Pros And Cons Of Memorials

One must think with a great deal of precision and infallibility when memorializing history. The creator should have a sense of where it will be placed, the size, significance, and the pros/cons of it. Any memorial is a stamp of history, because it outlines an important person or event. It has a chance of effecting people while appealing to their emotions in positive or negative way. So when an agency is considering memorializing an event or person in a monument one should have a feel of how it would affect the mass population. A major factor is to anticipate the opinion of the people and how neighboring citizens will react. Some memorials can raise lots of speculations within the people. Even a national monument like Mt. Rushmore has it cons
If a memorial is being placed for a local event or person one might put it in a city or town, but for something that affected the whole country you would expect to see it on a big platform for all to see. Furthermore depending on the reasoning for a memorial would also play part. If a city or area is going through tough times an agency might want to put an uplifting type of memorial to guide the people, like the logic for the empire State Building. The location of a memorial can sometimes lead people to questions. In Christine Musser’s “Preserving Museum Controversy” excerpt, Musser questioned the location of the holocaust museum saying “Is The Mall* in Washington D.C. the proper place for a museum that is dedicated to victims and survivors of the holocaust? “ The location of an memorial should coincide with the actual history of that event or person and not just be put anywhere it fits because it can appear as certain disrespect to people. Some have questioned the significance of the location for a memorial in regards to the actual history of that event, like in the Kirk Savage excerpt where he said “ why make a pilgrimage to a site with no historical