War Memorials and Community Memory

     Memorials, particularly war memorials, are not for the dead, but for the living.  Just as tombstones and cemeteries do not benefit the dead, memorials provide a location and something tangible for those still living to remember those who have passed.  They are also testaments to the shared memory of a war experience.  David Glassberg’s chapter on “Remembering a War” discusses not only the public interpretations of war in memory, but also the reactions of veterans when they returned home to a less-than-enthusiastic welcome.

     Glassberg focuses on the town of Orange, Massachusetts, and with how the residents in this town commemorated their war heroes.  They had an obelisk for the Civil War already when the question of erecting some type of memorial for the Great War came up in the community.  Ultimately, the town decided to build a memorial park and reserved space for a physical monument.  The veterans were upset with this decision, since it appeared that the community was using the memorial as an excuse to get a beautification project approved.  Understandably, the veterans felt like outsiders in this process since the town did not even celebrate Armistice Day the next year.  Veterans continued to make their own memorials and remembrances without impetus from the community.

     The differences in how the community remembered war, and how the veterans remembered war shows the multiple aspects that go into public memory and memorials.  Whether the monument has the names of fallen soldiers inscribed on its face, or the memorial consists of a local gym or park, these tools are how the public reconciles multiple war narratives into a cohesive and easily understood symbol of patriotism and community.  The challenge to public historians comes from the simplification of war memories, and potentially explosive confrontations when the monolithic view is questioned, as in the Enola Gay exhibit.