Content uploaded by Kem Gambrell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kem Gambrell on Oct 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Pink Triangle as an Interruptive Symbol
Marnie Rorholm
Gonzaga University
Kem Gambrell
Gonzaga University
A
BSTRACT
The Pink Triangle is a symbol of collective memory and meaning for
two very different, but similarly marginalized groups: gay male prisoners
held in concentration camps in Nazi Germany, and the modern LGBTQAI+
(lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, asexual/allied and
intersexed) community. Since the liberation of the Nazi concentration
camps in the mid 1940’s, many memorials to the Holocaust, as well as
several for the Pink Triangle victims have sprung up around the world.
While there are a number of reasons for these memorials, one premise is
that these monuments serve as a way to create a collective memory, with
the intent that these atrocities will never be repeated. Using qualitative
methodology, the purpose of this project was to explore how the
LGBTQAI+ community has been “memorialized” from the incidents of
Nazi Germany, and how these memorials may serve as “interruptive sym-
bols” to help circumvent hate and oppression of this historically marginal-
ized group. Findings from interviews, observations and photographs
revealed three themes as well as information for community consideration.
These themes are “Serves as a Reminder”, “Made Me Think” and “Taints
It”. The results of this study, through historical insights combined with first-
hand memorial observation and interviews, can heighten understanding to
highlight resilience and promote hope and healing through government/citi-
zen reconciliation.
Keywords: Pink Triangle, Holocaust, Homosexuality, Memorial, Col-
lective Memory, Interruptive symbols
T
HE
P
INK
T
RIANGLE AS AN
I
NTERRUPTIVE
S
YMBOL
The history of the Pink Triangle begins with the rise of Nazi Germany
and Kaiser Wilhelm’s installation of the Prussian Penal Code, Paragraph
175 (Giles, 2005; Ziv, 2015). This code made all homosexual acts between
men punishable by law and prescribed a mandatory jail sentence for any
male found participating in activities deemed sexually inappropriate or aso-
cial. Prisoners in the death camps were labeled according to their “crimes”
63
64 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
and the mandated colored triangle cloth patches worn on their clothing rep-
resented various offenses. While there are a number of different colors, in
general, the “regular” criminals were assigned a green triangle, political
prisoners a red one, Jews wore two overlapping yellow triangles (symbol-
izing the Star of David), homosexual men were assigned the pink triangle,
and the “lowest form” of prisoner, the gay Jew, wore over-lapping yellow
and pink triangles (Edelheit & Edelheit, 1994). These gay prisoners endured
the most punishment by SS soldiers and were most likely to face torture and
death at the hands of the Nazis (Weingart, 2011). As a result of Paragraph
175, there were an estimated 50,000 to 63,000 men persecuted, many of
whom were executed in the concentration camps (Plant, 1988).
To date, there are twenty-eight memorials around the world dedicated
to the Pink Triangle Holocaust victims (Koymaksy, 2016). The theory
behind creating these monuments is that individual memory can be pre-
served only insofar as it becomes embedded in the social framework. Thus,
the transformative power of this symbol, the Pink Triangle, may serve as an
interruption to the spread of hatred that fuels crimes against humanity, and
in this case, creates communities of collective memory (Weingart, 2011).
Today, the pink triangle is a symbol of the LGBTQAI+ (lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, asexual/allied and intersexed)
community that has “mobilized vigilance against contemporary oppression,
from queer bashings to antigay initiatives” (Jensen, 2002, p. 320). The pink
triangle, which “originated as a symbol of persecution and torture, has been
transformed—by the very group it targeted—into a symbol of solidarity and
hope” (Weingart, 2011, pp. 8-9). This “interruptive symbol” is attributed in
some degree to LGBTQAI+ political consciousness and to a particular col-
lective memory, although, somewhat from “particular social and national
contexts and quite often independently of historical research on the subject”
(Jensen, 2002, p. 320). Thus, the Pink Triangle has both historical and mod-
ern understanding and symbolism.
There is a fair amount of research that has been done on the Holocaust
(i.e. Krieg, 2015; Loiederman, 2017; Starratt, Fredotovic, Goodletty, &
Starratt, 2017), Pink Triangle prisoners (i.e. Haeberle, 1981; Jensen, 2002),
and modern LGBTQAI+ matters (i.e. Berstein, 2015; Fassinger, Shullman
& Stevenson, 2010). To date, however, exploring the nature of interruptive
symbols like the Pink Triangle Memorials, the implications as historical and
collective memory, as well as modern political consciousness have not been
investigated. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore visitors’ percep-
tions of the Pink Triangle Memorial in the Castro Neighborhood of San
Francisco, California, and the impression the symbols and monument have
on them. We chose the San Francisco memorial because it is a fairly promi-
nent memorial (an actual park, not just a statue or monument) and sits in a
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 65
well visited area of the United States. The Castro District, commonly
referred to as “The Castro,” is a neighborhood in Eureka Valley in San
Francisco, and was one of the first gay neighborhoods in the United States.
Having transformed from a working-class neighborhood through the 1960s
and 1970s, The Castro remains one of the most prominent symbols of les-
bian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQAI+) activism and
events in the world (Timberlake, 2005). With this research, we hoped to use
the San Francisco Memorial a means of investigating the effects of such
memorials generally, as well as further exploring interruptive symbols as a
concept.
