You know you are getting old when:

[LizzieMaine]

Certainly something which often seemed to get lost in the debate is that unlike the British Empire statues in Dublin, erected at a time when that was current - and, in truth, prior to the mass awakening within that part of Ireland of the modern notion of nationalism and any great desire on the part of the masses to be independent - there's a different side entirely going on when a statue is erected not at the time, but much later on to symbolise and support certain attitudes and values which are ascribed to what the statue depicts. I'm reminded of all the Coniston monuments in Bristol, England. The Coniston family did a lot for Bristol as philanthropists, and that is what was being celebrated by all the various monuments. The difficult element for us nowadays, of course, is that the Conistons made all their money from the slave trade. I think most people can cope with the idea that what is being celerated in those monuments is not the slavery, but had they been erected much later on as, say, a mourning of the passing of the slave trade, there would be a strong move to remove and rename now, as appropriate.

I think a good argument can be made that no statue should be erected of anyone until at least 250 years after their death. By then there's usually been time enough for a reasonable historic consensus to develop around their real legacy. No generation is a valid judge of its own legacy.

 

[2jakes]

Ice machines are a must on hot and humid nights in the South. You can't sleep because of the heat so you go out and get ice for your drink and a bucket full to pour over yourself to cool down! While you're lying in the bed! The cool dampness helps you sleep and by morning the sheets are dry again!

“Sheets are dry again”?

Reminds me of one of my sisters...she used to wet in bed during the night!

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

OMG, you've been keeping up with the furore over Cecil Rhodes and the Oxford students at Oriel College, the college that Rhodes had attended, and the students demand to have Rhodes statue removed.
It's a very long story, Rhodes gave his name to Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, he was the absolute imperialist, loathed more than loved. Just google Cecil Rhodes, or ask Lizzie.


I wouldn't mind betting that more people still call Uluru, Ayers Rock, named after Sir Henry Ayres, Chief Secretary of South Australia.

So can people still brag that they're Rhodes scholars?

 

[GHT]

So can people still brag that they're Rhodes scholars?

I didn't know that they ever did.

 

[Zombie_61]

...I'm sure I remember reading Wolverine originally fought on the Confederate side, but by the time his origin story hit Hollywood, he was a Union trooper. I find it interesting how these things get tweaked over time (history, after all, being founded on the mythology of the dominant group at any one point), but ultimately ephemeral.

According to IMDb: "In the film [X-Men Origins: Wolverine], Logan fights in the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. In the comics, he participates in World War I and World War II, even teaming up with Captain America in the latter." I've never read any of the X-Men or related comics, so I have no idea whether or not this is accurate.

As far as the scene in the movie goes, it's been a while since I've seen it but I remember it being nothing more than an "establishing shot" to show the audience at a glance that Logan and Victor Creed don't age at the same rate as non-mutants, and had been fighting side-by-side for decades until the incident in Vietnam made them adversaries. As such, my guess is that the uniforms were used so the audience would quickly identify the time period and battle as that of the American Civil War, and not directly intended to show Logan's loyalty and/or affiliation to one side or the other. What little I know of the character comes from the movies, but I do think Logan would have fought for the Confederacy so I'm not intending to debate or argue the point; I'm merely pointing out that they were making a movie and probably didn't put much thought into whether his uniform should be blue or grey.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I think a good argument can be made that no statue should be erected of anyone until at least 250 years after their death. By then there's usually been time enough for a reasonable historic consensus to develop around their real legacy. No generation is a valid judge of its own legacy.

I maintain that no Presidency can be judged fairly until 20 years after its termination. We can arrive at tentative conclusions (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) but it takes decades for the full impact of executive policies to be assessed. When Truman left office in 1953 most doubted that he could have been elected dog catcher outside of Independence Missouri: twenty or so years later, post- Watergate, we heard songs pleading, "America needs you, Harry Truman.." That margin of history allows a more objective analysis of events that the heat of any given moment may preclude.

