Ariel Dorfman on Obama's Upcoming Visit to Chile

Barack Obama and Sebastián Piñera

Ariel Dorfman has published an editorial today in Spain's El País on President Obama's upcoming visit to Chile titled "Obama y el dolor de Chile" ("Obama and the Pain of Chile"). In the editorial he suggests that Obama visit with former exiles and children of the disappeared; go to the newly inaugurated Museo de la Memoria and get to know Villa Grimaldi, the former detention and torture center that is now the Villa Grimaldi Park for Peace. This is the first paragraph, with my translation in italics.

Cuando Barack Obama desembarque en Chile el próximo lunes en una visita de 24 horas, algo crucial va a faltar en su agenda. Habrá mariscos suculentos y discursos que elogien la prosperidad de Chile, acuerdos bilaterales y encuentros con los poderosos y los pomposos, pero no hay planes, sin duda, de que el presidente de Estados Unidos tome contacto con lo que fue la experiencia fundamental de la reciente historia chilena, el trauma que el pueblo de mi país padeció durante los casi 17 años del régimen del general Augusto Pinochet.

When Barack Obama lands in Chile next Monday on a 24-hour visit, something critical will be lacking in his agenda. There will be delicious seafood and speeches praising Chile's prosperity, bilateral agreements and meetings with the pompous and powerful, but there are absolutely no plans for the U.S. president to come in contact with what was the key experience in recent Chilean history, the trauma that the people of my country suffered for the almost 17 years of General Augusto Pinochet's regime. 

Dorfman goes on to explain why he believes Obama must address Chile's dictatorial past while in Chile (again, my translation follows in italics):

Una razón por la cual tiene sentido que Obama haga todo lo posible por vislumbrar, aunque fuera a través de un vidrio oscuro, nuestra vasta y devastadora pena, es que los norteamericanos fueron, en gran parte, responsables de aquella tragedia. Washington ayudó, alentó y financió la caída del Gobierno democráticamente elegido de Allende y la trayectoria dictatorial de Pinochet.

 One reason why Obama must do everything he can to make clearer, albeit through a dark lens, our vast and devastating pain, is that Americans were, in large part, responsible for that tragedy [that of the overthrow of Allende and the installation of the Pinochet regime]. Washington helped, encouraged and financed the fall of Allende's democratically-elected government and the dictatorial trajectory of Pinochet.

Dorfman's editorial does not go so far as to propose President Obama apologize for U.S. involvement and support of the Pinochet regime. In fact, he expressly states that that gesture, in his view, is unnecessary. What Dorfman would like instead is all the more simple and brief, but full of symbolism nonetheless: he wants Obama to visit the tomb of Salvador Allende and observe a few moments of silence, a gesture Dorfman believes will send the message to Chile, all of Latin America and the entire planet ("y de hecho a todo el planeta") that the U.S. is ushering in a new era of relations with its Latin American neighbors.

I applaud Dorfman's intentions in his editorial column. Certainly, more people -- especially in the U.S. -- need to inform themselves about American support of right-wing dictators in Latin America. For doubters,  plenty of de-classified state documents exist -- some of which are linked on this blog -- to help illustrate the U.S. role in funding and aiding otherwise the military dictatorships of the entire Southern Cone. I don't think, however, that Dorfman is being realistic about the kind of president that Obama has thusfar shown himself to be.

In his editorial, Dorfman resurrects the name of Bobby Kennedy, citing him as an example for Obama to follow. In the 60s, Kennedy visited with Chilean president Eduardo Frei (leader of the Christian Democratic Party and president just prior to Allende) and met with Chilean miners and angry Communist students protesting the former's visit. In Robert Kennedy and His Times, Arthur Schesslinger recounts part of that visit, and quotes Kennedy's remarks after meeting with the Chilean miners: "'If I worked in this mine,' Kennedy told a Chilean reporter, 'I'd be a Communist too'" (p. 696).

Has Dorfman been paying attention to American politics since Obama's election? First of all, Obama has largely disappointed the (true) left in this country, due to what they perceive to be his largely centrist position on nearly every important issue out there. Second, one of the rallying cries of the (extreme) right has been to call Obama a "Socialist" or a "Communist," often mixing the terms beyond recognition into a hodgepodge of McCarthy-era rhetoric (sometimes, unbelievably, these terms have been mixed with Obama as "Fascist" or even "Nazi"). So, let's imagine what Obama's visit to Chile would be like were he to follow Dorfman's suggestions.