Additionally, an investigation into how the LGBTQAI+ community
has been memorialized from the incidents of WWII, and how these memo-
rials serve as “interruptive symbols” to help circumvent hate and oppression
of this historically marginalized group was considered. Furthermore, how
these memorials support inward and outward messaging to both Holocaust
survivors and the LGBTQAI+ community as a reminder of past victimhood
and continued vigilance to prevent atrocities was also examined.
B
ACKGROUND
While there are twenty-eight memorials around the world dedicated to
the Pink Triangle Holocaust victims (Koymaksy, 2016), in the entire mod-
ern-day camp Memorial at Dachau, Germany, there is only a single Pink
Triangle. This symbol representing thousands of persecuted men is buried
deep within the Visitor’s Center museum that now fills the Nazi’s original
administrative building. At Dachau, there are thirteen permanent exhibits
in this building, and it appears by the organization that the intent is to tour
the displays in chronological order. A pink granite triangle is tucked away
in the last exhibit, but given the horror and torment of the tour, it would
seem that many visitors never make it that far, preferring to depart the
building for the main barracks area and the rest of the camp.
Dachau was one of the main Nazi concentration camps in operation
from 1933 to 1945. Over the 12 years of use, the Dachau administration
recorded the intake of 206, 206 political prisoners and the deaths of 31,951
(http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/). While the number of gay men in
German concentration camps is hard to estimate, Plant (1988) gives a rough
estimate of the number of men convicted for homosexuality in Nazi Ger-
many “between 1933 to 1944 at between 50,000 and 63,000” (p. 149).
Harold Marcuse offers a potential explanation to the seeming disregard
of Pink Triangle prisoners at Dachau. Marcuse (2014) discusses that when
the camp was being converted into a Memorial by the Comit´e International
de Dachau in the 1960s, at that time, many people still saw homosexuality
66 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
as a crime. “Thus, the pink triangle and its related history was proscribed
by the survivors who commissioned the memorial. When gay activists
wanted to put up a pink granite triangle memorial in that space in the 1970s,
they were refused” (Marcuse, 2014). Thus, initially the Pink Triangle
memorial was placed in the Protestant memorial church at the far end of the
former camp (Marcuse, 2014). At some point, the granite panel was quietly
moved to the obscure memorial room in the museum, where it still sits
today.
It was not until the 1980s that the local Munich LGBTQAI+ commu-
nity took the initiative to have memorials to the Pink Triangle victims
erected worldwide. From that initiative, the Pink Triangle is the basis of the
design of the Homomonument in Amsterdam, the Gay and Lesbian Holo-
caust Memorial in Sydney, and several others, including the Pink Triangle
Park in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. Thus, in the United
States, on the far side of the world from Dachau, lies this more recent Pink
Triangle Memorial, one that is completely different than Dachau’s display
in appearance.
The Pink Triangle
Today, the Pink Triangle has become one of the most widespread sym-
bols of the gay movement. There is seemingly a parallelism between the
contemporary conceptions of homosexual identity and sympathizing with
the Pink Triangle Holocaust prisoners. Certainly, the generation gap
between the holocaust victims and today’s campaign creates a long-term
cultural difference. The urgency to add a physical reminder, like memorials
to honor the victims, is not there simply for grandchildren of those who
suffered. Seifert (2003) explains that the very act of testifying to historical
events, the memory of which has been actively repressed by survivors
themselves and the surrounding societies that have maintained negative atti-
tudes towards homosexuality, is not only a way of drawing public attention
to the injustices done to homosexuals. It also becomes a means of “rescu-
ing” a historical experience from oblivion. This process of remembrance is
an act of constituting a “collective memory”, which is never entirely pri-
vate, but is bound to specific social groups and delineated in public time
and space, such as a memorial (Halbwachs, 1980).
Collective and Dangerous Memories
French philosopher and sociologist, Maurice Halbwachs, designated
the central function of a “collective memory” as a record of resemblances,
whereas what have changed are the group’s relations or contacts with other
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 67
groups. If the group always remains the same, any changes must be imagi-
nary, and the changes that occur in the group are transformed into similari-
ties. The function of collective memory is to develop the several aspects of
one single content—that is, the various fundamental characteristics of the
group itself (Halbwachs, 1980). The theory is that individual memory (in
this case, the unspoken experience associated with shame), is only pre-
served insofar as it becomes a part of the social framework. Thus, the sym-
bol of the Pink Triangle and the subsequent memorials are most likely
intended to make tolerance and acceptance part of social framework. The
“authors” of the collective memory are then compelled to find ways of
bridging gaps that lie between present and historical events. In her thesis,
Kelly Weingart (2011) referenced two important constructs, dangerous
memories and interruptive symbols. Interruptive symbols (such as the Pink
Triangles) evoke dangerous memories (such as Nazi persecution), which,
she argues, stop us cold in our tracks and make us aware of a reality that we
often choose to ignore. Usually, this means an astonishing realization will
take place that creates the opportunity for improvement (Weingart, 2011).
