Reading Reflection For 6/26
I think one of the most interesting things from both the readings and my experience so far in the city would have to be the memorial culture, and the different ways the city's difficult history has been managed and displayed (or not displayed) throughout time. Berlin has devoted huge amounts of time, money, and effort to memorials on a scale that I personal have not experienced before, and I find myself thinking about the secondary effects this has on the city.
For example, how have memorials affected gentrification in the neighborhoods they reside in? Certainly some are tourist attractions which 'artificially' raise the value of the property around them as interest in them grows. In this way, businesses stand to profit off the city's history, and a neighborhood which might have otherwise been affordable to some is no longer so. Of course, tourism is a tricky business to nail down the effects from. Does the business gained from tourism around, say, the Mitte district offset the amount of the theoretical rent increase? More importantly, does this money end up in the hands of low-to-middle class Berliners or international corporations? After some research, I've found that the Mitte district is home to over 300,000 people, and many of these are likely employed in some business related to tourism or which gains revenue from it.
Of course, this still does not change the fact that businesses stand to gain from even the most sacrosanct memorials, simply by their existence, and that this profit furthers gentrification no matter what the end benefits to some citizens may or may not be.
This all adds another layer to what is discussed in Ghost Of Berlin, in particular. How much should the economic quality of life for current citizens come into the discussion of what memorials should be built and which should not? I feel that this is of secondary importance to the obligations surrounding accurately representing history, and not shoving it under the rug. However, some monuments are likely built with the idea of attracting tourists in mind, especially very recent ones. The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe was likely constructed with the idea that people from all over the world would visit it and see. It was a memorial for Berlin, of course, but also for the Europe and the world. Even in this case, however, the memorial feels much more important than any mixed economic consequences or inconvenience the citizens may experience, though that's easier to say as a tourist experiencing the city from the outside.
To conclude my thoughts, the main point is that memorials and gentrification are likely related, but that these effects, if they are indeed there and negative, should not be given much weight in the discussion of whether or not to construct a memorial or monument. Perhaps they have a place in the discussion of where to place it, but the obligation to history and to the education of future generations outweighs the possible economic damage to some citizens, in my mind at least.
For example, how have memorials affected gentrification in the neighborhoods they reside in? Certainly some are tourist attractions which 'artificially' raise the value of the property around them as interest in them grows. In this way, businesses stand to profit off the city's history, and a neighborhood which might have otherwise been affordable to some is no longer so. Of course, tourism is a tricky business to nail down the effects from. Does the business gained from tourism around, say, the Mitte district offset the amount of the theoretical rent increase? More importantly, does this money end up in the hands of low-to-middle class Berliners or international corporations? After some research, I've found that the Mitte district is home to over 300,000 people, and many of these are likely employed in some business related to tourism or which gains revenue from it.
Of course, this still does not change the fact that businesses stand to gain from even the most sacrosanct memorials, simply by their existence, and that this profit furthers gentrification no matter what the end benefits to some citizens may or may not be.
This all adds another layer to what is discussed in Ghost Of Berlin, in particular. How much should the economic quality of life for current citizens come into the discussion of what memorials should be built and which should not? I feel that this is of secondary importance to the obligations surrounding accurately representing history, and not shoving it under the rug. However, some monuments are likely built with the idea of attracting tourists in mind, especially very recent ones. The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe was likely constructed with the idea that people from all over the world would visit it and see. It was a memorial for Berlin, of course, but also for the Europe and the world. Even in this case, however, the memorial feels much more important than any mixed economic consequences or inconvenience the citizens may experience, though that's easier to say as a tourist experiencing the city from the outside.
To conclude my thoughts, the main point is that memorials and gentrification are likely related, but that these effects, if they are indeed there and negative, should not be given much weight in the discussion of whether or not to construct a memorial or monument. Perhaps they have a place in the discussion of where to place it, but the obligation to history and to the education of future generations outweighs the possible economic damage to some citizens, in my mind at least.
Comments
Post a Comment