Massachusetts: Not Your Grandfather's War Monument

The citizens of Swampscott, Massachusetts, can rest easy tonight. Their Board of Selectmen changed their minds. The fair scenes of Swampscott will not be sullied by a new statue.


(Mark and Debra Blain, via FOXNews, used w/o permission)


(Ted Fitzgerald, via Boston Herald, used w/o permission)

Those photos show what Swampscott's Board of Selectmen accepted, and then rejected.

There are a few ways of looking at this bit of news. the Boston Herald used one approach:

"The owner of a Millbury stoneworks who donated a granite statue honoring soldiers serving in the Afghan and Iraq wars is lashing out over a move by Swampscott town officials to reject the gift.

" 'I'm giving it away for free,' said Mark Blain, 47, who runs Fireplace Mantels Etc. with his wife, Debra. 'What the hell is (the) matter with these people?'..."

"...Town Administrator Andrew Maylor said that after selectmen voted to accept the gift two weeks ago, residents raised concerns about its proposed location on Monument Avenue and the lack of community input in the decision.

"Maylor said that there are several war monuments on display on Monument Avenue in the shape of a block, traditional stone or obelisk. The street is a part of the town's historic Olmsted District, laid out by famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted.

" 'As it relates to Swampscott, it was not consistent with what has been historically placed on Monument Avenue,' said Maylor, who wrote an e-mail to inform Blain of the selectmen’s vote and thank him for the 'generous' offer...."
(Boston Herald)

A national news service focused a bit more on the sculpture and why it doesn't look like your run-of-the-mill conventional war monument.

"A Massachusetts couple is looking for a new home for a granite statue they built to honor American troops fighting overseas after the town that they planned to donate it to declined their offer after residents complained.

"Mark and Debra Blain, owners of Fireplace Mantels Etc., in Millbury, Mass., told FOXNews.com that they created the prototype statue — depicting an American soldier in uniform standing in front of a stone U.S.A and waving American flag — and decided they wanted to give it away.

"After watching the film 'Taking Chance,' in which Kevin Bacon plays a U.S. Marine bringing a fallen comrade home, the Blains decided they wanted to donate it to an area town that didn't have the funds on hand to build their own monument...."
(FOXNews)

I'm inclined to believe Town Administrator Maylor: it's likely enough that there were procedural errors in how the first vote was done - and the location in Swampscott where the statue would have gone was a designated historic Olmsted District. And it had been laid out by a famed landscape architect, too.

Words and phrases in the dialects of English don't always mean the same thing: "pavement," for example. So, maybe in Massachusetts "laid out" isn't what a somebody's body is, after a mortician prepares it for viewing.

Historic Districts: Yes, They're Important

The matter of a historic district is important. The small central Minnesota town where I live has a designated historic district downtown - and over the last several years we've been peeling off 20th century paneling (some of it bug-ugly, in my opinion) and polishing up the late-Victorian storefronts underneath.

Aside from 'historic importance,' there's an economic angle to these historic districts. I think we'll get our money back through tourism - maybe by the time my grandchildren are raising families.

Proper War Monuments Should Look a Certain Way - Traditionally

There's a reason why the rejected war monument doesn't look like a 'real' war monument. The designers wanted it to look like it does.

"...Debra Blain, whose brother is a retired Coast Guard officer and whose father died in WWII, said that they plan to continue to solicit letters to find the statute a new home, but that she would prefer it not go to a cemetery.

" 'We had a lot of cemeteries apply for it to, but we wanted it to be about everybody that's still there,' she said.

" 'We didn't want it to be the typical monument that looks like a gravestone. We want it to be a visual sculpture that when you drove by it, you would remember that there is a conflict going on and even in every day live to remember and give prayer that somebody's over there and not home with us,' she said...."
(FOXNews)

'We've Never Done it That Way Before' and Other (Valid?) Reasons

I'll freely grant that the sculpture that Swampscott, Massachusetts, accepted and then rejected isn't your standard-issue war memorial. It doesn't look much like a headstone, for one thing.

Back in the early eighties, when it was built, the appearance of The Wall, or Vietnam Veterans Memorial, was controversial. It was stark and dark.

On the other hand, it arguably met the design criteria. That it:

1. be reflective and contemplative in character;
2. harmonize with its surroundings;
3. contain the names of those who had died in the conflict or who were still missing;
4. make no political statement about the war.

