drdaviddthornton's Comments
Relax,
This is a theme park showing one very real element of what the USSR (government) sanctioned and did.
Nobody is claiming that this is representative of all Soviets (general populace) at the time.
But, for the people who actually endured such violations, I think the creators of this theme park believe it is important to remember.
If there is no interest, the business element of it will fail.
From the historical significance aspect, it may be a interesting experience first hand versus just a conceptual idea. This will be especially true to people of Slavic decent who have heard from their elders and just would like to grasp fully through personal experience.
This is a theme park showing one very real element of what the USSR (government) sanctioned and did.
Nobody is claiming that this is representative of all Soviets (general populace) at the time.
But, for the people who actually endured such violations, I think the creators of this theme park believe it is important to remember.
If there is no interest, the business element of it will fail.
From the historical significance aspect, it may be a interesting experience first hand versus just a conceptual idea. This will be especially true to people of Slavic decent who have heard from their elders and just would like to grasp fully through personal experience.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Everyone else is entitled to live with their "world view" too. This includes the creators of this theme park.
So, it is best to approach such things with an open mind versus an assumption that the primary intent is to "demonize" the Soviet Union.
This attitude of "misplaced demonization" inappropriately makes the project about the abusers, rather than the abused. The project is undoubtedly about the experiences of the abused.
It is kind of strange to be defending the abusers on the basis of a theme park representing the experiences of the abused.
Why is the primary concern on the "demonizing" of a non-existent government for what it did?
Why not defend the still existent abused with the same degree of self-righteousness demonstrated on behalf of the abuser?