ForumGarden

The BBC carries the following report:Only the remains of 35 of the 429 sailors and Marines killed aboard the USS Oklahoma have been identified so far. The rest of the remains - retrieved during salvage operations from 1942 to 1944 - have been buried in caskets, marked as "unknown", at a national cemetery in Hawaii.

Tom Gray told the Associated Press news agency that his family had waited more than 70 years to give a proper burial to the remains of his cousin, Edwin Hopkins, who was killed aboard the Oklahoma.

While it was an honour for his cousin to have been buried at a national cemetery, he said: "I also think a boy gives up his life at 19 years old and ends up in a comingled grave marked as 'unknown' isn't proper."

US to exhume remains of Pearl Harbor dead for identification - BBC News





I can't think of a single reason why it might be thought anything but proper.

Why isn't it proper?

spot;1477540 wrote: The BBC carries the following report:Only the remains of 35 of the 429 sailors and Marines killed aboard the USS Oklahoma have been identified so far. The rest of the remains - retrieved during salvage operations from 1942 to 1944 - have been buried in caskets, marked as "unknown", at a national cemetery in Hawaii.

Tom Gray told the Associated Press news agency that his family had waited more than 70 years to give a proper burial to the remains of his cousin, Edwin Hopkins, who was killed aboard the Oklahoma.

While it was an honour for his cousin to have been buried at a national cemetery, he said: "I also think a boy gives up his life at 19 years old and ends up in a comingled grave marked as 'unknown' isn't proper."

US to exhume remains of Pearl Harbor dead for identification - BBC News





I can't think of a single reason why it might be thought anything but proper.

Why isn't it proper?


I won't argue it isn't proper. my question is, WHY?

tude dog;1477573 wrote: I won't argue it isn't proper. my question is, WHY?


Because they had no capability, and today they have. As to whether they ought, it's hard to know what might be a rational basis on which to decide.

The issue of whether the original arrangement was or wasn't "proper", I'm completely lost. I can't think of the slightest reason why it wasn't.

spot;1477574 wrote: Because they had no capability, and today they have. As to whether they ought, it's hard to know what might be a rational basis on which to decide.

The issue of whether the original arrangement was or wasn't "proper", I'm completely lost. I can't think of the slightest reason why it wasn't.


To me the whole thing, buried in a place of honor is to let them rest.

To me this whole exercise is a primitive concept.

As far as I'm concerned, honour is a state of mind, not of physical presence. They are recognised as having died with honour. After so many years that should be sufficient. Millions died at home & on the Front. There is no way that even a fraction of them could be identified even then - let alone now. That is what the idea of the Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier was intended for (that is until they went & identified him with DNA evidence). The theory being that any parent / wife / girlfriend etc., could be proud in the belief that it may be their loved one lying there.

spot;1477574 wrote: Because they had no capability, and today they have. As to whether they ought, it's hard to know what might be a rational basis on which to decide.

The issue of whether the original arrangement was or wasn't "proper", I'm completely lost. I can't think of the slightest reason why it wasn't.


What he actually said was, " ... ends up in a comingled grave marked as 'unknown' isn't proper."

FourPart;1477578 wrote: As far as I'm concerned, honour is a state of mind, not of physical presence. They are recognised as having died with honour. After so many years that should be sufficient. .......
This generation's been watching too many re-runs of "Fame" and think that they can claim some of it by ancestral association. They like to say things like "We won the war" or "My family are heroes". So dissatisfaction in cases as these is mostly an inferiority complex matter for the living, not the dead.

High Threshold;1477699 wrote: This generation's been watching too many re-runs of "Fame" and think that they can claim some of it by ancestral association. They like to say things like "We won the war" or "My family are heroes". So dissatisfaction in cases as these is mostly an inferiority complex matter for the living, not the dead.
Firstly I have never watched any re-runs of Fame. Come to that I've never watched any of the original showings of it.