 

[Fading Fast]

I maintain that no Presidency can be judged fairly until 20 years after its termination. We can arrive at tentative conclusions (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) but it takes decades for the full impact of executive policies to be assessed. When Truman left office in 1953 most doubted that he could have been elected dog catcher outside of Independence Missouri: twenty or so years later, post- Watergate, we heard songs pleading, "America needs you, Harry Truman.." That margin of history allows a more objective analysis of events that the heat of any given moment may preclude.

I agree only I'd push the number out to 50 or more years so that both sides' partisans from the period will have mainly passed on and, hopefully, a less personally involved group will be doing the research. Also, it does allow for more time to see the longer term impact of their policies and decisions.

 

[Doctor Strange]

It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. - Mal, Firefly episode "Jaynestown"

 

[LizzieMaine]

Memorials erected "in eternal memory" seldom actually are. We have a Spanish-American War memorial in town, which must've seemed like a big deal in 1902, but all it is now is a place to sit when you eat a hot dog from Wasses. I would be willing to bet two-with-mustard-and-relish that not one person in a hundred passing by the memorial have any idea what it is and why it's there, and the one who does know has no idea what the Spanish-American War really was, why it was fought, or what its legacy is. And the same, I have to say, is probably true of the Civil War cannon on the grass behind that monument, which exists today primarily as a receptacle for trash from Dunkie's. They're invisible as "memorials," they're simply street furniture.

Memorials and monuments are for the people who erect them, not for the people they memorialize and not, in the long run, for the people who come after them.

 

[tonyb]

Memorials erected "in eternal memory" seldom actually are. We have a Spanish-American War memorial in town, which must've seemed like a big deal in 1902, but all it is now is a place to sit when you eat a hot dog from Wasses. I would be willing to bet two-with-mustard-and-relish that not one person in a hundred passing by the memorial have any idea what it is and why it's there, and the one who does know has no idea what the Spanish-American War really was, why it was fought, or what its legacy is. And the same, I have to say, is probably true of the Civil War cannon on the grass behind that monument, which exists today primarily as a receptacle for trash from Dunkie's. They're invisible as "memorials," they're simply street furniture.

Memorials and monuments are for the people who erect them, not for the people they memorialize and not, in the long run, for the people who come after them.

No argument from me. Still, it's not necessarily an argument against such monuments and memorials.

Among the few reasons I'm leaning toward having my remains buried (as opposed to being reduced to ash) is that I enjoy cemeteries and graveyards, even the ones holding the earthly remains of people to whom I have no known relationship.

 

[Fading Fast]

Memorials erected "in eternal memory" seldom actually are. We have a Spanish-American War memorial in town, which must've seemed like a big deal in 1902, but all it is now is a place to sit when you eat a hot dog from Wasses. I would be willing to bet two-with-mustard-and-relish that not one person in a hundred passing by the memorial have any idea what it is and why it's there, and the one who does know has no idea what the Spanish-American War really was, why it was fought, or what its legacy is. And the same, I have to say, is probably true of the Civil War cannon on the grass behind that monument, which exists today primarily as a receptacle for trash from Dunkie's. They're invisible as "memorials," they're simply street furniture.

Memorials and monuments are for the people who erect them, not for the people they memorialize and not, in the long run, for the people who come after them.

I don't disagree, but think there can be more to it too.

For example, Central Park in NYC has over a hundred statues, monuments, etc., some of still-famous people, some pretty obscure. Seeing some of the obscure ones has led me to come home and look up the persons or event which, my guess, was, in a way, one of the points of those who put up the memorial - it has passed the event's or person's fame on to a future generation (ours for now).

Also, statues, etc., - say of Martin Luther King or Lincoln - can spark a kid's interest / be a way for a parent or teacher to discuss history in a not-from-a-book-or-lecture way. And, heck, they also remind the adults - at least this adult - that some famous and important people did some famous and important things that helped this country.

As noted, I don't disagree with Lizzie's post and don't (in any way) think my list is all inclusive as there are other good and many bad reasons for putting up statues, etc. (some of the bad ones have been getting a lot of attention lately which is why I focused on the positive). As with most thing there are many layers, many reason and many agendas at work.

