After visiting it, I felt that it was too much pomp and not enough meaning. It certainly consumes a lot of space, and I do believe that space is power, so to me it says that the US finds this war important. Yet, I didn’t feel any emotional attachment to this memorial like I have with others on the Mall. It’s difficult to compare anything with Vietnam Veterans Memorial, because it is so successful in doing what it does–see Kristin Hass, Carried to the Wall , but even the Korean War Memorial evokes more feeling of actual people fighting in a real war.
Unfortunately, I feel that the WWII Memorial detracts from the sacrifices of the thousands who served at home and abroad, because the times during which it was constructed overshadows this. WWII is seen now as a noble war, and many Boomers, especially, almost wished they were connected with it, so this Memorial is larger than life as a result.
I had a similar feeling. The WWII is far more celebratory, more positive, than either the Vietnam or the Korean war memorials. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing, either. I noticed that people acted very differently at the WWII memorial than the Korean or Vietnam memorials. At the WWII memorial, lots of people were walking around, laughing and smiling. Kids were running around. Grandparents were hugging their kids and grandkids. It was almost a place for celebration, as if the designers of the memorial wanted people to be able to act and do as they pleased in the spirit of the memorial’s view of the war as one of freedom against tyranny. I’m sure current events and opinions shaped the building and the ideology of the memorial, and I’m sure the Vietnam and Korean war memorials would look different if they were built today (if they would even be built at all today, another question to ponder).
With the latter two, there’s much more emphasis on the experience of the individual soldier involved in the war. They’re more sympathetic with the soldiers, asking visitors to reflect on the nameless (Korean war memorial) or the faceless (Vietnam war memorial) individuals. I haven’t looked into the politics surrounding the construction of the WWII memorial or the others, but like you I don’t feel an attachment to it. I really don’t feel an attachment to the Vietnam and Korean War memorials either, but I do like them more. Maybe they look at the war from the bottom up, like I study history, whereas the WWII memorial looks at the top down. Maybe it’s because WWII was more “successful” or “popular”. The WWII memorial is more about ideology than experience. The others are more about experience than ideology, though both are present in all the memorials. I don’t think either approach is bad.
What I’m waiting for is a memorial dedicated to the countless slaves that lived, worked, and died in the U.S. It should be just as big and as grand as the WWII memorial. Not to take away from any soldier (then and now), but I can’t think of a more deserving group of people whose sacrifice helped build this country. I don’t expect one to be build in my lifetime, certainly not on the Mall (where it should be), but I’d be the first in line to visit.
Exactly. I actually refrained from writing that in my last email because I thought I was ranting too much. I couldn’t agree more.
One thing that brings it home most starkly is the presence of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum on the Mall. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it reminds us of the missing piece: slavery.
Feel free to rant here all you want! Like I said, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime…the Mall’s running out of room, and I think very few people would support it.
It will be interesting to see if the new African American History Museum, which may take up the last piece of free Mall land, contains such a memorial. That would be the place to do it, because there isn’t much real estate available as you mentioned.
Not quite sure how funding will go with that museum, especially considering facility requirements for the existing buildings, ie. NMAH. If the private funding is sufficient things could go as planned, but this museum project has been languishing for many years due to various reasons.
That would be the place to do it, but I don’t think it will have the same effect, or make the same statement, as a monument in and of itself. There seems to be a diffence between a stand-alone monument and a “memorial” (which is really what it would ammount to) in a museum. A monument isn’t really “hidden” inside a museum or other building (or at least it shouldn’t be). It’s out in the open, where people can see it, where it affects the space in which they exist. Putting a slavery memorial inside a museum would seem to accomplish what Americans have been doing with slavery history for over a century: hiding it, running away from it.
V. nice photo, Jerm.
What are your thoughts of this memorial?
After visiting it, I felt that it was too much pomp and not enough meaning. It certainly consumes a lot of space, and I do believe that space is power, so to me it says that the US finds this war important. Yet, I didn’t feel any emotional attachment to this memorial like I have with others on the Mall. It’s difficult to compare anything with Vietnam Veterans Memorial, because it is so successful in doing what it does–see Kristin Hass, Carried to the Wall , but even the Korean War Memorial evokes more feeling of actual people fighting in a real war.
Unfortunately, I feel that the WWII Memorial detracts from the sacrifices of the thousands who served at home and abroad, because the times during which it was constructed overshadows this. WWII is seen now as a noble war, and many Boomers, especially, almost wished they were connected with it, so this Memorial is larger than life as a result.
I don’t know, that is just my rant for the day.
I had a similar feeling. The WWII is far more celebratory, more positive, than either the Vietnam or the Korean war memorials. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing, either. I noticed that people acted very differently at the WWII memorial than the Korean or Vietnam memorials. At the WWII memorial, lots of people were walking around, laughing and smiling. Kids were running around. Grandparents were hugging their kids and grandkids. It was almost a place for celebration, as if the designers of the memorial wanted people to be able to act and do as they pleased in the spirit of the memorial’s view of the war as one of freedom against tyranny. I’m sure current events and opinions shaped the building and the ideology of the memorial, and I’m sure the Vietnam and Korean war memorials would look different if they were built today (if they would even be built at all today, another question to ponder).
With the latter two, there’s much more emphasis on the experience of the individual soldier involved in the war. They’re more sympathetic with the soldiers, asking visitors to reflect on the nameless (Korean war memorial) or the faceless (Vietnam war memorial) individuals. I haven’t looked into the politics surrounding the construction of the WWII memorial or the others, but like you I don’t feel an attachment to it. I really don’t feel an attachment to the Vietnam and Korean War memorials either, but I do like them more. Maybe they look at the war from the bottom up, like I study history, whereas the WWII memorial looks at the top down. Maybe it’s because WWII was more “successful” or “popular”. The WWII memorial is more about ideology than experience. The others are more about experience than ideology, though both are present in all the memorials. I don’t think either approach is bad.
What I’m waiting for is a memorial dedicated to the countless slaves that lived, worked, and died in the U.S. It should be just as big and as grand as the WWII memorial. Not to take away from any soldier (then and now), but I can’t think of a more deserving group of people whose sacrifice helped build this country. I don’t expect one to be build in my lifetime, certainly not on the Mall (where it should be), but I’d be the first in line to visit.
Exactly. I actually refrained from writing that in my last email because I thought I was ranting too much. I couldn’t agree more.
One thing that brings it home most starkly is the presence of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum on the Mall. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it reminds us of the missing piece: slavery.
Feel free to rant here all you want! Like I said, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime…the Mall’s running out of room, and I think very few people would support it.
It will be interesting to see if the new African American History Museum, which may take up the last piece of free Mall land, contains such a memorial. That would be the place to do it, because there isn’t much real estate available as you mentioned.
Not quite sure how funding will go with that museum, especially considering facility requirements for the existing buildings, ie. NMAH. If the private funding is sufficient things could go as planned, but this museum project has been languishing for many years due to various reasons.
That would be the place to do it, but I don’t think it will have the same effect, or make the same statement, as a monument in and of itself. There seems to be a diffence between a stand-alone monument and a “memorial” (which is really what it would ammount to) in a museum. A monument isn’t really “hidden” inside a museum or other building (or at least it shouldn’t be). It’s out in the open, where people can see it, where it affects the space in which they exist. Putting a slavery memorial inside a museum would seem to accomplish what Americans have been doing with slavery history for over a century: hiding it, running away from it.
Agreed. We’ll see how this all develops.