Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Monuments Considerations For The Ongoing Support of Education For Future Populations
Monuments Considerations For The Ongoing Support of Education For Future Populations
Monuments: Considerations for the Ongoing Support of Education for Future Populations
The nature of human existence, and all existence for that matter, involves not being
remembered. The universe will not long mark who was president when or who conquered who
else. As human beings we are born into this nature, innately inclined toward leaving our mark.
Children write their names on bathroom stalls, teenagers carve their initials into trees, and ne'er
do wells scribble text on the sides of urban buildings. Buried deep within our id is a longing to
transcend our temporal ephemerality. While it may seem a herculean task to successfully leave
one’s mark on the world for the future, there are ways we can keep the world from forgetting we
were here. Chief among these methods is the construction of monuments. No one would
remember Ramses II, four thousand years later, were it not for the pyramids. Hammurabi would
not remain such a powerful symbol of the Rule of Law were it not for the enormous stone tablets
erected in his name. Monuments serve a most vital purpose to the human experience: keeping the
past alive for the future. It is because of the immense responsibility undertaken by monument
builders that actions should be taken to ensure that monuments remain on the right side of
history. In order to confirm that monuments will stand the test of time, constructors must
consider educational value, use of land, and the subject being depicted or remembered before
building begins.
When constructing monuments, the first concern of the builders should be the education
of those who visit the landmark, as those monuments that educate the public are the most
successful. To begin with, the law that oversees the largest network of monuments on earth was
signed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. The document, entitled The Antiquities Act, demands
that construction be “Undertaken for the benefit of reputable… educational institutions, with a
Robert Summers-Berger
view to increasing the knowledge of [the subjects].” Thus should be the objective of all
monuments built. The legal framework for the single most successful network of monuments in
world history dictates from the outset that the goal of monuments is to disseminate knowledge to
the future. This is a clear indicator that all monuments looking for similar success should be built
to educate. Further evidence in support of monuments taking the role of educational landmarks
comes in the form of a personal account of Vietnam Memorial Architect, Maya Lin. She remarks
that the monument’s presence “allow[s] everyone to respond and remember.” According to the
National Park Service, “the memorial receives about three million visitors a year, placing it in
the top quartile of visitors per year for monuments in the US.” The statistics draw an obvious
conclusion: those monuments that offer an informative place of remembrance do the best in
America. It is safe to assume that the American model of success is scalable to monuments
everywhere. Indeed, the most famous monuments of all time, the Pyramids of Giza, are built
with the history of the Egyptian Royal Family inscribed on the walls. The facts are plain: for a
Second among the concerns of monument builders should be the appropriate use of the
land on which the construction sits. Improper choice in, or use of, location causes the
deterioration and/or rejection of the landmark. A current example of such folly is the famous Taj
Mahal. Smithsonian writer, Jeffrey Bartholet concludes that the monument’s proximity to the
“low river” Yamuna has accelerated the erosion of the monument’s foundations. Because the
17th century builders did not consider the river’s effect on the marble foundations, their building
is doomed to collapse as a result of water damage and pollution. The Taj Mahal demonstrates
that if the land is not properly chosen, and the natural elements not respected, monuments will
Robert Summers-Berger
not last as long as their creators would like. Furthermore, new monuments should not supercede
older places. That is to say, if the land itself has a history to be preserved, a new monument is not
necessary and is, in fact, disrespectful to the area. Take for example the prospective Memorial
Highway construction over a cemetery in Savannah, California. In an interview with local writer,
Jason Kosareff, District Board Member Bob Bruesch states that “[The cemetery] is rich in
history and should be preserved.” The construction of buildings meant for historical
remembrance should not come at the cost of pre-existing, historically important land. Otherwise,
the act of construction becomes antithetical to the idea of preserving history in perpetuity. Here,
the land itself was important, and because of that importance the highway would have failed both
the past, by paving over it, and the future, by cloistering it from actual history. Finally, attention
should be paid to the aesthetics of the area on which a monument resides. An example of a
planned landmark design that failed because it ignored the visual needs of the surrounding land
comes in the form of the Holocaust museum. The original plans for the museum involved an
enormous structure built on the National Mall. This design failed under the examination of the