 

[1mach1]

I don't disagree, but think there can be more to it too.

For example, Central Park in NYC has over a hundred statues, monuments, etc., some of still-famous people, some pretty obscure. Seeing some of the obscure ones has led me to come home and look up the persons or event which, my guess, was, in a way, one of the points of those who put up the memorial - it has passed the event's or person's fame on to a future generation (ours for now).

Also, statues, etc., - say of Martin Luther King or Lincoln - can spark a kid's interest / be a way for a parent or teacher to discuss history in a not-from-a-book-or-lecture way. And, heck, they also remind the adults - at least this adult - that some famous and important people did some famous and important things that helped this country.

As noted, I don't disagree with Lizzie's post and don't (in any way) think my list is all inclusive as there are other good and many bad reasons for putting up statues, etc. (some of the bad ones have been getting a lot of attention lately which is why I focused on the positive). As with most thing there are many layers, many reason and many agendas at work.

Good point. My eight year old is infatuated with statues and memorials. Its his thing. I take him to see many all over the area. Interestingly enough, his two favorites are Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial and the statue of Robert E Lee on Monument Ave in Richmond VA. When I asked him why, he just said, because those two are the coolest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Woodtroll]

Good point. My eight year old is infatuated with statues and memorials. ... Interestingly enough, his two favorites are Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial and the statue of Robert E Lee on Monument Ave in Richmond VA.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Your son has good taste. I live solidly in Robert E. Lee country, but without going into politics I believe both were compassionate men who did what they thought best in their own given circumstances and with unimaginably tough choices to make. I have great respect for both.

 

[GHT]

Anybody know which statesman has a bust, rather than a full statue, displayed inside Congress's statuary hall, in The USA. A copy of which is also on display in The War Rooms in London and another in the Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Moscow? It is, of course, the only US foreigner to hold an honorary US passport, Winston Churchill.
Did you know that a replica statue of Abraham Lincoln has stood outside The British Houses of Parliament for almost a hundred years? It's a copy of the one in Chicago's Lincoln Park.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Memorials erected "in eternal memory" seldom actually are. We have a Spanish-American War memorial in town, which must've seemed like a big deal in 1902, but all it is now is a place to sit when you eat a hot dog from Wasses. I would be willing to bet two-with-mustard-and-relish that not one person in a hundred passing by the memorial have any idea what it is and why it's there, and the one who does know has no idea what the Spanish-American War really was, why it was fought, or what its legacy is. And the same, I have to say, is probably true of the Civil War cannon on the grass behind that monument, which exists today primarily as a receptacle for trash from Dunkie's. They're invisible as "memorials," they're simply street furniture.

Memorials and monuments are for the people who erect them, not for the people they memorialize and not, in the long run, for the people who come after them.

There are a small percentage of people like myself who, actually do appreciate what others take for granted or even ignore in these monuments. I love looking at the memorials to war fallen- wherever I travel. And not just in the US. When I was in Russia, paying my respects at the local memorial to "the Great Patriotic War" was a must: my Russian friends were simultaneously impressed and amused that an American would do that, I think.

I've viewed memorials of captured Napoleonic cannons at both Windsor Castle and the Kremlin, preserved to honor the roles of the respective nations in defeating Bonaparte. And in Germany, even the tiny village where we visited a friend had a memorial marked "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden:" seventy some years ago my dad was locked in mortal combat with the men memorialized there, but were he still alive and with me, I'm certain that he'd have stood alongside me to pay a brief moment of respect and reflection. Same thing at Hôtel des Invalides in Paris. I'm passionate about history, and being there gives me a unique taste of it, I suppose. These types of memorials all express a national sense of honor and provoke reflection, and as different as men from various nations can be, my view is that they all underscore that we share far more in common than those aspects which divide us. We often romanticize it to our detriment of course, but to ignore it entirely, in my opinion, is to deny a part of who we are.

