Thanks to all who commented on yesterday�s entry on memorials. I really enjoyed reading your messages and you all have made me want to think further about this. A couple of things in particular I would like to mention. In yesterday�s entry I had in mind a definition of memorial limited to an object created to remember people who had lost their lives. Raven72d made the excellent point that there can also be memorials to remember specific events and that such memorials have a very different purpose: �It has to harden resolve, not just commemorate the dead.�

Manduca pointed out a similar problem with the Viet Nam memorial, which I had forgotten. In fact, many veterans groups were extremely unhappy with the memorial and ended up erecting a statue near the Lin memorial to represent their own needs. Odalisk added that there a number of newer memorials in Europe that have attempted to represent a more complex vision of memorial. Perhaps the problem with the 9/11 proposals has more to do with trying to do too much for too many without having a clear idea of what is really needed. Maybe we need separate memorials to the dead and to the event. And maybe we�re not ready to do it all right now.

I hope I represented all of your views accurately. Please check my notes page if you want to read the full comments on this topic.

This weekend has been insanely busy, but I'll try to recap tomorrow.

0 people said it like they meant it