Spitting On Your Grave
The controversial International Freedom Center (IFC), a facility dedicated to articulating a particular view of multiculturalism, was removed from site which it wanted to occupy at the World Trade Center Memorial. According to the Washington Post:
Bowing to pressure from Sept. 11 families, Gov. George Pataki on Wednesday removed a proposed freedom center from the space reserved for it near the planned World Trade Center memorial, saying the museum project had aroused "too much opposition, too much controversy." ... International Freedom Center officials said in a statement that they did not believe there was a viable location for their museum elsewhere at the site. "We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end," they said.
The New York Times was not happy with the outcome, casting it as unreasonable capriciousness on the part of Governor Pataki.
But the notion of a freedom museum was one of the earliest elements considered for ground zero. And it was one the governor endorsed. In an April 2002 blueprint for downtown, the development corporation said one possibility was "a new museum dedicated to American freedom, tolerance and the values that the World Trade Center represented," referring to a proposal by Tom A. Bernstein, the president of Chelsea Piers, and Peter W. Kunhardt, a documentary filmmaker. ...
Now the question is what else in the master plan is open for revision. If ground zero is too hallowed for a freedom museum, how much longer will a performing arts center be considered appropriate? Or a million square feet of retail space? Or four office towers? Especially if one of them is named Freedom.
Nowhere in the article does the NYT say why the September 11 families clamored for revision; it happened after Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot of one of the hijacked planes and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation
drew attention to behind-the-scenes plans to host exhibitions at the complex devoted to such issues as the genocide of native Americans, the fight against slavery, the Holocaust and the Gulag, instead of the bravery and dignity of nearly 3,000 victims of the Al-Qaeda suicide squads. It will also be the site of academic symposiums on the foundations of freedom, providing a “magnet” to activists and academics to debate the US “domestic and foreign policy they despise”, she said. An early design for the cultural centre included a large mural of an Iraqi voter. But in a sign of things to come, said Burlingame, this was replaced by a photograph of Martin Luther King, the murdered civil rights leader, with President Lyndon Johnson.
According to Michelle Malkin, the moving spirits behind the IFC were Michael Posner, Anthony Romero, Eric Foner and George Soros. If the International Freedom Center had been built it would have been the companion to the Crescent of Embrace, the proposed memorial to the Flight 93 victims in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The effort illustrates the extraordinary importance that the Left places on the control of symbols. By preference, a good Marxist symbol should represent the very opposite of its counterpart in reality because its foremost goal, in common with unscrupulous Mesmerists, is to emasculate the mind. It was no accident that in Orwell's 1984, that the Ministries of War, Rationing, Propaganda and Repression were called the Ministries of Peace, Plenty, Truth and Love by the Party. Christopher Hitchens, who wrote a book on Orwell, has not forgotten the penchant for inversion. In Anti-War, My Foot, featured in Slate, Hitchens criticized the NYT's characterization of Ramsey Clark and his adherents as "anti-war". If they were anything, they were its opposite.
The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. ...
To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the [Serb] ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh.
But that's Hitchens. To the newspaper reader who gets no further than the first paragraph of any story, the recent demonstrations in Washington will forever be about high minded advocates of peace fighting the dark forces of war. Yet it makes one wonder: if inversions are the rule, what then did the International Freedom Center truly wish to memorialize at Ground Zero? Don't make me laugh.
posted by wretchardthecat at 9/29/2005 05:08:00 AM
36 Comments:
Perhaps we should make more use of parentheses, as in:
Students for a Democratic Society (Just Not In South Vietnam),
The American (Highly Selective) Civil Liberties Union, The Democratic (In Name Only) Party, International ANSWER (But Don’t Ask Too Many Questions), The People’s (But Not Many Of Them) Republic of China (And Whatever Else We Can Get Our Hands On), The City of New Orleans (And The Federal Government When Things Get Rough), The Federal Emergency Management Agency (And Department of Bailing Out Inept Politicians), etc.
And year after year, Europeans continue to think they are somehow being smarter than Americans as they fall for this stuff.
Sorry for this cheap shot at Europeans, but in this globalized world some of us have to deal with them on a daily basis.
