Memorializing the Victims of Terrorism

Classifying Memorials

Memorializing those killed through acts of terrorism can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Memorials honouring these victims consist primarily but not exclusively of physical memorials, spontaneous memorials, and formally recognized days of remembrance. Other secondary forms of memorialization include the creation of victims’ groups and organizations, government statements and responses regarding the victims of terrorism, and commissions and inquiries regarding terrorist events. Overall, identifying and specifying the ways in which the victims of terrorism are memorialized is a somewhat challenging task given the malleability of the terms associated with terrorism, and the various forms and types of memorials that exist.   

The section below presents a typology of some of the various kinds of memorials that have been and may be used to honour the victims of terrorism.

Physical Memorials

Physical memorials are among the most common forms of memorialization. As they relate to terrorism, research indicates that there are many issues to address when physical memorials are being considered as a viable option for memorializing victims. Many of these issues are addressed in the works of human and social geographers.  For example, Rankin (2003) notes that geographers generally view space as situated places guided and highly influenced by social processes. Under such processes, locations and places become susceptible to imposed meanings and in turn generate social meaning. What this implies for the memorialization victims of terrorism is that prospective locations of physical memorials require significant consideration in the memorialization process. In the United States, the Arlington Cairn memorial for the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 is an example of the ways in which the location of a monument can pose significant challenges in the establishment of a memorial.  Dispute over the Cairn was fuelled by a request from the members of victims’ families who were seeking to erect the monument at Arlington National Cemetery – a cemetery for American war veterans (Britton 2007). Based on the emotional appeal of family members and despite initial refusals to the request, U.S congress later agreed to construct the memorial in the military cemetery. Shay (2005) presents a similar situation regarding the memorialization of victims of "hostile activities"in Israel.[4]  According to Shay (2005), efforts to construct a memorial for the victims of hostile activities within close proximity to a military cemetery drew much debate. At issue was whether the chosen location for the monument connoted the idea that the deaths of the victims of hostile activities were similar to those of soldiers.  Despite this debate, the monument still remains at the Israeli military site on which it was initially erected.

The design of an impending memorial can also be a source of dispute among the various stakeholders involved in the memorialization process.  An example is evident from the dispute that has erupted regarding the World Trade Center (WTC) site upon which the 9/11 memorial is to be erected and the business centre developed.  At issue here are the competing visions regarding the outcome of the site between the WTC United Family Group and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). The LMDC’s proposal to build a commercial centre over the area of the site where a significant proportion of victims’ remains were recovered was a major problem during the memorialization process (Couch et al. 2008). For the victims’ families, the area from which human remains were retrieved (and may still be buried) should be a site reserved for the sacred act of memorialization rather than profane commercial enterprise. To protect the area from being built upon, the WTC United Family Group, with the assistance of politicians, drafted legislation to protect the site. As a result, the plans proposed by the LMDC were subsequently discarded. This case illustrates the importance of recognizing and acknowledging the various and competing objectives surrounding the selection of a memorial site.  

The memorialization process regarding the Northern Irish Troubles is another case that illustrates the importance in acknowledging the meanings conveyed to the public via physical memorials. At the request of the Northern Ireland Office, a commission was established to identify the issues associated with implementing various memorial schemes for the victims of The Troubles. Of note in the resulting report is a brief discussion of issues to be taken into consideration where physical monuments are concerned. These critical issues are captured in the following statement:

What should be the tone and message of such a monument? How could it take a form which would recognize the suffering of victims from diverse backgrounds in a way which would seem both acceptable and fitting to them… the understandable concern of relatives, friends and colleagues is not merely that the life and death of a victim should be remembered, but that it should be reflected in a memorial which can be treated with due respect by those who encounter it (Bloomfield 1998, 46)

Again, this case highlights the significance that the potential meanings memorials may have for the victims, their families and the general public.  It also draws attention to another concern that bears some consideration in the memorial planning process: the general public’s reactions to the memorial(s). As many academics have noted, memorializing is a highly political issue (Hite 2007; Graham and Whelan 2008). As such, public responses to memorials, and in this case physical monuments, may be subject to reactions as diverse as the communities in which they exist.  The events following the creation of a monument for Peruvian victims of terrorism are exemplary of this situation.

A Peruvian memorial to victims of terrorism - "The Eye that Cries" - was initially controversial because the inscription of the names of both victims and supposed perpetrators of terrorist activities were made on the same monument. However, this issue was heightened with the arrest and charge of a key political figure involved in many terrorist-related conflicts in the region (Hite 2007). In protest of the arrest and charge, the monument was vandalized and many of the names doused in paint. What may be gathered from this case is that "simple acts of memorialization" such as inscribing names to monuments (or other attributes common to physical memorials) have significant social and political implications that must be addressed when considering memorializing the victims of terrorism.  

