This is a collection of comments on the current situation concerning the Memorial Project and the Natural History Museum. We will try to keep it updated but would welcome comments from the wider membership. You need to log in to access the editing features, or alternatively email any of the committee members with your thoughts and we will add them to the comments. The idea is to get as broad a view as we can before the meeting on the 4th April 2009.
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the latest entries.

From Robert Brewster 10/3/2009
As you will see from the attached correspondence between Tessa Jowell and Oliver Stocken, Chairman of the NHM Board of Trustees, our only option with the NHM is now a memorial inside the museum, part of an exhibit regarding tsunamis, and the 2004 tsunami in particular. This is very different to our original project, and also means that the memorial will not be accessible on 26th December. Much has happened over the last year, and the Government is cutting back drastically on any funding for anything other than rescuing banks. Both the NHM and DCMS budgets are affected. This also means that it will be much more difficult to find an alternative site than a year ago.

Please let me have your views on this new situation.

From Stephen Gill 10/3/2009
I have to say that the feeling of disappointment I felt when I first read Oliver Stocken's letter has not been entirely replaced by optimism. I have a feeling of deja vu regarding the comments on funding for their exhibit and sense little real enthusiasm for the memorial part of the project as described. It may well be that this element can be developed and made more appealing but that seems a long way in the future.I also note that the NHM are not keen for any input on the project management side from those more concerned with the memorial. I think that ultimately this might prove a deal breaker for our members and I can only hope that Frances and Tessa between them, can make some accommodation with the management of the NHM, otherwise we may well be looking at starting again with all the difficulties we previously experienced and in a far more depressed economy. I think we should press Frances for some more detail and any encouragement she can muster.

From Robert Whittle 10/3/2009
My own feeling is that this is the end of the NHM as a site for a permanent memorial. I am desperately sorry for you and Steve and the others who have tried hard to achieve something worthwhile with the NHM but it looks like a dead duck to me. Although I don't remember anyone ever saying so, instinctively we all seem to have thought that a permanent memorial to the tsunami victims should be outside. The event itself was a terrible demonstration of the power of natural forces and a memorial needs to be expressed in surroundings that link to that - putting four walls around it is like a contradiction. I do think there is a case for an exhibition in the NHM that refers explicitly to the tsunami but this is different from a memorial.

Lets not get too tied down to false schedules. The memorial when it comes will endure for maybe hundreds of years so a year or two spent finding the right place is not a major concern. Time to find out if we have friends in high places again.

The NHM proposal is so different from what we originally had in mind when we presented the options to the membership that even if some want to pursue it we have no choice but to go back to the membership for approval.

I also think that we need to post as many comments as possible on the web before the meeting, so if you agree I will place this text plus the things you and Steve have already written on the site tomorrow.

From Michael Holland, 10/3/2009
Personally I am happy with the idea of the indoor memorial. It will ensure a permanent dediction and will always be better than battersea.

From Kelly Macro 11/3/2009
I have to say that I disagree with Robert (W), that this is the end of the NHM as a site for a permanent memorial. I appreciate that the type of memorial that they are proposing is not what we originally had in mind, but for some, I think it will be a very positive piece.

My son never got the chance to meet his father and it has taken me a long time to come to terms with the fact that he will never grieve or miss him, because he has never known him. Now that I can face that fact, it would be invaluable to me to have somewhere that I could take my son and talk to him about what happened. It will be educational for him and a really positive way for me to keep the memory going without trying to push the wrong kind of emotions onto him.

I am still in favour of having a memorial somewhere, in the style and feel that we first intended (for me to reflect) but from the point of view of my son, the thought of taking him to somewhere to sit and think about his father and what happened is unfair on him when he wasn't born when it happened and has no memories of Jeremy.

NHM Facts (from their website)
A vibrant visitor attraction The Natural History Museum is one of the UK's best-loved visitor attractions and is enjoyed by more people today than ever. In 2007/08 we welcomed 3.8 million adults and children from the UK and around the world. Within the total visitors figure were 1,251,131 children (2007:1,325,946), and there were 249,000 over 60s. The number of children in organised educational programmes both on-site and outreach amounted to 339,646
which is a decrease on the figures for 2006-07 (360,000) though yet again exceeds the funding agreement target.

