Flight 93 Memorial Uses Islam Crescent Symbol?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, History
The design is actually called the “Crescent of Embrace”.
Umm…do they realize that this is THE symbol of Islam?
From the story:
Four years after United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a reclaimed strip mine near Shanksville, Somerset County, on Sept. 11, 2001, the design that will serve as the national memorial was unveiled here yesterday in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Hall of Flags.“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.
I’m sorry, but how could they NOT realize this? Sure, most don’t look at it from the aerial view, but given that this tragedy happened on a plane, it makes it all the more ironic.
But in the end, the families of the victims seem to like it and that should probably be the most important judges of what’s appropriate.
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.In the front row, three family members –a woman who lost her mother, a woman who lost her husband and a woman who lost her brother — leaned into each other, in a show of love and support.
“It’s powerful but understated,” said Kiki Homer, whose brother, LeRoy W. Homer Jr., was co-pilot on the plane that crashed after passengers rebelled against terrorist hijackers. “It’s beautifully simple.
“My breath is taken away.”
Esther Heymann, whose daughter, Elizabeth Wainio, died in the crash, agreed.
“The understatement speaks to the profoundness of what occurred here,” she said.
(HT: Bloggledygook)
This entry was posted on Friday, September 9th, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 9th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
huh. Are you sure the designer didn’t know of the association? Not to be overly paranoid, but is it possible that this is a glimmer of revisionism in action?
September 9th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
This sounds a little perverse to me…..
September 9th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
The fact that they used “crescent” in the name instead of “archway” or other descriptor of the shape sounds odd. The overall design sounds lovely, though. I can see how the families would be enamored of it when it was unveiled. I wonder if the significance of the shape and name hit them later.
September 9th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
I’m kind of in an odd position here. If the families like it, then it’s hard to argue with that. However, part of me wants to take them aside and have a chat about the significance of the name and the design.
And then I think, “Well sure, but this really happened to ALL of us.” The events of 9/11 shook everybody up quite a bit, so is widow’s opinion more important than what will probably be the majority opinion? It’s a tough call.
My prediction: the design will be drastically changed or they’ll pick another one. This is just TOO out there to not change.
At least that’s my hope.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Um, what exactly is the problem with using a crescent? I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal, even if people knew that the crescent has been associated with Islam. Why is that a horrible emblem to use?
And, if you read the link you have about the emblem, it’s clear that it’s predated a whole lot of events in history. It’s hardly just an emblem of Islam.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
Kris, no doubt crescents have been used all throughout history, but the most recognizable one is Islam’s. That’s undeniable.
Also, there are literally THOUSANDS of other symbols that would have been just as compelling and moving, and not associated with any religion. As I said before, this is THE symbol of Islam. It just doesn’t make any sense to go anywhere close to it, especially considering it represents the people who caused the crash, instead of the brave men and women who fought them.
But if you sincerely can’t see why this is odd, there’s no amount of explaining that I can do to convince you.
September 9th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Justin and I seem to be on the reverse of our predicted positions here. I do not want to abandon curved shapes because of their religious association. I think rather we should embrace this design.
1. It can’t be said enough that we were attacked here not by Islam, but by militant Islamism. I do think Islam is a seriously aggressive religion, in its texts, but there are Muslims through the ages who have managed to change its focus (Sufis, for instance), and who still seek to do so. I do not think the design should be deliberately Islamic in any sense. But to eliminate a design element because it may be seen as Islamic is to make a negative statement about the religion.
2. The crescent is not originally an emblem of Islam. It was a badge of the Turkish sultans (probably chosen for its suggestion of “increase”) that only gradually came to be associated with Muslim political power. Crescent moons have been used as symbols in pagan religions as well. If there is a true symbol of Islam it is the Arabic script of the shahada, the testimony of faith (”There is no god but God,” etc.), which appears on the Saudi flag.
September 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Actually the Islamic emblem in question is the crescent and star. On national flags that bear the symbol you don’t see one without the other. The crescent by itself is no more an symbol of Islam than a hammer without a sickle, or vice versa, would be a symbol of Communism. But in any event, the first linked article points out that even the crescent-and-star is not universally recognized as the emblem of Islam, nor is any other emblem.
Interestingly enough, though, judging from the symbol’s presence on the city’s squad cars shown during footage of Hurricane Katrina, the crescent-and-star is also an emblem for the “Crescent City” of New Orleans…
September 9th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Mountain? Molehill?
September 9th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
I’m gonna go with Callimachus on this one (for the first time yet, I think). We shouldn’t abandon this particular shape just because it is generally used in a particular religion. AND, I agree that to say that the crescent “represents the people who caused the crash” is very dangerous. Islam didn’t attack on September 11, fanatical terrorists did.