Most likely, were we to see Obama at Allende's tomb, the right would immediately gravitate once more to the idea of foreign Obama, socialist Obama, radical America-hater Obama. Everyone knows Allende is a hero of the left. So, Obama linking himself to Allende, even in this brief appearance, would just feed into the right's fear-mongering machine. While the left might find the gesture laudable, they would also have reason to complain, for Obama has not demonstrated this kind of public presidential presence stateside. For example, the left might ask why Obama isn't standing with the Wisconsin workers protesting the end to their collective bargaining rights.

Nonetheless, as Dorfman reminds us, President Obama will be dining in the same Presidential palace where Salvador Allende died "en defensa del derecho de su pueblo a elegir su propio destino" ("in defense of his people's right to elect their own destiny"). It is difficult to imagine how his entire visit could go by with no mention of the tragic Chilean past. Unfortunately, however, the President's political identity has been shaped less by his risk-taking and more by his acquiescence to the ever-shifting Overton window. Like Clinton, Obama's desire to be "post-political" and "post-partisan," always seeking compromise, has only served to his disadvantage.

In Chile, Obama will be meeting with President Sebastián Piñera. Though perhaps not as visible a meeting as that between Obama and Hu Jin Tao, this encounter will be still put under a microscope, as will Obama's other Latin American stops. While Ariel Dorfman's position in his editorial is certainly understandable and reasonable, given Chile's recent past, it is highly unlikely that Barack Obama will acknowledge anything regarding Allende or the Pinochet dictatorship. In fact, the nuclear issue has already taken precedence, as The Santiago Times reported Wednesday that Pres. Piñera has announced a nuclear agreement with the U.S. (see also today's NYT, "Undeterred by Fallout Fears....").

A Model for the Class I Hope to Teach

Professor Francie Cate-Arries is the author of the influential Spanish Culture Under Barbed Wire. Memory and Representation of the French Concentration Camps.1939-45 (2004). She also led what must have been an amazing class -- to teach and to take -- on memory in Madrid:



I am beginning to lay the groundwork for a similar project that has come out of the four-way intersection of post-dissertation research, a class I taught on contemporary literature and film of the Spanish Civil War, a Memory Studies honors seminar and the personal ties I have formed thanks to my Spanish blog. The class I envision will be taught partially in the United States and partially in situ. It will be interdisciplinary in nature and feature an extended, yearly field trip to one or several "sites of memory," which will vary. Hopefully, it will be team-taught. Perhaps, my teaching partner will alternate. I expect to bring together the study of literature and culture, psychology and history/politics.

As I outline the course, research locations and consider practical issues, I come back repeatedly to my concerns about memory tourism and how to prevent this sort of encounter or experience. Certainly, studying this issue will be essential prior to any potential interactions with survivors and/or their descendants, as well as the physical locations we might inhabit temporarily. I think that careful, frequent reflection will be key, as well as a clearly-outlined rationale and purpose prior to any excursion here or abroad.

Currently, I am reading Memory and the Future, because, as the editors state in the introduction, "For those who study memory, there is a nagging concern that memory studies is inherently backward-looking, and that memory itself -- and the ways in which it is deployed, invoked and utilized -- can potentially hinder efforts to move forward" (1). As I have used literature and film to discuss memory and amnesia, I have come to realize that scholars have neglected memory's future. What is the future of memory?

I will report more on developments in the above endeavor in the coming months.

Wilderness vs. Wal-Mart

First, let's be blunt. I hate Wal-Mart. And let's be honest. I do shop there, less out of a desire to do so, and more because it is one of the only places to get what I need in the small town in which I live (the Wal-Mart here is of the old-fashioned early Sam Walton variety: it stocks the basics. The very basics). I hate Wal-Mart for the reasons that people everywhere hate it. It's the epitome of the postmodern corporation: it gives us cheap (finanically and materially), shoddy merchandise made in China by exploited workers, while promoting a carefully-constructed mythology of American values: helping out the working class, being "good for the community" and allowing mom to stay within her budget. In reality, the economic behavior of Wal-Mart in the United States and elsewhere should make them the enemy of the working class, particularly if we look at their atrocious record of workplace gender and racial discrimination (women and other minority groups missing out on promotions), and denial of health care to its workers by re-defining what "full-time" meant. For more, see Robert Greenwald's 2005 documentary Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price.