The third criteria was - and is - a very traditional approach to war memorials. Their focus is on the soldiers who have died.

The ones who are still living - and in many cases still serving - aren't on the radar all that much. There's not so much recognition of them in the monument line.

And that's what the Blains had in mind: something to remind people of American soldiers who had died - and who were still defending the right of Code Pink and less colorful protesters to sound off.

Radical? Maybe. But I think it's a good idea. I also think that the sculpture would look out of place among the properly funereal monuments of Swampscott, Massachusetts.

It's likely enough that Swampscott's Board of Selectmen weren't aware of just what sort of what sort of monument the Blains had designed.

Reality Check - Anti-War Sentiment Didn't Start in the Sixties

Although Taking Chance (2009), the movie that inspired the Blains, is a 'war movie,' it's not the sort of war movie that we've gotten used to over the last few decades.

Terms like "hippie" didn't get associated with pacifism, aggressive and otherwise, until the sixties: but the urge to force peace down the necks of warmongers - at any cost - goes back much further than Woodstock.

Take High Treason (1928) for example. "It was also a film that was so overtly anti-war that it promoted itself as the 'Peace Picture,'... " in which the chairman of the peace movement blew up the president of his own country.

Hats Off to the Blains

I think it's important to remember the men and women who died in defense of America and its freedoms. I also think it's important to remember the people who have served, and are serving today. War isn't particularly nice and tidy: but sometimes it's better than the alternative. As I wrote earlier "I feel that pacifism is a philosophy which will thrive: as long as there are non-pacifists to defend its followers."

Related posts, mostly about American soldiers and perceptions:

• "All Those 'Poor, Uneducated, Minorities Being Drafted in America! "
  (January 4, 2009)
• "Looting in the News: Rape, Pillage, and the America Way"
  (November 24, 2008)
• "United States of America: 232 Years in the Freedom Business"
  (July 3, 2008)
  • Perfect?
    • Hardly
    • But better than the alternatives
• " '911 Was an Inside Job! Our Boys Need to Know!' "
  (June 10, 2008)
  • No, not really: but some people feel that it's so.
• "Police Brutality in Canada: I'm Not Making This Up"
  (March 17, 2009)
  • "...For raw, out-of-control, violence, it's hard to surpass the dedicated peacnik..."
• "Gimme Peace, or I'll Punch Your Kid"
  (April 25, 2008)
• "Global Patriot Reporting: Anti-American Bias? Could Be"
  (March 25, 2008)
• "Tap Dancing Marine Recruiters and Other Threats"
  (March 7, 2008)
• "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! More Violent Peace Lovers"
  (March 7, 2008)
  • Not all peaceniks are like these
  • But some are
• "Embrace Peace or I'll Kill You! Times Square Blast Linked to Peacenik(s)"
  (March 6, 2008)
• "Iran's Gambit in the Strait of Hormuz: 'Don't Do It' Again"
  (January 9, 2008)
• "You Didn't See This on the News"
  (August 17, 2007)
• " 'Shock Troops' Shocking, but Not Real"
  (August 7, 2007)

In the news:

• "Couple Seeks New Home for Statue of Soldier After Town Says 'No Thanks' "
  FOXNews (August 7, 2009)
• "Swampscott passes on statue honoring troops"
  Boston Herald (August 6, 2009)

Good News: North Korea Freed American Reporters

Laura Ling and Euna Lee are back in America. They're the reporters from Current TV, based in San Francisco, who (North Korea's version)

• Entered North Korea
• Illegally
• Committed "hostile acts"

They say they hadn't intend to enter North Korea - legally or other wise - when North Korean border guards captured them. The idea that they actually strayed over the border is plausible enough, assuming that the China-North Korea border is as unmarked as the Canada-U.S. border is. As for those "hostile acts," I think the lead paragraph of a BBC article hints at what the reporters were up to:

"US journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee told their families they had no intention of entering North Korea when they went to the border with China to report on the plight of North Korean refugees...."
(BBC)

I could be wrong, but I think Kim Jong Il might regard anyone talking to someone who had escaped from his domain as a "hostile act." Without the threat of secret trials hanging over them, people who made it out of North Korea might say things that wouldn't meet with Dear Leader's approval. As I wrote earlier, "I think it says something about a country or organization, when people can reasonably be said to have 'escaped.' " (June 20, 2009)

American Reporters Out of Prison: Good News

I'm very glad that the two reporters were released from their 12-year sentences in North Korea. That's good news. The two women might have survived 12 years of "reform through labour" - but it would have been the opposite of a pleasant experience.

