National Holocaust Monument | Completed

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Radster

In this time and age, living in the aftermath of Harper's exploits, we have to tread carefully on this particular subject, as I believe something as simple as being opposed to a monument that happens to be about the Holocaust, can put you in hot water - as being anti-Semitic....

The comments near the top of the previous page do point to the root cause of the issue... however there is the non-trivial fear of being accused of a "hate crime" if people clearly articulate what they are thinking.

As I mention above... this is a pretty sad state of democracy.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

A good point worth remembering. Memorials are emotional, and criticism of them might lead others to infer it as bigotry.

However, couldn't someone then make the case that this memorial is racist and homophobic for excluding other minority groups sent to concentration camps? Even though our numbers were quite small compared to Jews, the treatment of gay people was still significant enough that we have re-appropriated the pink triangle used to mark gay prisoners as a symbol that represents our group. (Consider Pink Triangle Services in Ottawa and Pink Triangle Press in Toronto). Intentionally excluding any other minority could also be considered an act of discrimination then.

Have any other communities asked for a memorial? Have they formed fundraising committee, have they raised funds, have they applied to the NCC to build a memorial? For better or for worse the monuments policy is NGO driven. Groups that are well organized (Irish, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, Eastern Europeans, veterans, firefighters, police, building trades) tend get monuments.

I suppose one could make the same argument about almost any monument or commemoration: the famous five monument discriminates against others who launched legal challenges seeking rights; the Nelson Mandela memorial discriminates against others who fought apartheid (or others who fought unjust political systems), memorials to cancer or AIDS victims discriminate against those who died of other diseases. At some point you can't commemorate anything because it discriminates against everything else.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

A good point worth remembering. Memorials are emotional, and criticism of them might lead others to infer it as bigotry.

However, couldn't someone then make the case that this memorial is racist and homophobic for excluding other minority groups sent to concentration camps? Even though our numbers were quite small compared to Jews, the treatment of gay people was still significant enough that we have re-appropriated the pink triangle used to mark gay prisoners as a symbol that represents our group. (Consider Pink Triangle Services in Ottawa and Pink Triangle Press in Toronto). Intentionally excluding any other minority could also be considered an act of discrimination then.

Does the monument exclude anyone? I thought it was intended to honour all victims of the Holocaust and those survivors who established themselves in Canada.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Have any other communities asked for a memorial? Have they formed fundraising committee, have they raised funds, have they applied to the NCC to build a memorial? For better or for worse the monuments policy is NGO driven. Groups that are well organized (Irish, Chinese, Italian, Jewish, Eastern Europeans, veterans, firefighters, police, building trades) tend get monuments.

I suppose one could make the same argument about almost any monument or commemoration: the famous five monument discriminates against others who launched legal challenges seeking rights; the Nelson Mandela memorial discriminates against others who fought apartheid (or others who fought unjust political systems), memorials to cancer or AIDS victims discriminate against those who died of other diseases. At some point you can't commemorate anything because it discriminates against everything else.

I don't think there was any concerted effort by other groups in Canada to participate in this particular memorial, nor am I aware if any were even invited. But it shouldn't matter if one group comes forward or not for National monuments: if you want to commemorate an event you cannot pick and choose who will be included based on which groups came forward or contributed money. The War Memorial is just as meaningful and representative of every conflict Canada has been involved, even despite these wars taking place after the War Memorial was built and no veterans group having to fight to convince people that soldiers from the War in Afghanistan or South Korea should also be included in it.

The Nelson Mandela Monument was originally called the Human Rights Monument, and was unspecific as to which humans right issue it commemorates. While the figure that monument is now named for someone symbolic of the fight against apartheid in South Africa, it was not re-dedicated to the fight against apartheid. It is still dedicated to all who fight for human rights, regardless of the cause (and the imagery used on it doesn't single out any one issue). A memorial to cancer or HIV is not exclusionary as memorials to those illnesses reflect on those afflicted by those illnesses. However, a memorial intended for all illnesses would be discriminatory if instead of commemorating all illnesses as it purports to do it choose to focus on only a few. On the other hand a monument dedicated to the Holocaust should include more than just Jewish people because other minority groups were also targeted. When making a monument about the Holocaust it should be dedicated to all victims of the Holocaust, and not just the largest group or the one who committed more money. There is a difference: one includes everyone afflicted by that specific illness while the other excludes victims of that conflict.