Since the end of the Bush era, Wal-Mart has invested in a healthy dose of re-branding. Let's take a look at the "military industrial complex" Wal-Mart (original photo here):

The red, white and blue (and cement gray), clearly meant to emphasize the patriotic nature of shopping (as promoted by George W. Bush in 2007), fit nicely with the pretty star-cum-hyphen between Wal and Mart:

Of late, we have seen a move to this cleaner, more environmentally-conscious looking logo:

No matter how it defines itself to the public, Wal-Mart still has the reputation for deciding to set up shop where it is least welcome. Claiming that it will provide impoverished communities with a healthy supply of jobs, it seems to nearly always get its way when all is said and done. Its idea of "living better" is being able to do "one-stop shopping," where you can get groceries, prescriptions, clothes, a burger at McDonalds, an oil change for your car, a lawnmower and perhaps a bookcase or two all under one roof. On the way out, stop at the Wal-Mart gas station for some extra cheap gas too! Wal-Mart made other kinds of shopping -- the pharmacy, the clothing boutique, the family-owned hardware store -- extinct, turning town squares into a bunch of empty storefronts and making small business owners and employees largely unnecessary.

For some time now, Wal-Mart has been involved in a dispute in the state of Virginia over whether the former should be permitted to build near an historic battle site of the American Civil War. Wal-Mart argues, once again, that the construction will bring many new jobs to the area. It also states that it would be building in an area already dotted with retail locations. Those involved in the local tourism industry claim that what visitors desire is familiarity, convenience and access, which Wal-Mart can provide (see video). Historical preservationists are concerned by the shopping center's proposed proximity to the site of the Battle of the Wilderness, a turning point of the war. For a change, Republicans and Democrats have, together with historians and celebrities, teamed up to keep Wal-Mart out. This week, the case goes to court. It is hard to overlook the irony of the battle's name in its confrontation with the corporate giant. It is getting harder and harder to imagine any wilderness in this country.

When I was growing up, in 1980s Ohio, my parents took my sister and I on many exciting "one tank trip" vacations. We got to know our state parks, in other words. But three of the most thrilling summer trips were going from Ohio-Florida (in a brown Valiant with vinyl seats and no air conditioning!), Ohio-Great Smoky Mountains and Ohio-Maine. There were no Wal-Marts to stop at along the way. And yes, a certain amount of "wilderness" was involved -- we were never sure where we would end up and what we might find there. We had to pack for the unexpected. We drove all day, until my parents were too tired to go any further -- and then we found a hotel. We always had enough gas, because we were never sure where the next gas station would be -- it's not like now, where there is one at every highway exit. The littering of the American landscape with Wal-Marts and other similar structures makes our universe always 24-7, always within reach. We don't have to rely on ourselves, because Wal-Mart will always be there to help us out of a jam, as this 2008 map from Wal-Mart Watch suggests:

The impact of Wal-Mart construction is not only environmental and cultural, but, as the case in Virginia demonstrates, historical. Does it really matter, as some claim, that the proposed store location would fall outside the actual core of the Civil War battlefield, where some 30,000 were killed, injured or disappeared? Does building a perimeter of commerce -- with Wal-Mart at the helm -- around the battle area defame or re-shape this "site of memory"?

There are those who argue -- including the Pulitzer prize-winning historian James McPherson -- that the building site that would be occupied by Wal-Mart was in and of itself part of the battle area:

McPherson is expected to testify that the store's site and nearby acres were blood-soaked ground and a Union "nerve center" in the battle. Grant's headquarters and his senior leaders were encamped near the site of the proposed store and Union casualties were treated there or in an area destined to be the store's parking lot, McPherson wrote in a summary of his testimony.

"Among other things, thousands of wounded and dying soldiers occupied the then open fields that included the Walmart site, which is where many of the Union Army hospital tents were located during the battle," McPherson wrote.

The pro-Wal-Mart side claims, on the other hand, that "'There is no indication that any significant historical event occurred on this land.'"