The idea proposed by Mr. Trump, I think, to rebuild the Towers as they were, only bigger and better, would create the best Memorial.
I think that would be the best way to both celebrate freedom and honor those murdered on 9-11.
It is a shame that ground has not yet been broken on whatever building will replace the Towers.
Just another sign of US impotence for the Mohammedan Jihadists to exploit.
Kudo's to Pataki AND to Hillary. I don't care if it's a calculated political step for her, Hillary done the Right Thing, and good for her.
I'm also seeing that the blogosphere is responsible for this reversal of the decision, since MSM - neither print nor electric - have said ANYthing about the idea other than what a really good and terrific thing it would be to have another place to highlight the wonderfulness of the Palestinians.
I just wish they could put up some interim memorial since it's been 4 years now and there isn't even an American flag flying at the site currently. I guess maybe those in charge in New York don't want to hurt the feelings of the international visitors to that huge hole in the ground, who include (interestingly) Muslims and their swaddled women.
ORANGE ALERT: C4 UPGRADE
nahncee
Why do you think it interesting that Mohammedans would enjoy visiting the site of their greatest victory over "Satan's Forces"?
I think it is totally normal reaction. To gloat over an enemies defeat, if only internally, can warm one's heart.
To witness it first hand, to stand over the corpse, well, that is all the better.
An effective use of symbolism was evident yesterday. A few days ago Cindy Sheehan was 'arrested.' Now, I think most Americans now understand that these kinds of things are set-ups. Indeed, Sheehan and her ilk invited the press before hand to see their arrest. Then, the 'protestors' do what they must to deliberately get arrested, so that they may have the political theater of an arrest by the 'oppressors;' though Sheehans smiling visage somewhat gives away the game.
However, yesterday, as Karen Hughes was once again getting verbally lashed (this time, Turkey), one women denounced the Iraq war and then denounced the arrest of Sheehan, as if it were a police state action; thus making Sheehan's act of political theater a success.
It's a good thing Pataki caved. The resistance was only going to grow stronger over time and it would have been an even more extreme capitulation.
Still, good on him.
~D
You're ahead of me on this one, but I'll post anyway. You're always such a hard act to follow, Wretchard.
A BBC correspondent followed the trail of "illegal immigrants" who "risked death" to enter Europe through Ceuta, a place recently in the news after the border fence was scaled by hundreds seeking entry into Europe.
The BBC article ends this way:
"After spending the morning hearing these tales, I went down to the border myself. When the guard saw my European passport, he just waved me through. I was overcome with terrible feelings of guilt."
It may be, as gmat argues, that the Left has no power. Yes, in the sense that most of their invincible Red Armies are no more. Yet they still retain the greater part of their power, from which those Red Armies arose in the first place: their imperium over words and ideas. They will let you have your hands if they can keep your head.
wretchard
Those nasty Spanish Guards, using tear gas to turn back the invaders.
If they were coming to US they'd find bottled water, cached at way stations. Unless of course the get of course, then they often die of dehydration. Happens every summer.
How dare those supposedly enlighten Europeans not open their borders. I guess the US really is more socially enlightened that those European hyporcrites.
The american public has the power to have the short term attention span of the next news cycle...
Is this good or bad? The answer is both, however if you travel along american highways and byways you will start to notice crosses placed at the scene of many deaths along the way. I wonder is this healthy? Death is a part of life and has been put into our schedules via wakes, funerals, headstones and yes memorials, however maybe the best way to grow stronger is not to place memorials at the actual spots of all deaths. Maybe the best medicine is the amazing ability for americans to tune into the next issue and not have daily reminders FOREVER of every horror. Yes memorials have a place, the Washington Mall comes to mind. The best way to say F*ck You to our enemies to to rebuild the sites of their destruction, taller, bigger, shinier, better than ever before!
desert rat,
"Illegal immigrants" have rushed the Spanish border for the third straight day. Spain is negotiating with Morocco to find a "solution". Morocco has long claimed Ceuta. Although Spain has rushed troops to Ceuta, there's no guaranteeing that the escalades will stop. Sooner or later there will be a fair number of deaths. And it will be Spain's fault. It must be.