If a Jewish group wants to create a monument specifically about Jewish victims of the Holocaust then they have every right to. But for it to be a national monument (National Holocaust Memorial as this is called) and is of a significant scale (would this not be the biggest monument in Ottawa?) on nationally significant land as this one, then it should not be dedicated to only one group, even if other groups have not participated. A National Holocaust Memorial is built for all victims of the Holocaust, and just because it doesn't single out any one group doesn't make its symbolism less poignant. A monument to the Holocaust should be about Jews, LGBTTQ people, disabled, racial minorities, etc. without question. To exclude anyone is discrimination - it's taking their treatment and suffering as less important. It would be erasing their suffering from the annals of history. If it is going to be a National memorial to the Holocaust, then make it about all who were targeted. It's not too complicated and does not lessen its impact.

National Holocaust memorials in other countries have been criticized for focusing only on Jewish people. But at the very least some monuments like the one in Berlin contains imagery that is a still powerful reminder of the atrocities committed against the minorities. That monument visually demonstrates the scale of the destruction of the Holocaust with stone blocks do not indicate which victims they represent. Like some of the runners-up for the National Holocaust Memorial for Canada, they did not use any symbolism that belonged to any one group: they were still just as powerful in their message. You could still have gotten a sense of what the Holocaust did.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Does the monument exclude anyone? I thought it was intended to honour all victims of the Holocaust and those survivors who established themselves in Canada.

The symbolism excludes other victims. A giant Star of David is symbolic of Jewish people, not so much gays, etc. As a gay person, I can't go to this memorial and see myself in or people like me reflected in it because the Star of David has nothing to do with LGBTTQ people. It's why I liked the other proposals more. Adjaye's proposal was still quite powerful despite it not directly referencing gay people or Jewish people or disabled people. Regardless of whether you are a minority or not, you can still appreciate the scale and message of these monuments without the need of any identity symbols.

[kwoldtimer]

Am I the only one who sees in the renders of the Monument not only a stylized Star of David, but also a series of triangular forms (my interpretation, "other" victims)?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Am I the only one who sees in the renders of the Monument not only a stylized Star of David, but also a series of triangular forms (my interpretation, "other" victims)?

The overall design is the Star of David and only one triangle was inverted. The updated design eliminated all but one triangle which is is upright (I don't know about the other minorities, but for gay people ours was a pink inverted triangle). Having gotten rid of more of the concrete walls, the contour lines of the SoD are all the more obvious and any allusion to other triangles representing other minorities is diminished or non-existent.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

The overall design is the Star of David and only one triangle was inverted. The updated design eliminated all but one triangle which is is upright (I don't know about the other minorities, but for gay people ours was a pink inverted triangle). Having gotten rid of more of the concrete walls, the contour lines of the SoD is all the more obvious and any allusion to other triangles representing other minorities is diminished or non-existent.

Not to drown it in details, but wouldn't any triangle become inverted depending on the side from which you approach it? In any event, all the "other" triangles were inverted - only the colour varied.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not to drown it in details, but wouldn't any triangle become inverted depending on the side from which you approach it? In any event, all the "other" triangles were inverted - only the colour varied.

The original more so, but there were only 3 with diminishing visional prominence: the solid one at the bottom, the fractured one in the top right, and partial triangle in the top left. In the new rendering the only inverted triangle is the less prominent and weaker one.

It depends on how we define what is the top of the monument and what is the bottom. Most renderings show the monument from the same perspective - the northern portion at the top and the southern portion at the bottom along the SJAM. However, I think we can define the northern end as the top because it is visually heavier and more solid, therefore attracting one's gaze more easily. The bottom has shorter walls and is lighter, allowing people driving along the SJAM to get a much better view of the monument than if they had a solid block obstructing their view. If you were to invert the image the point that would then be considered the top is much smaller and stands out less. I think the top of an object is usually more prominent than bottom. So I feel that the way the monument is oriented in the image and the size of each point defines what is the top and what is the bottom, as well as the weight and attention given to each section.