It will be interesting to see how this story develops, especially given the upcoming commemoration of the Civil War. The interest in "historical preservation" in the United States is very uneven. On the one hand, this country seems to favor a "throw away" architectural practice -- build one, build more, and if it doesn't work, tear it down and build it again. Or, if it's old, it's no good. The U.S. is a largely forward-looking society -- rather than honoring "tradition," it likes to see "progress," which often means the building and opening of new, often unnecessary, stores. But at the same time, it is also a country -- like others, I suppose -- that engages in a very selective monumentalization -- Mt. Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, the new World Trade Center.

The American Civil War is a defining piece of U.S. history. Why does Wal-Mart need to build right there, near the battle site of the Battle of the Wilderness? Surely, it is not the only location available. It seems more likely that the company hopes to capitalize on the challenges of the current economy -- perhaps, by linking itself to perceived demands of local tourism as well.

My Visit to Ground Zero

In May 2000, I made my first trip to New York City. I was attending a wedding between a Japanese woman and an American man, and the couple had arranged a tour of the city for some of their guests. It was an ideal first time experience, and I was lucky to be a part of it, essentially for free. We did many of the typical tourist excursions -- the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, Little Italy and Chinatown, a boat tour along the skyline. And, we also stopped outside the Twin Towers, just long enough to get out of our shuttle and shoot several photographs. I really had no understanding of what occurred inside those buildings or in the surrounding area. But I did recall the 1993 bombing and knew that the towers had been, at one time, the tallest buildings in the world. Mainly, my recollection of the towers is limited to the one or two images left behind by my point-and-shoot camera: massive, institutional gray structures that blocked the sun and sky, making it seem like night on the street below. Because it was impossible to capture the buildings in their entirety, most of us tried to catch the top of the towers in our lens (see my photo below, from May 9, 2000). Maybe I am wrong, but I also recall sitting or kneeling on the sidewalk out in front in order to get the best view. And then it was time to board the shuttle again with the remainder of the gawkers, most of whom had never been in the city before.

personal photo, taken May 9, 2000

Since 2000, I've returned to NYC three times; however, because I usually spend time in other areas of the city, I had never gone to Ground Zero until a week or so ago. There were several factors that motivated me to visit the area this time around. First, after the memory course I taught last semester, I thought it was essential that I be able to talk about my direct impressions of the site, particularly since several of my students had already visited Ground Zero and the visitors' center. There is no substitute for being there. Waiting until now has also allowed me to have a more informed encounter with the site; I benefited from studying memory and traumatic events for many years prior to my visit, because I was able to observe and evaluate the scene differently than had I gone with say, only the TV images of planes crashing into the buildings. Finally, the fact that the site is under construction also compelled me to see it now, before the new tower goes up. The traumatic landscape is unstable and in the process of being transformed (though perhaps "transformed" is too strong a word because it signals something final, and I mean to indicate more of an evolution).

I made the trip to Ground Zero with a person who grew up just outside the city. At one time, he had worked briefly in Manhattan. He had last visited the site in December 2001, when the area was heavily protected by chain link fences still peppered with photographs of loved ones, letters, poems and other personal items. He experienced 9-11 while living in the Midwest -- actually, in what some call the "buckle of the Bible Belt," a phrase that to me, has always encompassed multiple points on the U.S. map -- and he had felt, early on, that New York's 9-11 had been "co-opted" by the rest of the country. Yes, of couse 9-11 was a national, collective event. But to him, it was as if suddenly, New York mattered in the Midwest. More than just the stereotypical image of rude people, insane taxi drivers and crime, New York suddenly became "ours," with the flood of "United We Stand" and "God Bless America" bumper stickers soon to come, followed by the yellow ribbon car magnets ("Support the Troops"). In other words, where he lived, the experience of 9-11 seemed to become political quicker than elsewhere. Revolting expressions of nationalism had not only (re-)surfaced, but taken over the entire landscape. Everyone's patriotism was questionable. If you didn't have an American flag in your yard, you were probably "the enemy." This was the logical mindset spawned by the "you are either with us or against us" mentality of the post 9-11 world. In his own words, he writes:

it was odd for New York, or at least certain very specific aspects of New York being embraced suddenly as "our America."  New York has always been regarded, especially in the rural midwest, as essentially "foreign" --- in ethnicity, values, politics, etc.  It felt manipulative and disingenuous the way very specific New Yorkers (Cops, Firemen, First Responders, Rudy Giuliani) were suddenly---it seemed---granted temporary status as exemplary Americans.  It was always and without fail these New Yorkers who were celebrated, not the ordinary citizens---not the Hasidic Jews and the Somali cab drivers and the Puerto Rican restaurant workers, etc.