Ceuta is an insignificant little place. But why should the forcible "migrations" stop there? Unless one can draw a mental line in the sand -- something that has gotten surpassingly hard -- it will be impossible to draw a physical line anywhere. And the Left has a mental eraser for every occasion and purpose.
I should start a separate thread on Belgium's “universal jurisdiction” laws.
Brussels — Belgium has issued an international arrest warrant for Chad's former leader Hissène Habré, charging him with atrocities during his 1982-90 rule, lawyers said Thursday.
Mr. Habré, who lives in exile in Senegal, is being pursued under Belgium's “universal jurisdiction” laws, which allow for prosecutions for crimes against humanity wherever they were committed.
Habre is probably a POS, but I'm struggling to understand where the jurisdiction of the Belgium court stops, if it stops anywhere; and how it is different from toppling Saddam Hussein, other than it does not require a declaration of war to prosecute.
You know, after thinking about the misnamed "Freedom Museum" at the WTC site, I think perhsps the best thing to built on that site would be a missile base.
Specifically, a US Army Hawk battery to defend NYC and a USAF Peacekeeper ICBM to strike back.
If you want symbolism, and want to send a message, that would do it better than anything I can think of.
Let people from the world over come and look at that.
Wretchard,
Yes, it is rather arrogant for Belgium to have "universal jurisdiction". You could hear the howling all around the globe if the USA had something like that.
But being for a "good cause" (a leftist one) this strange Belgian decision is more praised than criticized.
Fabio,
War has always been regarded as an exceptional event. One does not routinely cross sovereign borders to seize perpetrators except when there is a compelling national interest. War is rightly regarded as an awful and solemn moment that happens in unusual circumstances. But if the Belgians can establish the legitimacy of their procedure the day will inevitably come when someone will be called upon to enforce it. And it would be churlish to refuse service in such good causes. Sooner or later the armed forces which were reserved to serious business of exceptional war will be pressed into the service of enforcing Belgian court orders.
Surely this is the king of all inversions. The use of force for national survival is deligitimized; its use for human rights projects legitimized. And since "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need", can you guess who will be asked to arrest this fugitive President of Chad?
This is the whole symbolism game again, so ludicrous it seems harmless. Wait ten years and it won't be any more.
nathan
One would assume that any Nation with an extradition treaty with Belgium, when presented with the Warrant would be bound to arrest and deport the Charged to Belgium, within the bounds of the extradition treaty. Perhaps a longer reach than you think. Not quite the same as the ICC, but along the same lines.
Who gets to serve the warrant on Mr. Hissène Habré, that is really the question
The ICC has sealed indictments against a slew of Sudanese. This is quite an interesting example of the impotency of Courts without Police power.
If the world has international courts, it will soon require international police.
Their power would, of course, supercede all Nation State soveriegncy.
Wretchard,
I am having a hard time imagining The Belgian Army being employed against anything other than children.
I do not believe that to be a revelation or anything.
Anyway the best proposal for a WTC memorial was the set of five buildings that resembled a giant bird being flipped off to the AQ types.
The President of the US is one thing, how about the PM of Israel, the President of Palistinians, the President of Zimbamwe, the Army Chief of Staff in Sudan, The Presidents of Iran or North Korea.
Will Osama and the Z's be indicted? How about the Generals in Burma, or what ever they call Burma, now.
Oh the opportunities
Marcus Aurelius,
First you create expectations. Then you establish these expectations as rights. Afterward you express these rights as law. Then you demand enforcement.
First you create a narrative. This narrative becomes established fact by dint of repetition. The fact is addressed by Treaty. You are asked to sign the Treaty.
And in each of these cases, whatever the state of the Belgian Army, the country with the most resources is expected to make it happen, as a good international citizen toward the cause of world peace and to prevent Global Warming. I don't want to overstate the case but the control of the agenda, determining what is, and what is not, legitimate, is a very powerful tool.
The fact is, four years after 9/11, it is still more dangerous, even in Iraq, let alone the rest of the arab world, to be pro-American than to be anti-american.
It strikes me that the level of pro- and anti-Americanism is not a good metric by which to judge our war strategy. We are not waging war to be liked, a common misperception.
Infinitely more important is whether Iraqis feel it more in their interest to be pro-Government or pro-Insurgent. In that regard, we are winning decisively.
