A Heresy - I'm disgusted by "War" Memorials

As I view the current national compulsion to glorify and memorialize war, I'm feeling no small amount of disgust at yet another betrayal of trust and abdication of principle. Once upon a time, this nation's capital had the good moral sense to avoid concrete monstrosities that sanctified atrocities of mass insanity, conquest, and killing. No more. We once took some national pride in having a National Capitol devoid of the Arches of Triumph that worshiped the Demons of War above the Angels of Peace. No more.

In the late 70s, this nation was mortally divided. Nobody knew this better than the returned Vietnam Veterans with the possible exception of the families of those who died there. In a conscientious attempt to heal the national wounds, a group of Vietnam Veterans proposed a tangible remembrance, not to Victory or Conquest, but to the People who could nevermore walk nor gather with others on the Mall - a tangible symbol of the Sovereignty of We the People - a memorial to those who were killed, not to defend our nation but as human sacrifices on an altar of partisan global socioeconomics.

When the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (take careful note that it is not and never was a memorial to War) was being discussed, there were two major objections in principle to its erection: that it should not memorialize war and not be an obstacle to "peaceful assembly" on the Mall of the People. Maya Ying Lin realized this vision with her design: a simple and somber wall. No idolatry. No vast expanse of concrete to kill the grass roots. An historical escarpment in our national psyche, symbolizing a tectonic schism resulting from a moral earthquake in our nation's soul.

It was to be special and unique, hopefully just as unique as the schism it was intended to heal. It was for those who did not return to parades, who did not return to brass bands, who did not return to a grateful nation, who did not return to the cascading ticker-tapes of enriched corporations. It was supposed to be, we thought, a belated, quiet, contemplative, and respectful "Welcome Home."

Since then, what I've seen is a "We really didn't mean it." What I've seen is the addition of statuesque idolatry, the ridiculous revisionism of the so-called Vietnam Women's Memorial, the "memorial" to a Truce in a War not yet over, and now the concrete monstrosity to a War in which we were Johnny-come-lately's, profiteers, and complicit - on which is most prominently inscribed the name of a grandson of a Nazi investment banker!

I get it, America. It's just another "Fuck You!" -- concrete spittle.

TEN minutes now I have been looking at this.
I have gone by here before and wondered about it.
This is a bronze memorial of a famous general
Riding horseback with a flag and a sword and a revolver
on him.
I want to smash the whole thing into a pile of junk to be
hauled away to the scrap yard.
I put it straight to you,
After the farmer, the miner, the shop man, the factory
hand, the fireman and the teamster,
Have all been remembered with bronze memorials,
Shaping them on the job of getting all of us
Something to eat and something to wear,
When they stack a few silhouettes
Against the sky
Here in the park,
And show the real huskies that are doing the work of
the world, and feeding people instead of butchering them,
Then maybe I will stand here
And look easy at this general of the army holding a flag
in the air,
And riding like hell on horseback
Ready to kill anybody that gets in his way,
Ready to run the red blood and slush the bowels of men
all over the sweet new grass of the prairie.

thanks for posting this. One for my files.

but I guess we'll have to wait until there actually IS peace, huh . . .

... and meditate on the horror of humanity gone insane, it'd be here:

I never thought i would see someone pissed about war Memorials. If you opposed the war don't go to the memorial. They are mainly places for those that fought to remember the ones they severed with. It's sad that we were the last nation that fought in wwII to erect a national memorial. Our's looks beautiful and deserves a special place considering the war. The vietnam memorial is appropriate and effective considering the controversial war

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

is that the best you got? War memorials do not glorify war, at least not the ones in this country.

is that the Vietnam VETERANS memorial is amemorial to the veterans not to WAR.

The other memorial being discussed is to WAR itself, not the veterans.

Sorry, but war does not deserve a memorial, the veterans and victims deserve recognition, not war itself.

i disagree. I don't think this memorial is too outlandish considering the scope of the war. Especially since we had no choice about fighting in it.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill

Like George W. Bush, huh?

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:


You show me someone who believes in "better men" and I'll show you someone who just fucking doesn't get it.

anything about George W. Bush. why bring him up? Please don't associate the current administration and current war with WWII and those veterans that served in it. They deserve a great memorial and it deserves to be in a prominent place lest furture generations forget.

the whole memorial because of GW's name on it is silly. Also, not that I agree with the practice, but it's common to included the name of the dedicating president in the memorial. I give you the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial as an example: a stone plaque at least 10 feet high in the visitors' center notes that Clinton dedicated the landmark in 1997.