Walking around London, there are statues and memorials around almost every corner, which people pass each day and don't even give a second glance to. Knowing that nearly 4 million people each year will find out the facts about a Tsunami is a real comfort to me.

From Tal Howarth, 11/3/2009
Thank you Kelly for your thoughtful and realistic message. I appreciate your sharing so honestly with us and painting a clear picture of how it is with your son who never knew his dad.
I agree wholeheartedly with you and it makes a lot of sense to have
something educational and integrated into a popular attraction such as NHM.
I think your point about us walking past memorials daily in London and other cities and not even glancing at them is very relevant. If we want to keep the memories of our loved ones alive, then a place where children can go to learn about Tsunamis and include in that a memorial and reminder of what happened in 2004 in particular, is a really purposeful and useful way of doing so.
We will all already have places and memories for our own reflection by now. The memorial is, in my mind, more of a touchstone for what happened and a way to remind the rest of the country/world about it, and create awareness.

Let's not throw out an option that has a lot to offer us and future
generations.

From Michael Holland, 11/3/2009
I agree entirely with the Kelly and Tal; our own memorials are deeply hidden and personal, we carry them with us every day.
It is so true that many if not most public memorials are passed every day and largely ignored.
Speaking as someone who lost my wife, my mother and my teenage daughter; however I have 2 children in their 20's and I look forward to having Grandchildren and then is when I want to be able to take them somewhere dynamic and interesting where they might learn not just about who their Grandmother was but how and why she died; of course their are downsides but the an internal memorial offers the possibility of being part of a museum that is alive with curiosity and thereby ensure our families are never ignored as are so many memorials.
From Robert Whittle 18 March 2009
Kelly makes an eloquent and moving plea for a different kind of memorial that would be meaningful to her son, and it is a view that obviously touches a chord with others. However I think Kelly is making the case for something that is not on offer. It is difficult to discuss the NHM proposal without having a better idea of what they have in mind, but what I get out of the flow of messages is this:
1) A small permanent memorial - this means a plaque on the wall. No museum is ever going to commit  floor space in perpetuity.
2) An exhibition relevant to the Tsunami. 200 square metres? I don't think so. This works out to more than 3/4 of a million pounds, (see Mr Stocken's costing)  and the museum is stating categorically that it doesn't have the resources to contribute towards that - the government would have to supply it all.
3) What we are in danger of ending up with is a temporary exhibition of much less ambitious scale. Maybe it will last long enough for Kelly to take her son. It is just about conceivable that Michael will be able to take grand-children. But I don't think there is any chance of a significant exhibition remaining long enough for Kelly to take her grand-children. All we will have left is a plaque on the wall. And no, that is not good enough.
4) Read what Steve has to say. The museum will control the creative side of the project, there will be little input from us.
5) It will be inaccessible for the one day of the year where you might think it would be visited the most.
6) Perhaps the biggest objection of all, the NHM is making it quite clear they don't want us - although as a source of funds we could be useful.

Tal, Michael and Kelly all make the point about statues and memorials that people walk past all the time without realising what they represent - this is true for everything. I visit London these days just infrequently enough for St. Pauls and Nelson's column to still be a wonder to me. However there have been periods in my life where I have had to pass them everyday and  I stopped seeing them. People visit the National Gallery and walk past the most wonderful pictures without realising what it is before them - that is life. The point about the memorial is that when you need it, it will be there. And if it created with the right degree of care and love, and put in an appropriate place, it will work a kind of magic for those who are looking for it.