committee who sanctioned its drafting. According to the blog, Suite101.com, “The members of
the commission felt the massive building would overcome the mall.” A construction project
deemed an eyesore is one with the deck stacked against it. How can a place of remembrance
succeed if the public doesn’t like looking at it? The design of places of reverence toward the past
should keep in mind the places they are built upon. In this example, the design of the Holocaust
Museum mandated a re-draw because its construction would have been too large to do justice to
the aesthetic of the Mall. In addition to respecting the history of the land, the cosmetics of the
building should be considered. Opponents to this position will cite the Eiffel Tower as a
Robert Summers-Berger
counterexample to this point. When the tower was completed in 1889, popular opinion among
the French public was that the landmark was an ugly piece of metal that did not compliment the
skyline of an otherwise beautiful city. However, today the building is seen as one of the most
famous and renowned in the world. In response, I will yield that it is true to say the Eiffel Tower
does serve as an example of the ability of an ugly construction to gain the admiration of the
public over time. However, my position mandates that places that mark remembrance of the past
must respect the land by respecting its look. The Eiffel Tower does not memorialize a specific
person or event, thus it has no place in this discussion. As can be seen by the above inscribed
examples, in order for monuments to succeed in their goal of communicating with future
generations, they must first account for the needs of their surroundings. Monuments that are too
close to destructive natural forces, disregard the preexisting history of a landmass, or are too big
The third and final factor constructors of monuments must consider in order to ensure the
longevity and effectiveness of their building is the deservingness of the subject depicted. There
are certain individuals who do not deserve the privilege of having their image preserved. Perhaps
the most infamous example of this idea comes by way of a statue in Pennsylvania. The statue
depicts Christopher Columbus, standing triumphantly above the surrounding park. The man cast
in bronze did nothing to deserve a monument. He did not discover America, he played no role in
the historical development of Pennsylvania, and he was not, in his time, regarded as some great
leader of men. What he was responsible for, however, involved the genocide of millions of
individuals, the enslavement of ten million more, and the plunder of native lands for resources
that didn’t exist in the region. One must ask him or herself: should we really be celebrating this
Robert Summers-Berger
kind of person? To memorialize him fails future onlookers by providing a false sense of
reverence toward an undeserving individual. Subjects being considered for monuments need not
have such extreme wrongdoing behind them to be rejected. According to a recent amendment to
The Antiquities Act, if a subject does not contain events or “objects of historic or scientific
interest” to the nation, they can be ruled out. Once again, the American model of success is
scalable to monuments everywhere. All agencies looking to install a monument must be doing so
in order to allow only the most important or interesting information to be treated with such high
monuments that hold no particular significance. Such was the case of the “Maine Lobsterman.”
Depicted in this statue was a lobster trapper of little note, Elroy Johnson, being remembered- it
seems- for the sake of being remembered. In reality nothing he achieved in the realm of seafood,
or other endeavours, warranted such reverence. Because of this, the statue moved from uncaring
owner to uncaring owner, getting destroyed by rats somewhere along the way. Like the
Lobsterman, monuments that don’t depict something truly special will not make it to the future.
knowledge and the celebration of greatness over immense periods of time. Indeed, the job of the
monument is to serve the people of the future by telling of the past. In this way, the principal
the monuments must respect the land they are built on, depict deserving subjects, and most of all,
be built for the purpose of teaching. Those monuments that teach well are those which are
Works Cited
Bartholet, Jeffery. “How to Save the Taj Mahal?” Smithsonian Magazine, Sept. 2011.
Smithsonian Mag,
www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-to-save-the-taj-mahal-49355859/. Accessed 20
Dec. 2017.
---. “How to Save the Taj Mahal?” Smithsonian Magazine, Sept. 2011. Smithsonian Mag,
www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-to-save-the-taj-mahal-49355859/. Accessed 20
Dec. 2017.
“Interior Department Releases List of Monuments Under Review, Announces First-Ever Formal
Public Comment Period for Antiquities Act Monuments.” Targeted News Netwrok
NPS. Learn about the Park - Vietnam Veterens Memorial. National Parks Service, 12 May 2017,
---. Learn about the Park - Vietnam Veterens Memorial. National Parks Service, 12 May 2017,
United States, Congress, House. The Antiquities Act. Government Printing Office, 1906. 59th
---, ---, House. The Antiquities Act. Government Printing Office, 1906. 59th Congress, 2nd
Kosareff, Jason. “Cemetery Faces an Uncertain Future.” Whittier Daily News 25 July 2004.
Print.
Lin, Maya. “Making the Memorial.” New York Review of Books. NYREV, Inc., 2 Nov. 2000.