Then came the 2004 GOP Convention in New York, which took this manipulation to new heights.  911 memories and Ground Zero  was a kind of conquered "Red State territory" in the heart of the enemy.

It is difficult to be at Ground Zero and concentrate on the terror of 9-11 without also reflecting on the way 9-11 was used -- and continues to be used -- politically (a perfect recent example is the debate over whether a mosque should be permitted near the site). While the Ground Zero landscape is about the catastrophic loss of human lives, it is subsequently about other wars (Iraq, Afghanistan); about imperialism and capitalism; about religious freedom and (in)tolerance; about memorialization and urban landscapes. My visit to the site was relatively brief -- maybe 15 minutes -- because, truthfully, there is not that much to see, but a lot upon which we can reflect later on.

We took the subway to Ground Zero, and even though my companion thought the stop for the WTC had been eliminated, we later discovered it still exists, but on a different train than the one we were on. Even if we hadn't known which direction to head when getting off the subway, it would have become quickly apparent by the long line of tourists on the sidewalk and an enormous construction site at the end of the street. We bypassed the tourist line, which was gazing at a bronze-colored wall sculpture commemorating "first responders," and stood at the edge of the sidewalk across the street from the construction area.

The first thing I noticed was the amount of people with cameras out. I told my companion, "I feel guilty taking photographs," but at the same time, it seemed a necessary, important thing to do, as long as it was done in a respectful, unobtrusive way. This is the first photo I took:

I am not positive, but I believe that what we are looking at in the center of the photo is the beginning of the new building, "One World Trade Center," which is scheduled to open in 2013. While looking at this site, I was struck by the emptiness of the landscape, and the fact that the sky is visible. When I stood in front of the Twin Towers in 2000, what I recall is the shadow they produced, and the sliver of sky between them. What's interesting is that the view of this traumatic site of memory is also now obstructed by fences and gates and screens of all kinds. I don't know how much of this has to do with security, and how much is just a regular part of safety on any construction job site, but it certainly adds a sense of secrecy to the whole operation, despite the large banners designed to help viewers understand what the site will look like upon completion (see photos 3 and 4).

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Although it was important to contemplate the construction site, to take in the cramped quarters of the nearby streets and to imagine what the devastation must have been like, I found it more interesting to turn my gaze to the sidewalk area. I think I may have been anticipating a larger, public memorial on the street. But all that was there was this makeshift memorial:

This memorial, to NYC firefighters lost on 9-11 (see large poster), is also a place for people to leave fire and police uniform insignia from all over the world. The fluorescent uniform item in the lower right-hand corner is that of a police officer from Móstoles, just outside Madrid. If one looks carefully, above this memorial is a handwritten sign taped to a building window:

"Vendors are not allowed to sell near or around firehouse (photos/pamphlets/booklets/etc. Please do not purchase in these areas and report them to police. Thanks."

Just around the corner from the sign above, one finds the Tribute WTC Visitor Center, open 10-6 on most days, with a $10 admission fee. We did not go in. For some reason, to do so felt wrong. I had learned enough on the street outside. Nonetheless, I did pick up a pamphlet, and am intrigued by this description of the center:

Tribute Center Tour Guides are intimately connected to the events of September 11, 2001 as survivors, family members who lost loved ones, rescue workers, civilian volunteers, police, firefighters and Lower Manhattan residents and workers. Guides share their personal experience of loss, healing and survival with a factual description of the events, providing the visitor with an unparalleled opportunity to connect with history firsthand.

I am glad I made this visit to Ground Zero, though I must admit I am in opposition to the construction of a new building at this site. I can understand and respect the argument that sees construction as proof of strength and perseverance in the face of tragedy, as well as what comes "natural" to New York. However, the entire reconstruction process has already been marred by design polemics, and to me, there is something very American about the need to rebuild bigger and better and not just let it be. I do like the plans for the actual memorial, but I am resistant to that new memorial being located alongside more commerce and power. Perhaps, when I view the site in coming years, my impressions will change. Also, I should recognize that my Midwestern upbringing also probably colors my perspective on this site and what ought to be done with it.

