Cliché has
taught us that a picture is worth a thousand words, but how many is an object
worth? Two thousand? Ten thousand? A million? The study of objects and how they
relate to both personal and public memory offers a unique perspective into how
Americans interact with history. Both Kristin Ann Hass in her book Carried to the Wall: American Memory and the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and the “American Stories” exhibit at the
Smithsonian National Museum of American History explore this topic and present
some interesting conclusions about the fluidity of public and personal memory.
Kristin Ann Hass
attempts to understand and articulate the stories of objects left at the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in her book Carried
to the Wall: American Memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, (you can
take a virtual tour of the memorial here). Objects ranging from cigarettes and beer cans
to purple hearts and dog tags to a sliding glass door have been left as
offerings to the names emblazoned on the black granite of the memorial. Each
object left at the memorial offers a unique story and individual perspective of
the Vietnam War. When combined, these stories reflect the controversy that is
the Vietnam War in public memory.
About
a mile due east of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial stands the Smithsonian
National Museum of American History. Located on the second floor of the east
wing of the museum is the “American Stories” exhibit. You can read a brief
summary of the exhibit here, and
check out a (very cool) interactive online version of the exhibit here. Items on display range from a piece of
Plymouth Rock to the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore during the production of The Wizard of Oz. The “American Stories”
exhibit “highlights the ways in which objects and stories can reinforce and
challenge our understanding of history and help define our personal and
national identities.” The exhibit also “examines the manner in which culture,
politics, economics, science, technology and the peopling of the United States
have shaped the country over the decades.”[1]
 |
| My ruby slippers are on display at the National Museum of American History?!?! |
In Carried to the Wall, Hass starts her study on a personal
level, attempting to understand the stories of objects left at the memorial, and what they say about the personal memories of the individual that left them there. She then expands
up to the level of public memory by combining the stories to better
understand how the objects left at the memorial show how the
Vietnam War fits into American memory. For example: a couple of service medals
that were left at the memorial were accompanied by a note, a part of which
read:
My problem is I don’t know the names of
those I tried to help only to have them die in my arms. In my sleep I hear their
cries and see their faces…Attached to this letter are my service medals. These
belong to you and your family and your friends. I don’t need them to show I was
there. I have your faces in my sleep… Love your brother, Glen.[2]
Hass argues that Glen leaving his
medals is a way for him to make a connection with the men whose names he did
not know. She also argues that this was Glen’s way of creating his own monument
to better represent his experiences that were not exemplified in the memorial.[3]
Expanding things to now encompass public memory; Hass suggests that many of the
objects left at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial can fit into five (heavily
overlapping) categories: person memories, problems of patriotism and community,
negotiations between the living and the dead, an effort to establish a
community of veterans, and explicit political statements.[4] Hass explicitly says that service medals fit
into the category of “community and patriotism,” as leaving a service medal at
the memorial might be to honor a fallen friend, or as a demonstration of how
meaningless the honor of the medal is.[5]
In the case of the medals left by Glen, it is a safe to say that his reasoning
for leaving his medals was the former.
On the other
hand, the “American Stories” exhibit starts with public memory by presenting an
object, providing some context as to how the object fits into history, and then
shrinking into the level of personal memory by allowing each individual viewer
to determine for themselves where the object on display fits into their own
memory. One such item on display, from the “Postwar and Contemporary America”
section of the exhibit, is a Kermit
the Frog puppet. The write up is fairly simple, lauding Sesame Street for its success in
combining education and entertainment into a children’s television show. [6]
Now the fun begins, as we are able to place Kermit the Frog into the context of
our own personal memories. For me, Kermit the Frog harkens back to my early
childhood, and Saturday mornings at my grandparents’ house. I couldn’t have been
much older than five or six, but it was a Saturday morning tradition of
watching the Muppets with my late grandmother, and having a breakfast of Eggo
waffles topped with Mrs. Butterworth’s maple syrup. With over one hundred
objects on display, the “American Stories” exhibit presents viewers plenty of opportunities
to realize and possibly reshape where these objects fit into their personal
memories.
 |
| It's not easy being part of a museum exhibit, but it is easier than being green |
Though
they subject matter may seem like an odd pairing, this combination of ruby slippers
and purple hearts offers some interesting insights into our understanding of
both personal and public memory. Both Kristin Ann Hass’ book Carried to the Wall: American Memory and the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and the “American Stories” exhibit at the
Smithsonian National Museum of American History challenge their respective readers
and viewers to reconsider their own views on personal and public memory.
[2] Kristin Ann Hass. Carried to the Wall: American Memory and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998) P. 20-21
[3] Hass, Carried to the Wall P. 21
[4] Hass, Carried to the Wall P.
95
[5] Hass, Carried to the Wall P.
98
Judy Garland picture credit: www.ultimatemovierankings.com
Kermit the Frog picture credit: www.etonline.com
I agree with what you mentioned from the Hass reading. This is that the objects left at the memorial can be separated into five different categories that overlap heavily. I think what is most interesting about this is that an item, or items, left at the memorial can be left with one purpose but when viewed by someone else on the outside looking in, can be placed into another category. In the reading, "Carried to the Wall", it was mentioned how it was difficult to decide on a design for the memorial, but I think that just having one created was a step in the right direction. This is because if you provide a location for people to come to honor the fallen, they can provide personalized tributes, as they are doing with their gift items. In this way everyone can pay their respects in the way they see best.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what type of objects were left at war sites or memorials before the Vietnam Memorial. Were they similar/different, serve the same purposes etc.