German Political Theologian Johann Baptist Metz (2007) describes danger-
ous memories as those that challenge us to examine human history, to re-
evaluate our present circumstances, and that call into question our future.
He describes them as:
These are dangerous memories in which earlier experiences flare up and
unleash new dangerous insights for the present. For brief moments they
illuminate, harshly and piercingly, the problematic character of things we
made our peace with a long time ago
. . . Memories of this sort are dangerous and incalculable visitations from
the past. They are memories that one has to take into account, memories
that have a future content, so to speak (Metz, 2007, p. 31).
This commitment to history and the memory of suffering dares us to
wrestle with the redemption of history and dangerous memories of a nation,
which many consider conceived in violence (Copeland, 2004, p. 75). Cope-
land’s (2004) premise is that attempts to evade dangerous memory are pas-
sive and block the resolute work of authentic peace. For the modern
LGBTQAI+ community, the dangerous memory of the holocaust and the
Pink Triangle prisoners is the catalyst for transformation and liberation.
This past calls into question the present, and may create the possibility for
collective change for tolerance in the future.
68 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
Interruptive Symbols
Before we can experience dangerous memories, we must experience
(with our senses) the interruptive symbol of those like the Pink Triangle.
This symbol acts as an interruption to our present circumstances, and pre-
serves or invokes dangerous memories that have the potential to be radi-
cally transformative. The Pink Triangle is a liberating and transforming
symbol that possesses a dangerous, albeit practical, memory (Jensen, 2002).
It preserves the integrity of the people it represents (all the people –
LGBTQAI+ and Holocaust survivor alike), to unify them for mobilizing
political action against oppressive and even cruel social structures. Sym-
bols have the potential to nurture solidarity and action against suffering in
the present. These symbols also give hope to anyone working to achieve
true social justice whereby all humans are given the opportunity to flourish.
In addition, these symbols can “serve as the ground for criticism of the
status quo and [are] the impetus to transformation” (Metz, 2007, p. 35). In
order to conquer suffering, dangerous memories must be accurately pre-
served and acted upon collectively and mobilized in a practical and political
way. Standing in solidarity with the voiceless and the marginalized is the
Pink Triangle symbol’s call to action (Weingart, 2011). Thus, interruptive
symbols such as the Pink Triangle must be strategically placed in order to
reach the people who need to experience dangerous memories. Hermeneu-
tics alone does not create the necessary changes that allow for social justice.
Rather, proximity to the symbols is a necessary element. These may be
expressed as making a memory public in a society that acts in compassion-
ate solidarity with the deceased as well as past victims of injustice in his-
tory. Interruptive symbols should evoke a conversion of the heart as well as
a concrete, practical conversion with the living, calling for the disruption of
every attempt to disregard the history of human suffering, or to deface the
[current] suffering of human subjects (Copeland, 2004, p. 75).
Copeland (2004) discusses methods of interruption in a three-fold
manner. She was speaking to symbolism of political ideology, but the con-
cepts generally apply to the Pink Triangle memorials as well. Symbols may
disrupt by: 1) interrupting subjugation and commodification of human
“others”; 2) interrupting expressive and symbolic culture like identity polit-
ics and differences; and 3) interrupting the murky, disturbing connection
between terrorism and violence (Copeland, 2004, p. 73). Here, violence is
defined as the coercive attempt to limit or thwart the exercise and realiza-
tion of the essential and effective freedom of a human person or social
group (Copeland, 2004, p. 78). The premise being that deep seated ambiva-
lence, such as forgetting about the Pink Triangle prisoners, may contribute
to attitudes toward violence and social oppression for modern LGBTQAI+.
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 69
Copeland suggests three “duties”, which can be adopted by memorial visi-
tors to begin the interruption through a monument visit: 1) witness, 2) mem-
ory and 3) lament (Copeland, 2004, p. 80). As witnesses, we must
experience the symbol at a technical level through the senses, to gain famil-
iarity with historical moral, ethical and ontological data in order to interrupt
the violence that tears at the fabric of our society. Thus, this research
intended to determine if we could find occurrences of Copeland’s methods
of interruption.
Memorials
The protection and recovery of memory presents us with a second
method for interruption, as we resist the loss to history of stories of the
despised and excluded. All stories of all cultural and social groups, Holo-
caust survivors and modern LGBTQ alike, are hopefully brought to the
table at a memorial to be told, held, shared, examined and understood. We
allow them to interrupt as we resonate with stories from another generation.
These stories challenge us to overcome the temptation of selective memory
(Copeland, 2004, p. 80), but also encourage collective memory (Weingart,
2011). Rather than erase memories, we confront brokenness and hurt.
Memorials help us to battle cultural, historical and generational amnesia, or
even the all too swift revision of events, in order to expose memories that
we have been too ashamed to admit and confront. Inclusion of historical
data at a memorial is important, because it allows us to be able to expose
the negativity and suffering of history with interruptive truth-telling.
Finally, lament makes spaces of recognition and catharsis that prepares
individuals for justice. (Copeland, 2004, p. 81). Well-designed memorials
are such spaces. They interrupt the cycle of cultural and social decline,
creating a genuine healing of culture and spirit, provide adequate transform-
ative social solutions, and make possible forgiveness and reconciliation.