"We Are Not Here to Reminisce" - Queen Visits Ground Zero Site

Via: NYT

Queen Addresses UN, Places Wreath at Ground Zero
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 7, 2010

Filed at 12:07 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Queen Elizabeth II challenged the United Nations to fight global dangers by ''waging'' peace, then entered ground zero on Tuesday for the first time to honor the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Back in New York after more than three decades, the 84-year-old British monarch turned her eyes toward the future of the World Trade Center: new skyscrapers rising over what was once smoldering debris that had buried loved ones forever.

''We are not here to reminisce,'' she told the world body earlier Tuesday. ''In tomorrow's world, we must all work together as hard as ever if we are truly to be United Nations.''

Not even a record high temperature of 102 degrees, accompanied by a heat advisory, kept the monarch from New York's hallowed ground.

She arrived at the 16-acre site in lower Manhattan late Tuesday afternoon with her husband, Prince Philip. They walked slowly across a wooden walkway that reaches deep over the construction site. Huge cranes hovering overhead were stopped and workers took a break during the queen's visit.

In silence, Elizabeth laid a wreath of flowers on an iron pedestal near the footprint of the trade center's south tower. Bowing her head, she gently brushed her gloved hand against the locally grown red peonies, roses, lilies, black-eyed Susans and other summer blossoms.

Then the queen met dozens of family members and first responders who had lost loved ones as the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

''The queen just was asking me about that day, and how awful it must've been,'' said Debbie Palmer, whose husband, battalion Fire Chief Orio Palmer, was killed. ''She said, `I don't think I've ever seen anything in my life as bad as that. And I said, `Let's hope we never do again.'''

Palmer said of the monarch: ''She's beautiful. She looks like she could be anybody's grandmother.''

The queen wore a two-piece white, blue and beige print dress with long sleeves and a matching brimmed champagne-colored silk hat with flowers.

While there were ''waterfalls coming down my body, there was not a drop of sweat on her face; I don't think royalty sweats,'' joked Nile Berry, 17, son of securities analyst David S. Berry, who died in the south tower, leaving behind three children.

''I think she understood'' the significance of meeting victims' relatives, Nile told The Associated Press, adding that it would take him a while to ''digest'' that he had met the queen.

Elizabeth left the site in a motorcade to tour the British Garden of Remembrance, built to honor the 67 Britons killed in the attack. She met their families there, joining them for a ceremony.

Tim Rosen, who called himself a ''fan of the queen,'' was angling for a glimpse of her at the corner of ground zero. ''She's been through a lot,'' said the 30-year-old attorney. ''She has a certain sense of duty that I like. A very elegant woman.''

''There she is!'' Patricia Farmer, a real estate project manager, shouted when she spotted her near the garden. ''The one in the blue!''

Farmer, who said she was born in Northern Ireland, called Elizabeth ''my queen.''

But not everyone was so enthused. Roman Shusterman held a sign near ground zero that read, ''Queen of British Petroleum,'' the British company whose rig explosion in Louisiana created the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

''The queen hasn't said anything about it because she thinks she's too good for us,'' said Shusterman, 28.

Earlier Tuesday, Elizabeth's familiar formality graced the lectern at the United Nations, where she urged the world body to spearhead an international response to global dangers, while promoting prosperity and dignity for the world's inhabitants.

''It has perhaps always been the case that the waging of peace is the hardest form of leadership of all,'' she said, while praising the U.N. for promoting peace and justice.

Speaking as queen of 16 U.N. member states and head of a commonwealth of 54 countries with a population of nearly 2 billion people, Elizabeth recalled the dramatic changes in the world since she last visited the United Nations in 1957, especially in science, technology and social attitudes.

''In my lifetime, the United Nations has moved from being a high-minded aspiration to being a real force for common good,'' Elizabeth told diplomats from the 192 U.N. member states. ''That of itself has been a signal achievement.''

But she also praised the U.N.'s aims and values -- promoting peace, security and justice; fighting hunger, poverty and disease; and protecting the rights and liberties of every citizen -- which have endured.

