5. War memorials do more harm than good.

First off I would like to say Hello and Good Luck! I think that those were all good examples of what we could consider as monuments but I would also like to point out museums, graves, and arches should be added to that list especially for this topic. I would also like to point out that war memorials are not just erected to commemorate people or for a reaction. In ancient times most war memorials were erected to commemorate victories and decisive battles like the Arc de Triomphe. They were used to show how powerful the nation or military force was. Commemorating the dead became a primary concern after WWI. The British were among the first to erect memorials for soldiers around the turn of the century. Most memorials before the 20th century were built to represent strength and victory of the countries military. I would like to go through the 5 examples that you brought up. 1. This could be said about anything. Anything that is poorly constructed is obviously going to do more harm than good physically. But my question is does it really take away from the message the structure is there to represent just because it is poorly constructed? 2. Another "if". most monuments today are carefully planned out and locations are strategically placed. Most modern war memorials are erected in urban areas or in the middle towns where the whole community gathers. Other types of war memorials are built on land that was destroyed during battle. So does it really matter that they decided to build it on damaged land? Today with all the controversy surrounding the environment its highly unlikely that organizations fighting to protect the environment would allow a monument to be erected that could harm a habitat. Also in some countries monuments are erected that help the environment. In Ireland there is a war memorial garden for instance. 3. This again could be said about anything. A subversive group could use the local 7-11 as a rallying point. War memorials are controversial no matter what. war is war and every group that has participated in one no matter what side they were on has the right to commemorate their cause and those that died for it even if the majority of society thinks they are wrong or they lost. 4. War memorials are not there to glamorize war. I stated above that they commemorate victories and decisive battles. They do not to glamorize war as a whole. They educate and represent things of the past. I have to disagree with your last sentence. I think they should glamorize or a better word would be glorify a person's actions. There are statues for men who gave their lives by jumping on grenades saving the lives of countless others. Or how about the countless Holocaust memorials throughout Eastern Europe to commemorate things like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where a small group of Jewish resistance fighters held off the SS for weeks. Their actions proved that willpower and incredible courage can overcome anything. The actions of a person who is so selfless that they give their life for their fellow comrade should be honored. 5. Most memorials are funded by organizations that take private donations. If people want to give money to erect a memorial who are we to say hey you could do this with that money? If they want a memorial then that is their decision to erect it. National memorials are the same thing. They are partially funded by the government and then private donations are made to the project. So as you can clearly see my argument is not simply that memorials represent honor and respect for those who died. I argue that they are erected to educate future generations of the events of wars. Memorials are not harmful. They are a testament to events and people when there are no longer witnesses to convey these events to others. They do not just represent those who gave their lives but are a reminder of the past and that history should not repeat itself.