Another consideration is regarding height. If walking along the street and you look towards it, what part of the monument would you consider the top and the bottom? The top will likely be the highest point regardless of which angle you are looking at it from. If standing south along the SJAM it will be the heaviest triangle in the top of the rendering; if standing to the North and looking at it, the top will still be the highest point of the heaviest triangle. It draws your attention more than the rest. It is interesting that coincidentally the highest point is at the top of this rendering. For these reasons, while I understand where you're coming from, I do feel we can determine what would be the top and bottom of the monument. And if we can determine what is the top of bottom, we can determine what is inverted and what can be inverted.

I think that the argument that this is an inclusive design is weakened by the updated rendering.

I probably bogged this thread down in my rambling... But I still feel this design isn't inclusive, and yet the purpose of the monument should be.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

The symbolism excludes other victims. A giant Star of David is symbolic of Jewish people, not so much gays, etc. As a gay person, I can't go to this memorial and see myself in or people like me reflected in it because the Star of David has nothing to do with LGBTTQ people. It's why I liked the other proposals more. Adjaye's proposal was still quite powerful despite it not directly referencing gay people or Jewish people or disabled people. Regardless of whether you are a minority or not, you can still appreciate the scale and message of these monuments without the need of any identity symbols.

"Holocaust" is a Jewish term and most people use it to refer to murder of 6 million Jewish people. It is not a generalized term for victims of the third reich (which given the immense brutality of the regime includes all kinds of groups). If the LGTB or other communities that were also victimized by the third reich want to build monuments then they should form organizing committees, numerous cities around the world have such monuments. If other groups think the holocaust memorial should instead be a generic monument for victims of the third reich rather than a monument specific to the holocaust then that's a perfectly reasonable position, but it is awfully late in the process, after years of fundraising have occurred, design competitions have been undertaken, various approvals have been sought, etc.

[ars]

Originally Posted by acottawa

"Holocaust" is a Jewish term and most people use it to refer to murder of 6 million Jewish people. It is not a generalized term for victims of the third reich (which given the immense brutality of the regime includes all kinds of groups). If the LGTB or other communities that were also victimized by the third reich want to build monuments then they should form organizing committees, numerous cities around the world have such monuments. If other groups think the holocaust memorial should instead be a generic monument for victims of the third reich rather than a monument specific to the holocaust then that's a perfectly reasonable position, but it is awfully late in the process, after years of fundraising have occurred, design competitions have been undertaken, various approvals have been sought, etc.

Although you're right that the WW2 holocaust mainly refers to the systematic destruction of Jews in Nazi Germany(due to both the number of Jews killed and politics in general), the term holocaust is definitely not Jewish and has been applied to numerous other genocides in history.

When speaking of the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, the number also includes 3 million non-Jewish Soviets and 2 million Poles, along with the large numbers of other minorities. I think any holocaust memorial should be inclusive of the memories of all victims, but this current memorial seems only targeted at the memories of Jewish victims. Yes these vocal complaints are late to the process, but that's more because the Conservatives silenced all critics in their totalitarian approach to politically charged monuments.

Overall, I'm not as opposed to the holocaust memorial, even in its current proposed location, as I was to the communism one, because the WW2 holocaust was an actual tragic event, whereas a memorial to victims of communism, a political and economic ideology, makes about as much sense as a memorial to the victims of capitalism. That said, I'm not too impressed by the design and scale of this project. The design should be inclusive of other non-Jewish victims and the scale should be much smaller.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

"Holocaust" is a Jewish term and most people use it to refer to murder of 6 million Jewish people. It is not a generalized term for victims of the third reich (which given the immense brutality of the regime includes all kinds of groups). If the LGTB or other communities that were also victimized by the third reich want to build monuments then they should form organizing committees, numerous cities around the world have such monuments. If other groups think the holocaust memorial should instead be a generic monument for victims of the third reich rather than a monument specific to the holocaust then that's a perfectly reasonable position, but it is awfully late in the process, after years of fundraising have occurred, design competitions have been undertaken, various approvals have been sought, etc.

