Named for the broad Muskingum floodplain, the three-acre Big Bottom park is the site of a skirmish between Ohio Company settlers and some Delaware and Wyandot Indians on 2 January 1791. The Big Bottom massacre marked the start of four years of frontier warfare in Ohio, which only stopped when General Anthony Wayne and the Indian tribes signed the Treaty of Greene Ville.
Website does not specify any interpretive services beyond signage.
Logan Elm State Memorial is said to be the site where, in 1774, Chief Logan of the Mingo tribe delivered his eloquent speech on Indian-white relations. The speech was supposedly delivered under a large elm tree. Considered to be one of the largest elms in the U. S., the tree stood 65 feet tall, with a trunk circumference of 24 feet and foliage spread of 180 feet. It died in 1964 from damage by blight and storms. The tree's former location is marked by a plaque. Other plaques and monuments in the park honor Native Americans and early Ohio settlers.
The site is open to the public.
Website does not specify any interpretive services beyond signage available at the site.
This monument, located on a small island at the confluence of the Contoocook and Merrimack rivers, commemorates the courage of Hannah Duston, who was taken prisoner during a raid by Mohawk warriors in 1697.
Website does not specify any interpretive services available at the site.
Buffington Island commemorates the only significant Civil War battle that took place on Ohio soil. Here a Union army routed a column of Confederate cavalry commanded by General John Hunt Morgan in 1863. A monument made of broken Ohio glacial boulders is set in a four-acre outdoor park where visitors can enjoy picnics and read the signs describing the history of the area. It is not on an island.
Website does not specify any interpretive services beyond signage offered at the site.
Within this historic site of a Rogue Indian war skirmish, the park contains the grave sites of the Geisel family.
The site is open to the public.
Website does not specify interpretive services available at site, beyond signage.
What do the elements of the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, symbolize? Is the design effective? Who was the memorial built for? Christopher Hamner and Michael O'Malley try to answer these questions by contrasting the memorial with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.
Christopher Hamner: You can’t really understand the World War II Monument, where it is and why it looks the way it looks, without understanding the Vietnam Memorial and the story of getting it built. The design competition for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was open to everybody. It eventually got more than 1,400 submissions. They were handled anonymously so that the judging panels saw only the design and a numbered code and they went on 1,400 down to 300 down to 30 down to the winner who was very surprising when it was revealed. It was a 21-year-old architecture student at Yale named Maya Lin.
Michael O’Malley: Problematic is so many ways.
Christopher Hamner:: Youth, ethnicity, gender. And it was the design that’s very close to what we now see on the Mall. One of the reasons that I suspect the World War II Monument looks the way that it looks, which is much more traditional, heroic, sort of celebratory. It seems to privilege sort of consensus and unity above everything else. [It] has to do with the desire to avoid that kind of controversy. One of the things that we pointed out was the fact that the ring of stones that sort of marks the outer boundary that are adorned with wreaths are dedicated to the states.
Michael O’Malley: Which makes no sense. The state-iness was not part of the World War II experience.
Christopher Hamner: Of all the ways you could possibly cut up World War II—
Michael O’Malley: It’s not like all the guys from Delaware were in one unit. They got drafted, they went down to some camp in the South and then they went back. I mean their was no state-iness attached to it.
Christopher Hamner: It’s a national effort to the extent that people identify with some smaller segment, it’s usually by branch or then by division. There are other ways that you could group it, but the one that makes the least sense is the states. It’s incredibly traditional, it’s white, there are wreaths, there’s a gold star at one end for every 500 combat deaths.
Michael O’Malley: So they want to have some element of what the Vietnam War Memorial does so well, which is individualizing. Really made graphic the extent of the loss. They want to have some element of that—
Christopher Hamner: But they don’t particularize it quite as effectively and that some of the teachers that we toured with said that that element of it had sort of fallen flat, that it did not—
Michael O’Malley: You actually came away thinking less people died in World War II than in Vietnam.
Christopher Hamner: I found as I walked around I spent probably half my time trying to figure out what the organizational strategy was. They were not in alphabetical order, they were not in the order the states joined the Union, they’re not grouped together. I mean I couldn’t tell. It didn’t look to me like it was sort of by population or the sort of number of soldiers from that state who perished over the course of the war and I started to suspect that it was just random.
Michael O’Malley: I mean the Vietnam Memorial takes a few elements and loads them with meaning. This thing takes a lot of elements and bleeds the meaning out of them.
Christopher Hamner: We also talked about the Korean War Memorial, which is a sort of interesting combination, right? That it’s particularized and personalized and that it’s slightly larger-than-life-size figures of soldiers that are in ponchos. They’re spread out and kind of making their way across a field but they’re not heroic in the way that soldiers a century ago would have been portrayed. You can feel the weight of the gear that they carry.
