Reading Reflection Week 1

To begin this reading reflection, I wanted to start by reacting to two extracts from the Brian Ladd piece. Ladd writes that “memories often cleave to the physical settings of events”, but then he also points out that “not every structure and old site can be preserved; cities are not museums” (Ladd, 2). I feel that this fundamental contradiction, which stems from a conflict that is occurring on a societal level, can be seen in Germany but also in the United States.

It seems to me that, for many people, monuments and large physical structures come together to form a significant representation of one’s national identity. For example, as an American, I identify with depictions of the Statue of Liberty. Whenever I see the Eiffel Tower, I think about not only the tower itself but the people it symbolizes. I am sure there are monuments that the people of Germany also personally identify with as a whole (such as the Brandenburg Gates). However, this connection to a monument that is a symbol can also be more personalized. I connect more specifically to the Space Needle in Seattle because I am a Seattleite, and even more specifically I connect to a large sculpture in my hometown that was built for my middle school, because I feel a large part of my identity connects back to that sculpture. In this way, I believe symbols of national identity can become more specified over time, and then we come away with a collection of monuments and physical constructions that symbolize the identity of a group of people.

With this in mind, what happens if a physical manifestation of one’s identity is put on the table for destruction? This patriotic idea of cultural and nationalist preservation (that I believe many of us receive early on in our educations) directly conflicts with the practical notion that we cannot preserve everything, that time must continue. I wonder how I would react if someone proposed the demolition of the sculpture at my school, or the Space Needle, or the Statue of Liberty. I suspect that most Americans would be outraged if this occurred. However, what if America was simply out of space? Or, what if the Statue of Liberty became a symbol of oppression and a dark history? (I think some may argue that this has already occurred for many people who have discovered the myth of the “American Dream”). We have a fundamental conflict here of Western values: preservation of and pride of national identity, with the desire to be rid of a shameful past, in addition to the continuous capitalist pursuit of profit and efficiency.

This article relates very specifically to my community placement at Die Gärtnerei because it is a coop campus that is built on the grounds of a cemetery. A program that is helping create community for refugees, who are constantly adding to and changing the definition of Germany national identity, is replacing what was once a Jewish cemetery in a German city. Many would argue that the cemetery should be entirely preserved, while others might argue that the city is running out of space for projects like this that give people a second chance, but the big question here harkens back to the Ladd reading: is the Coop Campus destroying an image of national identity, or is it just time to change and make a new symbol of the national identity of Germany.

I connected less directly to the Anderson reading, but one passage I pulled out was the explanation for imagined nationalism. Anderson says nationalism is imagined “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” (Anderson, 49) The first thing I thought of when I read this passage was how, in my conversations with many Americans, their images of who makes up America or what it  means to be “American” can differ so much from person to person. If this national identity is as imagined as Anderson argues, serious problems can arise when we ask questions about commemorating national identities in the first place. Discussing how to best represent national identity without first discussing the definition of that identity is extremely problematic.