Does The Flight 93 Memorial Contain A Subliminal Message?

Take a look at the proposed design for the Flight 93 Memorial near Shanksville. It is being called "The Crescent of Embrace:"

Clicking on the design will take you to the story.

Here's the quote:

"Crescent of Embrace" will feature a Tower of Voices, containing 40 wind chimes -- one for each passenger and crew member who died -- and two stands of red maple trees that will line a walkway caressing the natural bowl shape of the land. Forty separate groves of red and sugar maples will be planted behind the crescent, and a black slate wall will mark the edge of the crash site, where the remains of those who died now rest.

As the black cloak that had hidden the winner was removed, a collective gasp came from those gathered, who then rose to their feet to applaud.

It seems to me that there may be some well-meaning ignorance about the significance of the crescent in Islam, and I may be overly sensitive, but isn't this a little too much for this memorial?

This is from the designers:

The idea of the Crescent of Embrace, Murdoch said, is to be a gesture of healing and bonding. The crescent marks the edge of the land, which will remain largely untouched.

"It's simple and yet it's complex," said Dorothy Garcia, whose husband, Andy, died in the crash. "The void that's there speaks so loudly to the heroism of these 40 souls."

Excuse me, but how does a void speak at all? And since when is a crescent a "gesture of healing and bonding?" This whole scene smacks of "artistic" tone-deafness.

I'm not the only one who feels this way. Here's an opinion. And here's another. A comment on LGF gets to it:

I actually have more problems with it looking soft and passive -- victimization immortalized in stone, as is the case with most of our modern memorials -- than I do with the passing resemblance to the crescent. But it certainly might be worth investigating, though how you'd EVER get someone to admit to the crescent as an influence I have no idea.

He/she is right. Why not something that captures the spirit and inspiration of those who fought back? What has happened to "Let's Roll!?" This goes right up next to the so-called "Freedom Tower" design for the WTC site. We have become a soft, cowering nation. Too many confuse openness and tolerance with passivity and acquiescence.

I don't mean to imply that the designers have placed the crescent in their design as either a slap or as an Islamic reference. But I do think that they probably did not care or think all that much about how the design would be perceived.

The families seem to approve, and the design itself shows merit. But I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. I wonder how people would feel if the memorial was shaped like a cross or a star.

I suppose that in a way the design is perversely appropriate, but then I would suggest a broken crescent to symbolize the philosophy of those who committed the acts of September 11.

Comments

[Vavoom]

What exactly is wrong with a crescent? Merely because it has relevance to Islam you would not use it in the design? Come now, Daniel, you're better than that. If it's incidental or intentional I think it's a fine design. Why are all things even remotely Islamic bad? Perhaps I misunderstood your argument? Please tell me I have.

[Daniel]

Vavoom,

I do not believe that the crescent is inherently bad. But I can imagine the uproar if, as I had said, that the memorial was in the shape of a cross. In fact I did say:

"I don't mean to imply that the designers have placed the crescent in their design as either a slap or as an Islamic reference. But I do think that they probably did not care or think all that much about how the design would be perceived."

Of course, I have no idea of the artists' intentions, but the whole thing just seems a little too, well, off to me.

You and I have discussed these types of things for a while now, so you should know that I am not reflexively anti-Islamic. Anti-Islamist, yes. And given the history of that flight I find the design to be truly "tonedeaf." It seems that the families wouldn't agree with me and that's okay, of course.

What do you think, other than it is good design (and I'm inclined to agree, although I generally have a problem with passive memorials when action is the inspiration)? Do you think the design was intentional or coincidental?

[Rob]

You folks haven't been there. I have. I was there Sept. 11th and afterward. I've walked in the crater.

The land does form a natural bowl. I missed it at first, because I'm used to thinking of the view from the machine shop area. The bowl is roughly circular, and the crash site is near the one rim.

A segment of a circle is a crecent.

As far as active...no. Statues of passengers pushing a cart up the aisle don't make it. There's nothing anyone could add to what the passengers did.

Finally, except for the firefighters, the scene was passive once anyone else had gotten there. The action was over. Everyone at the crash site staging areas, whether FBI down on the road or everyone else up at the metal shop, spent most of September 11th watching the last wisps of smoke rise from the crater and the woods. There was nothing more to be done.

It had already been done for us.

(I have a picture of the crash site up on my blog. It's not great -- I had to buy a cheap camera to get it, and then it was scanned in. I think it was taken Sept. 12th, but it's been so long I don't remember for sure.)