... and perhaps you won't mischaracterize what I've said. Try noting that Ronald Reagan's name is nowhere to be found on "The Wall." (Thank Cthulhu!)

Please explain.

For anyone else who's wondering: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6861-2004May6?language=printer

Imagine the outcry if it was Bill Clinton's name. But George W. Bush? No problem - he is, after all the War President and his father's a fake WWII hero and his grandfather laundered money for the Nazis. Urk! :puke:

Incidentally, that article contains a lot of interesting tidbits about other concrete monstrosities.

... of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. I would rather he tried and got refused, however his absence is just another small indication of the dishonor done to those whose lives were sacrificed in that abomination.

I first hated it when my brother used it as part of his signature in an email to me. I hate it seeing it here again on DU.
What are you using it for?

it's true. We live in a world were war is sometimes unavoidable and will continue to be for sometime.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill"
:puke:
.... this is NOT TRUE.
People who abhor war are not "patriotically or morally degraded".
They are trying to keep humanity from repeating the endless cycle of violence that has plagued this planet.
Consider the UN charter:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

I'd say that promoting PEACE is a pretty progressive concept.

in providing tangible services to actual, living veterans of war, not in the construction and maintenance of concrete statuary. When the earth shakes and it all comes crumbling down, those who are still in need of services will be there, in need of services.

almost all the money was raised privatly by Dole/Hanks and crew. I heard it was 600,000 separate donations. That money would have been spent on beer, strippers, and whiny kids if it wasn't donated to the Memorial. The 15 million from government is sadly pocket change to them.

What's next, the Grenada War Memorial? Soon we'll need a larger capitol city to house all the tributes to war.

Spot on about the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial. It's one of the most powerful things I've ever seen.

But this new memorial is an abomination. No offense to vets of that war, my dad was one.

My father and five uncles 'served' in WW2. I had an uncle at Hickham on December 7th. I had an uncle at the Battle of the Bulge. I had an uncle in North Africa. My father was in the Pacific ... Kwajalein, Eniwetok, etc. I had great-granduncles in the Civil War - both sides.

And I was in Viet Nam.

There can be only one way to properly 'honor' war. Wage peace.

service in Vietnam, and for your family's service in WWII. My uncle, my dad's brother, was a Marine in Vietnam for two years, so I know the hell you went through.

DEMAND PEACE

tell the men of the world who want to war, to stuff it

By Herman Melville


HAPPY are they and charmed in life
Who through long wars arrive unscarred
At peace. To such the wreath be given,
If they unfalteringly have striven—
In honor, as in limb, unmarred.
Let cheerful praise be rife,
And let them live their years at ease,
Musing on brothers who victorious died—
Loved mates whose memory shall ever please.

And yet mischance is honorable too—
Seeming defeat in conflict justified,
Whose end to closing eyes is hid from view.
The will, that never can relent—
The aim, survivor of the bafflement,
Make this memorial due.

Glory to war? Isn't it better however to honor the dead and save the living.

No more wars.

180

While it can be argued that the Korean War Memorial isn't particularly needed (though they were treated pretty shabbily upon return too) the WW2 memorial corrects an astonishing oversight. That war, for better or worse, defined the second half of the twentieth century. These people literally saved the Western World from Nazism which was close to the worst evil to inhabit the world. The 400,000 people who gave their lives deserved that memorial. The rapidly dying off survivors deserve that memorial. As to the astetics, I will withhold judgement until I see it. I remember how bitterly the VietNam Memorial was denounced.

... than the veterans of WW2. Not WW1 veterans who were attacked by the military itself during their "bonus march" on Washington; not the Civil War veterans, particularly those of the South; not ever. The WW2 War Memorial contains not a single name of anyone who died in WW2. Not one. Nowhere will you find "Hiroshima" or "Nagasaki" inscribed. Or "Dresden." Or even "Stalingrad." The deaths in those places dwarf into near insignificance the 406,000 GI's who were sacrificed in the 40's.

This country has been jacking off about WW2 for nearly 60 years ... a war which was more profitable to "Americans" than any war before or since.

Fascism wasn't conquered. It's in the White House right now.

First, the only point I agree with is that we treated WW1 vets disgracefully, that doesn't excuse treating other vets badly.

