How to Commemorate History

¶ … Memorials There are events throughout history that are tragic, historic and/or are forever burned into the minds of those that experience and witness them. The burning question asked by many is how to (or how NOT to) commemorate and memorialize such events. Just a few examples of events that could be cited are the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Columbine shootings and 9/11. This report shall compare and contrast the perspectives of Marschall and Mitchell.

While people generally agree that remembrance of the fallen and of events is a good thing, the "how" that is used to do that is sometimes a question with many different answers. Marschall has her primary focus, at least initially, on the aftermath and memorials relating to South Africa and the time of Apartheid.

Indeed, she notes that "many new monuments and memorials have been built or proposed since the advent of the post-apartheid era." Further, it is noted that many of the monuments (proposed or actual) are meant to commemorate events in history and to remember those that died. Marschall expands a bit on page 147 by stating that "images of the past common serve to legitimate a present social order" (Marschall, 2006).

Quite often, images and happenstances of the negative event are created or preserved so that people can see for themselves the people, places, things and events that defined what is being remembered or memorialized. Marschall then talks about the "foundation myth" and how it can actually refer to things that are technically true. Further, they are events that are usually pretty recent rather than events that were a long time ago.

However, how (or whether) to preserve these memories is far from something that people have a monolithic and simple opinion about. The introduction made a reference to the Berlin Wall and this source was the idea behind that name-dropping. Indeed, some people think the remnants of the wall should be preserved while others thing that the rest of the destruction should be completed once and for all (Marschall, 2006).

The other source takes a similar approach in that there is a focus on memorials and an even that is firmly burned into the minds of many people. However, the event is much more recent and much more relevant to Americans as the event in question was 9/11. Indeed, there is talk about several acres of property were damaged or destroyed, more than three thousand people were killed and so forth. The author, a woman named Mitchell, asks open-ended questions about how it should be commemorated, memorialized or sanctified.

Just as with the aforementioned Berlin Wall example, there are some wide-ranging opinions about how precisely to remember the dead and the event itself when it comes to 9/11. Further, monuments can create divisiveness and even threats, such was the case with the memorial for.