Why do you think they did that?
Under what conditions is it a good idea to take down monuments in order to help people "move on"?
Under what conditions is it important to remember traumatic events?
Is this one of those cases?
What made Hurricane Katrina a moment worth remembering other than the hide watermark?
Only answer this question after you've read the entire book.
America is, indeed, keen on forgetting. Some traumas are too small to be commemorated, and some are so large that the phrase "Never forget" is appended to them. Perhaps Katrina, in the case of the floodwater mark, is of the intermediate sort that warranted a memorial but which the people of Louisiana would simply like to put behind them. Painting over a memorial, of course, does not erase the living memory of the past's trials, but it may make it harder for future generations to be burdened by the difficulties of those who came before. This is what the painting over of the high water mark represents: an urge to move forward by erasing the visible evidence of the past, an act that is in many respects equal parts futile and harmful. Though perhaps, given time and further alterations to the climate of the planet, the Louisianans will be justified for painting over the Katrina high water mark because they will, unfortunately, have to put up a memorial for a more deadly and remarkable storm to come.
ReplyDeleteTaking down monuments is a contentious topic, but the criteria for doing so need not be so difficult to outline. A memorial ought to serve as a way for future generations to "remember" the past in a personal way. It ought not commemorate the glory of trauma; should we erect statues of a personified Katrina laying waste to Louisiana? Therefore, we should not keep statues of slave-holders or those who fought for the persistence of slavery standing. But we should memorialize the suffering of the enslaved not in celebration of that agony, but to remember the past in a way that is more personal than scanning the pages of the annals of history. Memorials cease to be useful, and can be taken down, when they do not serve to communicate the past to the present in a meaningful and insightful way. Tear down the statues of Confederate generals, of Napoleon I, of Cecil Rhodes, and in so doing move away from the celebration of suffering. Instead, build monuments to the collective people who changed history, who lived through great and terrible events. Commemorate history, do not exalt it.
The Katrina high water mark is representative of a monument that actually speaks to devastation, that serves as a reminder of the impact of history on those who have lived through it. It is not worthy of being painted over because it is a testament; it does not stand as a celebration of the power of nature to bring misery, but commemorates the suffering of the miserable. It also shows, in its way, the power of humanity to build back. The mark stands as evidence of human durability and power; a place once so embattled by storm and ruin still stands. What does that say about the endurance human will? The dual nature of the mark makes its erasure a tragic one, a reminder that America tries to forget what it can. Some things are too big to forget, so we try to minimize them, and that is another tragedy altogether. But some things still worthy of remembrance, of being communicated to the future, are swept under the rug in the hopes that the act of forgetting will somehow make the future a less ruin-haunted place.
-Eli Grasso
DeleteI do not believe that there is any good-enough reason that can be applied to this situation to justify painting over this monument. I can understand their goal in removing it: an attempt to settle the minds of those who would have seen it, in worry that it would cause them fear of future occurrences or force them to relive the painful past. However, I believe monuments such as these are much too meaningful and important to be painted over merely because of a “what if” of people reliving the worst moments of their lives. Of course, PTSD is nothing to write off; having experienced it myself, I can comfortably say that it is not something I would want anyone to experience regularly, especially just by driving by a monument on their way to work. But I do not support taking down monuments to help people “move on.” These monuments will stand forever, bringing light to the darker times that we as people have overcome together, informing the public and sparking interest in those who may not have been as aware of these catastrophes.
ReplyDeleteTo me, remembering catastrophe is crucial for our society. This does not only apply to catastrophe such as Katrina, but to those such as what the workers in The Great Escape had to go through; any event where a subsect of humanity met their lowest point due to a larger entity, whether that be an epidemic, a tornado, or a corporation trafficking hundreds under false promises of a brighter future. This is because we cannot learn from nothing. We must look back on past failures and change towards a better solution. Not only is remembering important for the future, but for the past as well. Catastrophe usually involves wrongful death, and these men and women do not deserve to be forgotten, nor do they deserve to be remembered only as a statistic.
I believe that the painting over of the high water mark is one of the many innumerable cases that must be remembered. The Ataloa Theater seats 1,089 patrons. Now, imagine that theater entirely full - people crowding the aisles and many on the stage as well. Hurricane Katrina spent less than eight hours over land, yet an estimated 1,800 human beings lost their lives to her devastation. With such a major impact on the lives, the land, and the infrastructure, Hurricane Katrina should never be forgotten. It impacted more than that - the world economy felt its toll. The workers from the book continued feeling its toll for 10 years at the least, having it being the basis of their prompting to come overseas in the first place, and not having David, et al. v. Signal International, LLC begin until 2015.
Painting over the highwater mark was an action taken to move on from the memories of devastation, but in doing so they erased all the other memories with it. Countless lives were lost, but the people who survived also lost everything. Their childhood and lifelong homes, family picture albums, places of worship, schools, everything. The memory of losing these things is hard to remember, but painting over that water mark also buried all the memories of what was lost. All the lessons learned, the relationships, the memories, all pushed aside to look toward the future. The only thing that remained was the time after, the rebuilt houses and towns that held no remembrance for the people that lived there. It is important to have the memorial so that people can allow themselves to look back on their happy memories, allow themselves to long for what came before.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Katrina was a disaster that lead to immeasurable loss within the communities it hit. Peoples' lives as they knew them were ripped away and destroyed within a matter of days. However, hurricane Katrina is also a story of survival. Those who survived the hurricane were able to because of the actions of those around them: neighbors helping neighbors, first responders, and many emergency relief foundations. The monument of Katrina's height should not have been erased because it stood as a reminder of both the devastation the hurricane brought and the power of human resilience.
ReplyDeleteThe painting over the highwater-mark could have been done for many reasons. These reasons range from the pessimistic, critical view in the book to a more nuanced rationale. Some monuments were moved due to construction, others because many feared a potential degradation in land prices by the reminder of how high floodwaters can reach. If people need to be helped by removing a monument, it can bring discussion to other areas as well. It is easy to paint negative intention for this act, as for any debatable act, but rationale is usually far more complex than simply attacking the past for self-gain.
ReplyDelete