''For over six decades the United Nations has helped to shape the international response to global dangers,'' the queen said. ''The challenge now is to continue to show this clear ... leadership while not losing sight of your ongoing work to secure the security, prosperity and dignity of our fellow human beings.''

Elizabeth and Prince Philip flew to New York from Canada for the five-hour visit and departed for London from John F. Kennedy International Airport at around 7 p.m. Tuesday.

------

Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer and John Heilprin at the United Nations and Marc Beja in New York City contributed to this report.

40th Anniversary of May 4, 1970

May 4, 2010 is almost over, and yet, I cannot let this day pass without writing at least a few lines (in fact, it will be May 5 by the time this is posted). Today was the 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings. Although I was not even born yet, I am tied to the events of that day for two reasons - my uncle was a journalism student at Kent State in 1970, and I graduated with two degrees from the university in the 1990s. In 1995, I attended and participated in the 25th year commemoration of the shootings. I often think that my interest in memory goes back to my early experiences at the university, and the yearly debates that surfaced about what to do -- or not -- to commemorate May 4 (photo of students running for cover in a May 4 parking lot)

During my six years in Kent, my feelings about May 4 evolved and matured, as I listened to professors, students, family members, townspeople and poets bear witness (my uncle NEVER talked about May 4 -- it was, in a sense, his secret). As a first-year student, I went to an initial meeting of the "May 4th Task Force," but I was not involved in politics at the time, and I felt that I would need to be were I to become a part of the group. Later, I participated in a silent candelight procession on May 3 around the perimeter of the campus, which ended in the parking lot where the students were shot. This was one of the most moving moments of my time as a Kent State student.

Over the past few days, I have barely been able to keep up with the articles and reports on May 4. Rather than attempting to review the multiple articles out there on Kent State, I will just post links to several, most of which are from the greater northeast Ohio area:

• "Kent State and May 4: a new generation refuses to forget" (in Scene - part 1)
• "A 40-Year Old Tragedy and the Wounds that Never Heal" (in Scene - part 2)
• "On 40th Anniversary of Kent State Shootings, Truth Tribunal Seeks Answers" (in Democracy Now)
• "Kent State Shooting Divided Campus and Country" (on NPR)
• "Shots Still Reverberate for Survivors of Kent State" (on NPR)
• "Vietnam War Still Stirs Passionate Divisions at Kent State May 4 Events" (in Cleveland Plain Dealer)
• "Lives Interrupted" (in Akron Beacon Journal)
• "Kent State: Coming of Age 40 Years after May 4, 1970 Shootings that Stunned America" (in Cleveland Plain Dealer)

The flood of articles is, of course, due to the anniversary year. However, the increased press is also because the May 4 site has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and a new "walking tour" has been constructed to facilitate doing what the stones of the memorial state -- "inquire, learn, reflect." A "visitors' center" is also planned, which will be housed in Taylor Hall, the journalism building that sat in the middle of the protests and the fatal shots.

I am glad that the University has taken steps to acknowledge visibly the physical markers of May 4, or to give voice to those places where a story has been missing. For example, when I was a student at Kent, everyone knew to "look for the bullet hole," and yet, this hole remained unidentified to the everyday observer. I have not yet returned to Kent to visit the campus and see how the tour is laid out, but it seems to be designed to enhance engagement with and reflection on the past, as well as with the present. Kent State did not happen in a vacuum, and hopefully, the tour will provide an appropriate historical context for the events of May 4, so that the memorial and eventual "visitors' center" can be as interactive as possible. A few pictures:

from the KSU website

May 4 Memorial, dedicated 1990 (photo here)

Without a doubt, it is essential to learn what happened on May 4, 1970 in Kent, Ohio.* Unfortunately, part of the learning has, until now, often involved "picking a side," with the choices being "innocent students" versus "evil National Guard." After all this time, hopefully we can do better than that. There are so many ways we can link the local tragedy of May 4 to the national tragedies war produces. When we learn about one May 4, we inevitably find out about others, much like Ariel Dorfman opened many Americans' eyes with The Other September 11.

