It is a bright, Indian summer afternoon in the Litchfield Hills, and the downtown streets of this tourist mecca look invitingly peaceful.
But the communication lines connecting First Selectwoman Ruth Epstein to the outside world have been anything but peaceful for two weeks as the passions aroused by the 9/11 tragedy have turned Kent into a national lightning rod over terrorism, Islam and the role towns should play in memorializing the dead.
Epstein, a former journalist who is stepping down after two terms as first selectwoman, was approached more than a year ago by Peter Gadiel, the father of James Gadiel, a young Kent native who worked as a trader in the World Trade Center and perished in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Gadiel suggested that the town consider erecting a plaque at town hall in memory of his lost son.
"I told Gadiel that I thought that was a fine idea because Jamie Gadiel was a lovely young man who had grown up in town and we all knew from the schools," Epstein said. "All we needed to decide was where the memorial should go and what would be the wording on the plaque."
But negotiations broke down this summer after Gadiel contacted Epstein with this proposed wording: "James Gadiel, lifelong resident of Kent, murdered in the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001."
Epstein said that she felt torn between the legitimate request of a family for a memorial, and what she felt certain would be objections by residents to the "inflammatory tone" of the proposed plaque. She turned for help to Selectman Bruce Adams, a popular retired history teacher who had taught James Gadiel at the Kent public schools and will succeed Epstein as first selectman this month.
Together, Epstein and Adams researched the wording on other 9/11 memorials. They could find no reference to "Muslim terrorists" or similar language, but they continued talking with Gadiel to reach an agreement. But when those talks broke down, the board of selectmen voted in September against using Gadiel's wording on a plaque that would be displayed on town property.
"Language is extremely important, and words can either heal or hurt people," Epstein said. "And we just didn't feel that this proposed wording reflected the diverse, welcoming town that Kent has come to be."
Epstein said she was particularly concerned because Kent has three private schools with many foreign students and a lively community of artists and writers. She was concerned that the proposed wording might offend Muslims who work in or visit Kent.
Gadiel, the volunteer director for a 9/11 victims' group, 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation, protested the selectmen's decision in an October op-ed piece in the Litchfield County Times, and the controversy soon went viral on conservative websites and Fox News.
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly devoted a segment of his show on Sept. 29 to the Gadiel plaque and has vowed that he'll charter a bus and "march into Kent" if the town doesn't agree to Gadiel's proposed wording.
Gadiel said he believes there has been a deliberate movement across the country to "deny" that Arab terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, a suppression of the truth that Gadiel said has deeply offended those who lost family members in the 2001 attacks. Memorials for 9/11 victims from New York to California, Gadiel said, have consistently failed to identify the terrorists who caused the tragedy.
"This is political correctness in the extreme because they make it sound like these buildings just collapsed," he said.
"If you look at Holocaust memorials around the world, they do mention the German perpetrators. The Pearl Harbor memorial does not mention the Japanese, but the museum all around the memorial is all about the rise of Japanese militarism in the 1940s. So, there's been no attempt to whitewash history elsewhere, but with 9/11 there is this pattern of denying the perpetrators."
Over the past two weeks, after attacks on Epstein and Kent on conservative blogs, and then the O'Reilly show, Epstein has been flooded with e-mails and phone messages from across the country, most of them critical of the town's position.
"I hope you and your family are murdered by terrorists," one e-mail to Epstein read. Another said: "Hope your town is the first to fall in a nuclear holocaust."
John Milnes Baker, a Kent architect, is one of the few residents of Kent who has surfaced to agree with Gadiel. In an e-mail to Epstein Monday, Baker wrote: "To sanitize this memorial in the name of politically correct 'sensitivity' to the imagined feelings of purported 'Muslim families who live and work in Kent or who might visit the community' is absurd."
But, during a walking tour of downtown Kent on Monday, few people agreed with this position.
Jerry White is a veteran of the Korean conflict and a former Army reservist who served on the committee that just spent two years raising funds for a new war memorial on Maple Avenue in Kent. He was given Kent's Veteran of the Year award this year, and seems to confirm Epstein's conclusion that most residents support the selectmen's position.
"I spent a year fighting in Korea, but that doesn't make me hate the Chinese," White said. "Using wording like 'murdered by terrorists' isn't appropriate for a memorial. Language like that will just inflame Muslims, and Lord knows we've already got too many problems in the world to invite trouble like that."
Source: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-kent-memorial-1110.artnov10,0...
Puma
How does the wording honor James?
1how does stating the truth dishonor him?
2It doesn't at all. I think this father needs more time to come to terms with losing his son. Maybe then he can come up with something less bitter to honor his son.
3shouldn't a memorial be to honor somebody's life, not the horrific way they died?
4That's my understanding of a memorial Snarky.
5what is he said muslim extremists instead of muslim terrorists, would that be OK? I mean I don't see the NEED for it to say that, but families typically write their own wording, if it is what the dad wants, I'd be OK with it. I mean it says he was murdered by muslim terrorists, is that not true? I can't see it offending any muslim that is not a terrorist. The two are not synonomus who eachother. And If you cannot separate the two youve got bigger worries.
6To me, saying at the end that James was killed in the 9/11 attack on New York would be enough, people will know what that means for generations to come, just as they know what saying someone was killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor means.
I would want people to walk away from my son's memorial thinking about my son, not the people who killed him.
7maybe it should say he "tragically lost his life in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 by dillusioned muslim extremists"
8why does it even have to say muslim? like the article states, holocaust memorials don't mention germans
9"I would want people to walk away from my son's memorial thinking about my son, not the people who killed him. " well when your son/daughter dies and you errect a memorial, word it how you wish.
10exactly steph. plus this does nothing to rectify the problem. and will probably just encourage hatred for years to come.
11they do mention the German perpetrators
12several holocaust memorials show or state that the N@zis were responsible - not all N@zis were german.
13crap. well whatever. i don't like that either.
14Well Hainan, since he wants to erect the memorial with the inflammatory language on town property, the town gets a say it what it says. They have other residents to consider.
15yeah, that's why i thought the article said that they didn't, they mention the n@zis, but not the germans specifically
16to hide who committed the crime is to deny it. we need to stop the pc cleaning of history. fact is fact - his son and over 3000 other souls were slaughtered by muslim terrorists and have left a huge hole a few blocks south of me. All were MURDERED by followers of Allah - Muslims. Ask anyone here and they will tell you the same. Murdered on September 11, 2001 by Muslims. Many still suffering and dying today - sicknesses caused by Muslim terrorism.
17then if i am murdered by a black person, i totally want it to mention that on the memorial. what an awesome way to honor my memory.
18Does it really need to be said for the Town's people to know who was involved with 9/11?
19and the generations that follow. our current ones barely know who was on what side during WWI & WWII.
20You just support a monument to being pissed off.
21The proposed language is not a memorial to his, but rather to the act that killed him.
22How is inflamatory to speak the truth, this is where the problem lies. This wasn't some random act of violence.
23Maybe it should say he was murdered simply for being American, by those extremists who fight for JIhad???
then every person we kill in war should have a memorial saying "killed by american troops"
24I agree to that, if we are the aggressors, and it's civilians that were killed, and those civilians were killed on purpose. Since that hasn't happened...
25Historic record and the Pentagon would disagree with on that Dave.
26
27"You just support a monument to being pissed off. "
This is the truth of the matter. I totally agree.
Look, if you want to stir up hatred, go to one you right-wing Glenn Beck rallies or whatever. But if you're looking to memorialize 9/11, you're going to have to soften your language a bit. It's just a very inflammatory way to word this. This is obvi.
28It is possible for the truth to be inflammatory Hainan. The use of the word muslim is pointless. Does it really matter the religion of the terrorists? Is a muslim terrorist worse than any other terrorist? Does the Oklahoma City memorial say "(insert name) killed by white, christian American terrorist"?
29IMO, the memorial should reiterate the fact that the terrorists did this in the name of their religion. McViegh didn't bomb the OK government building in the name of his religion, so it's pointless to name his "religion".
30WHY???? what good would that do??? who cares what religion anybody is? all this does is perpetuate hatred and racism
31If you don't get it, you probably never will. These terrorists killed Americans in the name of their religion. They didn't do it to further their nation. It's important to keep that in the minds of the people. If we water it down, in a few generations no one will really remember. Do we hate the Japanese because of what they did at Pearl Harbor? No, but we do remember the dangers to be had ba an imperialistic society.
32Please don't speak down to me about "getting it." You don't own 9/11 just because you vote Republican. You have no superior moral position to flaunt on this issue. It happened to me and everyone here as much as it happened to you.
33this isn't watering it down. it's inappropriate for a memorial. it's not to memorialize the attack. it's to memorialize a person.
34If you don't get why it's unnecessary and inflammatory you never will. The proposed language does nothing to honor his son.
As I pointed out before, he wants to post this on Town property. The Town has every right to object to the language.
35A person killed by terrorist who killed for their Muslim faith. It's important to remember, and remind.
36Then you'd agree that we should raise a memorial in Iraq to honor the civilians we slaughtered, all in the name of the Christian president George Bush, who announced he'd made the decision after consulting with "his higher father."
It could read "At least 1 million civilians were murdered here by the illegal American invasion, led by the Christian president George Bush."
37Since you have no way of proving that the US killed 1 million civilians, and you can't adequately prove the invasion was illegal, that would be a falshood.
38I can prove that we've killed at least 100,000, the most conservative estimate that exists. Some independent groups of doctors have placed that number at 1,000,000. 100,000 still several orders of magnitude more than were killed on 9/11. There have been many that feel the current Iraq War is a terrorist act.
My point isn't how many civilians your buddy GWB murked in a war based on obvious lies. My point is, it's a remarkably inflammatory way to phrase a memorial.
39That's the best you can come up with?
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the war was illegal and breached the UN Charter - and it doesn't matter what you think of the UN, the US is a member and uses its rules as it sees fit. Even neo-con Richard Perle admitted it crossed the line when he said "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."
And there's plenty of evidence to support the one million civilians death toll - there are people who deny the Holocaust ever happened, so unanimous agreement isn't necessary.
40Start naming the people that America killed on purpose. Make sure you don't include any that were killed by IEDs or suicide bombers. I've not seen any reports that can be corroborated with any sort of accuracy. We have visual proof the holocaust happened. Since there are people within the UN that think the holocaust didn't happen, I would have to say that severly hurts their credibility.
The wording of the plaque is accurate, even if you don't like it.
41The father's plaque wouldn't be a memorial to James but to his father's anger.
42What do you think the plaque should say?
43I think that there are none so blind as they who will not see.
Dave, you're just not going to see that there is justifiable rage all the way around - with America towards the terrorists on 9/11, and also the Middle East towards American militaristic imperialism. This is not a one way street, it's a cycle of violence. Seeing Muslims as just a bunch of terrorists isn't any different than many of them see us.
I'd just like it to say "who was killed on 9/11." It's not like people don't know what that day was about.
44It should talk about the James the town knew. It could say he died tragically on 9/11 in NY. People will know what that means.
45Totally agree, Stephley.
46"I think that there are none so blind as they who will not see."
So enlighten me.
"Imperialism is considered the control by one state of other territories. Through political or military means (direct imperialism), the imperial power may take over the government of a particular territory, or through economic processes (indirect imperialism), in which the concerned region is officially self-governing but linked to the imperial power by, often unequal, trade relations."
Since that isn't what has happened with Iraq, I don't really understand how what happened there can be considered imperialism. Lot's of rulers in the middle east didn't care for Bush because he didn't mince words (but at least he didn't need a teleprompter). Bush let them know that if they coddled the terrorists, we would consider them to be one of the terrorists, and treat them accordingly.
47Dave,
I'm guessing you're the type that thinks OBL attacked us because he hated freedom. But, if you look at why he said he attacked us it was because of our militaristic presence in the Middle East, especially our bases in Saudi Arabia.
The point is, that's what they believe. As for myself? I see both sides of the matter.
48Like this family I know what it feels like to have senseless violence take a loved one.
"James Gadiel, lifelong resident of Kent, murdered in the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001."
IMO these words have less to do with memorializing a son and more to do with memorializing a fathers personal feelings about things ironically other than his son.
When I read the reasons for having a memorial with the words the father wants such as sighting the Germans for the Holocaust and the Japanese for Pearl Harbor these were nations which declared War not individual extremists and this is the whole point of the matter.
As any law abiding peaceful Muslim will tell us those terrorists did not speak for Muslims or the Islamic faith. They were extremists and it is extremism that killed his son not a religion. Just as it is not Christianity that shoots Dr's who perform abortions. It is not the Christian way. It is individual hysteria, paranoia and hatred the same feelings that oddly enough would have this father insist that a peaceful religion killed his son.
As for the town administrators it is their job to serve the public interest now and for time to come not the interest of the few in memorializing hatred which only serves to perpetuate the vicious cycle once again.
Although I've shared the same experience I don't presume to know how he feels but it doesn't take to much reason to see that his choice of words is misguided and of no benefit to society or his sons memory.
49You would be guessing incorrectly. IMO - OBL began targeting Americans because he saw the US as a threat. He could only control his "people" as long as they saw the US as the devil incarnate, and not as the bastion of freedoms for everyone that it is. Why would anyone want to follow a person who preaches death and destruction when you can be free by living like an American? I also think that he was enboldened in the 90's when the US failed to retaliate with any sort of strength, which brought on increasingly larger attacks until we got a President who actually stood up to him.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.