From Michael Holland 18/3/2009 
It is good to have a debate but sadly we also run the risk of breaking up unless we agree a policy and try to see how far we get; I personally feet the NHM site has merit and needs to be explored. I would point out the following:
1. we have a pledge of £500000 from Tessa and I have promised an additional £50000 from my charity. The rest we will have to raise.I beleive we will also find an internal memorial far less expensive in terms of planing fees etc...none of which will be needed.
2. The NHM of course will claim the final word on design, as would say Westminster Council in Victoria Gardens, however lets not be put off. If the design is excellent they will welcome it, and we ought to be willing to work
with them, they need to to see us really engaged and then we will find out what we can achieve, currently all
the talks are held via Frances and I personally think that Steve or someone needs to get on Mike Dixon's
wavelength; they probably think we will be a pain to handle but that is hardly surprising insofar they don't know us.
3 Most Public memorials are ignored by the public. I took part in a charity event around London last month that required us to find and name memorials to events or individuals and even as a Londoner I had no idea where they were. Lets not be another.
4.No memorial can be guaranteed for ever, Marble Arch was moved, Euston Arch removed and masses have been demolished; frankly we stand a better chance of permanence within a living Museum where the educational values mean something than in a park which will one day be rebuilt.
5. I do not see the Tsunami anniversary itself as more or less significant than any other day, I dream of my wife every day and cry for my daughter whenever I see her in my mind's eye; on that date I may be in any number of places and the fact that we cannot get access is not the most important thing; remember so many of our group do not live near London so let's not get too hung up on this issue.

Please let us have courage. Mike is a good guy, we can work with the NHM and just need to have trust.
From Stephen Gill, 18/3/2009
I have read the comments and all the correspondence, with some pain but with a lot of warmth. All our various feelings and reactions have equal merit but wont sit easily side by side. In what way is that a bad thing? What the NHM is proposing is far from clear and very far from what we most of us had envisaged at the outset or even relatively recently in this process, but that may not in the end be such a bad thing. What we do need is, of course, to find out more and to explore what the options actually are.If there is a viable and worthwhile memorial project to be set up within the NHM then it's up to us to find out and to represent our members in it's develoment and hopefully it's fulfilment. As Michael has said, the museum management are not bad people and they do have first hand knowledge of and feelings for those who were lost.They are also quite expert at presenting the issues and images to the public. I don't know how much of our own stamp we can leave on this memorial but I want as many people as possible to be reminded and educated on the subject as might be. If as seems certain, we have to bend and alter our expectations in the process then we can look at the issues arising as and when, but for now I think our best course is to enter into the discussion with NHM, with the most positive and open minds we can muster. No point in trying to meet troubles half way.
From Robert Brewster, 18/3/2009
I was walking round the main square in Pietrasanta last night, where Michelangelo stayed when selecting the marble for his statues. Many of the statues in the square were moved at some stage in their history, and all the main buildings restored many times.I have been in brief contact with the chairman of the NHM board of trustees and would like to give him our initial reaction, and hopefully he will pass on a message to motivate Michael Dixon (whom I have not met). I would appreciate the thoughts of those who have not yet commented, and any reactions you may have had from other members.
From Barbara and Roger Jenman, 19/3/2009
Dear All - Sorry we have been slow in responding but have given this some thought and have contacted and spoken to others within our family..We keep returning to our interpretation of the TSUK members' general criteria for a memorial:
1. a special place of remembrance for those who suffered and died, particularly the Brits but also the many other nationalities who made up the death toll.
2. to raise awareness through education on the cause, effect and consequences of such a disaster.
We are disappointed that an outside location for a memorial is no longer available/feasible at the NHM as we felt this would have been ideal, with appropriate information inside as part of a museum display. For us an outside location seems particularly appropriate fitting the lifestyle of our son and daughter-in-law and many other such young people who lost their lives.
A small indoor memorial as mentioned in Oliver Stocken's letter we assume would be a plaque and this concerns us in that it infers we would not be able to include the names of victims and feel it would have little impact on visitors. We must not forget that the consequences of the disaster affected people in every continent of the world. There is also the question of the memorial being "a special place of remembrance". Like many others we have created our own "special places" for family and friends but not everyone has had this opportunity. A memorial infers a certain unity of thought.
The availability to be able to visit the memorial on Boxing Day we do not personally see as a major issue over time as people from outside London are less likely to travel over the Christmas period. However we do realise there are families at present who would see this as important and others may want to be able to mark special anniversaries of the disaster.
Whilst we can understand the restraints the NHM have to work to and appreciate that they are being positive from their perspective, we are not sure they realise the depth of feelings amongst the TSUK members and their need for a strong focal point for present as well as future generations. We do need to establish a direct dialogue with NHM.
Also as Trustees we all have very strong views but really need more ideas/support from the wider membership.
Best wishes to all and look forward to seeing you at the AGM.
From Robert and Jane Brewster, 20/3/2009
We are trying to think what our son would have wanted.   He didn’t like ceremony but loved nature and the outdoors and believed in further studies (he went straight from a management course in Oxford to Thailand). An exhibit educating the young and not so young about the tsunami in the NHM we think would have been much more to his liking than a statue in Victoria Tower Gardens. Yes Steve I fully agree with you, let’s proceed positively and see what we can obtain at the NHM; that was the majority choice even if the form has considerably evolved. As parents we would like the British names to be recorded as part of the memorial.
From Paul & Yvette Bent. 20th March 2009
Yvette and I wanted to respond to your request for additional views on the proposed site for the Tsunami Memorial at the NHM, given the radical changes to the Option 3 proposal, as described in the letter from the DCMS dated 27th Feb 2008. We experienced a range of emotions when we heard the news of the difficulties associated with having a memorial at the NHM. Although we do not have the emotional resilience to provide you with a detailed reply, we would like to make the following points:
  • The memorial now proposed by the NHM is not the same as the option that people were asked to vote on in February 2008. Many of those who voted for a memorial within the grounds of the of the NHM may not have voted for this option if they had understood that it was to be indoors and inaccessible on 26th December. Given the changes to the original NHM proposal it seems only fair to consult with all of those who have been affected.
  • We realise this is difficult but believe that it is the responsibility of the Humanitarian Assistance Unit (HAU) to complete detailed negotiations with relevant people on all of the proposed sites for the memorial, on behalf of the TSUK. It hardly seems fair to expect committee members to negotiate on what is a very emotional issue for all of us. Once negotiations have been completed, the HAU should then provide all of the families with sufficient information so that they can make an informed choice on the final site for the memorial; this is a personal matter for each family and takes into account their own unique circumstances.  Essential information would at the very least include: location, indoors or outdoors, accessibility, some idea of different types of memorial that could be provided at each location, within the allocated budget e.g. a plaque, a bench, a garden, a sculpture etc.
  • Many of the families affected by the Tsunami will probably be unaware of these discussions because they have not logged onto the TSUK website.
  • Thanks to all of those on the TSUK Committee for all of their endeavours.