The Pink Triangle as a symbol is not meant for homosexuals alone.
Inward and outward messaging is another dimension of the memorials (Jen-
sen, 2002). The Pink Triangle has come to represent the collective suffer-
ing of homosexuals from hate crimes, everyday discrimination and in the
struggle for civil rights. These symbols speak not only inwardly to the
communities directly affected by the narratives they represent, but they also
reach outward into the global community at large, mobilizing collective
memory and advocating for positive cultural and social change (Weingart,
2011). Copeland writes, “All peoples need to stand up for the humanness
of all human persons, especially the despised and excluded, as they endure
marginalization and containment, economic exploitation and powerlessness,
70 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
cultural degradation and physical assault, systematic and random violence”
(Copeland, 2004, p. 75).
The Pink Triangle memorials also raise the political consciousness of
gays and lesbians, who argue that broader awareness of past transgressions
lead to greater social tolerance. As such, Jensen comments,
Activists in the United States, more so than in West Germany, tended to
direct the memory of Nazi persecution outward, in order to secure the
support of broader society. Whereas a certain segment of West German
gays enjoys relative tolerance of post-liberalization, and may need the
reminder of past victimhood. American gays in general, have never
doubted the omnipresent hostility of the society in which they live. (Jen-
sen, 2002, p. 329)
Americans tend to wear Pink Triangles, and erect more visible monu-
ments as a means of galvanizing support inside the community and outside
of it. However, as the new global situation of modern LGBTQ in society
begs for interruption, frequent exposure to logos or symbols such as the
Pink Triangle may increase empathy with regard to civic and citizen
responsibility, and can support creating and healing in society by exposing
the inability to be empathetic. Authentic achievement of humanity may lie
in visiting and remembering, thereby interrupting individualistic destructive
behaviors.
Sense-making
How we learn is critical to making meaning of these monuments and
symbols, no matter on which continent they are located. Sense-making is
coupled together with the concept of transformation. Transformation
occurs when one is able to step back and reflect on something and make
decisions about it (Berger, 2006). How people construct understanding
about their experiences, even decades later, can be viewed through Karl
Weick’s (2001) lens on sense-making, including the study of symbols such
as the Pink Triangle. The Pink Triangle has become a tool to help people
remember both the specific event in history and the collective memory of
suffering. Sense-making is a retrospective process: Remembering and look-
ing back are primary sources of meaning (Weick, 2001). Meaning is con-
structed when targets link received cues (observing a Pink Triangle
monument) with cognitive structures such as WWII, the gay pride move-
ment, or a vast spectrum in between or outside those concepts. According
to Weick (2001), definitions of meaning should vary from one group to
another, and that different groups can define the same situation in different
ways. Thus, things such as interruptive symbols do not have the same
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 71
meaning for different people in different periods of time and in different
parts of the world. The symbolic environment from which definitions arise
is a shared environment, and the outlook can be a shared outlook of collec-
tive memory.
M
ETHODS
To explore the perceptions of the visitors of the Pink Triangle Memo-
rial and the nature of the interruptive symbols and inward/outward messag-
ing, the researchers used a phenomenological approach that included on site
observations, six participant interviews and visual artifacts (photographs).
All participant interviews were done face-to-face, and included individuals
who live in the area, are active in re-establishing the memorial, to those
visiting the city from other countries. Ultimately, four men and two women
contributed their perceptions and insights to the study and all but one self-
identified as being gay or lesbian (which was unsolicited). From all of the
data collected, several themes emerged. These themes include “Serves as a
Reminder”, “Made Me Think” and “Taints It”.
In measuring the “effectiveness” of the memorial, the sample of
respondents for the interview was chosen from the visitors to the monument
who stopped to consider the memorial, not just pedestrians passing through
on their way from here to there. Observations were conducted in the park
on three different days, and the “lingerers,” were invited to answer the inter-
view questions. For the study, we defined memorial effectiveness as the
ability of the memorial to stop the observer and urge further consideration
and study of the surroundings, but further insight to this was gained from
the interviews.
For the purpose of this study, the central question asked was, “What
does this memorial mean to you?”, but this was further explored with the
following interview questions:
• What brought you to the park today?
• Do you know the history of the Pink Triangle?
• Why do you think this memorial exists?
• Who do you think this memorial is intended to reach?
• How has this memorial changed your perceptions of the Holocaust?
• How has this memorial changed your perceptions of LGBTQAI+
matters?
• How does this memorial impact you emotionally?
• What has this experience inspired you to do with this information?
The intent of these inquiries was to try and gauge the extent of
collective memory if any, whether sense-making was occurring, if the
72 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
messaging was going inward or outward, how effective this interrup-
tive symbol was, and was it evoking dangerous memories. To try to
answer these guiding research questions, the interviews were tran-
scribed and analyzed coded per qualitative methods. From the field
observations, artifact collection and participant interviews three
themes emerged as well as some general findings.
Observations of The Castro
The Pink Triangle Memorial Park is on the edge of the Castro Neigh-
borhood, at the intersections of 17th, Castro and Market streets in San Fran-
cisco, California. Market, Castro and 17th are all very busy multiple-lane
arterials, and carry a high volume of traffic. There are stoplights and cross-
walks in all directions, and pedestrians can easily get to the park and back.