Actually the world-wide Jewish community uses the term "the Shoah" , with Holocaust in vogue amongst the wider international community.

Holocaust is derived from ancient Greek. Shoah is a modern Hebrew word that can mean either catastrophe or destruction.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not to drown it in details, but wouldn't any triangle become inverted depending on the side from which you approach it? In any event, all the "other" triangles were inverted - only the colour varied.

Not to over-think these things, but every monument in the Capital points towards the peace tower and this is no exception, and also the triangle is in the correct orientation. Why would the design be oriented in the incorrect direction, what then is the point?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...e_jew.svg/70px-Pink_triangle_jew.svg.png

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Not to over-think these things, but every monument in the Capital points towards the peace tower and this is no exception, and also the triangle is in the correct orientation. Why would the design be oriented in the incorrect direction, what then is the point?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...e_jew.svg/70px-Pink_triangle_jew.svg.png

I did not know this - the only such orientation I've ever heard mentioned was wrt the War Museum.

[mykl]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Not to over-think these things, but every monument in the Capital points towards the peace tower and this is no exception, and also the triangle is in the correct orientation. Why would the design be oriented in the incorrect direction, what then is the point?


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...e_jew.svg/70px-Pink_triangle_jew.svg.png

I can't even see how you think the War Memorial is pointed at the Peace Tower, and its the biggest one! I don't think this is correct.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by mykl

I can't even see how you think the War Memorial is pointed at the Peace Tower, and its the biggest one! I don't think this is correct.

Ok fine, wherever possible monuments tend to be oriented towards the peace tower.

Major's Hill Park monuments, the white arch thing at old city hall (aligned with the GG's residence, framing the peace tower), monuments at the history museum, the War Museum, the peacekeeping monument binoculars guy keeping watch, etc.

How about this:

http://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thest..._memorial.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg

"Visitors will take a “journey through a star” - a concrete structure that, viewed from above, resembles a six-pointed star, the symbol of Jewish identity. It consists of several triangular spaces; according to a statement from the design team, these are meant to evoke the triangular badges used to classify prisoners in concentration camps, including Jews, Roma, gay people, and mentally and physically disabled people."

[Uhuniau]

If I had time, I'd love to do a series of photographs taken at the same spots, and the same angles, as the artist's conceptions of various projects that have been inflicted on Ottawa over the years.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

"Visitors will take a “journey through a star” - a concrete structure that, viewed from above, resembles a six-pointed star, the symbol of Jewish identity. It consists of several triangular spaces; according to a statement from the design team, these are meant to evoke the triangular badges used to classify prisoners in concentration camps, including Jews, Roma, gay people, and mentally and physically disabled people."

And what about the 2million plus Poles that were slaughtered during WWII, many of which died in concentration camps?

If I had the time, I would start a petition to stop this, even though its late in the process. Or at least to decrease the size of this monument and have it built elsewhere, like across the street, by the bike path, on the War Museum property.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by Radster

And what about the 2million plus Poles that were slaughtered during WWII, many of which died in concentration camps?

If I had the time, I would start a petition to stop this, even though its late in the process. Or at least to decrease the size of this monument and have it built elsewhere, like across the street, by the bike path, on the War Museum property.

I tend to agree with you. Most holocaust memorials are a bit more thematic instead of literal...

On the War Museum property would be perfect, how about in the back near the water's edge with the other monuments spaced along there, or how about in front of Old City Hall with the other war-type monuments?

[1overcosc]

I'm not opposed to a holocaust monument and overall I think one is a good addition to Ottawa. But not this one, it's just too big. A holocaust monument of this size and scope is out of place anywhere that's not Germany, Poland or Israel.

[AndyMEng]

Holy Cow, look at this one!!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1163565&page=150

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Holocaust Memorial Monument, Kaunas, Lithuania (1984)
Architect: A. Ambraziunas




Holocaust Memorial Kaunas by Ian Britton, on Flickr







Yeah it's probably been posted here before. But it deserves a repost