September 9th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
I’m disagreeing with most of my usual allies on this one. Sometimes a crescent is just a crescent.
September 10th, 2005 at 12:34 am
Actually Callimachus, I think this fits perfectly in line with our previous positions.
If I may, you are of a mindset that sees symbols as silly things that have little value. In other words, your sensitivities lie elsewhere. Take the great Memin Pinguin essay you wrote, for example. You come down on the side of “Would everybody just get a life already?” However, most of us are still very sensitive to symbols and, as such, we look at something like the crescent and cringe. Perhaps this is to our detriment, but that’s just how it is.
Now, does political correctness play into it? Of course. But this is more about respect for those who gave their lives so the plane wouldn’t hit the White House. I think we owe them a memorial that doesn’t use a symbol that could be associated with the terrorists.
And by the way, I’m not saying that Islam itself attacked us. But the people who attacked us were most certainly Islamic extremists. They had a decidedly religious bent, so I feel being wary of crescent shaped memorial is certainly understandable.
In any event, interesting debate. Thanks for the opportunity!
September 10th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Kris, no doubt crescents have been used all throughout history, but the most recognizable one is Islam’s. That’s undeniable.
Come on, Justin. That Islam is the “most recognizable” use for the crescent shape is most certainly deniable. Forcing this particular crescent shape into the Islamic crescent mold is of dubious value. We are talking about a very common manifestation of a very common shape… This “crescent” is merely an unfinished circle. If you read all of the material associated with the proposal [I have some of it [here], you’ll learn that the circular walkway was built to accentuate a natural bowl-shape at the crash site and that it is “unfinished” as they have built a wall marking the extreme edge of the positioning of the crash debris. It is a circle bisected by the crash site. An circle that isn’t closed can certainly be called a crescent – or an arc or a broken circle or an open ring or any number of things. Once one understands what the circle is constrained by it is a real stretch to contort it into a secret tip of the hat to Islam.
Silliness. (Not on your part, but on the part of LGF and Captain’s Quarter commenters).
September 10th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
I looked up the night sky and saw ….. Aaaargh!!! A CRESCENT moon!!! We must fight the islamofascists in space!
As I clipped my fingernails last night, I noticed that the parings were …. Aaaargh!!! A CRESCENT shape. The evil mullahs have invaded my body!
September 11th, 2005 at 1:35 am
I understand the comments of those who think the crescent is just a crescent (Alan…come on…you know that wasn’t my point), but I think that given this particular context, the use of it isn’t wise.
I’ll have more on this later in another post. I appreciate the comments.
September 11th, 2005 at 4:32 am
My first, visceral, unanalysed reaction to the shape was:
An embrace
Returning to Mother Earth
Now that I have time to think it through a little more, I see a welcoming enclosure with a wide entrance through which the mourners may freely come and go, though the dead can never leave. I see a broken circle representing the impossiblilty of the dead ever completing life’s circle. I see a place where, anticipating the moment of death, the victims could sink into the arms of the (Jungian) Mother archetype.
I take it as given that others will have completely different reactions to the shape. But to see it as a hat-tip to Islam seems to me a contrived reaction, the sort of interpretation that could only be produced by a lawyer assiduously trying to find something objectionable. Paranoia can do nothing to hallow the names of those who, knowing they were doomed, risked all to save the lives of others. The road from grief to memory is not made smoother by carping.
September 11th, 2005 at 10:02 am
It’s difficult to say, “well don’t be so paranoid,” in this age of PCness, but the facts are the facts: the hijackers were muslims and the crescent is associated with Islam.
But then – look at the swastika – it was a symbol of peace in Indian mythology and had been used for centuries. Then came the Nazis and now, anyone showing the swastika is assumed to be a sympathizer or a neo-nazi. You cannot use the swastika in connection with anything without that connotation, so blackened has it become.
The crescent, like Callimachus pointed out, is not a symbol of Islam per se but a symbol of the Turks which was adopted by later generations of Muslims (which is not a surprise considering the Turks were the Caliphs for centuries). It is on Islamic nations’ flags now because of that (in much the same way that many nations’ flags still have the British flag on their own).
It is a shame though, that something neutral or less threatening was not used, someone clearly did not have their thinking hat on.
September 11th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I like to think of symbols — including words — as living things that may be claimed and reclaimed. They are not fossils. I like to think that embracing the crescent here is a way of tugging it away from extremists (and I’m still not convinced that the crescent is more appealing to fanatical Islamists than it is to moderate ones; I suspect rather the opposite).