When we remember the 4 students killed 40 years ago at Kent State, we should take the time to inquire about other unjust deaths, including those perpetrated by our own country. I agree with and like the "Inquire, Learn, Reflect" statement on the stones that form part of the 1990 May 4 Memorial. But perhaps, 20 years after that memorial was unveiled, Kent State is showing the university is ready to go beyond reflection, toward action.

What will it mean to make May 4 a "historical site"? This summer, I plan a visit to Ohio. I will report back with more detailed observations then. For more, see the Kent State May 4 Center website here and the university's Center for Applied Conflict Mangagement.

*Laurel Krause, the sister of one of the May 4 victims, has set up a "Kent State Truth Tribunal: "We hope the Kent State Truth Tribunal will help to heal those involved, establish cause and effect, and shed light on responsibility for the events that transpired on May 4, 1970. We have not set out in pursuit of punitive justice, but rather the restorative justice that comes from collective sharing and healing. The Truth Tribunal honors those whose lives have been directly affected by the killings and also marks the importance of Kent State as an influential chapter in the history of protest, democracy, civil rights and public security in the United States."

In memory of R.B.

Kent State Shooting Site as a National Historic Site?

Type in "Kent State" in Google images, and the first picture to come up is this one:

I have used this image in several courses when talking about the concept of collective memory, as well as postmemory. Most of my students have seen this photograph, but many aren't sure of the historical period or the place. And though I myself was not even born when this photo was taken, it has a certain significance for me because I hold two degrees from Kent State University, and my uncle was a student here when the shootings occurred. In fact, not only was he a student, but he witnessed many of the events that took place. From my grandmother, I learned about the craziness and anxiety of the weekend of May 4, 1970, and how she and my grandfather struggled to get in touch with their son, hoping he was okay. My uncle was a journalism student, and the journalism building was (I think it still is) located very near to where some of the (fatal) shootings took place -- in an area that is now a parking lot. In 1995, I attended a vigil to mark the 25th anniversary of the shootings; Mary Ann Vecchio, the woman in this photograph -- who, at the time, was a runaway from Florida, not a student on the campus -- was one of the speakers.

Looking back, it seems that every year the campus became divided over whether or not this event ought to "be forgotten" or "be remembered." Letters to the editor of the Daily Kent Stater and the Record Courier complained that the campus and town were stuck in the past or only affiliated with the shootings. Others spoke of the importance of continuing to preserve the memory of those who were wounded and killed so as to prevent something similar from happening again. Still others juxtaposed the tragic loss of life in Vietnam with the "four dead in Ohio." Personally, I never understood why the debate had to be so confined to the "forget/remember" dichotomy. I often think that it was at Kent State that my interest in memory began -- long before I began to study it in graduate school, and in the Spanish context.

My mother just sent me an article regarding putting the Kent State shooting site on the National Register of Historic Places.

From: Cleveland.com (AP)

Kent State shooting site recommended for place on historic register

By Associated Press

December 04, 2009, 2:40PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio is asking that the site of the 1970 Kent State University shootings be added to the National Register of Historic Places.

A state panel on Friday formally nominated 17 acres of the Kent State campus where Ohio National Guard members opened fire on students protesting the Vietnam War. Four students at the northeast Ohio school were killed and nine were wounded.

State historians say the area where the shootings occurred has national significance and should be preserved.

Ohio's recommendation goes to the National Park Service for review and a final decision on whether the Kent State site is put on the historic places register. Ohio Historical Society spokeswoman Kim Schuette (SHOO'-tee) says that process is expected to take 90 days.

To me, what is more interesting than the article itself are the comments left by readers following the article -- "they need to give it up and move on" versus "After reading several of these shallow comments, Ohio needs more than ever to guarantee that this site is guaranteed a place on the National Register of Historic Places if only to make us all THINK!" Many of the comments are politically-charged, mostly railing against "leftist" or "communist" college professors and students, implying that the National Guard was right in firing upon the crowd. There are also remarks on Vietnam and Cambodia and George Bush and Iraq.

The debate stirred up every time one mentions Kent State reveals how entrenched the memory of a traumatic event can become, on both a personal and a collective level. It also highlights the place where politics and memory meet and how one historical period can become conflated with another. Does "remembering" Kent State imply, for some, the promotion of a particular political agenda, which they still associate with 60s-era movements? Is this debate over ownership of the past and the narratives created about that past? Who gets to decide who remembers and why?