First, a disclaimer. I had rather the nightmare scenario this weekend (better now than in a few weeks, I suppose). While working on the sketch of my site and looking for information that might expand it, I found . . . well, my site. I don’t know how I missed it before, but it does what I would have proposed to do, or at least a big chunk of it. Now that a couple of hours have passed, I’ve worked through most of the panic and disappointment, and I’m moving on. (But I’ve bookmarked “my” site – I’ll look forward to exploring it when I have more time and don’t have to re-do my project from near-scratch!)
As you may recall, I had planned to do a project on Arlington National Cemetery. That job, however, was taken by the site I found. So I’ve expanded my topic to look more generally at war cemeteries (in the United States, they’re usually called “national cemeteries” when they are still active and “national shrines” once they are full) and war memorials. I have been doing some research on the concepts surrounding the field of history loosely termed war and memory, and I’ve found some very interesting pieces on the role that war memorials play in history and culture. I thought about whether I could, or should, de-couple war memorials and war cemeteries and decided that the two were too closely linked to be separated. You probably shouldn’t discuss the World War II Memorial in DC without discussing the similar memorial at the United States war cemetery in Normandy (above Omaha Beach), though many seem to do just that. And the war cemeteries are their own kind of war memorial, so despite the breadth of the resulting proposal, I think doing both together makes sense.
There are a lot of sites that provide information on war cemeteries and memorials, including some of the ones I looked at earlier in the semester. A few sites even look at memorials in the context of “war and memory” and provide information and even some analysis of memorials. The best one I found (Sites of Memory at <http://sites-of-memory.de/main/index.html>) has lots of good information but is not focused on the United States and is far from a systematic treatment of the topic.
The goal of my site would be to provide (1) factual information, photos, maps, and details about existing war memorials and cemeteries and (2) context and interpretation about where these things fit into United States history and what role they serve as history, memory, and culture.
On to the outline then:
This site would provide factual and interpretive information on United States war cemeteries (national cemeteries, national shrines, etc.) and war memorials. It would provide background and context for each type of location. It would also provide insight on how the United States memorializes its war dead, the purposes that memorialization is intended to serve at the time it is constructed and later, the role of the government in funding and constructing the locations and choosing their story, and whether the meaning of memorials has changed (or been ignored) over time. Ideally, the site might be expanded to include war memorials and cemeteries from other countries and provide comparisons and analysis on how and why different countries’ war memorial traditions developed as they have, but I feel that adding that to the initial project would make the scope too large in the beginning.
This site would bring together information from other sites, but it would collect information from a variety of government and private sources in one place, interpret the information and the memorials themselves, and provide an analysis of such topics as the
- Initial stated purpose of the location
- Current stated purpose of the location
- Role of government in the initial development in the project and since
- Funding for the project (public, private, large donations, grassroots donations, etc.)
- Changes to the location over time (such as adding panels or other elements to a memorial)
- Interaction of the location with the present (is it a place of continued mourning, like the Vietnam Memorial or a lost artifact, like the Washington DC World War I memorial?)
- Has the location (its physical site, its design, its message, etc.) been applauded? Been criticized? On what grounds? By what groups? (One issue: does it matter what the veterans of the particular war say more than others?)
- Is the design modeled on older designs? Which ones? Why?
If you think about the Vietnam Memorial as an example, then, this site would collect together the initial advocacy for such a memorial, the government-issued statements (then and now) about why the memorial was warranted, information on why and how its location and design was chosen, the controversy over its design, the additions to the original design (particularly the addition of the two statues to the grounds), and the role the memorial continues to play in American culture and tradition (with annual wreath layings and other commemorative, widely-attended events as well as with private reflection and the donation (often anonymous) of commemorative items by individuals).
The primary content of the site would be a page (or set of pages) on United States national cemeteries and shrines and war memorials, both those located in the United States and those elsewhere, such as Europe. The locations outside the United States would include the military cemeteries in Europe run by the American Battle Monuments Commission and the memorials in those cemeteries as well as the memorials to and by Americans elsewhere – the statue of Eisenhower by the US embassy in London might be one example; the Berlin Airlift memorials in Berlin and Frankfurt might be another. For each location, the site would provide answers to the questions and issues listed above (and no doubt the project would lead to the development of new questions) and further links about the site, including the link to the official website of the location, if any.
I could imagine several audiences for the site. I would hope history students (particularly those interested in war and memory) would find the site (and the interpretations) interesting and useful to further the discussion of the role that war memorials play in our culture. I would also hope that amateur historians would find the site useful to understanding how war is memorialized and how that has changed over time. I would think that the site might also be visited by tourists, veterans, people considering creating and designing new memorials, and architects.
I do not anticipate using audio or video on the site, though I may change my mind about that as the project develops (video of memorial services at places like the Vietnam Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknowns might add useful content to the site). At this point, I just envision a fairly simple sight with photographs and text (and one concern will be keeping the amount of text limited and judicious so this is not a history-paper-with-photograph-exhibits simply transferred to the web). It seems to me that this sort of inquiry is suitable to the web – providing information in a variety of formats and the ability to compare content and images quickly. For example, just how much does the World War II memorial look like the memorial at the Normandy military cemetery? Do multiple locations by the same designed, sculptor or architect look alike and does that devalue the uniqueness of the location?
I am still considering whether to have user-contributed or interactive elements. As an initial matter, it seems to me that some sort of visitors’ log would be particularly interesting and relevant to this site, as gathering up people’s reactions not just to the locations themselves but to the analysis of them (“how dare you or anyone criticize the memorial to the war I served in” or “this memorial has lost its relevance because of the failure of designers to provide it with an appropriate location,” etc.) would seem to directly advance the point of the site. At the same time, however, the very emotion that gives rise to the memorials originally and to their continued interaction with individuals might make for some heated discussions (or is that just wishful thinking on my part?) that might require more careful monitoring that would be practical. So I’ll continue to give that some thought, but I’m leaning toward trying to include something, even if it’s just an e-mail for sending in reflections for posting on the site.
There also may be a place in a site like this for users to contribute information and photographs of locations too small to be reflected in the current web worldview. In that case, providing an opportunity for people to provide information and photographs about sites appropriate to the topic but not yet discussed might add to the breadth of the site. One issue here, as with the site in general, will be the judgment calls about “what’s a war memorial” – are the many “Memorial Stadiums” war memorials? What about memorials to individual soldiers? Military memorials may also pose challenges (the Marine Corps Memorial at Arlington Cemetery is a war memorial, right? But what about the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial off the George Washington parkway?). The broader the selection, the less detailed information can be provided about the material on the site – is it better to be a mile wide or a mile deep? It seems to me that the conversation I’m interested in advancing (i.e., what is the role of war cemeteries and memorials in culture and history?) might be better served by in-depth analysis of fewer locations rather than superficial analysis of many locations.
Comments and suggestions welcome as usual — or perhaps more than usual, since I’m re-baselining things a bit in real time . . .
Thanks, Tracy