Smear Campaign or Straight Reporting?

I'm not quite sure what to make of this part of a BBC article:

"'Smear campaign'

"Initially, there were denials from the American side that they had gone into North Korea - and both South Korean media and diplomatic sources said the North's guards had crossed into Chinese territory to arrest them.

"But a few days after their trial, the North's state media said the two had admitted entering the North and accepted their sentences.

"Official news agency KCNA [Korean Central News Agency] also said they had admitted getting footage for a 'smear campaign' about North Korea's human rights...."
(BBC)

There are "smear campaigns," of course. Sometimes journalists or publicists decide that a person or organization is naughty, and then write articles with carefully-selected facts. Or, sometimes just write articles.

On the other hand, it's possible to imagine that the Kim Jong Il regime doesn't like negative publicity. Who does?

In countries like America, having reporters dig up embarrassing facts comes with the territory for public figures and government institutions. I don't think the same can be said for countries like North Korea, where state news agencies are careful to project the desired image of the nation's leaders and institutions.

For people who are accustomed to a well-run, tightly-controlled news media like North Korea's, reporters doing a professional job of collecting and reporting facts might very well look like a "smear campaign."

Then there's the reporters' confessions:

"... Last Monday, Lee and Ling were sentenced in North Korea's top court to 12 years of hard labor for what KCNA called politically motivated crimes. They were accused of crossing into North Korea to capture video for a 'smear campaign' focused on human rights, the report said.

" 'The accused admitted that what they did were criminal acts committed, prompted by the political motive to isolate and stifle the socialist system of (North Korea) by faking up moving images aimed at falsifying its human rights performance and hurling slanders and calumnies at it,' it said...."
(Breitbart)

I think it's possible that one or both of the reporters did confess and apologize. That doesn't mean that I take the confession(s) seriously.

People can be persuaded to do a remarkable range of things. A writer, chronicling his experiences during WWII, observed that the police of a particular American city had, at the time, a reputation for being able to get suspects to confess to anything from the Lindbergh snatch to the murder of Cock Robin.

According to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's official news, another American apologized, too:

"...The Korean Central News Agency said Mr. Clinton "expressed sincere words of apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists."..."
(WSJ)

In this case, I'm quite sure that Mr. Clinton wasn't, ah, persuaded to apologize. There doesn't seem to have been enough time to work him over, for one thing.

The 'apology' may be wishful thinking on the part of the Korean Central News Agency, or a bit of creative memory based on official policy. Or, Mr. Clinton may have apologized for the "hostile acts." Whatever they were.

Diplomacy, prudent and otherwise, can make people do odd things.

What does this Mean?

The only thing I'm reasonably certain of is that the two journalists are back in America.

The assorted confessions and apologies may be fictional or real. The confessions may or may not have been made after the application of behavior modification techniques. I simply do not know.

There are plenty of opinions going the rounds, about what this release means. An op-ed piece in Reuters India impressed me by reporting opinions of a variety of experts: and identifying them. American journalism, at least, often refers to anonymous 'experts' - which can be impressive, if you have complete and unqualified trust in the news service.

Experts' opinions, from Reuters India:

• Tadashi Kimiya, Associate Professor, University of Tokyo
  • " 'It's hard to believe that North Korea released the journalists just on humanitarian grounds. It probably had something to do with a package deal with the United States, to resolve the issues of denuclearisation and normalisation of ties....' "
• Masafumi Yamomoto, Head of FX Strategy Japan, RBS, Tokyo
  • " 'The latest incident has not been much of a factor in the market as the situation regarding worries about a future change in (North Korea's) leadership and brinkmanship diplomacy remains unchanged....' "
• Zhang Liangui, Chinese Expert on North Korea at Central Party School in Beijing
  • " 'The North Koreans have rejected the six-party talks and they won't give up their nuclear plans; both were important components of U.S. policy, so to cave to them would show the U.S. had failed.
  • " 'Bilateral talks can't solve the problem, because they leave out other countries...."
• Narushige Michishita, Assistant Professor, Security and International Studies Programme at National Graduate Institute for Policy in Japan
  • " 'I think there will be a three-pillar approach, as we saw at the end of the Bill Clinton administration. The three pillars are tackling nuclear arms, missile issues and then moving toward a peace treaty (between the United States and North Korea). It is unclear what exactly the United States actually offered at the meeting, but I think Clinton at least tried to find out where North Korea stands on those issues now....' "
• Bruce Klingner, Korea Expert at the Heritage Foundation in Washington
  • " 'Clinton's visit has roiled the North Korean policy waters beyond their already tumultuous state. There are great uncertainties over North Korean and U.S. intentions, escalating the risk of miscalculation, confrontation, and crisis....' "

