1466Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument
- Jul 18 8:06 AMNot sure I agree that monuments are graffiti. Since there are many more causal people visiting the battlefields than the buffs, some type of interpretation is needed for them to understand. A lot of the monuments at Gettysburg tell a story (through their dedication) of the role of the rgt in the battle that we might not have otherwise. Also they tell of obscure incidents which are might never had been told (like Sally of the 11th Pa)
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Morris
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 90th Pa monument
Not at all. The 90th Pa monument was simply the replacing of a monument put
there by the men who fought there. If the 69 Pa or Irish Brigade monuments
were damaged and needed replacing at Gettysburg I would wish for them to be
replaced as they were originally placed there by the veterans.
However we didn't fight there so I don't believe we have a right to come
along and start placing new monuments at this late date. The problem is
people have very strong interests in the Civil War. It's like a ghost
however because while it's all around us yet it's still far enough back in
history that it's very hard to get a firm grasp on it. So we try and connect
with it through walking the battlefields, re-enactments and so on. Trying to
get a better vision of what it was like. Some people however take it to far
and these new monuments are the result of it. They think that by getting a
permanent monument placed on a battlefield that they are now permanently
connected to that battle. That's not the case however. All they've done is
graffitied the battlefield except instead of using spray paint they've used
granite and bronze.
> Well, with all this talk of being against new monuments, I hope folks
don't put the 90th Pa monument in that category. The monument which will be
dedicated at 12:30 on Sept 18th is a replacement for the original monument
placed on the battlefield by the veterans themselves.
> I know some folks are against any monuments, but in my opinion, if the
veterans put them there - the monuments are as much a part of the
battlefield as anything else. It is part of the history and the reason for
saving these battlefields. The monuments are a concrete expression of how
the veterans felt and remembered the land that they risk their all.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>