Best Wishes Paul & Yvette Bent.
 

PS. We thought the following might be interest. A sculpture by Rosie Musgrave entitled Tsunami Noni. She completed the sculpture in 2005 out of a single piece of 140 million year old limestone in memory of all of those who lost their lives in the Tsunami. The sculpture was displayed in several churches and cathedrals in the UK in 2007. It was then bought by the Coughton family and is now displayed in the walled garden at Coughton Court, Nr Alcester, Coughton, Stratford. The sculpture is small 35 by 130 by 50 cms and is displayed in the walled garden in a hand crafted pagoda designed by architect David Bain.

For information see www.newsbbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6642595.stm or google Tsunami Noni

From Jean Cassatt, 23 March 2009
I don't know that I have fully formed all my opinions about the change in direction of the 'memorial' at the NHM.  I think the comments made so far have show such a diversity of opinion and each opinion has its own merit.
 
I cannot in the end come to terms with a memorial  which may be reduced to a plaque on the wall.  I think any exhibition at the NHM on the phenomena of tsunamis would be incomplete without a history of the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami and that those we loved should be represented there.  I totally agree on the value of educating and informing people especially children and if there could be a permanent fixture of perhaps an unextinguishable flame to represent those that we lost perhaps that would serve to bring a reality to the exhibition that had just been viewed. But that this 'memorial' would be a focal point for those of us left behind just doesn't seem to work for me.  Somehow that funny, lively daughter of mine just doesn't sit right with an indoor museum.
 
I think of a memorial as a place of quite reflection where those that visit can remember and show there respect for everyone who was lost.  It would be nice to think there was a place that we could meet on special occasions.  Where we could come together.  I always come back to my first wish for a beautiful, scented garden with a wall of remembrance and this does not have to be in London.
 
So in the end I suppose what I am saying is that yes lets us be part of whatever the NHM plan, but let us also go back to the beginning and look at the possibilities of a maintaining a garden somewhere in the UK.  It may take years to find but it is a project we can work as a group.



From Fi Sweetman 26 March 2009


Why did I suggest the NHM as a possible site for a tsunami memorial?