The rest of your post is hogwash. Southern civil war vets don't deserve any respect. Sorry they fought on the wrong side of history. WW2 vets did get treated fairly well by the government, that happens when you have so many, but as to the rest of society not really. I haven't seen the memorial but I fail to see why it should mention Dresden, Stalingrad, or anywhere else. This is a monument to US WW2 vets, not all WW2 vets. Western Europe literally owes its modern existence to these people. A memorial doesn't seem alot to ask. I would assume that they felt 406,000 names were to many to list, the VietNam wall, with around 1/7 the names, is huge.

since they are fighting on the wrong side of history also.

between a system fighting to sustain slavery and the stupid delusional dreams that the Bush people had. While they were stupid and delusional their point was to spread democracy.

The claim that they were spreading democracy was just sugar that made the neocon insanity palatable. Their aim is to establish unchallengable American hegemony in the region. Whether it's realized through the establishment of a democracy or the usual pliant authoritarian state is immaterial to them (and Dubya's merely along for the ride due to his exalted sense of his place in history). If the PNAC documents haven't convinced you of that, their bumbling ad hoc-ery since the rout of Saddam's regime -- the most important phase of the effort -- are testament to their deception of purpose.

The NeoCons' motive for the war in Iraq was oil, pure and simple. They tried several different ways to sell that war such as "Saddam has WMDs", and "Saddam assisted Al Qaeda", nether of which were true. But that didn't stop them from giving the orders to invade Iraq, costing the lives of nearly a thousand Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Tell me exactly how much "democracy" has been spread by either action.

As to your crap about Southern soldiers, you do realize that outside of Gettysburg and Antietam, most of the major battles of the Civil War were fought on Southern territory, don't you? 95% of those Southern soldiers had never owned a slave in their life, and were fighting to protect their own farms, livestock, homes and families.

Do some reading on these subjects and then come back. Let's see what you have to say then.

Hint delusional means that someone isn't thinking right. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that these people were true believers trying to remake the ME. The fact that they were deluded doesn't make our soldiers criminals.

As to the other point. Sorry, no dice. Virtually the entire officer corps did hold slaves and the rest benefited substantially. Also there were many battles in MD to name one Nothern locale. The South also started the war.

I'd suggest "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War" and "Drawn With The Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War", both by James McPherson, one of America's foremost Civil War historians. He shows persuasively that preserving slavery and the racist social structure were indeed very significant issues in motivating Southerners to fight that war, even that famous 95 percent who "never owned a slave in their life".

Most of the battles were fought in Tennesse and Virginia. Your theory doesn't really explain how all those soldiers from the other slave-owning Southern states ended up with guns in their hands.

The admittedly...monumental...national myth that the US was the Guardian Angel of Civilisation that rescued the world from the Nazi devil needs to be brought out of sentimental soft-focus and brought into a harsher clarity.

This sentimental rhetoric is exactly what is used to cover up the fact that the highly racist US was a MODEL for Nazi Germany and a haven for hundreds of Nazis after WWII who continued their horrible tactics in the Cold War.

The myth that the US is Superman Cowboy Jesus is maintained by the propaganda from WWII that the defeat of Hitler proved the international virtue of this now unchecked hyperpower. The current state of mass atrocity is, much to Bush-haters without historical perspective, nothing new. Atrocity and terrorism are the main driving social forces of United States history.

The US gov't has been slaughtering weaker and darker skinned people for centuries for economic gain and has a body count far exceeding the Nazis.

Consider:
1) The Native American holocaust that Hitler modeled his Final Solution on.

2) The slavery, murder, torture, lynching, apartheid, segregation, disenfranchisement and eugenic neglect that African Americans still suffer from in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Here are 80 years worth of souvenir lynching postcards from that very popular American pasttime.
http://www.musarium.com/withoutsanctuary/main.html

3) The many US corporations that profiteered by building Hitler's Third Reich after WWI. Many were unable to fill US orders before WWII at FDR's request because they were busy making money off Hitler.

4) The plight of German Jews was known long before anything was done about it and a ship overloaded with Jewish refugees was turned away from US shores.

5) As former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara has admitted, the US committed the same horrible war crimes against civilians that got Nazis hung at Nuremberg. He has suggested, correctly in my opinion, that had the US lost WWII it would have been charged with the same war crimes. McNamara helped plan the months of firebombing of Japanese cities that killed hundreds of thousands of women and children. The Japanese gov't was desperately trying to arrange a surrender by May 1945. The communication systems within Japan were so devastated by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks that it was difficult for the command structure to even know what happened to those cities, never mind 'get the message' of America's terrible new weapon.

6) The Vietnam War might be characterized as a large scale massacre. This is simplistic but the 'destroy to save' concept of ideological combat is easy to see as self-fulfilling delusion at other's expense. The illegal carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos killed around a million peasants and wrought a havoc that enable the murderous Pol Pot to continue the slaughter of another few million.