Secondly, apart from stating my personal opinion, where did I mention anything about 'we' or 'my' to mean previous generations. However, I don't believe there's anything wrong in doing so, as it merely defines a sense of belonging, as in "we won the war", for example. 'We', including myself, in this instance, are nationals of one of the Allied Countries. You could even say the same about a soldier who served in the forces at the time of the war, but never got to see any action. Should he be included as 'we'?

Anyway, regardless of how you define 'we', it doesn't change the meaning of 'honour'. There are Cenotaphs situated around the country. They are not graves. There are no physical remains there, yet they remain revered as if they were as a symbol of honour.

Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, very few religions have any regard for the physical form in their actual scriptures (although the reality with religions, of course, is that they change the rules to suit themselves), as they believe that once the body has died, the spirit passes on to another plain, be it so some heaven to remain with their God for eternity or as a newly reincarnated lifeform. They all believe that spirit continues to live.

As for the question of not labelling a communal grave as 'Unknown' being proper or not, seeing as only a minority of the remains were actually identified, is it equally 'proper' that only those ones should be named? As I mentioned earlier, the soldier in The Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier has been identified by way of DNA evidence. Does this now mean that the tomb should be renamed? The tomb itself is the pinnacle of honour to the unknown dead. Because that one body is identified does that make it any less honourable or proper? Of course not. What is proper is that we respect the memory of them all & not just those that have been named.

FourPart;1477703 wrote: Firstly I have never watched any re-runs of Fame. Come to that I've never watched any of the original showings of it.

Secondly, apart from stating my personal opinion, where did I mention anything about 'we' or 'my' to mean previous generations. However, I don't believe there's anything wrong in doing so, as it merely defines a sense of belonging, as in "we won the war", for example. 'We', including myself, in this instance, are nationals of one of the Allied Countries. You could even say the same about a soldier who served in the forces at the time of the war, but never got to see any action. Should he be included as 'we'?
I have no idea what you are on about.

High Threshold;1477698 wrote: What he actually said was, " ... ends up in a comingled grave marked as 'unknown' isn't proper."


Indeed he did. The BBC report also says that the unidentified dead were buried in caskets. I'm puzzled as to the meaning of "comingled" in this context. You may have a notion of why it's in the quote, but I don't. Is comingling meant to make the burial less proper? Does the fact that each of the dead actually has a casket, make the lack of individual identification less offensive?

spot;1477717 wrote: Indeed he did. The BBC report also says that the unidentified dead were buried in caskets. I'm puzzled as to the meaning of "comingled" in this context. You may have a notion of why it's in the quote, but I don't. Is comingling meant to make the burial less proper? Does the fact that each of the dead actually has a casket, make the lack of individual identification less offensive?
"comingled"; I am fairly confident it is a grave typographical error and should have been spelled “common grave.

EDIT. Oooops! Sorry! I meant no pun when I wrote "a grave typographical error". Is it alright if I re-write it as "a serious typographical error" instead?

It's only a typographical error if it was inaccurately transcribed. If Mr Gray did actually say the word then it's either an attempt to mislead or it's a speech impediment.

Why on earth is comingling the remains of those who died in combat "not proper"? Nobody's tried answering that yet.

I suspect comingled was meant to mean communal.

FourPart;1477774 wrote: I suspect comingled was meant to mean communal.


As Marvell once wrote to his coy mistress:

The grave's a fine and private place,

But none, I think, do there embrace.

The BBC has added more detail."The Navy just put a stop to everything," says Gray. He then enlisted the help of politicians, including eventually a coalition of US senators, spearheaded by Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Last month they succeeded in their campaign to get the Department of Defense to exhume the remains of nearly 400 Oklahoma servicemen, over the next five years, with the aim of identifying them and giving them individual burials.

"Without their help this historic decision would not have been made," says Gray. "I know my cousin is in grave P1003. I know there are two caskets in that grave, there's five men in each casket from the Oklahoma so I even know who my cousin's buried with in there. There are 18 families across the US that are involved in this and we're all in touch with each other."

He is looking forward to the day when the "long journey" his family has been on will come to an end.

A family's struggle to bring a Pearl Harbor sailor home - BBC News