Similar concerns were also addressed during the commemoration process for the victims of the March 11, 2004 terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. Many people were of the viewpoint that the national memorial should honour all the people who had been victimized over the past 30 years by the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), the group responsible for many of the terrorist attacks in Spain (Abend and Pingree 2004).[5] Despite this request, the monument that was eventually erected was dedicated only to the victims of the March 11 bombings.  One way to address these issues of inclusion and exclusion regarding memorializing victims may be to consider Bloomfield’s (1998) suggestion that physical memorials avoid presenting certain victims as more deserving over others; rather, they should seek to incorporate key words and statements than can transcend differences and promote change and remembrance.

These examples all highlight the ways in which "meaning" features in attempts to memorialize victims of terrorism. As the literature has stressed, implicit and explicit messages that emerge from monuments and or memorials have a real effect on the people that come into contact with them. Therefore, there may be some benefit gained from utilizing policies that examine the narratives attached to proposed memorial and monument schemes. 

The paper has thus far focused on approaches that could be used to address prospective memorials, especially physical memorials. However, one can also look towards the current landscape of physical memorials in Canada for an understanding of the ways to address some of the issues involved where considerations are being made to memorialize Canadian victims of terrorism. The monuments erected to honour the victims of Air India Flight 182 illustrate some examples of physical memorials that have been developed to memorialize Canadian victims of terrorism.  According to the Air India Report, the first formally recognized physical memorial for the victims of Air India Flight 182 was erected on June 23, 1986, at Ahakista on Dunmanus Bay , Ireland (Air India Report 2008).  In terms of recent monuments, the June 23, 2008, dedication of an Ottawa memorial for the Air India victims on the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism (June 23, 2008) serves as the most recent memorial erected for the victims of the bombing. Comprised of a walkway and a bronze plaque on which the names of the victims are inscribed, the memorial site was donated and designed by the National Capital Commission and the $70,000 cost of the renovation was covered by Public Safety Canada (Public Safety Canada 2008).  Other recent memorials for the victims of the Air India bombing include a sundial and wall etched with the names of the victims that was unveiled in Toronto on June 23, 2007, and a similar wall along with a playground that was unveiled in Vancouver in July 2007. Public Safety Canada notes that the cost of this memorial is shared by the federal government and the government of British Columbia, while the land for the site was donated by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation (Public Safety Canada 2007a). Similarly, the $625,000 cost for the Toronto memorial is also shared between the federal and provincial government, with land for the site donated by the City of Toronto (Public Safety Canada 2007b).  Overall, these recent monuments reflect partnerships between the federal, provincial and municipal governments (Air India Report 2008).  

Another important dimension of physical memorials in Canada can be found in war memorials. Though not particularly related to terrorism, war monuments and memorials constitute a significant proportion of the physical memorials that occupy the Canadian memorial landscape and as such, should be acknowledged in any discussion regarding the role physical memorials play in commemorating lives lost to violence. War memorials commemorating the lives of soldiers can be found in most Canadian cities and towns.  In his genealogy of Canadian war memorials, Shipley (1987) shows that the process of memorializing Canadian victims of war is one that involves many of the logistical issues associated with establishing physical memorials for other types of events. According to Shipley, many war memorials are the result of insistence from various stakeholder groups such as veterans’ associations, governments and politicians, and community associations such as women’s and social groups. In terms of costs, Shipley (1987) notes that funding for memorials erected during the 1920s and 1930s came from organizational donations, fundraisers and individual contributions.  It might be assumed that these funding sources still serve as the primary sources of funding for memorials erected today. Finally, the upkeep of many war memorials and monuments is an important facet of the war memorialization process. According to Shipley, war monuments and memorials are maintained primarily because some people see value in their preservation; however, their on-going care continues to be an issue for many municipalities, to whom responsibility for their upkeep often falls.

Today, Canadian war monuments and memorials are maintained through a variety of means. Apart from individual donations made towards the preservation of these sites, Veterans Affairs Canada has also taken an active role in the conservation process.  For example, the department operates a Cenotaph/Monument Restoration Program which provides financial assistance to municipal governments, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, historical organizations, and charitable organizations and associations seeking to preserve war monuments (Veterans Affairs Canada).  A similar approach is taken in the United Kingdom where war monuments and memorials are maintained primarily by the War Memorials Trust, a charity that works to preserve all war memorials in the nation (Department of Constitutional Affairs 2007). The Trust also provides grants to public and private groups and organizations, and people seeking to maintain memorials in their communities and jurisdictions. The maintenance of physical memorials, such as monuments, can benefit from the contributions made by government or state-based initiatives geared toward preserving such forms of memory.