I'm more concerned about the inversions of those actually leading (if you can call it that) the so-called Global War on Terror.
Whatever you want to call it, it is a necessary war that we are winning. While Bush could do better at explaining the war to the public, I find it intellectually unattractive to say we are not being led. Everything that has happened in the last four years is unprecedented--historically shocking, in fact. While it may be a travesty to have to partially disrobe to ensure your safety on board a flying missile, I must note that while you have been taking off your shoes we have conquered the unconquerable Afghanistan, eliminated over 600 Al'Qaeda leadership (80%), stabilized an ungovernable Balisan (Philippines, the other half of Enduring Freedom), are training armies in the Horn of Africa to defeat the terrorists, dismantled Baathist Iraq, arrested Saddam Hussein and killed his sons, held the first ever free elections in the Arab world, dismantled the nuclear blackmarket run out of Pakistan, shut down Libya's WMD program, held firm in Ukraine, demanded and got Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, boxed in Iran, marginalized Assad, oversaw the Iraqi Constitution, opened schools for girls in Afghanistan, and did all this with only 2,000 combat deaths worldwide.
Don't confuse leadership with oratory. Our generals and our President are doing a fine job on the war, even if they stumble fighting the war on the war. For better or worse we seem to be putting all our faith in propaganda by deed. In an age of language inversion and adverse press, why not?
So, I'm sorry about your shoes, but let's keep some perspective here. We are winning, and winning decisively.
Didn't Belgium issue a warrant for Rumsfeld a year or two ago, on the grounds that he was a "war criminal"? I'm remembering some politicians interceded within 48 hours and told the Belgium judges to knock it off, and remember their place on the food chain.
Nahncee,
You're right. See my latest post.
re: Belgium
No other European Colonial power, with the exception of Spain, perhaps, has left more chaos and destruction post-empire than Belgium has. Having Belgium proclaiming universal jurisdiction over human rights is like having Germany admonishing the US about our detention facilities.
Nevertheless, a self-righteous and impotent Europe is a marked improvement over her previous demeanor, though the recent hysteria is all too reminiscent of the last round of pacifism, which if I remember correctly ended badly.
The fact is that four years after requiring folks to remove their shoes, there have been no hijackings of US originated flights. Total Success.
The passengers self imposed inconvience, nothing compared to the costs to the Public of lax security.
Aristides makes the case for the success of Bush's policies.
While I, at times, disapprove of some US military tactics and policies, the overall Bush Strategy has been reasonably successful.
Some of our challenges have been kicked down the road, but perhaps they should have been.
Time will tell.
Wretchard,
I guess you are right about that.
An example of this was in the community next to mine they voted (referendum) to ban smoking in places of emplioyment. Now, I have never been in an place of employment that allows people to smoke. The ban was a weasel way to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.
I would try to explain people how this was a blow to property rights and the typical response was "so, you are in favor of lung cancer".
Same too with groups like Amnesty International. How can you be opposed to human rights? How can you be against punishing evil dictators? There is a lot of irony in all of that too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gmat,
I don't deny that the public front is important, but the stakes are much higher now than in Vietnam, and in many ways speak for themselves. I think it was Wretchard who commented on an earlier thread that the reason we don't hear of a real push to withdraw is that nobody wants to be responsible for the inevitable chaos that would follow. Having an Al'Qaeda victory hanging around ones neck is not a good way to get elected.
But I wonder if we are not imposing our will more than you think. If we have changed the way we do business since 9/11, it is in the other direction: we are now more assertive internationally than ever before. Historians may write about the irony of our situation, because in the last four years our global power and credibility have actually increased, immensely in fact, even while our image has taken a beating. We have truly become a global colossus, gaining footprints in Central Asia and the Middle East while at the same time cementing our role as the arbiter of world affairs. We see this role in almost all situations, from Palestine/Israel to EU/Iran. Progress on all these fronts is impossible without a US stamp of approval, and, much more importantly, so is conflict.
China, with the North Korea situation, has a play to check that influence if they succeed in solving the nuke problem when we couldn't, but the damage is already done to their West. The war in the Balkans and Afghanistan, the deal with India, our bases in the 'Stans and our influence in Mongolia are new additions to our power structure, unprecedented global gains in so short a time.
