacked the plane.
Why not a giant middle finger if anything goes, or a big smiley face, or one with a tongue hanging out, rude boy anyone?
Maybe a giant Calvin pissing on the words Al Qaeda?
lol. That’ll fix our international reputation and increase limp biskut sales. Perfect.
jobiuspublius: Why not a giant middle finger if anything goes, or a big smiley face, or one with a tongue hanging out, rude boy anyone?
Ask and ye shall receive.
Hammer and sickle symbolizing the worker class – industrial and agricultural.
You mean like this?
My initial impression wasn’t that it looked like a crescent, but rather it reminded me of a big red bullseye, which didn’t strike me as much outrageous as … *mildly* disturbing at most.
The designer’s an emasculated idiot. Emasculated because he put a touchy feely spectacle where there should be a war/victory monument, and an idiot because he stuck an Islamic (no, not Turkic, take a look at the Moroccan, Pakistani, Mauritanian, or various other Islamic flags) symbol right in the middle of it.
It would be interesting to know more about the designer. Let me see. It’s red. It’s shaped like a crescent. It has the word “crescent” in its title. It points toward mecca. Absolutely brilliant! No, of course not, it has nothing to do with the terrorists or the muslim religion. Yeah, right!