There are a lot of issues to talk about on Memorial Day in wartime, but one that I thought was of particualr interest was one that I heard on my local public radio today. They ran a story about a local man who is trying to make his own memorial to Iraq war vets. He explained that he was trying to make all of those who have died into individuals, not numbers. While I think that this is a a noble undertaking to honor those who have served for us, it begs the question, is this how vets should be memorialized?
I am not talking about whether or not we should memorialize vets in a current war I am talking about individual memorialization versus group memorials. As someone who used to live in our nation's capitol, i have seen many memorials, all moving in their own way. However, there is a very striking shift in how we memorialize our dead after the Vietnam War. Maya Lin's memorial is the first national monument to acknowledge soldiers as individual people, names. Even memorials that have been built after the Vietnam Memorial, for instance the Korea Memorial or the WWII Memorial, do no such thing. The closest the WWII monument gets is a wall of stars to symbolize individuals, but it is only a fraction of stars in relation to how many people died. Yet, something like the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial is very specific in creating chairs in their memorial for the dead, as well as listing the names of the surviviors.
What causes this shift? It is not the designers making these changes, it is the people who choose them. Are the baby boomers showing their desire for individualism? Is that appropriate in a military setting? Isn't the military all about the group, the unit, being one together? Even Arlington National Cemetary is all uniformity. Is it the theory of live together, die alone? It begs the question of who are memorials really for?
Monday
How we grieve
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As a former soldier - a memorial should not name names. When you strap on your steel pot (helmet) and pick up a your weapon you stop being an individual. You don't act because you have made an individual decision you act for one of two reasons: 1) because you were given an order or 2) because your buddy needs you to act so he doesn't die. I promise you that if the 'Nam vets who are listed on that wall were alive they would cover up their own names. No one in a uniform (at least no one worth their salt) would want, seek or condone the individual attention. It is proper to remember that soldiers are people and they should be remembered and honored. But, a reading of names is for victims – not heroes.
Thanks for your post anonymous. i would agree that memorials cannot be without politics, because by nature, wars are a political thing.
However,what people take away from seeing memorials may have nothing to do with what the commissioners intended. Take the Jefferson Memorial, for instance. Since that was erected, think about how of perception of Jefferson as a founder have changed. How our views of the Declaration, the Constitution have changed. The meaning of the original monument is now drowned out by the experiences of the modern world.
That is why I find the WWII monument so fascinating. How are we memorializing the so called "greatest generation?" A war memorial that had major fundraising done by movie stars and directors. I think the contrast in how we feel this war should be memorialized is so stark compared to Vietnam, or Korea. Will this memorial resonate with anyone other than those who served? Does it need to?
How will Irag be remembered? An unpopular war, with popular vets. How will we account for the fact that the face of the war is injured vets now, with all our advancements in field medicine?
All so compelling.
Thanks for your perspective, it is great to hear from you, Superdad. I had suspected that this might be the perspective of those who serve, but in the era of the "Army of One" I wasn't sure. Thanks!
Post a Comment