Before today's lecture I hadn't really ever thought about national monuments/memorials, even though it was brought up several times before by Professor Hass in lecture. The Vietnam Memorial sticks out the most to me though, because it was very different from the previously discussed ones (Washington and Lincoln memorials). It was interesting to me to see the how Teddy Roosevelt's take on manliness and the nation has carried through in U.S. history. The fact that Reagan rejected the design of the Vietnam Memorial because it was not manly or herioc enough reemphasizes the nation's desire to appear strong and powerful. This recurring themes makes me wonder how our recent presidents have encouraged this very vision. Is this need to show manliness still dominant today?
Before this lecture, I also never thought about the practice of bringing stuff to sites of tragedy or memory. I attributed this practice as a way for the people to honor the memory of the life lost, that physically bringing something tangible to the deceased person (or place of memory for the deceased person) is a way to invoke the memory and the life of that loved one. There seems to be a need to bridge the gap between what no longer physically exists and what is still physically there. Bringing stuff to to a memorial could be a way to narrow that gap. It seems that leaving one things at a memorial is both a way of remember a person whose life was cut short and a way to help them themselves move on.
I also found it interesting that Reagan would not allow the building of the Vietnam Memorial until it represented masculinity. This theme of masculinity is hard ignore and is something I had very little knowledge on before this class. Your question of does our current government still participate in this practice of trying to create masculine nation is very interesting as well. I believe that this theme has continued. Our nation repeatably tries to be the protectors of the weaker nations and a world police. We like to show that we are the the dominate power and that nothing can stop us from getting what we desire.
ReplyDeleteBefore this lecture, I also never wondered why people bring things to memorials. I agree with your symbolic reasoning, of bridging the gap between the lack of physical existance and the ever present emotional existance. The things that most people brought (bears, boots, beer etc...) seem to be a way of saying goodbye to the physical loss of a friend/family member through tangible items. Sadly, I took some time to think about what I would leave if I ever lost someone important to me. After much consideration I decided that I would leave physical items that resemble our relationship and shared times. Therefore, it seems almost natural that memorials and graves today are covered with such things.
ReplyDeleteA connection that can be made between separate topics of this class: thinking about the bringing of sentimental items to places of tragedy in association with Annie Leonard's "story of stuff". The building of the Vietnam memorial brought about the tradition of placing items of remembrance at a memorial, and I believe this can be seen as fueling Americans' materialism and obsession with 'things'. Not to say this is a bad thing, but it is an interesting concept on how history affects the future of a country's actions.
ReplyDeleteI also found it very interesting that Reagan did not approve the Vietnam memorial because it didn't exude enough manliness. I think that the concept of masculinity has been an overarching theme throughout this class and American history as a whole. It seems that our country is constantly trying to prove it's power and strength to the rest of the world. Although women have slowly begun assuming positions of power through the United States, it is still a country dominated mostly by white men. And to answer your question, I would say that this need to show our "manliness" IS still dominant today. The fact that the US has taken it upon themselves to go into other countries with the attempts to "fix" them, shows our country is till trying to play the male stereotypical role of "protector" for the rest of the world. Although allowing others to see our power is not always a bad thing, I think that the recent ways we have chosen to do this may cause big problems down the road.
ReplyDelete