There is also a pedestrian walkway, which passes right through the middle
of the 15 triangle pylons at the monument. The only information posted is a
two foot by three foot metal plaque on one end of the park which includes
one sentence on the history of the historical events being commemorated by
the monument. The sign is deteriorating, but is still fairly readable. It says,
“PINK TRIANGLE PARK AND MEMORIAL: In remembrance of the
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender victims of the Nazi regime (last
word unreadable).” It goes on to list the artists, non-profits, politicians,
funders, government and community groups who were responsible for the
erection of the park, dedicated on Human Rights Day, December 10, 2001.
The plaque includes a photo of Pink Triangle prisoners wearing the symbol
on their concentration camp uniforms.
There is no parking area near the monument, nor is there street parking
on the busy streets adjacent to it. A covered bus stop shelter at the park has
been moved recently due to constant vandalism, including repetitive break-
ing of glass to get to the power source that lit the shelter. Signs posted
around the monument now redirect bus passengers to new stop locations.
There is a Muni (train) stop across the street from the memorial in the Har-
vey Milk Plaza, an entrance adjacent to the park that leads pedestrians
underneath Market Street to the train platform.
The City of San Francisco had a large role in getting the memorial
built and participating in the 2001 dedication ceremony, but since then has
largely forgotten about it. This is evident in the obvious neglect of the park,
including dilapidated pillars, and shabby maintenance. While there is no
seating in the park, there is a two-foot wall along one edge of the park,
which had graffiti on it, including a swastika in permanent marker, but
mostly Pride-supportive messages. An electrical box had been painted pink
to match the theme of the park, and it had several small stones placed on
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 73
top, making it look like an altar of a sort. Much of the ground cover of the
park is simple sand, gravel or bark, where there may have been plants or
vines as groundcover at one time. Several garbage and recycling cans have
their permanent storage areas adjacent to the park. While rainbow flags are
highly prevalent throughout the neighborhood, Pink Triangles are less so,
except at the monument.
While San Francisco and Mayor of the City, Willie Brown Jr., were
active members responsible for the erection of the park at the time of incep-
tion, there is obviously little continued investment in the memorial. The
park is not actually a part of the City of San Francisco’s parks system, but
rather under the purveyance of the Eureka Valley Neighborhood Associa-
tion (EVNA).
Initial Observations
During three days of observations, 144 people passed through the Pink
Triangle Park. Of these individuals, only six noticeably stopped to consider
the monument as they had made an intentional effort to seek out the park.
These six individuals were ultimately interviewed as a part of the study.
The perceived gender breakdown of these 144 individuals passing through
included 85 males, 50 females, and nine “other” (either indeterminable or
children) that were observed passing straight through the main sidewalk of
the park and directly walking on a pink triangle made of rose quartz, and
through (between) fifteen triangular granite pylons which symbolize the
15,000 gay men imprisoned during the Holocaust.
Themes
From the six participant interviews, as well as field observations and
artifacts, three themes emerged from the data. These themes include,
“Serves as a reminder,” “Made Me Think,” and “Taints It.” In addition,
other insights were gained which included the impact of memorial sus-
tainability and group/community messaging, the need for foresight in
memorial planning, and re-traumatization of marginalized groups.
Serves as a Reminder
The theme, “Serves as a Reminder” was discussed by all of the partici-
pants. The contributors discussed that the Pink Triangle Park was not just a
physical reminder of the bigotry and hate that the Nazi’s had for gay men,
but also “to memorialize our connection to that point in history, in the
hopes that it will never happen again.” One participant commented, “That’s
74 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
one of the points of public monuments. That they offer themselves promis-
cuously to all passers-by, and state to them, as a city, this is a historical
moment that we want you to know about, remember and understand.”
Another premise of this theme included the desire that the park reinforce
the message to society that we should be diligent in our attention. Thus, this
is not only a reminder of historical atrocities, but that the park and its mes-
sage speaks to the future so that these same barbarisms, bigotry and hate,
are not repeated.
A second aspect of this theme includes a social justice component. For
example, several of the participants voiced an understanding that the Pink
Triangle Park is directly connected to the Castro district of San Francisco (a
long established and predominantly LGBTQAI+ area), and in addition, that
this neighborhood is home to Harvey Milk. Milk, an LGBTQAI+ activist
and elected official, was at one time known as “The Mayor of Castro
Street” even before he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervi-
sors (Shilts, 2008). As such, this particular area is embedded in a historical
preponderance towards activism and human rights. However, as one partici-
pant commented also about the monument,
It has changed my perception because now I’m seeing that some mem-
bers of the LGBT community feel safer by being quiet, being wallflow-
ers, not addressing their anger and frustration with society, and they’re
content in the marginalization, So, I become angry at community mem-
bers because of that.
This participant went on to say, “I just see the division and the hate
speech, the troll-like behavior is becoming normal. And I’m refusing it, but
at the same time, I’m seeing it happen more openly.” Thus, in this partici-
pant and others’ minds, there is a need to remember and regenerate this
activism.
A further aspect of the theme Serves as a Reminder included the desire
by several of the participants to make the park more dynamic and effective.