 

Because it seemed appropriate if perhaps a bit sterile.   I trusted their professionalism and expected them to create an exhibit anway which would embrace the facts.  

 

A memorial embracing the emotions would add force to these facts itself being enhanced by the facts;  a mutual benefit.  

 

Many people could perhaps relate to tragedies of their own:   natural disaster, drowning, lost presumed dead, abduction, death in a foreign country.   In a secure public place global society could appreciate the British government’s expression of compassion - a memorial suitable for an internationally significant disaster.   As an individual I have empathised and wept at a memorial in Cyprus to their ‘disappeared’ young men (political victims) and been somewhat traumatised by a realistic museum exhibition of the devastation in Darwin on Christmas day 1974 in the wake of Cyclone Tracy.   I think we should combine tears and education but far enough apart that those who do not need or want reminding of one or the other can ignore it.

 

A wall plaque would belittle the memory of my son.   I can and do contemplate wherever I am.   I hope to heal myself a little more every day.   What I would like is a trained brain with greater capacity than mine to devise a memorial to distil the trauma, the loss, the grief:   a philosopher, a poet, an artist – someone with the wisdom and compassion to be able to work with the diversity of grief shown within TSN and the practical needs of the site, someone from whose work both we and the museum would benefit.   How much does such art cost to commission?

 

Grief is tiring.   Our co-chairmen Robert and Steve have my greatest admiration for the strength they show in continuing to negotiate and take all views into account.   It takes courage to try again.
Logged in users of the web site can add their comments to this page by clicking on the pencil icon below.
----------------------------------

From Fi 22/3/9

Unfortunately I have not read any of the correspondence mentioned by others but I do have a few comments to make and I think that Brendan goes along with them as well.



EDUCATION

 

Kelly makes a good point and although I have no young children in my life I think educating others is extremely important.   With a little more knowledge at the time of the tsunami it would have been possible to warn so many more people and with this understanding even ten minutes could have made a difference.   But is this the only reason for a memorial?   Kelly would still like a memorial in the 'style and feel that we first intended' while with or without TSN I would expect the NHM to do what they do so well and exhibit tsunami information anyway - they already have a lot of geological information on display.

 

RESPECTING VICTIMS OF DISASTER

 

Personally I don't think I object to an indoor memorial as long as it is sensitively done.   When I suggested the NHM as an appropriate place for a memorial I did at that time envisage ‘something’ indoors and the possibility of an outside memorial seemed too good to be true.   My present inclination is for a work of art showing my country's respect for victims of natural disasters but abstract and open to personal interpretation - the solid granite work by Barbara Hepworth in Battersea Park comes to mind where for me the hole represents that part of my psyche so abruptly wrenched away;  it could perhaps also contain the names of victims, rescue and support services.   It would be a national memorial rather than a personal one which, as Michael says, we have all created in our own ways.   Hopefully it would say many things to many people probably beyond our immediate understanding.   A friend concerned with water rescue is amazed that Britain has no memorial for such a significant event and feels that losses in more individual disasters become trivialized by its lack.

 

 

LONG TERM CARE

 

If the NHM do not want TSN involved in project management what would they like to see?   They would be excellent custodians and worries over vandalism virtually non-existent but it needs to be sensitive and remarkable – even in a museum memorials can lose their impact and displays change.  

 

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT


Robert (W) also makes a good point in that a memorial and a museum exhibition are not the same thing.   I myself have very strong reservations about their close juxtaposition.   The display is bound to be a trauma trigger - not just for those who were there at the time but for those who spent so long trying to ascertain facts and find missing people under the glare of constant news coverage clouded with the misinformation of distance.   The better the display the more realistic it will be and the more likely that trauma will be experienced.

 

THE ROLE OF TSN


Within TSN there are so many ideas, all with merit, that it must be extremely difficult for the committee to get a memorial off the ground and hard to expect their enthusiasm to last for ever.   Perhaps handing it over to the NHM is the best answer after all and that Tal is right to urge us to make the most of what is offered but first we must ascertain what that is and not make assumptions.

 
Finally I need to say a very big 'thank you' to one and all for working so hard to get the 'right' result.




Web Design by Giant Systems Leeds