![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:54:35 GMT, "slenon"
wrote: And I'll bet the great majority of the wayne p. baileys would not trade all the engraved marble in the world for the above situation...memorials aren't much good to the memorialized, but if we must have them, IMO, a jeff is damned sight better memorial to a wayne p. bailey than some monogrammed marble... TC, While descendants may normally good things and may speak volumns about the men and women who carried the guns and built the planes, oral histories don't always get handed down in a timely or accurate manner. Three generations and the memories are largely gone. It's good to have both the living and the granite memorials. I know a limited amount of my father's PTO naval history, my mother's Nurse Cadet Corps service, slightly more about my step-father's NA& ETO AAF history, and quite a bit about my father-in-law's ETO Army history. My children have little concern for such history. Should they have children, they'll hand nothing down of that time. This project is not only a memorial but a belated attempt to document the scope of citizen involvement in winning WWII. I thought about the way that line sounded, both as I wrote it, and afterward, but that's how it came out. To clarify, I think the static memorials are fine, but are not, at least to me, the most "telling" memorial. To me, the "best" (if it need be labeled) memorial, be it to soldiers or civilians, during war or peace, is the living kind. That said, I wholeheartedly understand and support the desire to see the "granite" kind, too, and that includes those to all of those who were in service, whenever, wherever, regardless of the politics surrounding what got them there. I have no idea how old your kids are, but I'd offer that if they are under 20-30, what their interest in family history is now may very well change at 25-30+, and/or, it might skip a generation, and so, anything you can get down now might just become treasured one day (which is not exactly a grand revelation, but...). TC, R |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Memorial Day editorial from the Chicago Tribune | Ken Fortenberry | Fly Fishing | 3 | June 1st, 2004 06:16 AM |