For example, several had lofty goals for the park, and these not only
included a garden space for weddings, reflection and other public events,
but also that the message and intent of the park reach as many people in the
community as possible. This outreach of inclusion included a gamut of indi-
viduals, both from the local LGBTQAI+ community, but also the sentiment
that:
I think it’s a park for everyone. A people’s park type situation because
during the Nazi regime, there were so many different victims . . . women,
people with disabilities, immigrants, church leaders. I mean it’s just
extensive . . . But this park is putting a spotlight on one particular group
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 75
of people, but ah, we can all be marginalized and victimized through laws
created by the government.
Thus, the intent for those close to the Pink Triangle Park was that, not
only did the memorial serve as a symbol of the past; but that it helped
people remember the challenges faced by LGBTQAI+ people today. The
hope voiced by many of the participants in the study is that this space could
become a place of gathering, community, activism, and life and culture for
both the neighborhood, and those that traveled to San Francisco.
Made Me Think
The second theme encompasses the range of emotions that the partici-
pants felt when they engaged with the history of oppression that the
LGBTQ+ community has faced, and how symbols such as the Pink Trian-
gle remind them of the on-going need to stay vigilant. While this discern-
ment was triggered by the symbol of the Pink Triangle, for a couple of the
participants, this perspicacity also came with other interruptive symbols
such as the gay pride flag.
The assortment of feelings and emotions that the participants discussed
came from a merging of both the past actions of governments such as Nazi
Germany, but also from the current political climate. Discussion included
statements reflecting on the bygone era, such as:
we are committed to commemorating one of the darkest moments in the
history of the queer community, and making sure that the victims are not
forgotten, and that the means of persecution are remembered, and that we
remain alert, attentive and prepared to fight back now, if we see similar
things starting to happen.
Another participant discussed this by saying, “I think, because LGBT
also want to remember their ancestors or be the pioneers of their own his-
tory. And try to make their [LGBTQ+] separate history inside the main
history.”There was also an understanding that today there are people from
around the world from “wildly different cultures. . .cultures where it’s still
illegal for LGBTQ people to live their lives in some kind of comfortable
way where they still face persecution, or the death penalty, or a variety of
horrible experiences.” To the awareness that in the US there are still a num-
ber of challenges that the LGBTQ+ community contends with, and that dili-
gence and atonement to these issues is still needed. In addition, that there
are “cultures that are more open and more welcoming than ours” is a part of
the needed attentiveness, because many of the rights that LGBTQ+ individ-
uals have are still new and fragile.Furthermore, several of the participants
76 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
have lived in the Castro district for years, and vividly remember the AIDS
epidemic, as well as the park’s conception. For these individuals, the Pink
Tringle serves as a graphic memory of both the atrocities of Nazi Germany,
as well as the marginalization and neglect that local and national govern-
ment has done to the LGBTQAI+ community. For example, as one partici-
pant reiterated, LGBTQAI+ people were “called ‘asocial’. And so the
genesis of it was, if you weren’t going to contribute to procreating and the
human race and the master race, then you’re, you know, seen as criminals.”
As another participant commented “the Nazis categorized their enemies of
the state, degenerates, or whoever they thought was not Aryan enough, or
didn’t meet their moral and social profile by a series of symbols, and for
homosexual men, it was a Pink triangle.”
For another participant, the memory of the AIDS crisis rose to the top
in this theme:
So we, in the 1980s, it’s interesting that it also is happening in the darkest
years of the AIDS crisis, when in the United States, and here in San
Francisco, a city that was very, very deeply hit by that crisis, that we saw
a horrible public health disaster and watched the majority of the power
structure here in our country turn its back and say nothing other than, “At
least it’s killing the right people.”
A number of the participants talked about this kind of government
marginalization, and why Pink Triangle memorials and imagery are impor-
tant to combat this ostracism. As an example, one individual stated:
There as a great resonance at that moment to say, and indeed there were
people who referred to what was happening as ‘a Holocaust’, and said
that it was the result of deliberate decisions to ignore this health crisis,
and that people were being “persecuted” because of who they were. So I
think there’s a great resonance at that period of time to say we need to
remember this earlier moment, and we need to draw strength from that to
fight this current moment of crisis that our community is facing.
There was a deep sensitivity by the participants that “remaining alert”
and “staying connected to our culture” is essential to not repeating the
atrocities of the distant and recent past. For the participants, this theme of
reflection, discernment, and remaining attentive and alert empowers them
into action. As one commented, “It’s really become more important to me,
in the past year specifically, because I have been having a lot of anxiety
about the political climate.” This participant went on to say, “In order for
me, rather than to be a victim of the political situation, I have become
empowered by, taking action, working locally, and strengthening commu-
nity building and finding sanctuary in my community.”
