The Pros And Cons Of Flight 93

Creating sites where history is to be interpreted, whether they be memorials, museums, exhibits, or some combination of those previously mentioned is difficult. Missteps in the process can lead to the disrespecting of victims, distortions of historical fact, feelings of being unsafe or unwelcomed for certain groups, and erasure. Although such potential predicaments must always be considered, they are perhaps most prevalent and problematic when interpretation is done regarding recent events. Emotions, sentiments, and wounds, although not necessarily fading entirely over time, are most raw and prominent in the direct aftermath of an event. The National Park Service does not typically dedicate land or areas to the memory of certain events until

The goal of sites such as Flight 93 is not simply to inform people about what happened, but to make a connection an impact on visitors. Of course, impact is difficult to get across if one is unable to make their information connect with their audience. When it comes to this connection, Flight 93’s recency might have given this site a slight advantage; many visitors still remember and still have personal experiences involving 9-11. In addition, the fact that the event occurred in the 21st century provides some primary source artifacts, such as voice recordings from the flight that earlier events do not have. The Flight 93 memorial used these advantages particularly well. They dedicated a good amount of space to the victims, showing pictures of the victims and descriptions of the victims with which visitors could potentially connect. Visitors could also hear the voices of victims leading up to the event, something which takes the event out of abstract consideration, something which makes it feel real for the visitor. This is incredibly impactful, and the thing which ultimately ended up sticking with me most after leaving the

One can incur impact, but still cause problems through other important issues when it comes to historical interpretation, namely respect. It is important that sites like this one are not only impactful but also respectful. Of course, how a site manages to be respectful can vary depending on the person involved. Something which may seem like a phenomenal idea to one person based on their experiences may incite pain and anger for someone else. I, ultimately, can only speak as an outsider; however, I personally feel that on various fronts, the memorial managed the issue of respect quite well. I felt that their work to make sure that the stories of all victims, not just those whose actions and heroicism were more famous and more discussed in the media, was both extremely important and done extremely well. I also felt that the expanse of greenery and wildlife surrounding the disaster was the kind of calm setting this situation deserved. Commercial presence really, in my opinion, does draw away from the memories of the victims and the incidents when in the near vicinity of such a site; thus the fact that no fast food restaurants or chain stores are visible from the memorial area is a true success. Additionally, although in the distance windmills are visible at certain points, they are not visible from much of the memorial area. I also personally feel that the sight of windmills speaks more to the idea of renewal and growth after