I thought that Professor Hass’ lectures on the construction of war memorials were both very interesting and eye-opening. It had never occurred to me before that veterans would not be in favor of having a memorial built in their honor. This seemed to be especially prevalent in regards to the possible creation of a World War Two memorial. I always assumed that memorials were places where soldiers would come to reflect on their time at war and to remember their friends and comrades who had died. However, after hearing Professor Hass’ lectures and doing a bit more reading about the opposition to memorials, it seems that many view war memorials as a superficial attempt to garner patriotism rather than honor those lost in war. After thinking about this viewpoint for awhile it has started to make more sense. Veterans who spent time in World War Two have an experience that no one else will ever be able to fully understand. They have been through things that can’t be put into words or physical forms. Maybe they feel that the construction of a huge showy memorial is more for appearance and not actually designed for the benefit of veterans. By creating a gaudy monument, it seems like the government is trying to call more attention to the war, almost promoting a celebration instead of a rememberance.
This idea fits with many of the themes we have discussed throughout the class. We have talked a lot about how times of war seem to bring Americans together and heighten patriotism. I think that the government feeds off these emotions and feeling of “togetherness” in order to promote their own agenda. When the country is focused on fighting against some other nation, outside of America, there is less interest and effort directed towards dissenting within the country. Perhaps by constructing memorials that remind people of the war, the government is hoping that the unifying and patriotic feelings of wartime will also be aroused. If this were to happen people might again not spend as much energy fighting battles within our own borders. Therefore, while at first glance our looming war memorials may seem like honorable tributes to the veterans of our country, I think it is more likely they were created for additional purposes, beyond just serving as rememberances.
I also assumed that veterans would be in favor of memorials being built in their honor. I think that many times the government doesn't think about the veterans feelings. They do what they assume would be the right thing rather than looking into and seeing how the soldiers would be remembered. When people visit the memorials, they see the names of those who fought but we will never be able to relate to those soldiers and what they went through. The memorials do serve their purpose of making the soldiers remembered, but I feel that the soldiers would not want their expierences symoblized by a wall with names printed on it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you: I am very surprised that many more veterans are not united in support of a war memorial. However, the more I began to think about it, the issue of constructing a memorial to those lost fighting for our country is not so cut and dry. On the one hand, the government wants to honor those lost through a memorial with a sense of grandeur (if the memorial struck a more modest tone, there would be a sharper criticism that 'it' wasn't enough)however, with a grand and magnificent memorial, it would be easy for veterans to see the memorial as propoganda rather than an omage. Personally, I feel that it is similar to a loss of a friend or relative, that people greive in their own way, and because of that it is a complicated issue. That being said, I think that a more multifaceted approach should be taken --maybe a museum connected to a memorial?
ReplyDelete