7) The US/CIA overthrow of democratically elected leaders and sponsoring of torture and death squads is responsible for the deaths of millions. Read this first hand account by former CIA station chief John Stockwell where he claims in a 1987 speech that CIA actions led to the deaths of up to 6 million people.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
John Stockwell is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public. He ran a CIA intelligence-gathering post in Vietnam, was the task-force commander of the CIA's secret war in Angola in 1975 and 1976, and was awarded the Medal of Merit before he resigned. Stockwell's book In Search of Enemies, published by W.W. Norton 1978, is an international best-seller.

8) Consider the secret US wars in Central America where death squads filled mass graves and eliminated unionists for US corporations.

9) Consider the support of Saddam Hussein and many other slaughtering dictators. So many of them. Ever heard of the School of the Americas? Or seen the torture manuals that came out of it for Latin American governments to use against their opposition?

10) Consider this year's US coup in Haiti where the Pentagon had dumped 20,000 new M16s for terrorist thugs and then US Marines kidnapped the twice democratically-elected Aristide away to the secluded Central African Republic.

I could go on and on but I think I've made the point that the propaganda does not match reality. It is a tool to affect more atrocity for strictly economic and strategic power purposes.

Ceremony and ritual like the recent WWII commemoration serve to perpetuate war by reinforcing the American myths of heroic killing and dying that send people like Pat Tillman to go to Pipelineistan to 'defend our freedoms.'

We are all suffering from the 'friendly fire' of propaganda and post-'M.A.S.H. remilitarization of our culture. A recent poll of Americans and Europeans showed very different attitudes regarding the possibility of a 'just war.' Less than 50% of Europeans said there could be such a thing while 85% of Americans thought there could.

The differing attitudes may result from the fact that Europe was savaged by war twice in the 20th century and opted to refrain from that mode of diplomacy and instead puts their national budgets into health and human services.

Recent world-wide health surveys indicate that while Europeans are getting taller every year, Americans are getting shorter due to the poor nutrition of widespread systemic poverty. With this in mind, one wonders if America is losing the post-WWII 'peace' due to the bloated defense budget that already brought the Soviet Union down.

Don't let the 'few bad apples' theory of American apologetics be denial. Smiley face bandaids don't cover mass graves.

What this country really needs are Truth and Reconciliation committees like South Africa's to air out the bloodstains. Reperations and contrition are in order.

And more of the nurturing strength of humility instead of the belligerent arrogance of 'greatness.'

More 'God Forgive America' bumper stickers instead of 'God Bless America.'

All of my family fought in that war in the hopes of our generation never having to fight in another one - they were sadly wrong on that point.

I am glad they finally have a fitting memorial to the generation that saved us - temporarily - from the NAZI's and fascists intent on spreading their misery on the world.

Unfortunately, we may have to soon fight another one, this time on american soil, to rid ourselves once and for all of that plague.

The WWII memorial is the least we can do to honor the sacrifices of those who fought for freedom - the last time we could truely say that now overused statement.

... and NOWHERE memorializes those whose lives were sacrificed for that insanity.

It's inscribed with the name of "George W. Bush" ... the grandson of a WAR PROFITEER and inheritor of the wealth and privilege so derived.

It's an obscenity in concrete. Petrified spittle.

That mark the deaths of U.S. servicemen.

World War Two (Both Theaters) was about as black and white as it gets. The rough edges for America during this greatest of conflicts pales by today's standards of sinical corporate adventurism.

I don't sanction killing Japanese POW's and have problems with the bombings of whole peoples, but those peoples did do a lot a cheering when they were on the winning side.

WWII must never be repeated - we have gotten better at the kiling part, and even worse at the waging part.

I thank all who served the cause of freedom in the second world war.

I agree with you 100% that the vets were the most honored an appreciated of any before or since.

As an architect I find its fascist imagery exceedingly depressing. Albert Speer could have done no better.
The location smack dab in the middle of the mall between the Lincoln and Washington monuments ignores those men's respective places in our nation's history and skews its own place in it.

It's just depressing as all hell.

Perhaps, given the fascistic elements of the design, it is fitting that the giant prick of the WM is visible nearby.

I couldn't give a rat's ass if the Chimp-in-Thief's name is engraved on it from here to the end of time. Having his name on it is an irony, and historic in and of itself. His name will serve as a reminder to all, of the other catastrophes this nation is capable of.

As the granddaughter and grandniece of WWII veterans, I'm looking forward to visiting the memorial and reflecting upon the horrors of those years. I do not find it offensive at all, and I do not view it as a monument to war.

