It makes it no less inspiring or meaningful.
Yes Azzia I stated that earlier. There was a photograph taken of the first flag raising, but it didn't show the flag actually being raised, but instead of the group of men who worked their way to the top of the mountain. Now here is the kicker, if you go look at the Marine Corps monument in Washington, and then look at the date on the monument. It'll show the date the first flag was raised, not the staged flag raising 2 days later. Rewritten history, or just putting a more powerful image to an event? That photograph made did more than ensure the survival of the Marine Corps for the next 500 years, it also won the photographer, Joel Rosenthal I think might be wrong without looking it up, a Pultizer and secured his place in American folklore.
Again the message of the monument isn't about who was there when the picture was taken, or if it was staged or fake, or what race the men were, it is about remembering the sacrifices of 9/11 and that the American spirit couldn't be destoryed by terror. The people who designed the statue probably decided that an ethnic mix better served the message they were trying to convey. It's doubtful they decided to "change history" so that some radical minority group wouldn't come looking for them.
There is something wrong when the 3 white men aren't good enough to symbolize all the firemen who worked and died on that day.
And why didn't they change one of them to be a woman too? [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kanid ]
quote:
We were all impressed when Kanid wrote:
Historical or staged, the simple fact that they felt the need to modify the image JUST to make it more politically correct IS the problem.There is something wrong when the 3 white men aren't good enough to symbolize all the firemen who worked and died on that day.
And why didn't they change one of them to be a woman too?
Amen.
We have gone from one extreme to the other.
It quite frankly makes me sick.
quote:
We were all impressed when Bloodsage wrote:
Since when does raising a flag make someone a hero?
While I don't agree nor disagree with the whole changing of the ethnicity thing. If anything, I think it'd be an insult to the actual people who did it. "Sorry, since you're white you're not good enough to represent the fire fighters of New York City."
But you of all people around here, being an active member of the military, should recognize the importance of seeing a flag waving during times of need. It's the same reason Calvaries used to have a flag bearer and why the other side would actively target the oppositions flag bearer.
quote:
Kanid wrote this stupid crap:
I agree. There is a reason flags used to be carried during battles. A focus, a symbol, giving inner strength, needed during any hardship.
Military history lesson time: flags or pennons were carried in battle to identify unit commanders to their troops, and to identify units to the overall commander perched somewhere on a hill to the rear. The purpose was to allow the general to direct his troopss, and to let runners know where to take their orders.
Battle flags, in short, were more a tool for the general to direct a battle than an emotional fix for the troops.
That the flags became symbols of the unit was a later, and purely secondary development.
As for Mt. Surabachi, although the photo op was no less staged, the gesture had real meaning. Planting the flag symbolized victory in one of the most hard-fought battles of the war. The memorial, as I also pointed out, commemorates actual people, by name. It was not six white guys, either, as someone thought.
What equivalent symbolism applies to this one, other than making an evocative photo?
Is the memorial meant to commemorate the flag raising, or to honor the rescue workers killed? If the former, I see no need for a statue at all. If the latter, I haven't the least problem with showing a little diversity, as symbol of what America stands for: freedom and opportunity for all.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Comrade_Snoota had this to say about Pirotess:
While I don't agree nor disagree with the whole changing of the ethnicity thing. If anything, I think it'd be an insult to the actual people who did it. "Sorry, since you're white you're not good enough to represent the fire fighters of New York City."But you of all people around here, being an active member of the military, should recognize the importance of seeing a flag waving during times of need. It's the same reason Calvaries used to have a flag bearer and why the other side would actively target the oppositions flag bearer.
Flag bearers were targets because a) with the advent of firearms, they made a pretty conspicuous target, and b) they were always with the commander. For the reasons I stated above, it was desirable to attack the leader (and hence the flag) to sow confusion in the enemy's formation.
Personally, I think it just short of a perversion to memorialize defeat. I don't get the massive Pearl Harbor stuff at all. While it's fine to memorialize those who've died, for whatever reason, I think it ludicrous to glorify defeat, as we've done with Pearl Harbor, and as it looks like some want to do with the WTC.
The act of raising the flag, while laudible if they got the idea themselves, loses all meaning if it was done simply as a photo op, and at the request of a photographer. I don't know the facts of this, so I won't comment further.
Even if they did it on their own initiative, I see no reason to create a memorial specifically of the three guys who put up a flag at the WTC site. What was so heroic about that that it deserves immortality?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
It is bullshit that it takes a black man to represent black men, a hispanic man to represent hispanic men, a woman to represent women.
Why don't we just gerrymander every voting district so that all the races and sexes are seperate so each one can get a "proper" representative elected? Your wife is no longer allowed to live in your house with you because she'd be in the wrong district and therefor legally restricted of her right to vote for someone who can represent her.
bah [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Kanid ]
If the point of the memorial is not to immortalize those three specific guys, what's the harm?
