In Tourists of History author Marita Sturken discusses the interaction of memorials and kitsch on the culture surrounding trauma and grief in the United States. She discusses this in terms of the memorial and programs that came about because of the Oklahoma City bombing and the subsequent execution of Timothy McVeigh. In chapter two she describes the interactive aspect of the Oklahoma City bombing memorial that begins by describing the start of the day as a "day like any other", also the focus on the value of ordinary life through stories of fate that led citizens to that federal building that day stress the idea of innocence. The federal building was a beacon of what American citizenship means and the very core of McVeigh and Nichols right-wing, anti government, group stood against. Located at the memorial is also a gift shop that also emphasizes the idea of the attack being taken out on innocent American citizens with the slogan "on American soil" that evokes the idea that the American heartland was supposed to be a safe space where incidents of mass violence did not occur. The use of souvenirs and memorials are also used to create a sense of comfort or relief from the trauma. The wide spread placement of teddy bears at the memorials wall and the I Am Hope project's sending of Teddy bears to children in Afghanistan and Iraq is seen by many as a way to make others feel better. Teddy bears are seen as a comforting item that will make a difference in the lives of those devastated by acts of violence. The selling of comforting items such as a teddy bear at the end of the trip threw the memorial allows for visitors to feel sad about what happened and then receive comfort from the item that allows them to move on. For many Americans the execution of Timothy McVeigh was a cathartic moment. The use of the death penalty helps add to the national ideal of American innocence (Sturken, 140). The death penalty is the manifestation of national innocence because it is takes the life of a citizen that is allegedly the embodiment of evil. The execution of a prisoner is actually a very public statement of the rights and powers of the state over the individual civilian. It is the very type of government power that McVeigh was vehemently opposed to. The execution of an individual is said to give a sense of healing to the individuals and communities effected by violence. The death penalty is also justifiable in the highly religious Bible belt (which Oklahoma is in the middle of) as an earthly retribution for sin. In the case of an execution the government can be cast in the light of a judging God that is exacting punishment. The execution of McVeigh was turned into a tourist spectacle because it allowed for a semi-religious experience. Also many people after the bombing lost some of their faith in their God so the execution could have been a means of reconnecting to their religious beliefs. The punishment of McVeigh could been seen as the completion of the biblical belief in retention.
You do a good job summarizing all of these readings, but can you do a bit more analysis? That is, what do you think is important or significant about the points you raise here?
“This is the photograph of the crumpled body of one-year-old Baylee Almon being cradled in the arms of the firefighter Chris Fields” (Sturken 98). Not knowing much about the Oklahoma City Bombing, that sentence coupled with the picture really shook me up. I knew that the bombing happened at a Federal building, but I did not know there was a daycare in the building and that 19 children had died. Sturken goes on to explain how the picture, as well as the famous picture of the building in its destroyed state, were recreated and reinvented as a way to fit a narrative or to sell. The picture of the firefighter was turned into a piece that fitted the “Redemptive Narrative” discussed in The Unfinished Bombing by Edward T. Linenthal, though Sturken made reference to it in chapter 2, “… [the picture remade] in more religious images, is being handed off to God, thus transforming its meaning into an image of salvation” (100). Also, I think that the children that died because of the violence were used to perpetuated a narrative of innocence lost. Furthermore, I think it is good to remember it because it happens in different forms in our country right now when gunmen attack “gun free zones”. Timothy McVeigh, one of the men responsible for the bombing, chose that federal building in Oklahoma City for two reasons: Reason one, to get back at the federal government for their involvement and massacre of the cult in Waco, Texas, in which twenty-two children had died. Reason Two, to pick a place without security that had access to such an innocent population, kids, to create as much mayhem as possible. However, the way the American public responded to Waco compared to the Oklahoma City Bombing was and still is hypocritical. After the deaths of the Oklahoma bombing, especially of the children’s deaths, people from all of the country and the world sent gifts such as Teddy Bears and flags in order to mourn the loss of live, comfort those involved, and to celebrate the lives lost, whereas no such gestures were made in regards to the life lost, especially the innocent life lost, at Waco. While Sturken argues that those gifts became kitsch saying, “… that such objects, no matter how well intended, cannot be innocent. They evoke innocence, they sell innocence, and they promote it, but in their very circulation they participate in a comfort culture that simplifies and reduces, that effaces political complexity” (94). I had major problems with this claim and here is why, after reading some articles that tried to explain “comfort culture”, a term I did not know even existed until reading Sturken, the idea that sending stuffed animals somehow takes away from the complexity of the bombing is, to me, ridiculous. If a stuffed animal can make us forget what happened, in all of its complexity, then we are weak minded. However, I do think the sending of stuffed animals symbolizes our willingness to come together as a country in a moment of heartache and tragedy, a theme and pattern that can be seen after the attacks on 9/11.
Good, but you could connect the two parts of the response a bit more fully -- that is, I'm not sure that Sturken would disagree that "the sending of stuffed animals symbolizes our willingness to come together as a country in a moment of heartache and tragedy." What I think she might argue, though, is that that is another aspect of US culture that "perpetuated a narrative of innocence lost" while prohibiting broader public debate? What do you think?