I'm the kind of person who likes monuments and memorials, though. And I love Washington, DC. Everyone is different in their perceptions of things... and I had to join this thread to take the rare opportunity to disagree with you on this one, TN. ;-)

...my Dad served as a nose-gunner in a B-24 Heavy Bomber flying out of an airbase in Italy over targets in Europe. One of his brothers served aboard a destroyer in the Pacific, surviving attacks by the Japanese and two typhoons. Two of their cousins, twins by the way, earned Silver Stars on D-Day as Rangers.

On my mom's side of the family, one of her brothers served in Europe as an aviation engineer building and repairing runways under fire. Her other brother served in the India-China-Burma Theater of the war where he earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) with Oak Leaf Cluster for flying "The Hump" - over the Himalayas - on more than 80 missions flown in an unarmed cargo plane without radar. The DFC was the second-highest award given during WWII.

My wife's uncle was killed by an artillery burst that struck the trees above his head in the Huertgen Forest in Germany in late November 1944. His body wasn't recovered until the following Spring, and wasn't shipped home until 1946.

IMHO, it has been a real travesty of justice that our WWII vets have never had a memorial to their sacrifices until now. Sixteen million Americans served in the military in some capacity, four hundred thousand died.

I will say that too much has been made of the roll played by American troops in helping to win WWII. We did our part, but if one wants to understand the REAL cost of war, one has only to read some of the WWII histories produced since the fall of the old Soviet Union. They lost nearly forty million troops and civilians during WWII...close to one out of every seven Russians. An area of the Soviet Union equivalent to the American East Coast to an average depth of 600 miles had been completely devastated.

... American History classes. The enormous sacrifice of the Soviets became lost, buried under the Cold War rubble in our own national history, and it's a disgusting shame.

Maybe I'm just a liberal Democrat sap, but I was moved by today's ceremonies. It was especially inspiring to me to see so many of that generation gathered proudly on the Mall. It seemed fitting to me. I did not, for one moment until I came upon this thread, view the new memorial as a monument to war. I saw it as a memorial to history, to sacrifice, to remembrance. It lifted my spirits a little, to see this happen on Memorial Day. I look forward to seeing it with my own eyes and really getting a feel for its effect on the Mall, and its effect on me.

Thank you for sharing those stories, Media_Lies_Daily. I wish I knew as much about my family's history as you do.

who gave their lives HAVE a memorial. It's called Europe and it's free because of them and their fellow soldiers who were lucky enough not to be killed there. Why do so many people think that these people don't have a satisfactory memorial until they have a bunch of inscribed granite in Washington. They have something far more meaningful to show for their sacrifice.

That's in D.C., too ... and a far more meaningful symbol of WW2 than some concrete monstrosity slicing up the Mall of the People, a Mall which might better stand for a PROTEST AGAINST WAR.

the type of person that likes to go to memorials, as you'll find most people do. They are reminders of all that is good and bad about war. Looking at Europe on a map is not the same. Or how about I go to Europe and peruse their hundreds of memorials.

how the monuments and patriotic displays are the way that young people are lured into fighting wars. It's a sucker's game.

Vonnegut has earned the right to make such grand statements, I don't feel I have.

I bet Kurt would still think crushing German Socialism was worth Dresden if that is where the path need lead.

(And 60 years later I can act like maybe it didn't)

The size of the memorial has nothing to do with honoring war. The future of the free world was hanging in balance. Nothing smaller would do.

The inscription is:
"Here we mark the price of freedom."

Other inscriptions are "Victory in the Air" ... "Victory at Sea" ... "Victory on Land".

:puke: :puke: :puke:

The Wall was dedicated in 1982, but you won't find Ronald W. Reagan's name on it anywhere!

why must itself up every of a park

anus stick some quote statue unquote to
prove that a hero equals any jerk
who was afraid to dare to answer "no"?
quote citizens unquote might otherwise
forget(to err is human;to forgive
divine)that if the quote state unquote says
"kill" killing is an act of christian love.
"Nothing" in 1944 AD
"can stand against the argument of mil
itary necessity"(generalissimo e)
and echo answers "there is no appeal
from reason"(freud)--you pays your money and
you doesn't take your choice.Ain't freedom grand

e.e. cummings

and I'm disgusted by the marketing of World War II and the concurrent marketing of the present war in relation to it.

a war that continues to go on is considered to be "anti war propaganda". Funny, in a truly sick sort of way.


