Grave Robbers

Why did they ever change the name, “The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” to be plural instead of singular?  “The Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers” sounds like a dumping ground.  There’s nothing beautiful or awesome about it.

There was such beauty and awe in the original title because just one individual who died for his country--one individual who died without the dignity of being buried with his name--was given the type of reverence reserved for presidents and kings.  The respect and overwhelming generosity for this one unknown soldier illustrated the magnanimity and caring nature of the American people.

In elegantly honoring this one forgotten soldier, respect was shown for all soldiers.  The beauty of this monument lay in its divine kindness. 

That was until they changed the name to be plural.  Then it no longer became a grand tribute to one hero.  It became an orphanage, a Potter’s field for anybody unknown.  Politically correct nonsense. 

And that took the beauty away!  Now the U.S. Army  is saying they want to replace the tomb because of cracks.  Well, uh duh, concrete will show wear and tear over time.  Why not just fix the cracks?

That poor unknown soldier.  He was first treated like a hero.  Then he was pushed aside so we could turn his grave into a community coffin.  And now they want to replace the whole thing due to some wear and tear.

How long before they get rid of it altogether and build a Starbucks on the site?

Happy Veterans’ Day. 

--Jim Todd

Comments

[susan]

My understanding of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was that he was symbolic of the many who died unknown and without a proper burial. It wasn't for or about htis soldier, specifically. But for all those who were regret not being able to care for the way they deserved to be. But I could be wrong.

[susan]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Unknowns it is in memorium of the many servicement who died, unknown. Also - interestingly - "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" was never it's official name. And other sites have implied that the remains interred there are actually of more than just one soldier.

[JimTodd]

Originally, it was for one soldier. They even gave the soldier a medal.

Later on people started referring to it in the plural. But originally it was about this one soldier.

And that was the beauty. If such respect and dignity and generosity could be shown ONE soldier, then it elevates the stature of all soldiers.

But it lost that punch when they started calling it in the plural.

I'm not sure when that change occurred.

The Empire State Building almost always was lit white, except for a couple of Holidays. Then EVERY cause had a color.

Now the building is so often lit in so many different colors that the "reverence" for the particular causes and their respective colors has lost impact.

Political correctness tries to include EVERYbody. In doing so, we make nobody special.

[susan]

You could also look at it like this:

If there are, in fact, the remains of more than one soldier in that marble tomb, then it is kinder to distinguish them as individuals instead of as one mixed-bag mass.

Also, according to the research I did, all 4 soldiers originally selected for the tomb were awarded medals of honor. To this day we select the remains of unidentified dead and "symbolically" award them with honors and bury them (at sea or at Arlington, etc.). So the award was not unique to this individual.

[JimTodd]

No, the four soldiers were not interred there. A decorated soldier was chosen to pick from the four ONE who would be laid to rest as the one soldier in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

The one picked was interred there and the other three were sent elsewhere....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Unknowns#The_Unknown_of_World_War_I

Nowadays, it's a free for all there.

[susan]

I understand the idea that making everything or everyone "special" detracts from any one thing or person being special... but my point was simply that the name may be an effort to be more factually correct rather than politically correct. Upon doing further research, I see that what some sites may have been referring to about the inclusion of other remains was that three other unknowns from the three following wars have been interred in tombs nearby (except the Vietnam vet whose remains were exumed and identified after DNA testing in the 80's). Perhaps the name - which differs from our commonly used yet unofficial name - refers to the inclusion of these men along with the original WWI vet on the same site.

"Tomb of the Unknowns" does feel awkward to me, but I think it's a sobering reminder of the numbers who not only died in service, but also, sadly, lost their identity (to us) in the process.

All in all, very interesting stuff. Glad to have learned more about it.

[JimTodd]

Thanks for sharing insight, too! And say Thanks to your dad for serving.

-Jim

[NewYorkActor]

So what if they include more people? I never understood the concept that more inclusiveness is a bad thing. When more are included things are, by definition, less exclusive.

But, mind you, exclusive very much does not equal revered.