DeleteGood question. The VVM was the first instance of this happening. As Hass points out, there was a long tradition in American funerary practice where people (esp. African Americans, Native Americans) leave offerings for the dead. But this wasn't a part of national memorial culture until the Wall.
DeleteI agree that there are interesting parallels between the function of the objects left at the Vietnam Memorial and objects on display at museums like the National Museum of American History. Both seem to support the idea that objects can serve as tangible symbols and triggers of memory that help/force people to connect to and personalize the past. And all seem to contribute to public memory. But I think we should also consider the ways in which memorial offerings and objects related to war and soldiers' bodies differ from the sorts of popular culture objects on display at the Smithsonian. Hass argues that the objects left at the Vietnam Memorial are indicative of a shift in and an ongoing conversation about the relationship between the individual and the nation. She ascribes to the objects intense political meaning. Are artifacts of popular culture ever contentious or weighty? Do they challenge and twist and shape national identity and public memory? Are they simply feel-good items of nostalgia, or do they serve a greater political role? By asking these questions, I do not mean to imply that I am of the opinion that they are less significant; I simply want to articulate, if possible, the ways in which they are equally but differently political and significant.
ReplyDeleteYour point about how the Smithsonian exhibit and the Vietnam Memorial objects present a great debate on the different uses of objects.
DeleteIn Jeff’s blog he tells the story of Glen who placed his service medals and a letter to his fallen brother and veteran. His anecdote exemplifies the duality that medals can serve in the context to war. As Hass writes, medals “might be to honor a fallen friend, or demonstrate how meaningless the honor of a medal is.” In this blog, Glen, likely is honoring his fallen brother as Jeff writes, but this story also highlights how memorials can serve a variety of purposes, not all of them patriotic as seen when Hass writes that “hurling your Purple Heart at the powers that be and setting it at the foot of a memorial to your dead friends are very different acts.” Not only are they completely different acts, but they are the antithesis of each other. How can a medal can be both a patriotic honor and a form of protest undergird Hass’ monograph of how American memorials evolved over the many years. In the context of a war medals can represent many things, including the complexity of human emotions – the anger at the loss of life or the heroism of fighting for your country are just two. Likewise, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial presents a similar duality. The memorial has become a place to revere fallen soldiers, but also a place for the living to attempt to understand war itself. Hass elucidates how early American war memorials were an emblem of patriotism and nationalism, “the wall, she writes, “comes out of a rapture of this history.” While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial contrasts the public memory of war before and after Vietnam, what may be most important is that the evolution of memorials have allowed family, friends, and now historians to navigate the public memory of war. A Purple Heart laid at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial can serve as a patriotic remembrance of American sacrifice, but it can also serve as an outlet for personal bereavement and/or opposing viewpoints. In the same vein the “American Stories” exhibit at the Smithsonian allows visitors to understand the complexity of personal/public objects and the many purposes they may serve. Finally, by investigating these many complexities as Hass does in Carried to the Wall or the “American Stories” exhibit, allows the public, along with historians to better understand public memory. Perhaps most significantly though, it allows the ordinary public themselves the opportunity to engage in dialogue about the nation unlike before, just as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was the first memorial to allow open and contested discussions on American culture.
ReplyDeleteThe way in which one can look at all the myriad of things left at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and try and work out the place the war holds in the memories of both the individual who actually left it and in the American public as a whole is interesting. Sometimes it’s rather clear, as in the case of notes or those carefully crafted displays people left with the intention of it being part of a collection, while other times it’s not so clear to determine what a beer can or a medal really means. And, when it comes to the public as a whole, the entire thing becomes muddled and ambiguous simply due to how muddled and ambiguous its meaning is amongst the varied people of the public. I imagine the memories surrounding the items found in the Smithsonian aren’t quite as intense or as varied, but it’d be just as interesting to have someone examine how people approached something displayed there, especially if they start leaving offerings for Kermit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your summation of the argument that Hass makes regarding the categorization of the objects left at the Wall. I find it interesting that the categories overlap so much as well. I would have to believe that this is, similar to Steven's point in the previous comment, because they are left on such a personal level and therefore it makes it difficult to truly differentiate between meanings. The example you used of Glen's medal that he left at the Wall perfectly articulates that point. It was also one of the notes that really drew me in to this concept of this book and the fluidity of public memory. The connection you draw between public and personal memory is an interesting one. It is fascinating that such intimate items such as a dog tag or a decorated flag can mean as much to the public as well-known objects. The ways that individuals may interact with the objects may differ depending on if they are in the Smithsonian or at the Wall, but the ability of anybody regardless of their background to draw out a memory proves that we as a culture are still connected to our past.
ReplyDeleteThe way you tie in the ruby red slippers and Kermit the Frog from the Smithsonian's "American Story" exhibit to Hass' Carried to the Wall is interesting because they compliment each other. Like the things left at the Vietnam memorial, medals, letters, cigarettes, etc., and their meaning to the people that left them, Kermit has effected you in a similar way. A simple puppet brings up nostalgic thoughts of the past that you will never forget. The same can be said for me because when I was a kid I can remember putting on red shoes, clicking my heels together and saying, "There's no place like home."
ReplyDeleteAn item can mean something different to everyone and that is what Hass touches on in "Carried to the Wall." Collectively all of the objects left at the memorial have a bigger meaning about the Vietnam War as a whole and this ties into the personal and public memory of all of the objects left over the years.