Your concerns over Bush's inability to clearly expressing war aims are well taken, but I wonder if expressing our true intentions--global pacification--is better left unsaid, or at least better left implied. We may be talking softly, but our stick has become legendary.
Law being what it is must be enforced at the end of a gun. Anybody who has been pulled over for not appearing to wear seat belt will know that no matter how trivial a law, to be effective, it must be served by men with guns.
NATO has put together the International Security Assistance Force that has a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) most recently deployed into Afghanistan for a little operational readiness training.
NATO’s political headquarters are in Brussels, so I suppose that Belgium feels that it is might that they might throw around.
I say build it bigger and better…but the 5 tower gesture has some real merit.
GMAT,
I'm torn between two different inclinations. The first is in perfect agreement with you. We have the power to openly declare our aims, so why not go ahead and do so? Open debate is what our country is founded on, why should we be afraid or timid to proudly declare what most nations already know?
The second inclination, however, gives me caution. I do not trust the vision or fairness of whichever party is out of power, be it Democrat or Republican, but specifically I do not trust the Leftist wing of the Democratic party. Accusations of imperialism, of unilateralism and arrogance, would drown out any serious discussion of whether or not the pacification or connection strategy is a good one. For the far-Left, and I think this is beyond any doubt, America can do no good in the world. Their global paradigm only has room for the exploited, and the exploiter. Those who exercise power for self-interest, i.e. America, are prima facie exploiters, so any attempt at persuasion falls on deaf ears.
Chomsky's simplistic theory of international relations is fine-tuned and ubiquitous in this crowd, ready to tear any persuasive attempt apart. War is all about profit and power; lost in this explanation is any possibility that American self-interest can coincide with the truly oppressed (that they currently do is due to Bush and his radical foreign policy departure). America is in a tough position with her far-Left constituency, especially when their words resonate with the largest generation to ever grace the nation: the baby boomers. And especially when the Democratic Party is in thrall to their monies. Most of these fellow-travelers, schooled on Vietnam, disfavor any foreign action that utilizes the military-industrial complex for self-interest.
Luckily, this crowd is also poorly read on events not reported in the New York Times or Reuters, so much of what we do occurs under the radar. We have troops in scores of countries right now, training indigenous armies and nurturing local relations--a favorite tactic of ours is impromptu medical checkups for the locals--and this is, for the most part, going swimmingly. Robert D. Kaplan makes this point in his new book, Imperial Grunts.
The American and European Left do not like the unilateral exercise of American power on principle, regardless of what it is used for. As a fundamental tenet you can understand it, for power can corrupt even the most well-meaning of people. But as the saying goes, "All beliefs taken to the extreme are extreme." We are in an ephemeral moment of global dominance, we are probably the most virtuous society that has ever existed, we are a decent and idealistic people, and we could make a hell of a lot of difference, for our children and for the world.
9/11 was a wake up call for those who act. While we get ramped up, I'm willing to let the critics go back to sleep.
Norman,
There were heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice that day, men who rushed into the burning towers even though they saw death before them. It may not change your mind, but I thought I would mention it.
Gmat, that's one of my favorite papers. Parameters has some terrific stuff.
I always think about it everytime I see exasperated people call for ending the State Department, and gradually giving more and more authority to the Pentagon in foreign affairs. The same with federalizing disaster response.
Censorship? The NYTimes should know better.
Note also that the IFC was offered another place at World Trade Center Memorial, away from Ground Zero itself, and/or help in finding another site in NYCity.
They turned down these offers. Presumably having an actual "freedom" museum/conference center/auditorium was not enough, it had to be in the most confrontational place.
"If we fail to rebuild the WTCs, the terrorists win! The terrorists win!"
---
Hey, don't knock it:
We got a lot of mileage, and laughs, out of THAT particular TEMPLATE for the (near endlessly) repeating News Cycle.
Cedarford-"sacrifice of the 95%";"20-30% casualties".
One a demand, the other a 'fiction' designed to justify the first.
Probably 'hates' Bush, probably schemes to push his socialist dagger into our brains as softly as possible.
The techniques are oh,so familiar.
Post a Comment
<< Home