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 77
Taints It
The third and last theme that emerged from the participant interviews
and observations was “Taints It.” This theme discusses the memorial itself,
and how the neglect and decline of the Pink Triangle Park impacts the mes-
sage of the monument. The proposition is that this degeneration re-
marginalizes the Pink Triangle Prisoners as well as the present LGBTQAI+
community. As one participant claimed, the “folks running it early on didn’t
actually know the real history. So to the extent that they were sending a
pedagogical message, it was folkloric rather than historical, and it confused
people about the actual history that took place.”In addition, there was the
observation by most of the participants that “there is really no signage, If
you don’t come already knowing something about the pink triangle, you
won’t know what it means.” Additionally, this “scruffy, triangle-shaped lot
right adjacent to the Castro was kind of allowed to go into decline.” As the
participant reflected, “it has not been an effective monument because it has
not been made effective. . .” Another participant commented, “In a more
complicated way in that I never felt the design was very strong. Uh, that the
location is right next to the Castro, but if somebody doesn’t tell you it’s
there, you won’t notice it. It’s not on a main pedestrian thoroughfare.”
Currently there is a movement to revitalize the park, “but it went
through a long period of time where it had fallen into disrepair and neglect,
and was really quite embarrassing . . . and terrible.” Several of the partici-
pants discussed that they were ashamed and embarrassed by the state of the
Pink Triangle memorial, so much so that as one stated “I didn’t want to tell
people about it because, or to come see our memorial to the victims of Nazi
persecution and homosexuals where we can’t even be bothered to pull up
the weeds or mow the lawn.” Another commented “that it was basically
abandoned by the Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association that had
launched it, and they just handed it off to the City” without any plan of
maintenance or care.
Due to this neglect and abandonment, one of the participants com-
mented that they felt, “because it’s a little decrepit, it sadly makes me
feel. . .it taints it somehow. Yeah, there’s like, ‘Oh, it’s not important any-
more?’ or ‘Oh, is it being phased out?’ So it actually takes me to a more
negative, sentimental place.” These sentiments were woven through a num-
ber of the comments the participants made, and were a vivid reminder of
the precarious balance between memorializing a people or time, and work-
ing to not re-victimize them in the efforts. As one individual stated,
The Pink Triangle Park in San Francisco means that here in the City that
for the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first cen-
78 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
tury, around the world in people’s imagination, this is one of the capitals
of LGBTQ life and culture. One of the places where we’ve created space
for ourselves, and created power for ourselves, created a welcome to visi-
tors from around the world.
However, the current state of the park affects this message, in that
there is a need to regenerate the messaging, such that the memorial and
surrounding neighborhood can use the pink triangle symbol to help them-
selves and others remember the persecution that LGBTQAI+ people have
faced. As one participant commented, “I think there’s a great resonance at
that period of time to say we need to remember this earlier moment, and we
need to draw strength from that to fight this current crisis that our commu-
nity is facing.”
D
ISCUSSION
The observations and the participants’ insights brought several things
to light regarding the Pink Triangle as an interruptive symbol and as a tool
for inward and outward messaging. First, it became apparent that for the
participants, the need for both the memorial, as well as the Pink Triangle
symbol itself was foundational to create and perpetuate their collective
memory (Weingart, 2011). Participants related to the historical implications
of the pink triangle, for political prisoners, but even more so they under-
stood the modern significance of the symbol and the need to stay diligent in
their activism and community engagement. This initial observation parallels
Copeland’s (2004) idea of witnessing.
However, in design, the park is strongly oriented toward the modern
definition of a pink triangle as a symbol of LGBTQAI+ rights. They only
physical element at the park relating to Copeland’s (2004) concept of mem-
ory (or Holocaust memory, in tis case), is the small historical marker refer-
ring to the initiation of the pink triangle as a Holocaust symbol in
concentration camps. If interruption occurs by confronting brokenness and
hurt, rather than erasing or revising the memories, perhaps the representa-
tion of both generations’ testimonies to homophobic persecution needs to
be equally represented at the monument. This would allow for greater
shared examination and collective memory, and would discourage selective
memory or revision of events. One interviewee suggested a QR code at the
monument, which when scanned with a cellular device or tablet, would take
the visitor/observer to a web page perhaps, which could illustrate the his-
tory of LGBTQAI+ struggles from the Holocaust through the present.
Another insight came in the form of the Pink Triangle Park itself.
While the intent of the park was, in the words of one of the participants,
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 79
initially was “a rescue operation, because it was a neglected piece of land
that was becoming a place of crime, and so the residents came forward and
reclaimed the space,” the space became a memorial out of convenience
rather than a deliberate and intentional act. Perhaps if this were the case,
park planning would have been organized such that future maintenance,
funding and preservation would have been made. Currently there is a move-
ment underway by several of the neighborhood activists to revitalize the
park. Several of the participants were very passionate about the possibility
of a resurrection for the monument. At one point, one of the individuals
had even begun to fundraise by making their own pink triangle buttons,
which had softer curved edges and a rose in the middle, for a “new genera-
tion.” This community member sold these at the monument, but did not
make enough to make a significant contribution to help the decaying park.
Another of the participants called this effort his passion and coined the term
“Pink Triangle 2.0,” which is the name of the restoration project.
Thus, future endeavors, perhaps the “Pink Triangle 2.0” should have a
clear objective and consider the intention and ultimate goal of the memo-
rial/park. For instance, having more information in a visible and interrup-
tive manner may help. Use of modern technology for a more effective
monument, providing both historical as well as current information can
serve to better inform the park’s visitors. Moreover, the park has suffered
from vandalism, homeless people taking up residence, and other neighbor-
hood challenges. Thus, clear buy-in from the city and neighborhood to pro-
tect and maintain the park is needed for a deeper impact. Furthermore,
addressing these neighborhood challenges directly may be necessary as
apparently the area has had them since the original inception of the park.