Look: the homosexual community in America took the sting out of the words “gay” and “queer” not by banning them, but by embracing them. On the other hand, the Confederate battle flag, which was for decades merely an old soldiers’ symbol, used to honor the fighting men, not the political cause, got co-opted by Dixiecrats in the 1940s, then by segregationists. It didn’t belong to them. They took it. It belonged at memorial day services and in cemeteries, which for years was where you saw it.
But no one stepped up to take it back. I wish more Southern people had done that — a few try. Instead, the reaction was to ban it, kill it, bury it. And that only gave it power, negative power. It’s now not only a symbol of the worst sort of white racism, but a symbol of bad attitudes everywhere.
Symbols don’t have meaning. They are invested with meaning by those who use them and those who receive them.
September 11th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
I understand your lament Cal, but I have to disagree.
Symbols do have meaning. In fact, since I wanted to be sure I was speaking correctly, I looked it up and that is the very definition of the word “symbol.” But as you point out, that meaning shifts and changes because WE define them. Unfortunately, right now the symbol of the crescent is strongly associated with Islam. That’s just the reality of the situation.
At to that point of “reality”, in this debate especially I’ve noticed that people wish that the world would work the way THEY want it to work, instead of how it actually does work. And with each example of a symbol being co-opted (like the Confederate flag or the swastika) my point becomes stronger. And given that, we need to be especially mindful of using symbols in memorials that have meanings which could offend.
In this situation, I’ll definitely err on the side of being “too PC” so we can have a new design that won’t provoke memories of Islamic extremists instead of American heroes.
September 11th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
The Ku Klux Klan marched under the Stars and Stripes thousands of times. Far more than it marched under the Confederate flag. Does that make the Stars and Stripes a Klan symbol?
September 11th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
You, sir, are an idiot. The crescent symbol was around long before Islam and will be around long after today’s religions have been superceded by something else. Or are you truly proposing that semi-circles and crescent moons be expunged from the nation’s iconography because of your bigotry?
For your next crusade, I suggest you try to change the name of Pillsbury’s legendary side dish to “Freedom Rolls. ” After all, we can’t have those evil Islamic crescents on our Thanksgiving tables!
September 11th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Well sure, it’s certainly possible that some people did link the two at first. Thankfully, they were shamed into obscurity and the linkage was never solidified by majority opinion. However, they also use the Confederate flag quite bit nowadays and since that is essentially a flag that symbolized a failed attempt to keep slavery around, it has been linked more closely to the failed ideology of the Klan. This linkage is completely understandable.
But since we’re playing the “what if” game, let’s just suppose that the Klu Klux Klan’s message did spread and they always used the Stars and Stripes. In fact, let’s suppose that they somehow became the majority political party in this country. And let’s then say that they rounded up all the non-christians and non-whites and exterminated them. Do you think that people would a) want to change the flag and b) look at it much differently? I certainly think many would. The Nazis certainly altered the image of the swastika symbol is such a drastic way, that it could be hard to reclaim it’s religious foundations.
However, the linkage between the crescent and Islam is undeniable. Generally, I use Wikipedia to look up information and this time was no exception. Go to their site about the crescent and see what the majority of page talks about. This particular page has gone through about 50 revisions by 34 different authors. Personally, after that many opinions have dissected this idea of the “crescent”, I’d think they reached a consensus as to what it means. Of course you may deem wikipedia informtion invalid, and therefore my point.
In any event, it’s an interesting point you bring up and thanks for posing it.
September 12th, 2005 at 12:11 am
For all of you who are joining us from Lawyers, Guns and Money, do yourself a favor and actually READ my post instead of just going off of what Scott wrote about the post. In short, think for yourself please.
Commenting is a privilege here, not a right. Ellid, you aren’t trying to have a conversation with anybody here so you’re banned.
September 12th, 2005 at 2:55 am
[...] I blogged about the Flight 93 memorial a couple days ago and now I hear that more are starting to speak out against using the crescent symbol in a memorial to 9/11 victims. [...]
September 12th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Hillarious! What a bunch of nutballs. Now a crescent is somehow an offensive symbol? Don’t look up at the moon, then.
September 13th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
[...] They called me out for suggesting that the 9/11 memorial for the victims of Flight 93 called “Crescent of Embrace” is odd because the crescent is a symbol of Islam and adorns the roofs of mosques, much like the crosses on churches. Therefore, using this symbol in the title and the design of the memorial seems like a questionable choice. [...]
September 24th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
[...] For more on this story, read these posts: Flight 93 Memorial Uses Islam Crescent Symbol? Crescent Shaped 9/11 Memorial Draws Criticism [...]