Decades old war monument in peril

[southsider2k5]

yeah yeah war on christians etc...blah blah

 

But seriously you'd think after 200 years Texans would be better at picking their battles. Someone could trip over that and break it. It looks more like a trail marker.

 

That's like saying the World Trade Center is a hole in the ground.

[CanOfCorn]

Bigger things in the world to worry about.

[Texsox]

While it probably was not intended, the irreverent comment does lead to something. If you do not believe, than this simply is two sticks forming something akin to a trail marker. Presumably, if you are a believer, it means something more. Can't both people simply look upon this for what they believe and allow the other to exist? I walk path various symbols of other religions, civil groups, societies, etc and do not feel offended or threatened.

[NorthSideSox72]

While it probably was not intended, the irreverent comment does lead to something. If you do not believe, than this simply is two sticks forming something akin to a trail marker. Presumably, if you are a believer, it means something more. Can't both people simply look upon this for what they believe and allow the other to exist? I walk path various symbols of other religions, civil groups, societies, etc and do not feel offended or threatened.

I don't think its about believing, or not believing, at all. Its about history, and respect. The National Park Service has a duty to, among other things, protect historically significant artifacts within their jurisdiction. This, to me, clearly fits into it.

 

[bmags]

That's like saying the World Trade Center is a hole in the ground.

 

Well, I guess I can propose they cross two twigs over ground zero. It would put an end to the years of failed planning.

[FlaSoxxJim]

While it probably was not intended, the irreverent comment does lead to something. If you do not believe, than this simply is two sticks forming something akin to a trail marker. Presumably, if you are a believer, it means something more. Can't both people simply look upon this for what they believe and allow the other to exist? I walk path various symbols of other religions, civil groups, societies, etc and do not feel offended or threatened.

 

That is a separate discussion — which symbols offend which groups. Jumping immediately to the extreme example: Could you walk past a swastika and remain unoffended? If not, is it because of the history of inhuman brutality represented by that symbol? By extension, could you not understand if the descendants of those many ethnic and religious groups who suffered centuries of subjugation at the hands of Christians didn't get all warm and fuzzy on viewing the most sacred symbol of their historic oppressors?

Edited October 6, 2009 by FlaSoxxJim

[CanOfCorn]

I don't think its about believing, or not believing, at all. Its about history, and respect. The National Park Service has a duty to, among other things, protect historically significant artifacts within their jurisdiction. This, to me, clearly fits into it.

 

The kicker, though, is that this was built without the ok from the previous owner. So what, exactly, makes it historically significant? Just because of the length of time it's been there?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't think its about believing, or not believing, at all. Its about history, and respect. The National Park Service has a duty to, among other things, protect historically significant artifacts within their jurisdiction. This, to me, clearly fits into it.

 

Agreed.

 

I've been to the sites of former churches within national parks. I appreciate that there is signage interpreting the history of the site. I think it would be great if some of those old structures were still standing (and I bet some are in the parks system), and in that case preserving the structures is preserving history and not giving any one religion preferential treatment.

[NorthSideSox72]

The kicker, though, is that this was built without the ok from the previous owner. So what, exactly, makes it historically significant? Just because of the length of time it's been there?

Look at other historical sites - was everything there, placed there legally at that time? I'm betting not. That's pretty irrelevant to me, in this case. If it were still private property, or if it was placed there after the transfer, then yeah, take it down.

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

Look at other historical sites - was everything there, placed there legally at that time? I'm betting not. That's pretty irrelevant to me, in this case. If it were still private property, or if it was placed there after the transfer, then yeah, take it down.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you give me an example?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you give me an example?

 

How about any number of historic shipwrecks that are given protected historic status? None of the captains "owned" the seabed the ships were sunk on?

 

Or, (probably a better example because it does occur in our parks system) what about the remnants of the earliest mining camps born out of the California Gold Rush? Prospectors flocked there and set up camps on federal land without government permission. Although the legality of the existence of these sites is at issue, do you doubt the cultural significance of preserving these sites when they are found?

Edited October 6, 2009 by FlaSoxxJim

[Soxy]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you give me an example?

The earlier sites of Laura Ingalls Wilder books. They were actually constructed in "Indian Country" which was illegal at the time.

 

Yeah, that's right, I know my LIW trivia.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you give me an example?

Well first, any battlefield monument at all, would by nature have items left behind that don't belong there. Also, AmerInd sites or pre-historic arcaheological sites, a lot of the stuff there is stolen from someone.

 

For a more recent example, a lot of historical sites were essentially graffitied or degraded after the fact but before it was a monument or park. I was in Chaco Culture NHP a couple years ago, and any number of historical figures and just plain people had scribbled their own stuff on the same walls with the petroglyphs.

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix.

 

The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious.

 

I really don't have a side in this debate.

[NorthSideSox72]

But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix.

 

The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious.

 

I really don't have a side in this debate.

I'd call many of the artifacts you'd find in various archaeological sites religious in nature.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix.

 

The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious.

 

I really don't have a side in this debate.

 

I don't think that was stated as part of the issue you initially brought up, i.e., that the monument (religious or otherwise) was originally erected without the landowner's consent.

[EvilMonkey]

But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix.

 

The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious.

 

I really don't have a side in this debate.

If it is religious, does that make it any less historically significant?

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think that was stated as part of the issue you initially brought up, i.e., that the monument (religious or otherwise) was originally erected without the landowner's consent.

The lines I read said that he never got permission form the government to erect the monument, but the government didn't get the land until thte 90's. I didn't see that as he didnt have permission to put up the monument fromthe land owner, unless it says just that somewhere else I didn't see.

[StrangeSox]

yeah, that was a little confusing.

[CanOfCorn]

Another problem is that the original monument was erected with no permission from the landowner at the time. So its isnt as if it was ok to be there to begin with(regardless of meaning, Im not saying I disagree with it being there, but it was basically a 'squatting' monument).

 

The courts are going to ruin the meaning behind it, if it hasnt been done already.

 

 

This is what I was referring to. This, plus the fact that it is a religious symbol, makes it a very difficult call. It's like a statute of limitations. It's been there for so long, should it be granted access to stay? I don't know.

[EvilMonkey]

This is what I was referring to. This, plus the fact that it is a religious symbol, makes it a very difficult call. It's like a statute of limitations. It's been there for so long, should it be granted access to stay? I don't know.

The only problem is that we need more information. KyYlE23 says that it was erected without permission from the landowner, but no where in that story does it say who the landowner is. The story says he erected it without permission from the government, and that the land was transferred to the NPS, but doesn't really say who owned it before. It implies that it was government owned before that, but doesn't say. But again I ask, just because it is a religious symbol, does that mean it isn't historical?

[CanOfCorn]

The only problem is that we need more information. KyYlE23 says that it was erected without permission from the landowner, but no where in that story does it say who the landowner is. The story says he erected it without permission from the government, and that the land was transferred to the NPS, but doesn't really say who owned it before. It implies that it was government owned before that, but doesn't say. But again I ask, just because it is a religious symbol, does that mean it isn't historical?

 

To answer your question...religious artifacts and symbols like this can definitely be historical.

 

IMHO: They shouldn't be BUILT on government/public property. They shouldn't be placed on government/public property. But, if they precede the government/public owning them, there's a debate, but I personally don't have a problem with it. In this case, if the previous owner didn't give permission and the government has a problem, just move it. Donate it to the local church. Or leave it and donate the land around it to the local church.

[Texsox]

The kicker, though, is that this was built without the ok from the previous owner. So what, exactly, makes it historically significant? Just because of the length of time it's been there?

 

The way I read the article, it was placed there without government designation as a monument. It is unclear who the owner was during the time the monument was erected and 1994 when it transferred to the NPS. I took that to mean that if he had sought government "permission" it would have been designated a monument back then and there would not be an issue today.

[Texsox]

That is a separate discussion — which symbols offend which groups. Jumping immediately to the extreme example: Could you walk past a swastika and remain unoffended? If not, is it because of the history of inhuman brutality represented by that symbol? By extension, could you not understand if the descendants of those many ethnic and religious groups who suffered centuries of subjugation at the hands of Christians didn't get all warm and fuzzy on viewing the most sacred symbol of their historic oppressors?

 

Great point. However, looking over the tens of thousands of Churches in America, In God We Trust on our currency, etc. etc. I find it hard to imagine this one cross tilting the scale.

[southsider2k5]

That is a separate discussion — which symbols offend which groups. Jumping immediately to the extreme example: Could you walk past a swastika and remain unoffended? If not, is it because of the history of inhuman brutality represented by that symbol? By extension, could you not understand if the descendants of those many ethnic and religious groups who suffered centuries of subjugation at the hands of Christians didn't get all warm and fuzzy on viewing the most sacred symbol of their historic oppressors?

 

If that is the case, there shouldn't be a parks department, since it all pays homage to the United States of America, who has pretty much been oppressing someone since day one.