[Daniel]

Rob,

You're right that I wasn't there on September 11. But I have been there quite a few times since then (in fact just about every time I drive pass that area, which is too often). And while I appreciate the topography of the place, if it is a "bowl" make it a bowl.

As to action, I'm not suggesting that we have a statue of a serving cart al a Iwo Jima. I would have liked to see something that invoked the heroism of those passengers on that day. We were once a nation that built monuments. Now all we get is weak-kneed "memorials" as if we are now in perpetual mourning and passivity.

[Rob]

Daniel --

I was a bit more than "there." I worked in the temporary morgue once it was set up. We had shirts we wore: "Caretakers for Heroes."

The memorial outlines the flight path the plane took. Subtlety isn't a bad thing. Why try to invoke heroism when what the passengers did invokes heroism far more than any memorial ever could?

[Daniel]

Rob,

I did not mean to equate my going to that site and your fine service. If I have offended you, I apologize.

You obviously know more than most about the site. Forgive me if I seem dense, but are you saying that the flight path of 93 was a crescent? Did it corkscrew down? It is unclear from the memorial website:

The main entrance to the Bowl occurs through the portal, at the western end of the Crescent. Within warm-toned concrete walls, textured like local cabins, the Portal frames the sky along the path of Flight 93 to the Crash Site. A black slate walkway leads visitors through the first wall into the Portal Plaza featuring Red Maple trees. Marking the Flight Path, the walkway extends through the Plaza and a second wall portal to give visitors their first look at the expanse of the Bowl and the Crash Site below. At the end of this path is a sloped glass plaque inscribed with the Mission Statement. At night the Flight Path is illuminated with recessed in-grade linear blue lines of gentle light that are perpendicular to the path flow to foster orientation and a rhythm of movement. The glass memorial plaque is edge-lighted from the base of the panel, allowing the text and its meanings to glow and radiate light.

It seem to me that the pathway goes through the crescent, doesn't it? Or am I reading this wrong? So if the flight path was indeed a crescent, I can see how they got that idea, and I confess ignorance. From what point would the crescent start? And at what altitude?

I'm not asking for the designers to invoke heroism, merely acknowledge it. And they may have. I intend to visit while the memorial is being built and when it is finished, so I'll save final judgement for then.

[Vavoom]

Daniel -- It seems that I may have misinterpreted your argument. Apologies. Does it really matter if the crescent was an intentional reference to Islam? Honestly, the way design goes these days, this may be a direct reference to the faith or a direct reference to heroism. It's in the eye of the beholder. I for one, like it. Too often we glorify the tragic, cloaking it through heroic monuments. Such a massive loss of life deserves reflection. I find calming tributes more valuable, but that's just me.

[Daniel]

V-

I, too, find that the design is beautiful. I was just floating a question. I think that I may have found ny answer.

I have only one nit to pick, and this may be just semantics. I believe that too often we use "tragic" to mean something else. It's my English Literature upbringing, but I see no tragic flaw in flight 93. I see base instincts and heroism. No tragedy there, for me. This is something that is often misinterpreted as callousness, but I am a creature of language, so for me the idea of tragedy doesn't work.

[Vavoom]

I guess we'll have to disagree about flight 93. There is nothing more tragic, to me, than the hijacking of a plane and subsequent death of all of its passengers. This isn't an issue of semantics. Rather, we have very different interpretations of the nature of that event. You view it as a heroic uprising. I view it as a horrible tragedy. In a sense, we're probably both right. I'm not so sure that this monument doesn't embody both perspectives.

[Daniel]

I just think that people misuse the word, that's all. Tragedy involves an action where someone is "brought to ruin or suffers great sorrow especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances."

See? The passengers did not possess a tragic flaw or demonstrate any moral weakness or an inability to cope, at least as far as I'm concerned. I think that there should be a better word.

As usual, I don't think that we have interpretations that are actually that different.

[Vavoom]

Daniel: Ahh, but the hijackers did suffer from a tragic flaw and were brought to ruin. That's not to say this should be a memorial to terrorists. Still, a person deciding to take life for no apparent reason is a tragedy, using your definition. Unfortunately, I think your definition of tragedy is a bit narrow. From The Oxford English Dictionary:

tragedy

▸ noun (pl. tragedies)

1 an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe: a tragedy that killed 95 people | [mass noun] his life had been plagued by tragedy.

2 a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, especially one concerning the downfall of the main character. [mass noun] the dramatic genre represented by tragedies: Greek tragedy.