Given their extensive presence in Canadian society, war memorials and monuments indeed provide key opportunities for policy makers and researchers to gauge some of the technical issues associated with establishing physical memorials.  In addition, some recent research also suggests that these forms of memorials also provide exemplars of the complex ways meaning and narratives feature for the logistical components regarding physical memorials. For example, Gordon and Osborne (2004) assert that war memorials are often laden with symbolic meanings regarding national identity. In their research on Confederation Square and the National War Memorial, Gordon and Osborne (2004) chart the history of Canadian war memorials of the last century and the impact that these memorials have had on Canadian national identity.  According to the authors, early instances of identity shaping through memorials can be found with the efforts taken in the 1920s to establish a war memorial in Ottawa. As the authors note, the key premise that governed many of the proposed ideas regarding a future monument was the idea that the monument to be erected must convey notions of heroism and patriotism while simultaneously enhancing the national image of the nation’s capital. The memorial of choice, the National War Memorial, was thought to convey all of these sentiments; however, its erection at Confederation Square in 1938 was received with discontent by some Canadians. According to Gough (2004), Canadians were displeased with the monument’s title ("The Response") which was viewed as an implicit affirmation of Britain’s control over Canada, and by the fact that the monument was designed by a non-Canadian.  Another example of a Canadian case where a war memorial was met with conflict is the Beaumont Hamel Newfoundland Memorial battleground. This case is especially interesting because it was created to honour the memory of Canadian, Scottish and British soldiers. A primary issue that has plagued the memorial has been the ownership of the memorial (Gough 2007).  Given the presence of the various nationalities being commemorated at and through the site, the issue as to whom the memorial truly belongs and represents has been a critical point of contention.  Issues regarding the inaccurate presentation and lack of facts and information regarding the events commemorated at the battlegrounds have also resulted in contention for many. According to Gough (2004), the accuracy of dates, times and actions represent critical moments of truth for the various social groups that come in contact with the memorial.  As such, any deviation from what may be considered "truth" by a particular group may indirectly undermine the memorialization of victims of terrorist and terrorist like events.

Finally, one can also learn from the 1989 Montréal Massacre in which fourteen women were murdered at l’Ècole polytechnique at the University of Montréal in Québec. Though the classification (or declassification) of this event as terrorist may be open for debate, it is nonetheless recognized as a historic Canadian example of a mass killing involving Canadian citizens. In particular, this case is also exemplary of a non-terrorist act of violence that bears some characteristic features of acts of terrorism, namely the presence of hate and stimulating fear amongst a class of people.  The assailant’s hatred towards "feminists" was one of several key factors that led to the massacre (Weston and Aubry 2007).  In short, there are some insights that can be gained from the ways this event has been and continues to be memorialized through the use of physical monuments.

Over the past eighteen years since its occurrence, the victims of the Montréal Massacre have been memorialized primarily through memorial services and the development of various memorial monuments. Monuments commemorating the event can be found in major Canadian cities such as Montréal, Vancouver, and Toronto, as well as in smaller cities and towns. In addition, monuments have been further localized to include areas such as college and university campuses and local community parks. The funding for these physical monuments may come from a wide array of sources depending on the context in which they are being erected. For example, memorials built on college and university campuses may be funded by these institutions, while different levels of government may provide funding for monuments at public sites such as parks. In the context of this particular massacre, funding for memorials also came from various advocacy groups (Burk 2006). 

The preceding pages have noted some of the key issues associated with utilizing physical memorials to memorialize the victims of terrorism. Based on the case of the Air India tragedy, one key factor that must be addressed when attempting to memorialize is timing. The earliest, formal, physical memorial was erected in Ireland the year immediately following the tragedy, while the earliest Canadian memorials were erected decades later. Overall, the literature indicates that the timeframe of particular memorial projects following a terrorist event is critical not only for the victims, but for society as a whole.  Logistical issues such as costs, location and the upkeep of physical memorials are also important factors to consider in the memorialization process. As evidenced in the conflicts regarding the Beaumont Hamel Memorial, efficient upkeep of the site, accessibility to the site and accuracy of information depicted in and around the site are all factors that require careful consideration in any endeavour to establish a physical memorial.

It is also important to consider the "cultural life" of a memorial in discussions regarding physical memorials. According to Rigney (2008), the cultural lives of monuments are as significant as their physical appearance. For Rigney, preserving the cultural lives of monuments involves peoples’ willingness to reinvest in monuments not only through commemoration but also through media representations of and human engagement with the monuments. As such, it may be beneficial to consider the various ways through which citizens can be encouraged to take active roles in memorializing (i.e. encouraging citizens to visit memorial sites).  Finally, careful consideration must be given to the implicit and explicit meanings that become attached to memorials and monuments. As commenters have noted, attention must be given to the ways particular narratives shape memorials and the ways in which "other" or underlying objectives take precedence in the memorialization process (Gough 2007; Nevin 2005; Hite 2007).  In addition, the presence of competing narratives may in turn obscure the voices of victims and victims’ families seeking to memorialize their loved ones. As Gough (2007, 700) suggests, "memorial schemes, by their very nature, often have to prioritize one story over another, with the result that entire swathes of memory - and by extension, layers of topography - can be rendered invisible." Therefore, careful attention must be given to the multiple experiences being acknowledged in memorials, as well the competing objectives of all stakeholders involved in the memorialization process.