Since earliest recorded history, mankind has been compelled to construct memorials to the fallen. From the ancient pyramids to the Lincoln Memorial to Jim Morrison's grave, the monuments of a people say as much about the people that constructed them as they do about the dead.
Abraham Lincoln was at the dedication of the memorial cemetery at Gettysburg when he gave this short speech in 1863:
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Lincoln had a very strong sense of the purpose of memorial: It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain [...]. In other words, a memorial should serve to inspire the living to finish the honorable work for which the fallen have given their lives.
American monuments have in the past tended to be large white stone structures inscribed with words of wisdom. The Vietnam Memorial changed all that.
Read this article from the NY Post concerning the changing values reflected in our nation's monuments.
Some questions for discussion (you do not have to answer all of the questions):
1. What are the main objections of the author of the NY Post article to the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?
1. What are the main objections of the author of the NY Post article to the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the objections of the author?
3. What would Lincoln say about the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?
4. Are memorials necessary or even desirable? Why or why not?
5. What functions should memorials have in American society?
--Cicerone
Photo Credit: Flickr
13 comments:
I don't agree, at all, with the NY Post article. Maybe it's my generational qualities that he seems so eager to highlight or the simple fact the to me a remebrance is much more touching than a statue. Statues seem to strike me as so, "let's take a picture, so we can show everyone we were here and leave." I, personally, have never spent any tru time or have been "inspired" as the author states by these statues. They bore me and make me want to go on to the next 50 statues. I think that bare or simple memorial's with just names force us to truly think about the people and the situation. You have to actually consider what occurred because there isn't a statue there depicting it for you. Taking that time to actually think about what occurred is much more valuable than looking at a statue.
Personally speaking, i dont thing it is likely that anybody from any country would fly to america to see any form of statue assuming it was comprised of only a name... Maybe thats just me but i think that if your going to errect a monument it should be beautiful and inspire people to imagine new things.
Unlike the general populous, some of us find that studying the handyword of a master craftsman to be facinating. There is a reason that people still say a picture is worth a thousand words.
And if a name is the only memorial then how inclined are people to really ponder that memorial? Not likely. People don't even stop to ponder a word they don't understand, why would they then actually spend time trying to desypher the meaning of a random name they have never heard of?
but that is just my opinion.
I do not agree with the author of the NY Post article. The Vietnam memorial is a simple structure, but it has an immense impact.
It is a very moving memorial to see. The wall seems to stretch on endlessly with an infinite number of names inscribed on it. I believe that this memorial honors all those who died for our country in Vietnam immensely.
Monuments serve as a great visual reminder of the sacfifices people have made for and the service they have given to our country.
I also disagree with some of what the author of the article says. Sometimes, what the author refers to as "Nothing" can have the biggest impact and can make the heaviest impression on people. Do you think that people in New York are more affected when they see absolutely nothing where the World Trade Center used to stand, or when they see a statue? For the Flight 93 memorial, the same question applies.
Maybe what the author calls "Nothing" should be referred to as "Silence" because silence can be mistaken as meaningless or "barrenness" if its only observed superficially. However, in a memorial, silence (aka "Nothing") forces us to think about the people, like Mahssa said. Maybe the generation the author speaks of is more comfortable with Silence than he is, because silence forces us to think and reflect and remember what sacrifices were made for us. The author claims that this "Nothing" does not honor the dead, but I think that we could not honor them more because we remember their lives. A momument doesn't have to be loud and demanding of attention in order to be meaningful.
I understand completely what the reporter is saying about the three different memorials and I can find enough ground to both agree and disagree with. Something that is meant to be as powerful as a memorial to veterans or tragic deaths is a highly personal issue. Something that is so personal can easily be subjectively interpreted. Some may want a vibrant and glorified depiction of the event in memoriam while others prefer the impact of nothingness (or silence, as Janey said). Neither side is right or wrong. What I think is more important to consider is that these men and women are being noted as having given some service to their country and that is far more important that arguing over HOW they should be remembered.
Well, I'm kind of sitting on the fence with this topic. I agree with Mahssa, Chloe, and Janey in that the author of the NY Post articles seems to be missing the point when he looks at the 'nothing' monuments. The simplicity of those monuments is just a different way of expressing the impact and feeling the monument carries. In addition, I'm also guilty of thinking the statues are quite boring and they kind of all look alike... no offense to the artists... And I also agree when Mahssa pointed out the fact that most people only go to the statue monuments only to take 'touristy' pictures, not to be 'inspired.'
However, I can see what Chris means when he says the simple monuments that only list names don't inspire people either. After all, they're basically a really long list of names of dead people on a slab of stone.
But then this brings us to a problem of trying to please everyone, which is impossible. Everyone has different ideas of what 'inpsires' them and although some may think that the Vietnam memorial is 'nothing,' others might think that it's vastness and the seemingly never-ending list of names is 'extremely powerful.' In the same way, although one may find a statue to be incredibly moving, others may think that it's ugly or just another tourist attraction. I guess it's a matter of the individual's taste. However, I don't think it's right to criticize a monument just because you don't like it. I think once you criticize it, you've basically missed the whole point of why a memorial was built in the first place.