In context of the first definition, I'd say flight 93 is a tragedy. In fact, when looking at the insanely flawed character of terrorists, I'd say their situations are tragic (employing your definition).

[Daniel]

Okay, this is getting fascinating.

For a tragedy to occur, the "victim" would have to have the tragic flaw, not the perpetrator.

That first definition was actually entered into the OED based on the vernacular. I don't deny the legitimacy of vernacular, but it still is not the classic definition. Classic, I mean, as in Greek. (Maybe we should get Eric Scheie in on this).

Hey! It's fun to argue with you about something different!

[Vavoom]

Now things are getting very interesting. Are those lured into Islamofascist terrorism victims? Clearly they are perpetrators of crimes, but to what extent are they themselves victimized by religious zealotry? In that sense is it not tragic that they become terrorists and commit such heinous crimes?

[Daniel]

That's a school of thought that I don't ascribe to. In that way of thinking, one could call every perpetrator a victim in one way or another. So no, I can't agree with that.

Taken on another level, for me the essence of tragedy is that one is brought low--and made to acknowledge his debasement and see the error of his ways. I have no evidence that the hijackers confronted their demons on their way down. I believe that the audio shows no epiphany on the part of the attackers.

By the classical defnition of tragedy, there needs to be just such that moment when those responsible are forced to see what their actions or prejudices have wrought and be sorry for them, al a the families in Romeo and Juliet, or in one of my favorite movies "Joe" in which a man goes on a spree of killing "hippies" only to find that one the kids he killed was his own daughter.

So it's not tragic that these men became terrorist because a crucial element is missing, that of the hand of justice.

Allow me this indulgence. The New Orleans victims are a victims of tragedy. Why? Because we know that much could have been done to protect the city from flood (although not a hurricane). The tragic flaw--by city, state and federal government was that for decades little was done amidst all sorts of warnings. We are now seeing the hand of justice (or "Fortuna," which I like a lot) at work in he suffering and in what may, or should if this were a perfect tragedy, result in someone being "brought low." I don't know what that would be yet, but if I was writing the play, someone in power would be made to have the realization that they "caused" the tragedy. Unfortunately, I suspect that the tragic figures this time around are going to get let off the hook. No one is going to be impeached or ruined, alas.

Conversely, the tsunami victims were not tragic, because they didin't really contibute to their destruction other than to live close to a beach, which isn't enough because they would have had to have been warned constantly about the threat of tsunami and someone in power would have had to possess the information and power to guard against the tsunami.

As I said earlier, I am nitpicking and my complaining into a tiny blog about the use of a widely-held, though misunderstood word won't change anybody's mind. I've tried for years, for instance, to point out to people that the saying is "Eating one's cake and having it, too" not "Having cake and eating it." One certainly can have cake and eat it. The trick comes in eating it and still having it.

Getting back to the terrorists, even if you believe that they are victims, also--and I repeat that I can't agree with that--the whole thing still isn't tragic. Not all victims are victims of tragedy. We (not me, of course) over use the word, as if every disaster, every crime is tragic. It just isn't. It might be horrible, terrible, catastrophic, disastrous, heinous, despicable, etc. Just don't call it tragedy. At least not around me.

[Jack]

A short comment:

I recall how many complained at the time the design was first shown for the memorial to the Vietnam Veterans. The primary complaint centered around how a semi-submerged wall gave the appearance of "sweeping them under the rug".

It has become one of the most powerful memorials in Washington, a town that isn't exactly sparse with powerful memorials.

Perhaps we should take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at the proposed memorial in Pennsylvania with different lenses than the ones we prefer to use.

[Vavoom]

Bravo, Jack. Well said.

[Daniel]

Okay. Fine. I'm an ass.

But I ask this: if the memorial had just happened to be in the shape of a cross or mogen david, would there at least have been some questions? No, not mere questions. Inquisitions.

[Vavoom]

Daniel -- You're not an ass. An ass is a hoofed mammal of the genus Equus, or so the dictionary says. We could argue that definition, if you'd like.

A crescent is a common geometric shape. It's not quite as specific as a cross or mogen david. Besides, it's just a crescent, not a crescent and a star. I don't hear too many anti-communists out there making a fuss. The thing does look like a sickle after all. It's also red. We'd better call in Captain America to investigate.

It's a memorial. It seems like it will serve as a tranquil place to remember the, and note the description here, catastrophic events that took place on flight 93. Jack is right. So many memorials are criticized for so many reasons. It's difficult to make a memorial that will address everyone's concerns. Let's follow Jack's advice and try to look at this memorial from a different perspective.