Those bilateral and six-party talks haven't been in American news much lately. I briefly discussed them earlier this year. (May 25, 2009)

At the risk of seeming simplistic, I think that there's good reason to think Kim Jong Il realizes that a policy of threatening other countries and insulting American officials (CNN) results in unenforced United Nations resolutions, and concessions from other nations. Particularly America.

I also think that there's a real risk that Kim Jong Il, or his successor, will eventually miscalculate: either by actually launching an attack on another nation, or by making a credible threat against China or Russia.

I could be wrong, but I think that China, whose capital is within 600 kilometers of North Korea, and Russia, whose only viable Pacific seaport is even closer, might take immediate and decisive steps in response to a threat - real or imagined. Granted, the dialog conducted with tanks and bullets in Tiananmen Square was in 1989 (a commemoration of a 1988 event); and Korean Air Flights 902 and 007 were in 1978 and 1983: but there hasn't been that much of a change in leadership since.


View Larger Map


View Larger Map

Related posts:

• "China Shot 12: Don't Worry, They're 'Mobsters' "
  (July 19, 2009)
• "North Korea's Kang Nam Turns Around, and I've No Clue Why"
  (June 30, 2009)
• "North Korea's Still There, Still a 'Serious Concern' "
  (June 24, 2009)
• "A Reporter Escapes the Taliban, Monks Escape China"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "USS John McCain Positioning for Intercept of North Korean Ship: More Radioactive Kimchi for Syria?"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "North Korea, American Journalists, the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (June 16, 2009)
  • (This isn't as groovily relevant as the title might suggest.)
• "North Korea and the Kim Jong Dynasty: Not All Countries are the Same"
  (June 9, 2009)
• "North Korea Sentences Journalists: No Surprises Here"
  (June 7, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square Commemoration in Hong Kong: No Tanks"
  (June 5, 2009)
• "North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Brinksmanship, and Miscalculation"
  (May 27, 2009)
• "North Korea's City-Busting Nuke, a New Missile, and Diplomacy"
  (May 25, 2009)
• "North Korea Nuke Test: The Genie's Out of the Bottle"
  (May 24, 2009)
• "North Korea's Launch: Watch Out for Incoming Communications Satellites?"
  (April 7, 2009)
• "North Korea and Missile Concerns: Nations are Not All Identical"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "North Korea Launches Missile; U.N. Security Council to Meet: Here We Go Again"
  (April 5, 2009)
• "North Korea - Again - Still - North Korea"
  (March 26, 2009)
• "North Korea Un-disables Reactor"
  (September 27, 2008)
• "North Korea Disables Reactor: Progress, of a Sort"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "Six Years Ago, Tomorrow: Remembering 9/11"
  (September 10, 2007)

News and views:

• "Freed journalists arrive in U.S. from North Korea"
  CNN (August 5, 2009)
• "Journalists freed from N. Korea return to U.S."
  Reuters (August 5, 2009)
• "Clinton And Freed Reporters Arrive Home"
  Sky News (August 5, 2009)
• "ANALYSTS' VIEW - North Korea frees U.S. journalists; what next?"
  Reuters India (August 5, 2009)
• "North Korea Frees Americans"
  The Wall Street Journal (August 5, 2009)
• "Profile: US reporters freed in N Korea"
  BBC (August 5, 2009)
• "Analysis: Clinton to North Korea -- a matter of respect"
  CNN (August 4, 2009)
• "N. Korea: Clinton 'funny lady, by no means intelligent' "
  CNN (July 23, 2009)
• "U.S. concerned over N. Korea-Myanmar tie"
  CNN (July 22, 2009)
• ""
  Breitbart (June 16, 2009)