Michael O’Malley: And that wants to put you in the midst of it, I mean you walk through them. You’re right in the middle of that, so, where as in the World War II Memorial you’re in the middle of kind of nothing, you’re in the middle of some kind of empty abstraction.
Christopher Hamner: It has become more participatory at least during the daytime than it had been before because there are so many World War II veterans who are designated, who are kind of milling around the areas and who will engage with visitors and pose for photographs and talk about their experience so there is a sort of participatory dimension to it. But as Mike pointed out, these guys won’t be around forever, that cannot last.
Michael O’Malley: That’s an element of this thing that we got to in the discussion. There were some great questions, like who was this thing for? And there was really a sense that this was for veterans. Like this is here to make veterans feel good. It’s not about the nation remembering something. It’s a gift to veterans. I have nothing against giving gifts to veterans, but is that the purpose of a memorial? That’s a worthwhile question. And when the veterans are gone, what do you have? You have a gift for a person who is no longer around. It’s an odd construction of memorialization.
According to Christopher Hamner and Michael O'Malley, the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial in Washington, DC, presents a uniquely active look at the Civil War. As a work of art, the memorial draws the eye to Grant, standing above the chaos of surrounding battle, but it fails to include any reference to slavery as a cause of the war.
Christopher Hamner: Grant was fantastic and Mike has actually written a little bit on just why that is such an unusual piece of sculpture and it’s such a subtle piece of artwork and that if you look at it—if you don’t scrutinize it too closely it does look somewhat traditional and that it’s men on horseback and cannons and—
Michael O’Malley: Right you see it from a distance and you just start yawning before you even get close to it and you don’t even look and you go oh there’s a guy on a horse, wow, haven’t seen that before—
Christopher Hamner: You get close and you see that on one side it’s the beginning of a disaster. And I think more than the other two monuments that we visited, we looked at the Grant Memorial, not just as historians but also as a work of art. And it’s really very moving. And on the south side where it is sort of in the first moments of what looks like it’s going to be a horrific crash, just the sense of motion that is conveyed by this—
Michael O’Malley: Well so much—the guys on the back haven’t yet figured out what’s about to happen—
Christopher Hamner: You can see the tack on the horses going slack which tells you that this forward momentum has stopped but it has not yet gotten to the two guys who are riding the caisson—
Michael O’Malley: And they’re about to get jolted off or they’re about to fall off—
Christopher Hamner: And they’re sort of oblivious to what’s going on in the team and for something that’s frozen in metal the sense of power and emotion that’s not completely controlled, really came through to me.
Michael O’Malley: It’s a very powerful piece of art with a particular vision of war as grim endurance, not as discipline, triumph but as you know grim endurance against chaos—
Christopher Hamner: There’s heroism there, but it’s not the kind of heroism—
Michael O’Malley: It’s not the kind of heroism of the single mighty ideologue. Although maybe in Grant, right? Grant looks grimly ahead and if you read Grant’s memoirs he’s completely unflinching in his condemnation of slavery. He’s not some kind of flag-waving Garrisonian but you know it was a terrible cause, the worst cause men ever fought for.
Christopher Hamner: And they did a great job I thought at capturing Grant who was not McClellan, who did not show up in his battle finery—
Michael O’Malley: And peacock around—
Christopher Hamner: He’s there in a sort of—the kind of gear that he wore, his head’s down, he’s looking in the distance, shoulders are a little bit stooped. I mean you get the sense of the weight that’s been on the man and as you pointed out the two statues that are closer to ground level that involve the actual fighting troops are both focused on Grant—
Michael O’Malley: But he’s ignoring them.
Christopher Hamner: Much higher.
Michael O’Malley: He’s paying no attention. That’s not his problem. One of the students pointed out that Confederates are really present by their absence which is really interesting.
Christopher Hamner: It’s a great insight.
Michael O’Malley: They’re the cause of this chaos. They’ve just instigated these events which look to be pretty awful but they’re not actually shown. Which is very clever about it. It’s a very active monument. I think we both agree that the sad thing about it is it can’t get slavery. It can’t get the cause of the war. The war is a tragedy, but the political cause— You know there’s plenty of people that would say it’s not a tragedy, slavery is over. If your ancestors are slaves it’s not a tragedy at all, that’s great! Slavery isn’t depicted at all in the cause of the war so it depoliticizes it and that’s also the historical moment. You couldn’t do otherwise in America in 1913. It was the only political discourse available, I think.