[Daniel]

You know,I was really raising questions, and a reread of the post shows that I went out of my way to acknowledge that the creation of the crescent could be an innocent inclusion:

I don't mean to imply that the designers have placed the crescent in their design as either a slap or as an Islamic reference. But I do think that they probably did not care or think all that much about how the design would be perceived.

To me this is more a case of self-aggrandizing than ideology. There is a difference between seeing the shadowy hand of conspiracy in the design and at least examining or inquiring as to the designers' thought process, which is all I was trying to do. For the record, I am not among those who now find themselves "outraged" by the design. I merely have questions--questions, which for the record have yet to be addressed by the designers. This is to be a process in which the public is supposed to have questions and suggestions. The designers could answer the questions instead of ducking them.

I find that some of the criticism is over the top and frankly stupid. It is embarrassing when zealots think that they agree with you, but that doesn't make you one of them. And now, merely raising concerns makes you a small-minded bigot.

I have nothing more to say about this.

[Vavoom]

Daniel-- Nobody suggested that you are a bigot. Your sensitivity is understandable, but I think you did a good job of being inclusive. I thought this was an interesting post. I agree with you, on one hand, that it's useful to ask such questions. On the other hand, I think that people tend to look for flaws in memorial designs. Moreover, trying to peer into the mind of the designer/artist may be intellectually gratifying but may not be of much utility here.

I think some of the zealots you cited should relax and do ask Jack suggested.

[JJ Miller]

The crescent is not a design by "accident." Someone needs to wake up. DESIGNERS DESIGN WITH INTENTION.. that is what designing is. Hello!? And Archetechs above all professions understand how to put symbolic reference and ideology into what they build, it is at the heart and soul of what they are called to do.

For the designers to say this is for "healing and bonding" they are telling us directly, "We made this design for a reason. We want to be inclusive and understand that the peacefulness of Islam is seen and appreciated." If anyone doesn't understand that, they are nieve.

Now the bigger question, "Is it a bad idea to have a peaceful Islamic crescent as part of the memorial for the Flight 93?" I say, "let's go with it....Just as soon as there is a huge Christian cross erected at the Abu Grae Prison for "healing and bonding" And might as well put another one at the scene of the bloody seiege that captured the two sons of Sadam, and why not a third in the hill country around the spider whole were we got Sadam... or atleast in the town square where his statue was toppled. I like that best. A "healing and bonding" between our peoples, and a giant cross to help those tensions go.

Ludicrous you say? Exactly. And you don't hear any Muslims suggesting it. I wonder why? Lets put a huge granite block with 10 foot high "Let's Roll" hewn into the side... with a wonderfully magnificent American flag flying right behind... God bless those brave men and women.

JJ

[Rich Tatum]

If the crescent is just another geometric shape, why did the Red Cross respond to the offended sensibilities of the Ottoman Empire and use a nice geometric crescent, instead? If it's just another shape, why are more than a dozen predominantly Muslim countries using it as their symbol on their flag?

The way some people apparently think, we might as well have “The Swastika of Hard Times” design or a new Holocaust memorial center. How about “The Rising Sun of Sadness” for a new Pearl Harbor memorial?

Yes, it's just a shape. But it's also a symbol. Any designer who doesn't know the basic history and use of the simplest geometric shapes isn't worth his pay. It's not your job to know the symbolism, it's not my job it's not the job of the victim's families. Appropriate use of symbolism would the job of the designer and artist when commissioned.

Anybody think Japan will be memorializing Hiroshima with a Stars and Stripes design?

This is craziness.

[Vavoom]

All of you act as though Islam brought that plane down. Islamofascism brought down that plane. You are mixing up nationalism with design. A Rising Sun of Sadness or Stars and Stripes are all nationalistic symbols. I think too much is being read into it.

[Martian]

Uhhhh, excuse this American but....
How does this design get picked and come be the final winning design??? This design was just one of over a thousand proposals, and clearly this architect's design does have symbolic overtones [even if only one person in the US sees that!!!!] that cannot be rationally dismissed.
However, let's not blame the architect, RATHER.... BLAME THE IDIOTS [AND POWERS THAT BE] WHO PICKED THIS DESIGN OUT OF A THOUSAND OTHER ONES!!! Coincidence??????? As an American, I am utterly ashamed and we Americans need to make those who picked this design personally accountable.