Well, I believe that the answer to my questions is…nothing. People have not lost respect for the less fortunate dead. The actions of relocating graves or working over graves have been done longer than I care to imagine. There “is evidence that throughout this country’s history, cemeteries have been intentionally relocated” (Kay, p. 4). In the article, “History’s Repeating Itself at Potter’s Field” by Francis A. Klein (1950) in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat was no exaggeration. I have found in many cases that the less fortunate are relocated because oftentimes they do not have a voice to speak for them. In the blog dated Oct. 13th entitled, Uncanny Similarities, I posted a link to an article talking about body snatching from a potter’s field by medical students at The Lincoln Park potter’s field. This was a very common practice to happen at potter’s field. Body snatching I would consider to be disrespectful. However, moving graves for necessary construction I am no longer viewing as being disrespectful. Yet, how people refer to those buried in a potter’s field can still be disrespectful. When the Lincoln Park cemetery was relocated an article was placed in the paper removing the bodies. “In the case of the unknown dead, the numbers are placed with the remains, and will be affixed to the graves in the County Cemetery. The better class of people, however, take personal charge of the remains of their own relatives” (Chicago Tribune, 1872). The full article can be read here http://hiddentruths.northwestern.edu/potters_field/potter_disinterms.html under “ THE STRIDE OF PROGRESS: Removal of the Bodies from the Old City Cemetery.” Just because someone is not claimed does not make them a lower class of people. That statement I found to be disrespectful.
In a more recent article by D. H. Kay (1998)
called “Cemetery Relocation: Emerging Urban Land Development Issue,” helped to further
proved my point that relocating graves is partly a matter of needing space. It
was the case in St. Louis Potter’s Field being moved to build apartments, “…to
give way to a real estate development…” (Klein, p. C1). Known Potter’s Fields are not the only ones that
have been relocated for construction. “Construction activities frequently come
into conflict with [unknown] cemeteries simply because the construction site
was not recognized as a burial ground” (Kay, p. 1). There are various reasons
for not having grave markings; too poor to afford them, not foreseeing the need
for one, and some older sites do not have them because “Puritans considered such adornments vain” (Kay, p. 1).
“The accidental disturbance of
unmarked burial sites is unfortunate, but cannot be viewed as a deliberate act
of disrespect for the dead” (Kay, p. 3).
References:
Kay, D. H. (1998). Cemetery relocation: Emerging urban land
development issue. Journal Of Urban Planning & Development, 124(1), 1.
Klein, Francis A. (1950, April 15 ). History's Repeating
Itself at Potter's Field. St. Louis Globe-Democrat, pp. 1C.
No comments:
Post a Comment