The main reason we should be building these memorials is to create awareness in hope of preventing future genocides. Personally I think one could be enough, a place where we can remember any and all international atrocities.
We only have one National War Memorial that functions for the First and Second World Wars all the way to the war in Afghanistan. I know there's been a push to make specific ones but they end up just scattering the focus and costing a lot of money to maintain.
I really, really dislike the use of the term "Monument" for things dedicated to tragedies, they should be "Memorials". I particularly wish the "National Holocaust Monument" was called the "Canadian Memorial to the Holocaust". It sounds like we had a national holocaust and its being celebrated.
Quote:
|
Monuments and memorials play distinct roles in preserving history and memory. While monuments celebrate achievements and cultural heritage, memorials provide a space for reflection, remembrance, and healing, particularly in the face of loss and tragedy. Understanding these differences allows us to appreciate the unique significance of each in our collective and individual history. Both monuments and memorials serve as powerful reminders of the past and play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the world and its people.
|
from
What is the difference between a monument and a memorial?
Threaded Mode