Someday, I hope to visit what I consider one of the most moving war memorials of them all: the one at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, Turkey. What transpired there defies words: it was both a military catastrophe and the defining moment of the young nations of Australia and New Zealand. I still am deeply moved when I read those words of Ataturk to his former foes. I have no family ties to either Turkey, New Zealand, or Australia... but the sentiment is a such noble one that I think we all can learn from it, and would do well to learn from it:


"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives…

“You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours…

“You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, 1934

 

[HanauMan]

I live in the UK these days and every town, every village, has a War Memorial to the fallen men and women of the locality.

What is interesting travelling throughout the UK is how the different British nations show their respect in these memorials. The English, with their Anglo-Saxon stiff upper lip, seem to have the blandest memorials. The Celtic nations seem to have more reflective and emotional memorials, reflecting their character traits of story telling and epics. You just have to compare that Cenotaph pillar in London, for example, to, say, the Scottish War Memorial in Edinburgh. Edwin Lutyens (the designer of the Cenotaph, and many other English War Memorials) is still derided by some English folk even to this day because of his Victorian / Edwardian stiffness of style.

 

[Edward]

Your son has good taste. I live solidly in Robert E. Lee country, but without going into politics I believe both were compassionate men who did what they thought best in their own given circumstances and with unimaginably tough choices to make. I have great respect for both.

Lee is certainly a fascinating character; I visited his house when I went to visit Arlington - or Mrs Lee's rose garden, as it once was! I did end up somewhat suspecting he'd have been less than thrilled with with some of the symbolism later imposed upon his image. On the same day I also saw the Lincoln Memorial for the first time; it was quite something. I'd once upon a time entertained idle thoughts of having my photo taken sitting on his knee, but it's so much bigger than I'd anticipated. Incredible sight - such a strong image in popular culture that it was a big deal both to see it or the first time, and the view out from it, bearing in mind some of the events that have taken place there, who else has stood there over time. It's an interesting combination, a monument that takes on another significance later due to other people.

 

[scottyrocks]

It's was a very long time ago, but I recall being moved to tears when we visited the The Wall - The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C.

A bunch of us rode down on the Rolling Thunder weekend.

The sheer number of bikes was amazing, but the Wall itself - there are almost no words.

The image that will stand out in my mind for the rest of my life was the blind woman being helped by a Memorial staffer to find the name she was seeking. He placed her hand on the wall over the engraved letters. I watched from a respectful distance with my hand over my mouth as her fingers moved over the letters.

Who was he? A husband? A brother? I don't know. But I do know that these memorials that are not dedicated to one particular person, a 'hero,' are not about ideology. They are about people. And for that they are invaluable.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You have to wonder if that type of monument will have the same type of impact a hundred years from now, after everyone who knew the people named, and the war the wall represents, have themselves died. There are a lot of Civil War and WWI obelisks and such with names on them, and when people look at them they see names -- without really a lot of sense that these were once actual people who walked the earth. And then they sit on the base of those monuments and eat their lunch.

This is what I mean about monuments being largely for the generation that erects them. A hundred years from now people will have their own tragedies to commemorate -- and the tragedies of a generation that they didn't know will just be something that happened once to somebody else.

 

[tonyb]

It's was a very long time ago, but I recall being moved to tears when we visited the The Wall - The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C.

A bunch of us rode down on the Rolling Thunder weekend.

The sheer number of bikes was amazing, but the Wall itself - there are almost no words.

The image that will stand out in my mind for the rest of my life was the blind woman being helped by a Memorial staffer to find the name she was seeking. He placed her hand on the wall over the engraved letters. I watched from a respectful distance with my hand over my mouth as her fingers moved over the letters.

Who was he? A husband? A brother? I don't know. But I do know that these memorials that are not dedicated to one particular person, a 'hero,' are not about ideology. They are about people. And for that they are invaluable.

The strength of that memorial may be in its scale and its simultaneously recognizing each individual while flattening the distinctions between them. No mention of rank or decoration. All in the same font and size. Death the great equalizer.

I'm reminded of a Life Magazine spread during that conflict featuring row after row of photos, 242 in all, of those lost during one week of that war. It covered several pages. That had a similar effect. Look at all these people -- young men, mostly -- dead and gone. Has me wondering if Maya Lin might have found inspiration there.