In Tourists of History author Marita Sturken discusses the interaction of memorials and kitsch on the culture surrounding trauma and grief in the United States. She discusses this in terms of the memorial and programs that came about because of the Oklahoma City bombing and the subsequent execution of Timothy McVeigh. In chapter two she describes the interactive aspect of the Oklahoma City bombing memorial that begins by describing the start of the day as a "day like any other", also the focus on the value of ordinary life through stories of fate that led citizens to that federal building that day stress the idea of innocence. The federal building was a beacon of what American citizenship means and the very core of McVeigh and Nichols right-wing, anti government, group stood against. Located at the memorial is also a gift shop that also emphasizes the idea of the attack being taken out on innocent American citizens with the slogan "on American soil" that evokes the idea that the American heartland was supposed to be a safe space where incidents of mass violence did not occur. The use of souvenirs and memorials are also used to create a sense of comfort or relief from the trauma. The wide spread placement of teddy bears at the memorials wall and the I Am Hope project's sending of Teddy bears to children in Afghanistan and Iraq is seen by many as a way to make others feel better. Teddy bears are seen as a comforting item that will make a difference in the lives of those devastated by acts of violence. The selling of comforting items such as a teddy bear at the end of the trip threw the memorial allows for visitors to feel sad about what happened and then receive comfort from the item that allows them to move on. For many Americans the execution of Timothy McVeigh was a cathartic moment. The use of the death penalty helps add to the national ideal of American innocence (Sturken, 140). The death penalty is the manifestation of national innocence because it is takes the life of a citizen that is allegedly the embodiment of evil. The execution of a prisoner is actually a very public statement of the rights and powers of the state over the individual civilian. It is the very type of government power that McVeigh was vehemently opposed to. The execution of an individual is said to give a sense of healing to the individuals and communities effected by violence. The death penalty is also justifiable in the highly religious Bible belt (which Oklahoma is in the middle of) as an earthly retribution for sin. In the case of an execution the government can be cast in the light of a judging God that is exacting punishment. The execution of McVeigh was turned into a tourist spectacle because it allowed for a semi-religious experience. Also many people after the bombing lost some of their faith in their God so the execution could have been a means of reconnecting to their religious beliefs. The punishment of McVeigh could been seen as the completion of the biblical belief in retention.
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job summarizing all of these readings, but can you do a bit more analysis? That is, what do you think is important or significant about the points you raise here?
Delete“This is the photograph of the crumpled body of one-year-old Baylee Almon being cradled in the arms of the firefighter Chris Fields” (Sturken 98). Not knowing much about the Oklahoma City Bombing, that sentence coupled with the picture really shook me up. I knew that the bombing happened at a Federal building, but I did not know there was a daycare in the building and that 19 children had died. Sturken goes on to explain how the picture, as well as the famous picture of the building in its destroyed state, were recreated and reinvented as a way to fit a narrative or to sell. The picture of the firefighter was turned into a piece that fitted the “Redemptive Narrative” discussed in The Unfinished Bombing by Edward T. Linenthal, though Sturken made reference to it in chapter 2, “… [the picture remade] in more religious images, is being handed off to God, thus transforming its meaning into an image of salvation” (100). Also, I think that the children that died because of the violence were used to perpetuated a narrative of innocence lost. Furthermore, I think it is good to remember it because it happens in different forms in our country right now when gunmen attack “gun free zones”. Timothy McVeigh, one of the men responsible for the bombing, chose that federal building in Oklahoma City for two reasons: Reason one, to get back at the federal government for their involvement and massacre of the cult in Waco, Texas, in which twenty-two children had died. Reason Two, to pick a place without security that had access to such an innocent population, kids, to create as much mayhem as possible. However, the way the American public responded to Waco compared to the Oklahoma City Bombing was and still is hypocritical. After the deaths of the Oklahoma bombing, especially of the children’s deaths, people from all of the country and the world sent gifts such as Teddy Bears and flags in order to mourn the loss of live, comfort those involved, and to celebrate the lives lost, whereas no such gestures were made in regards to the life lost, especially the innocent life lost, at Waco. While Sturken argues that those gifts became kitsch saying, “… that such objects, no matter how well intended, cannot be innocent. They evoke innocence, they sell innocence, and they promote it, but in their very circulation they participate in a comfort culture that simplifies and reduces, that effaces political complexity” (94). I had major problems with this claim and here is why, after reading some articles that tried to explain “comfort culture”, a term I did not know even existed until reading Sturken, the idea that sending stuffed animals somehow takes away from the complexity of the bombing is, to me, ridiculous. If a stuffed animal can make us forget what happened, in all of its complexity, then we are weak minded. However, I do think the sending of stuffed animals symbolizes our willingness to come together as a country in a moment of heartache and tragedy, a theme and pattern that can be seen after the attacks on 9/11.
ReplyDeleteGood, but you could connect the two parts of the response a bit more fully -- that is, I'm not sure that Sturken would disagree that "the sending of stuffed animals symbolizes our willingness to come together as a country in a moment of heartache and tragedy." What I think she might argue, though, is that that is another aspect of US culture that "perpetuated a narrative of innocence lost" while prohibiting broader public debate? What do you think?
Delete