“…Let us strive on to finish the work we are in: to bind up
the nations wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for
his widow, and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and
lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
-Abraham
Lincoln
“How do you memorialize a painfully
mired, drawn-out defeat that called into question the most fundamental tenets
of American patriotism?”[1] This was the problem presented to the nation
in early Spring 1979 when a group of Vietnam veterans voiced a desire for a
Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Veteran Jan
Scruggs hoped that a memorial would “begin a healing process, a reconciliation
of the grievous divisions wrought by the war.”[2] Many were surprised however when a myriad of
things began showing up at the bottom of the memorial. What do these things mean? Hass argues that by bringing things and
leaving them at the memorial, individuals are making the memorial their own and
creating not a singular memory of Vietnam but a collective memory.
After
reading The Presence of the Past last
week and discovering that the public is most interested in a personal past as
opposed to a collective national past, I did not find the concept of making
individual memorials at the national memorial strange. It seems to fit the ideology of the public in
relation to the past. Historian John
Gillis has written that “the reality is that the nation is no longer the site or
frame of memory for most people, and therefore national history is no longer a
proper measure of what people really know about their pasts.”[3] This is an echo of our discussion of last
week and yet Hass disagrees with this statement. She argues that the individuals coming to the
Wall are there out of a sense of nationalism.
They are working through their own individual feelings on the war and
recovering their sense of the nation.
With this past Friday marking the 14th Anniversary of the
September 11th attacks I wish to present two differing views on this
debate and then open it up to group discussion.
I find
myself, regrettably, tending to agree with Gillis’s assessment that the nation
is no longer relevant in terms of memory.
Despite the fact that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is engaging in the
fact that one can feel the names, take rubbings, and see one’s own reflection
it does not seem to be enough. The
engagement does not appear to be personal.
The granite of the memorial is cold and unfamiliar. In an effort to personalize the war and the
experiences that the war left, individuals are bringing items to the memorial
to create their own voice and give the memorial meaning to them.
In Hass’s
defense however, after September 11, 2001 there was a surge in nationalism and
patriotism. Letters, plaques and various
other items lined the fences surrounding the former World Trade Centers and in
the Pennsylvania field where the plane crashed.
In following Hass’s argument these items which were brought to
make-shift memorials have increased nationalism. One can argue that the circumstances are
different, that the Vietnam Memorial recognizes an unpopular war and the 9/11
memorials recognize a horrific national disaster. Where this argument is true, an unpopular war
which spurned the same kind of mistrust of the government came from the
September 11th attacks and yet these memorials are still treated in
the same fashion as the Vietnam Memorial.
Individuals flock to the 9/11 memorials and despite the fact that actual
items are not allowed, some do find their way in. The items and flowers left at the 9/11
memorials are no different than the items left at the Vietnam Memorial. They are individuals’ ways of voicing their
own personal memories and feelings about an event and making that event
personal to themselves.
And so I ask you, are the items brought to
memorials recognizing a shared national past as Hass is attempting to argue; or
are the items creating a personal memory distant from a collective national
past?
I apologize but I am having some real technical difficulty with my pictures. I worked the other day when I played around with it but when I went to publish today it will not work. I tried copy and pasting and uploading them right on blogger. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated so I can try and fix it for you all. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this novel I thought very heavily on the World Trade Centers and the memorial. When I visited some years back there certainly wasn’t a lot of “stuff” around but you’re right Sara as some things did make their way in. I remember there were little white paper birds…that I assumed to be doves everywhere it said “unborn child”. This struck me to be very powerful, and I can only imagine how the items left at the wall accent and become part of the memorial. I agree that the design is quite bland but I believe that Lin purposely made the wall as such because it forces one to reflect quite psychically and emotionally. It also makes gives the job of memorializing to everyone in a sense as she put so little of herself into the design so that others could put in so much.
ReplyDeleteAck! One of my pet peeves as a history professor is when students refer to non-fiction books as "novels." A novel is a work of fiction! ;)
DeleteAs I was reading the book "Carried to The Wall," I found myself looking back at the World Trade Centers as a comparison to the Vietnam Wall. While both events are dark time in United States history I do feel more impacted by the Wall rather than the World Trade Center.The last time I saw the Vietnam Wall I was about 12 years old. I can remember walking down and seeing cards, letters, flowers, pictures etc. Anything you could imagine was there, and it really changed my view our American soldiers who died willing for American Democracy.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your blog Sara, I will say that it does fit with relations family history as we read last week. A good quote Hass uses to in the book that can further support this is on page 81, where she says "The leaving of things, it would seem, still does important symbolic work in mediating between the living and the dead." For some people this is the only way to spend time and remember the past with their lost loved ones. Whatever helps them make the connection with their family.
Like many, I thought of the September 11th terrorist attacks while reading this work on the Vietnam Memorial. It seems to me that as time passes on, the items that are brought to the memorials are on a more personal level rather than an attempt to have a shared collective national past. Like many, my family brings flowers to the site of family members graves in cemeteries dotting Western New York. It seems to me that the 9/11 Memorial Site and the Vietnam Memorial Site are similar in meaning for many that lost a loved one. While these sites have great power and solemnity for those that did not lose anyone but merely were part of the nation during those events, those that lost family members and loved ones have a special connection to those sites and it seems logical that they visit often with flowers and other gifts in remembrance to their loved ones.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about the relationship between cemeteries and these kinds of memorials. Why do people bring flowers and other personal items to these memorial, esp. the VVM, when presumably they have grave sites for their loved ones near where they live? Why would someone feel the need to bring an object or make some kind of offering to the Wall instead of (or in addition to) a grave? The 9/11 Memorial is a kind of mass grave, because many of the remains were never recovered and remain there in the soil. So, it makes more sense to me in that case.
DeleteI don't know how to phrase this delicately, but perhaps the manner of the person passing has to do with it. You often see makeshift memorials for cops or other people that lose their life in a tragic accident on the road, memorials that are kept up for years. VVM of course is different as it is not in the same country as the site of a soldier's death, but it is as good a substitute as many are going to get.
DeleteYou bring up a very interesting point concerning the function of the items that visitors have left over the years. Throughout my reading of the book I was constantly plagued by one underlying question: is the cold and distant granite form of the wall inherently without meaning, with the items serving as a way to negotiate some kind of personal significance to those who leave them? Or does the wall and the meaning it carries interact to form a kind of a sign by which we understand the Memorial? It seems to me that there are arguments to be made for either position. On the one hand, the Wall seems to possess a certain kind of gravitas which we rarely attribute to other memorials, such as the Lincoln or Washington monuments. It is a place where all who attend do so in dignified silence, or at the very least quietness. Furthermore, the Wall is seen as possessing a collective significance that dwarfs the individual tomb stone that might be found in a small-town church. As a result, it is here where grieving friends and family choose to structure their discussion between love of country and the tragedy that came about as a result. However, whatever meaning there is to find in the interaction of granite and paraphernalia is undeniably a personal meaning. There is no readily understood, universal significance of an inflatable bike tube for instance. In the same way, no matter what resolution one might find by leaving an item, it is almost guaranteed that it differs in some way from that which another has found on their own. Simply put, the Wall is both a wonderful platform to deal with both personal and national grief, as well as a philosophical hell for all but a few and you seem to tackle the issue far better than I do.
ReplyDelete