P-C bullshit can be very bad, indeed. But this isn't one of those cases.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Unfortunately, white dudes, until very recently, were always chosen to represent America, its values, and anything good about its citizens.
Yeah, legends like Paul Henry don't exist.
Show me a man or woman who was once a slave and I will be the first to say I am sorry for what happened to them. Anyone else can go take a flying leap.
quote:
Snip from the CNN article:
The decision to represent different races was made by the Fire Department, the makers of the statue, and the property-management company that owns the department headquarters building and commissioned the work.
Well, seeing side two of this argument... Note that the above snip from CNN states that the FDNY was involved in the decision to change the statue as well. So take one second and think about the amount of political pull the FDNY has right now - if they didn't like it, I'm sure they could have made a stink about it - very publicly.
However, they didn't.
quote:
"Given that those who died were of all races and all ethnicities and that the statue was to be symbolic of those sacrifices, ultimately a decision was made to honor no one in particular, but everyone who made the supreme sacrifice," Fire Department spokesman Frank Gribbon said.
I think the above statement nails it on the head. The statue isn't being created to remember three guys who put up the flag. It's being created so people can remember that on that day a lot of innocent people died. The fact is that the killing force was blind to race, sex, and nationality. the act.
quote:
Azizza impressed everyone with:
Ok so people in our history F-ed up. Fine. And this means what to me? NOTHING! thats right. Nothing. I have learned from them yes. But I do not full that I should pay for what they did. Like reperations for slavery.Show me a man or woman who was once a slave and I will be the first to say I am sorry for what happened to them. Anyone else can go take a flying leap.
What does this have to do with the thread?
And, Kanid: are you actually insinuating that the trend I mentioned either didn't happen or was not a problem?
Again: why do those specific three guys, as individuals, deserve a statue, as opposed to a more general one commemorating the real heroes, who lost their lives helping others?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Here are the facts as they stand.
Three white men Raised the flag.
People wanted a memorial of this flag raising based off of the picture took of said flag raising.
The point is this.
They are trying to rewrite history. It insults not only the men who did raise the flag, but every man, woman, and child who died in this event.
Ok sage how about this...
You are in the service. Say you do something so far above and beyond the call of duty that they docorate you till you need another person to wear all your medals.
Because of this they decide to give a memorial comemerating what you did. But they also decide you don't look good enough for the part. So instead of you they put someone else up there that not only looks different but is a different race, sex, etc..
How would you feel?
There's nothing heroic, or even particularly cool, about the three guys putting up a flag.
The memorial is about those who died in the line of duty.
Frankly, the only thing that would piss me off is if they made the memorial specifically to those three guys, who did nothing particularly worthy of immortality.
That's why this stands in such stark contrast to the Iwo Jima memorial, which commemorates specific people who did something specifically noteworthy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
The statue isn't a memorial to those three firefighters. It's a memorial to all the firefighters that were there that day, especially those that lost their lives (And last I checked, those three firefighters that were in the picture are still alive).
I'm sorry they bruised your fragile caucasian egos by changing the skin color of the men on the statue to make it more representative of everyone that was there and to help show the message that in the face of horrible adversity, all Americans; black, white, yellow, brown and purple; can all come together to help save lives and start putting the pieces together. How fucking dare they, indeed!
quote:
We were all impressed when Drysart wrote:
Jebus, what a bunch of racists! I'm disappointed in pretty much all of you.
And with that, I've found out that I'm racist against my own color.
If it had been three black men and they tried to change it like this I would complain just as strongly.
Calling people racist will get you nothing but contempt. And frankly it pisses me the fuck off. I go out of my not to sound racist at all because of everyone fragile ego's now adays. but facts are facts.
quote:
Azizza impressed everyone with:
This has nothing to do with being racist.
It has everything to do with people trying to change History and be PC.
The statue is not the photograph. Last I checked, they didn't modify the photograph, and only based the statue off of it.
Tell me how they're trying to change history?
They did nothing deserving of a permanent memorial.
The memorial is for, and about, those who gave their lives in defense of others. It's certainly appropriate that the memorial reflect different ethnicities.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
*shrugs* but then again, I think they also needed permission to use the picture as a base by the ones who hold a copy right (I so could be wrong)
quote:
Drysart stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Jebus, what a bunch of racists! I'm disappointed in pretty much all of you.The statue isn't a memorial to those three firefighters. It's a memorial to all the firefighters that were there that day, especially those that lost their lives (And last I checked, those three firefighters that were in the picture are still alive).
I'm sorry they bruised your fragile caucasian egos by changing the skin color of the men on the statue to make it more representative of everyone that was there and to help show the message that in the face of horrible adversity, all Americans; black, white, yellow, brown and purple; can all come together to help save lives and start putting the pieces together. How fucking dare they, indeed!
drys.. 3.4% of the firefighters in new york are black. 4.3% are hispanic. No hispanic firefighters died, I think 12 total black fire fighters died. A simular story comes from the NYPD. The fact is, race shouldn't BE an issue, and we arn't saying it should be. We ARE saying that we are offended by the fact that by altering the statue, they are saying that white people aren't good enough to represent the firefighters.
quote:
Blind Swordsman thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
The fact is, race shouldn't BE an issue, and we arn't saying it should be.
Where's their press release drawing attention to their decision regarding the races of the people in the statue, then, if that's got you in an uproar over it? They didn't make an issue out of it... so damn the conservatives then, instead? [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Drysart ]
The statue isn't being altered, it was designed that way from the start. It was an intentional design, if they had created the statue, then altered it you might have something to gripe about.
quote:
Drysart thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Where's their press release drawing attention to their decision regarding the races of the people in the statue, then, if that's got you in an uproar over it? They didn't make an issue out of it... so damn the conservatives then, instead?
huh?
quote:
Blind Swordsman impressed everyone with:
huh?
You're saying that the races of the people on the statue shouldn't be an issue, at which point I asked you, who made it an issue?
Not the "liberals" who made the statue that you "damned" in your subject line....
Blind Swordsman impressed everyone with:
huh?
Personally, I see the first. If they had just made a sculpture of the picture the way it origionally was, i seriously doubt we would have heard any black or hispanic fire fighters complain that they weren't being represented in the statue.
Several of you have taken the oposite viewpoint, stating that the alteration of the image to fit a more politically correct agenda is acceptable, and the people upset by the alteration are being somewhat racist in their insistance that the statue represent the actual people who raised their flag, or at least the vast, VAST majority of the fire fighters that died on september 11th. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Blind Swordsman ]
I am not personally saying that there should be no rememberance of the black and hispanic men and women who died, but i feel that the statue should not be a representation of an event that most likely would have never taken place. In reality, 34 out of 1,000 new york fire fighters are black, and 45 out of 1,000 are hispanic. Let me repeat that. Take 2,000 new york firefighters that risked their life. 89 of them are one of the two minorities that are depicted on that statue. Their sacrifice is still a very noble an honorable thing. They SHOULD be honored, but not at the expense of others.
Nor, as has been mentioned many times already, was the memorial ever intended to honor the three guys who put up a flag--it is simply using that tableau as metaphor for the sacrifices and bravery of those who participated on September 11th.
Why, exactly, should the statue match the photograph?
Why, exactly, should those three particular guys be remembered by history?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Bloodsage, you're an army man...
How would you like it if someone went and made a painting of the battle of ghettysburg, making two out of every three men a woman? Sure, women made sacrifices too in the civil war, they lost alot as well, and a few of them actually fought in combat and died for the country. So we should honor them by making them a much more visible part of the image right? Forget the fact that virtually all of the fighting was done by men. A man is a man, but a woman says so much more!!
*cough*
[edit= dear god i can't spell] [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Blind Swordsman ]
Blind Swordsman, if someone were to paint a picture of the Battle of Gettysburg but painted two out of every three people as women instead of men, it would most likely be heralded as a political statment trying to point out the 80,000 women who died but were never remembered during the Civil War. Again the point here isn't historical representation, but to memorialize the events and sacrifices of 9/11. The WTC diaster crossed all racial and ethnic barriers, for a brief shining moment black, hispanic, white, asian, and all the other ethnic groups of America acted as one in the face of a horrible horrible catastrophe. That is the purpose of the memorial, not to immortalize the men of a staged photograph. So was it a move motivated by political correctness, I say not, it was a move to show and remember that for just one brief moment in our country's history race didn't matter. A powerful message, that it seems has already been forgotten.
Keep in mind this statue is intended to be displayed on the top of a firestation, not some park somewhere. The purpose is to honor the fireman and other servicemen that died, not so much to be a unversial message.
Like you and others have said, three white men raising a flag, no big deal. Now a black, hispanic, and white man raising a flag together, that's enough to get people's blood pumping as this thread has shown. The choice to make the three men of different racial backgrounds was done to make a statment, not to appease a minority.
I'm willing to repeat that as many times as I need to until you are willing to think about it.
Or are you advocating a "separate but equal" approach? Check your history to see how that actually turns out.
As for Gettysburg, a painting of the battle would be, the way you say it, a depiction of an actual event. The memorial in question is not meant that way. The event in the photograph is simply a template from which to honor those who served.
Also, as Tyewa has pointed out, one certainly could use the very powerful symbolism of a major battle to create a memorial painting to those whose struggles and pain were every bit as harsh as that of the soldiers, but less remembered, less honored.
Finally, for the record, I'm an Air Force officer. What that means is that I value the real heroes, the ones who took action, not three dudes who put up a flag at the request of a photographer. I think the memorial should be to those who served on September 11th, not a few guys who put up a flag.
Diversity and P-C nonsense for their own sakes are ridiculous. On the other hand, exclusion through arrogance is no better.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
This is as it should be. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Prometheus ]
In the beginning the Universe was created.Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
