03-09-2016, 09:10 AM
Just to play devil’s advocate here a bit, what exactly is “gauche” or “tasteless” about putting a Light Armoured Vehicle (for us layman, I might call it a “small tank”), as opposed to putting a tank or captured weaponry from “the enemy” on display? The latter cases are common in many parks, and I’ve never really heard serious agitation about removing any of them. In Victoria Park in London, there is an M4 (so a medium armoured vehicle rather than a light armoured vehicle) from World War II on display, and several cannons captured by the British during the Crimean War. The tank has been on display there for more than sixty years.
That tank was designed to kill people, or protect the people inside so they can kill people, or whatever; so is the LAV III. I sense the latter is not “gauche” because it’s a weapon of war, but for some other reason. Why would the LAV III be any more or less tasteless than an actual tank? Just because one is a lot older? Many of the tanks on display as part of Canadian monuments weren’t older when they were put there.
That tank was designed to kill people, or protect the people inside so they can kill people, or whatever; so is the LAV III. I sense the latter is not “gauche” because it’s a weapon of war, but for some other reason. Why would the LAV III be any more or less tasteless than an actual tank? Just because one is a lot older? Many of the tanks on display as part of Canadian monuments weren’t older when they were put there.