The last insight has to do with the unintended consequence of the Pink
Triangle Park. By creating a memorial for a persecuted group, re-marginal-
izing their successors by failing to maintain the park, neglecting care of the
people in the neighborhood, or by failing to recognize the systemic oppres-
sion and persecution of these people is careless in one regard, and deeply
reckless and unethical in another. Future efforts to revitalize the memorial,
or create new ones in the future can take a lesson from the Pink Triangle
Park in this regard. Deep care and attention should be paid to those working
with, or for marginalized groups. This supports Copelands (2004) concept
of lamenting.
C
ONCLUSION
While this research looked at interruptive symbols, authentic symbols
can also challenge perceptions and the messaging of memorials like the
Pink Triangle. As Polzer (2014) states, an “‘authentic symbol’ designates a
80 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES Vol. 15:63
reified symbol, exemplified here by Holocaust sites and other relics. Docu-
mentation universally, yet unreflectively, insists that Holocaust relics must
be ‘authentic’ to be considered functional sacred symbols that evoke and
internalize appropriate ideological collective response” (p. 699). As human
beings, we need to be constantly and consistently reminded of the atrocities
that we inflict on others. One way to do this is through interruptive symbols
and inward and outward messaging. In these tools, we create meaning and a
collective history that can help us avoid mistakes of the past. As Greenleaf
(1977) stated, “Meaning is a stern taskmaster: one must aspire, one must
persevere, one must accept the discipline of dealing thoughtfully with sym-
bols” (p. 338). Through the use of memorials and their related symbols, we
can learn.
The power of a symbol is measured by its capacity to sustain a flow of
significant new meaning. The substance of the symbol may be a paint-
ing, poem or story, allegory, myth, scripture, a piece of music, a person, a
crack in the sidewalk or a blade of grass. Whatever or whoever, it pro-
duces a confrontation in which that much of what makes the symbol
meaningful comes from the beholder. (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 329)
The experience of this particular monument seemed to miss the mark
in terms of creating a collective memory, which was a direct purpose of the
condition, location and design of the Park. The research results revealed
that to be a true interruptive symbol, to best reach all parties to create and
share a collective memory, and for the viewers to best make sense of the
symbol, the memorial/monument must reach the viewer in location and
design (be accessible to the senses). In addition, it must also include both
the dimensions of historical and modern contexts (WWII History and Pride
in this case). Both are a necessity in the memorial/monument for disruption
and sense-making to occur.
The basic symbolic interactionist effect of a logo (or symbol) upon
sense-making, meaning-making, and collective memory is a study of the
human emergent reaction to the world around him/her. A larger, more
altruistic question lies in this study of interruptive symbology. How can we
as leaders, using interruptive symbols to persuade observers to action, up to
and including greater social justice? Continued research of the epiphanic
disruption of symbols which provoke or urge collective memories, can
potentially lead to the betterment of humanity.
2018-19 THE PINK TRIANGLE 81
R
EFERENCES
Copeland, S. (2004). Political theology as interruptive. Catholic Theological
Society of America (CTSA) (pp. 71-82). Chestnut Hill, MA: SAGE
Publications.
Elman, R. A. (1996). Triangles and tribulations: The politics of Nazi symbols.
Journal of Homosexuality, 30 (3). Retrieved from http://remember.org/edu
cate/elman
Garvey Berger, J. (2006). Key concepts for understanding the work of Robert
Kegan. Retrieved from https://www.cultivatingleadership.co.nz/research-re
sources/ourwriting
Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory. New York: Harper & Row.
Jensen, E. N. (2002). The Pink Triangle and political consciousness: Gays, lesbians
and the memory of Nazi persecution. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 11(1/
2 January/April), 319-349.
Koymaksy, A. K. (2016, June 25). The gay holocaust - Memorials. Retrieved from
The Memorial Hall: http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho08.html
Marcuse, H. (2014, May 1). Remembering the Holocaust: ‘A brutal life that lasted
years and years’. Retrieved from Noozhawk UC Santa Barbara http://www
.noozhawk.com/article/remembering_the_holocaust_series_harold_marcuse_
20140501
Metz, J. (2007). Faith in history and society: Toward a practical fundamental
theology. New York, NY: Crossroads Publishing.
Seifert, D. (2003). Between silence and license: The representation of the national
socialist persecution of homosexuality in Anglo American film. History and
Memory, 94-129.
Timberlake, S. (2005). History of the Castro. Retrieved from: http://www.mycastro
.com/history-of-the-castro
Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Weingart, K. J. (2011). Memories of suffering: The Pink Triangle and mobilizing
collective memory. Gonzaga University, Religious Studies. Spokane, WA: Pro
Quest UMI Dissertation Publishing.
Weingart, K. J. (2011). Memories of suffering: The Pink Triangle and mobilizing
collective memory. Gonzaga University, Religious Studies. Spokane, WA: Pro
Quest UMI Dissertation Publishing.