On edit: if one is allowed without question, then so should the other be allowed.

after the fallen in Bush's Iraq war. I had an argument with a friend about this. She thought it was to remind people of the loss to their community caused by this war.

I am more cynical and fearful. I fear it is more of the "glorifying" that goes on about sacrificing lives in war.

This is such a slippery slope to be on. I remember the "Join up!" frenzy once in my life...and it has been depicted in so many movies...the latest being COLD MOUNTAIN. Even if the war is fought for all the right reasons...freedom, protection of our nation and our homes...it is still disillusioning at best.

In my ideal world, we would talk about war and its realities before we march off with stars and stripes in our eyes. We would all "join-up" somberly and quietly.

Ideal world....now there's a concept for those of us with stars in our eyes.

And I was glad to see your post Tahitinut. Both my parents served in WWII, and various uncles, etc. Yet I find this structure particularly grotesque.

The people who fight our wars are abused. There are broken promises.

I feel the ultimate insult is George W. Bush's name on it. haven't seen the like since Nixon left his name on the moon.

--IMM

there are people smirking over that fact

I usually look forward to his pearls of wisdom and common sense, but in this case, I am ashamed of some of you people's posts regarding this.

Sad really.

On another more important note, are you sure it's not the first king george's name on it? I didn't know this lying war criminal is on it - if I were near that thing, I'd be scraping it off with every last ounce of life in me. Now THAT is simply disgraceful and totally uncalled for! What an insult to all those brave soldiers.

If it weren't for the people honored in those memorials that you so easily disparage, you wouldn't be able to sit at your computer and write how much you're disgusted by the memorials to those who've given you your very freedoms.

That's particularly true where WWII is concerned, if ever a war needed to be fought, that was it. We had no choice, and it wasn't just because we were attacked on our own soil; it was due to the tremendous danger of Hitler and the Nazis who were the SOLE CAUSE of WWII. They simply had to be stopped, and millions of lives were lost in the struggle against them, 400,000 American soldiers among them. What they went through at Normandy alone is unspeakable. But it's because of what they went through, and because they had the courage to do so, that we're not speaking German under the thumb of a Nazi regime right now. And believe me, I'd rather shoot myself in the head than ever spend one single day under a regime like the Nazis.

As bad as the Bushistas are, and as dangerous, they don't begin to compare with the Nazis. The WWII memorial was LOOOOOOOOONG overdue; it's just too bad that too many WWII vets didn't live to see its dedication. As for the Vietnam and Korea memorials, they are to the VETERANS and those who lost their lives, and not to the war itself. I'll never forget my uncle's reaction to the Vietnam memorial, he was a Marine there for two years. He hated the war and recognized its senselessness, but he also recognized that the memorial was for the VETERANS and those who so needlessly lost their lives. If you don't like these memorials, then you must not like living in a free society.

If you don't like these memorials, then you must not like living in a free society.

I swear to you that I do like living in a free society. That would mean, according to you, that I like this memorial. And I don't.

And I'll allow that our entry was inevitable, since Germany declared war on us.

I am grateful that my father had the kind of payment that made sense: benefits from the GI Bill of Rights, something that's not lavished on our current warriors. And of course, I'm glad he came home in one piece.

I don't know if it's aesthetic, or the current atmosphere, but I'm disquieted by this. There is a part of me that certainly agrees that the WWII generation did great things for us. And if they like it, I'm glad for them.

But their great deeds should not be exploited.

--IMM

how is honoring their deeds and sacrifices with a long-overdue memorial "exploiting" them?

There are memorials to these fine people in most of the communities in America.

The fact is they are not around to appreciate it. So who is it for, and what effect is it meant to have?

The answer to these questions is what disturbs me.

--IMM

... and list all the places where he killed people?

Let's NOT list the names of his victims.
Let's NOT list the names of his enablers.
Let's NOT portray the abhorrent tragedy of his insane behavior.

We can rationalize it as "honoring his victims" but NEVER make it so.

---

I try to imagine the impression made on a 12-year-old as he walks through the "memorials." I can easily imagine him thinking "Wow! Cool!" as he walks through the WW2 Memorial or Korean War Memorial and thinks "I'd sure like to have something like this!" or (about the Korean War Memorial) "Those guys are really cool!" I cannot imagine him looking at The Wall and thinking anything like that.

How can we help the blind see?

And that would be a more appropriate use of that space.

--IMM

I don't think so. And you may think that there are memorials to them in most communities across the country, but that isn't really true, either. And even if it is, that still doesn't take the place of a NATIONAL memorial, with a NATIONAL recognition, like the Vietnam and Korea memorials.

