Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1479Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: 90th Pa monument

Expand Messages
  • robert blama
    Jul 18, 2004
      definitely agains revisionist history, not for allowing hundreds of monuments to be added but should view as a case by case decision. I have to respectfully disagree about attendance. Where there are plaques and monuments there are tourists. Monocacy have few visitors with respect to other battlefields and the battle fields around Richmond is hard to discern a lot of it is bare.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: James2044
      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:45 PM
      Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: 90th Pa monument

      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "robert blama" <civilwar1@c...>
      > Not 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)


      This is the aurgement the PC crwod at NPS is using to make the
      NBPs "more inclusive". It isn't good history, it destroyes the NBP
      as left by the men who fought there and it isn't proven to increase
      attendence. IMO, "obscure incidents" is PC speak for adding an EEOC
      where none existed.


      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]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic