Friday, April 06, 2007
Lefty activists oppose memorial to war hero because it "glorifies violence"
Sheesh. Talk about your unreconstructed tomfoolery.
I'm sure that they, too, "support the troops." They just don't respect their heroism.
I must admit, this sort of petty, small-minded, oppositional community activism really gets my goat.
CWCID: Michelle Malkin.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Apr 06, 04:20:00 PM:
This is the Democratic Party. Get used to it.
Dems bet it all on the Peace Movement. This is what they get.
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Fri Apr 06, 09:53:00 PM:
I've given more than a little thought in recent weeks to the changes in design and meaning that have occurred in public memorials to the veterans of successive American wars. I have observed that statuary, in particular, are far less common in municipal monuments to veterans of wars since the mid 20th century than they were in the period between the end of the Civil War and the 1930s. Instead, the trend has been toward monuments that list roles of honor - not only the dead but also living veterans - with an emphasis on the individual soldier's identity rather a statue representing the group.
There are a few exceptions to this trend in Washington, but not on most of the town greens and municipal courtyards where we memorialize our veterans of WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and the present war.
There may be practical as well as patriotic reasons why this is so. Polished marble of the sort used in cemitary monuments is more readily available, affordable, and suitable for an honor role than statuary. It is also less controversial, because every design element of a statue that must represent every veteran, regardless of race or gender or branch of service, is open to public debate and argument. Think about the controversity that arose after 9/11 when that iconic image of the three FDNY firefighter raising the flag at Ground Zero was reworked to include an African American face in subsequent memorial artwork for another reminder of this phenominon.
We also are less inclined as a society to create public memorials to our veterans that convey strong, heroic, dare I say glorified images of war in general and the wars they memorialize in particular. A memorial like the gilded equestrian monument to General Sherman that strides southward in Central park escorted by a laurel-bearing Columbia triumphant would be a complete anachronism for today's memorial statuary. The three representative soldiers added to the Viet Nam memorial in Washington are battle weary and gazing somberly at the names on The Wall, and the slightly grotesque Korean War platoon humping in winter ponchos upslope across the Mall are bearing the burden of "the forgotten veterans of the forgotten war" as well as their packs and ammo. Memorials, after all, are reflections of interpreted memory.
This memorial statue or a real veteran based on a photo from life is unusual in this day and age. It is bound to provoke strong emotions, as all good public memorials do, but I think this fallen soldiers' grieving parents got it right when they said that their son died protecting rights that include the right of a small group of people to protest his memorial.
By , at
Fri Apr 06, 11:48:00 PM:
I suppose these wussietards will want a memorial for all the 70 antiwar activists like BILL CLINTON,HANOI JANE,TOM HAYDEN and others how about a chicken running away leaving the old 70s chicken footprint peace symbol as it runs away. There realy more intellegence in sheetrock then in these idiots