The memorial exists to recognize the sacrifices of those who fought a war that no one but the Nazis wanted but which had to be fought, we had no choice. The alternative, world domination by the Nazis, was simply unimaginable and unthinkable. It exists to HONOR them, just like the Vietnam and Korea memorials exist to honor the vets and those who never came home. It exists to show that we, as a nation, recognize and honor them and acknowledge the tremendous historical significance of WWII. It is NOT a "glorification" of war.

And there are still many, many thousands of WWII vets alive today, many of whom are in D.C. this weekend, who deserve this tribute. Using your logic, why bother to have the Vietnam or Korea memorials?

...sacrifices of a generation of Americans. WWII created the largest loss of American lives since the Civil War, and I would argue that it was just as traumatic for the generation of 1941-1945, as it was for the generation of 1861-1865.

Since we are speaking honestly here, the tone of your posts on this subject have disturbed me greatly, particulary since you stated that your Dad Dad was a WWII vet. JMHO.

And I don't reject the idea of honoring those vets.

I am reacting to this particular structure. Partly it's aesthetic. And there may be other factors of placement, timing, and nationalism that come into play.

I acknowledge being conflicted because I do appreciate that I am the beneficiary of those good deeds.

--IMM

and I'll add that I don't see much difference between questioning the patriotism of those who criticize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and questioning the patriotism of those who criticize this memorial.

This memorial is a marketing tool, and if you don't believe me turn on CNN and get a load of who's speaking at the dedication right now. How much money do you think Tom Hanks has made "honoring" those who died in WWII?

"...then you must not like living in a free society."

Woof.

A little reactive and overwrought, don't you think? That discontinous leap from A to Z reminds me of Otter's speech in Animal House:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the actions of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!"

You should note that TN said squat about the Bushistas and he even wrote a recap of the intent and circumstances of the birth of the Vietnam memorial. Did you read it? It jibes with your uncle's assessment of the monument. Lotta straw and emotion in your post, but you've missed his point.

nt

I'm certain that there must have been many still alive (or the children of the Civil War fallen) who believed that Lincoln--or his memory and what he represents--was not worthy of such a grand and prominent structure.

Will not there always be controversy over any monument or over any memorial that deals with divisive or politically charged events and people?

-- Allen

"The Vietnam Veterans Memorial recognizes and honors the men and women who served in one of America's most divisive wars. The memorial grew out of a need to heal the nation's wounds as America struggled to reconcile different moral and political points of view. In fact, the memorial was conceived and designed to make no political statement whatsoever about the war. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a place where everyone, regardless of opinion, can come together and remember and honor those who served. By doing so, the memorial has paved the way towards reconciliation and healing, a process that continues today."
http://www.nps.gov/vive/home.htm

A "process that continues" ... but that's obviously far from accomplished.

December 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, Philippines, and Guam; U.S. Pacific fleet crippled.

December 8, 1941 President Roosevelt addresses the Congress, asking for a declaration of war against Japan.

December 8, 1941 U.S. Congress declares war on Japan.

December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declare war on U.S.

December 11, 1941 United States declares war on Germany.

http://www.worldhistory.com/worldwarii.htm

---

Japan attacked the US before the US decided to fight back.

Germany and Italy declared war on the US before the US decided to fight back.

Virtuous, huh? We were only motivated to "Do The Right Thing," huh? Yeah. Riiight.

Other than the fact that we fought in self defense to prevent being destroyed and conquered?

.... that memorializing a WAR is bullshit, especially a WAR in which millions of our fellow human beings died before we got (dragged kicking and screaming) involved in ways other than profiteering.

I have no problem with memorializing the human lives tragically sacrificed on the altar of insanity and greed ... and doing so with a somber feeling of shared guilt, shared responsibility, and shared resolve to heal human differences rather than continue to exploit them for the sake of profit and power.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Same to ya .... "boy". :eyes:

I like the new memorial. It's not my favorite, but it is long overdue to pay homage to those who fought for our freedom in WWII.

The same generation that defeated the nazis treated nazi prisoners better then they treated black US vets.

The same generation that liberated the nazi concentration camps and freed the jews shipped the homosexual victims of to different prisons.

And the same generation rounded up thousands of Americans and stuck them in concentration camps because of their ethnicity.

The same generation that "fought to rid the world of evil" denied millions of Americans basic human rights for another twenty years.

The same generation gladly shipped their sons off to die in the jungles of Vietnam for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

Remember the good, that's fine, but if you're going to do that then remember the bad as well.