Oh, and I agree with Lincoln when he says that memorials should inspire people to remember the person/event the memorial represents and should continue the work of improving whatever the memorial stands for.
Magneticmahssa:
You make a good observation in describing the “touristy” nature of many monuments. How do “bare or simple” monuments force you to think about the people?
Chris:
Can a monument be effective if only those with an artistic temperament appreciate them?
Chloe:
Most people who have seen the Vietnam Memorial do remark upon how moving it is. Is it enough for a monument to make one sad or should it do more?
Janey:
I like your point about the impact of silence. You claim that the Vietnam Memorial helps us remember their lives, but what do you remember about them? That they died in Vietnam? Or is there something else?
Alimc39:
You answered this like a true politician. I am not sure if anyone knows what you really feel now.
Rose:
Yes, the Vietnam Memorial is extremely powerful, but to what end? To be confronted by the death of so many is moving, but to where does the Memorial move us?
--Cicerone
Hmm... well I would think that the Vietnam memorial would serve to remind people of what the soldiers died for and therefore hopefully inspire them to want to serve their country as the soldiers did. I haven't seen the Vietnam memorial so I'm not entirely sure if it's as powerful as everyone says it is.
I'm not biased with which memorials are better or not... I appreciate both kinds.
I completely agree with the point that Janey made...sometimes nothing is everything; sometimes that is just all you need. However, I'm not opposed to the idea of having the names of those who died creatively and respectufully displayed in some form or fashion. But at the same time, I think statues and all the rest of that stuff is not really necessary and is not all that appealing to me... it doesn't make a difference either way. I think that the reflection pools for the 9/11 memorial is actually a very good idea. I really like it.
I completely disagree with the author of that article. He obviously has no awareness of the effect of the large mass of those names on the walls. The listing of names is to honor every single person that was identified that helped to fight in some way.
Just because it does not depict what actions they exactly took, does not mean it meanings nothing.
"You sacrificed for others - but that's not worthy of mention, because now you're just as dead as anyone else." This is totally false. Just because there is not a statue means a name is not worthy of mention?
Monuments are there to remind us of all the people who have fought for our freedom and safety in our country.
Honestly I don't think it matters if a memorial is plain or whether an artist makes a loud over the top interpretation of the event. I think no matter which type of memorial you see, just being at a memorial makes a person think and reflect a lot on the situation. My reaction to seeing "nothing" memorials and those that depict the situation for me is the same. Either way, I am forced to reflect and interpret the situation for myself to some degree.
I think its wrong to say that the Vietnam Memorial is a "nothing" memorial because its not nothing. The wall itself listing the names of the lives lost is a big something in itself.
I think when a person goes to a memorial they should think more about the actual reality of the situation, the sacrifice, courage, honor, etc. that makes these people worth memorializing rather than what the actual monument looks or doesn't look like. The fact that an event or person is being memorialized, no matter in what manner, is something in itself.
(I'm not sure if i made much sense but i tried.)
Sorry for being late in posting this. I was having dinner with my family and could only leave the table now.
Regarding the article, I disagree with a lot of what the author says.. but not all of it. I feel that memorials have more of an impact on us if they remind us of what the people went through. I I know that I have been inspired by many memorials that have statues, and I think that a physical reminder does have an impact on me. At the same time, I feel that a long list of names hits home just as much as a statue would. I agree with chloe in that the Vietnam memorial still has an immense impact as the walls seem to go on and on.
I also agree with janey when she said, "A momument doesn't have to be loud and demanding of attention in order to be meaningful."... sometimes taking a quiet moment to reflect has just as big an impact as a moving statue would.
I feel that our focus should not be on the structure. Instead, I think that we should focus more on why the structure is there.
To M. Cicerone:
1. What are the main objections of the author of the NY Post article to the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?
- The author of this article believes, that the memorials do not evoke enough of a sense of patriotism, pride, and inspiration in the people who see them, that they are more like tombstones.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the objections of the author?
Kinda,
3. What would Lincoln say about the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?
Lincoln would, based on how he thinks memorials should inspire. Frankly, a list containing the names of 58,000 dead people just doesn’t do it for me. I mean, there isn’t even a flag, or some sort of American symbol/icon associated with the big black rock.
4. Are memorials necessary or even desirable? Why or why not?
Memorials are 100% necessary. (I'll explain the why's below)
5. What functions should memorials have in American society?
Representations of historical events that tell a story so that generations later will be able to relate to, empathize with, and be inspired by. They should depict the event essentially.
VIETNAM SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION! Because, it is really all situational. Vietnam sucked, had almost no meaning, no rallying point behind it, and was virtually for nothing. So its hard to make a rallying, patriotic, and yeah, a black stone with names does it justice. But this is an exception, in a category of its own.
I agree with the author on other similar memorials that aren’t soaked in something America isn’t particularly proud of.
Post a Comment