[quote author=gcclarke]
Honestly, no. I would not say there is a difference. A memorial needs to look like it's a memorial, not a vehicle. It needs to be clear at first (or at least second) glance that the purpose of the object is to commemorate the dead. Parts of vehicles or vehicles themselves can be incorporated into memorials, sure. Props, anchors, etc. Or, say, depictions of vehicles. Something like a statue depicting the burnt out husk of a tank could do the trick. Or this unique memorial in Lebanon.
But just the vehicles themselves, even if with a few plaques, or in a park with other memorials? No, I don't think that's effectively serving the purpose.[/quote]
Fair enough. But you posted a picture of a monument [Hope for Peace Monument made to celebrate the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1990] Not a memorial.
Maybe it's semantics.
Monument
A monument is a type of - usually three-dimensional - structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become relevant to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, due to its artistic, historical, political, technical or architectural importance. Examples of monuments include statues, (war) memorials, historical buildings, archeological sites, and cultural assets. If there is a public interest in its preservation, a monument can for example be listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Memorial
A memorial is an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event. Popular forms of memorials include landmark objects or art objects such as sculptures, statues or fountains, and even entire parks.
The whole park is a memorial because it's literally designated a memorial park. It serves as a focus to remember the members of town who died in various conflicts.
When you look at the items placed in the park it's very hard to not recognize that it's a memorial park. The cougar is a more modern addition which can be said to easily reflect a memorial to our generation including those passing away in training during the cold war and on peacekeeping operations.
I think Scott nailed it perfectly. The majority of people don't have a problem with it. It's a select few in town who are bothered by it. Of course the media thrives on outrage so they'll pick up on their complaints.
I have a feeling the same people opposed to the vehicle going up in town are of the same mindset of the people wanting to tear down various statues- and I think that has to do with the Liberal arts programs proximity.
I mean, let's put it this way: we're all supposed to salute war memorials, right? I expect said memorials to be designed in a manner that I can actually tell when approaching them that they are war memorials, rather than being expected to go up and read every plaque, to be able to tell the difference between this vehicle that's supposedly a memorial and this other one that's just there to look cool.
Memorial parks are a thing though. You can tell you're approaching it because there's a sign that will say "memorial park". I'm not sure if that means you should salute every plaque, just salute the sign or walk around in the salute position.
Form should follow function. Memorials that aren't recognizable as such are failing to attain their purported goal.
I think Not a Sig Op brings up a great point. Plaques and little write ups are easy to walk past and miss or not really interest kids or young adults.
Full size decommissioned vehicles are a tangible, very clear reminders of what our service members have employed at home and abroad in order to give the people walking around the park the freedoms they're enjoying.
My last take on the issue is that if decommissioned armored vehicles upset people (in a memorial park) they should try getting blown up in one and see how that feels. Everyone in Canada loves their freedoms- not everyone is willing to pay for them though. Hopefully the town decides to put it up.
And then add a LAV, Seaking and something else Navy-ish ;D