...being far more moved by the eternal flame at JFK's grave than the eternal flame at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

I guess that is his answer, and I will let him speak for me.

Symbols can have a variety of meaning- sort of like words.
They can have various interpretations. Do what you want with it. It's healthier to take an interpretation that you find positive.
Might as well let others do the same, and get over it.

A place to sit and imagine peace.

here are some places in the world to avoid

1. Great Britain

Every town and village has a monument listing those who died in two World Wars. If you do visit, avoid the 11th November, as this is when Remembrance day is held every year.

2. France

The North-West of this country is one vast military graveyard full of French, German, American and British Commonwealth dead. You won't be able to miss the huge memorials at Vimy Ridge or Thiepval as they are visible from miles away. As in Britain every community has a monument commemorating those killed in World War I.

3. Belgium

Don't go to Ypres as it has a enormous monument listing the 70,000 British soldiers who were killed in the area during World War I and who have no known grave. The local fire brigade still play the Last Post at this memorial every night in memory of those that died.

4. Russia

Pretty much a no go area for those who wish to avoid war memorials. The country is littered with monuments commemorating the 20,000,000 Soviet citizens who died in their Great Patriotic War (World War II to the rest of us). It is still common practice for married couples to lay their flowers at the war memorial after the wedding service.

I do not think that there are many Europeans who would consider any of these memorials as glorifying war. They are there to remind future generations of the price that will be exacted when political and diplomatic systems fail. If you forget the lessons of the past then the cost will be paid in blood.

I do not think that there are many Europeans who would consider any of these memorials as glorifying war. They are there to remind future generations of the price that will be exacted when political and diplomatic systems fail. If you forget the lessons of the past then the cost will be paid in blood.

Anyone that has been to Normandy or Belgium understands exactly what you are saying.

... and solemnly memorializing those human beings who were killed in wars. The failure to make this material distinction leads to a fundamental lack of comprehension of what I posted.

I've been to England, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and many other countries where the distinction is often quite evident.

i think your missing the objective, its to memorialize the sacrifices made by americans DURING WORLD WAR TWO., you are turning it into a semantics issue. We all know its a tribute to the veterans, and not a tribute to the concept of war...:toast:

Exactly. And remember, the wars were fought on THEIR soil, the blood was spilled on THEIR soil.

There's a HUGE difference.

I agree with everything Tahiti Nut has posted in this thread. What's really going on in this country is a celebration and glorification of MILITARISM. THAT'S what's behind all this newfound "honoring" of WWII, the "Greatest Generation", and all.

We are becoming an increasingly militarized society, it's being promoted relentlessly by the ruling class and their media dogsbodies. This is by design, this is a cold calculation that has little to do with "honoring" the vets of WWII, and MUCH to do with training the masses to accept their inevitable roles as the providers of cannon fodder to empower the U.S. war machine for the global resource wars that lie in our future if the corporate imperialists have their way.

sw

I heard one person justify it by saying we already had monuments on the mall for the civil war and revolutionary war. Yet, the Lincoln Memorial and Washington monument represent the ideals those individuals stood for, not a war. The real equivelant is the FDR monument that is already built. Why isn't that good enogh to represent the struggle and ideals of the period? Maybe conservatives didn't like the WW2 period being mixed with liberal messages like caring for the poor and international cooperation, which are themes present at the FDR monument.

Now, generations of school children will travel to the nations capitol and get the message that war is a good thing to be honored and glorified. I wish it had been built somewhere else. I truly hope the ww2 memorial is done in a way that shows the horrors of war. I guess I'll have to see it at the next war protest I go to.

One uncle fought in North Africa in WW2 and that's it. Except for a couple of great-great grandfathers who fought in the Civil War.

So my feelings about the memorial don't come from strong emotions rooted in personal tragedy or relief. But as an American, I am repelled by the WW2 monument for many of the reasons others have stated on this thread. I do agree with TahitiNut. And also with those who noted the Fascist imagery.

But I was most moved by the Sandberg and ee cummings poems. If I ever did something to deserve a memorial, I'd want it to be a poem, I think. Or a tree maybe. Why couldn't we have planted a forest of 16 million (I don't know the exact number) trees? One for each soldier who served? Something like that.

All the posturing and smiling speeches today by Rumsfeld, Myers, * and others--who should be hiding in shame for what they've wrought. It's appalling. And there's no question that they are using this Memorial Day to the hilt. Turning it from a day of remembrance (especially of the dead) into a glorification of American military power. Wrapping their miserable selves in the flag and the brand-new memorial.
:puke: