Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 9 June , 2003 Share Posted 9 June , 2003 I was driving in a nearby city today and passed this monument. It was just dedicated last month after Memorial Day. It is one of the first such monuments to be created in some time. What bothers me is the subject. I had a close look at the depiction of a 'Doughboy' and there were several bits that made me question the choice of models or photos used to creat it. (It looks vaguely like a print from the old Purnell's series on the war). I know the picture is not that great, it was sunny and the stone was very reflective. Can anyone else see anything odd about the uniform and weapon? My opinion from a close look is that they used a British model as the man is carrying a SMLE .303 rifle and what appears to be British webbing. Any opinions from British uniform experts out there? If I am correct I am torn between advising the city that the portrayal is incorrect and not saying a word and being grateful they made the effort to create it, any suggestions? Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordac Posted 9 June , 2003 Share Posted 9 June , 2003 Hi Ralph: Were the names on the right side (maybe the left side) citizens of Gayuga County who died in the war? Garth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 9 June , 2003 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2003 Garth, The names of the men killed from the different towns were placed on both sides. I have a second photo showing the entire monument. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 9 June , 2003 Share Posted 9 June , 2003 Ralph, It's the thought that counts. I wouldn't say anything as I can't see any way that they're going to change it and to be honest how many people are going to notice? It's nice to know that the US is still putting up memorials to a war which doesn't register highly in the national consciousness. Having said all that, I'm not at all keen on the wording. It reads very badly and I do not like the use of the word 'victim' in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 9 June , 2003 Author Share Posted 9 June , 2003 Mark, I agree about not mentioning it. Too much work and time went into getting it up. I am sure that the wording was more a result of the surrent times and attitudes than anything else. When all of the local monuments are generally ignored by the public and in some unsavory areas it was nice to see a new one go up. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffsyeoman Posted 9 June , 2003 Share Posted 9 June , 2003 I concur with all the sentiments about lie and let lie; at least it was put there. Also share Mark's view on use of 'victims'. Demeaning. But in respect of the original Q - yup, the model is a Brit or Canadian. (Doughboys had a stand and fall collar, with discs indicating US and 'arm of service' thereon) But at least it's 'in period'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 10 June , 2003 Share Posted 10 June , 2003 I recognised the image of the soldier straight away - it was one drawn by Julian Allen and is published on page 38 of a book called 'Heraldry & Regalia of War' published by Phoebus in 1973. This was one of the first books on WW1 I ever owned. I wonder if there is still a copyright on this? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now