Robert Summers-Berger

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 Lin Maya. She remarks

that the monument’s presence “allow[s] everyone to respond and remember.” According to the

National Parks 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 who 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

monument to be revered by future generations, it ​must ​contain educational value.

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 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 not
Robert Summers-Berger

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 perspective 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 ttoo

close to destructive natural forces, disregard the preexisting history of a landmass, or are too big

for their area are predisposed to failure.

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 two billion

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

respect as to grant a monument to their remembrance. In addition, failure is sure to befall

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.

Monuments are of exceptional importance to humanity. They allow the transmission of

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

responsibility of such landmarks is one of education. If education is to be properly carried out,

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

guaranteed to stand the test of time.

Robert Summers-Berger

Works Cited

The Christopher Columbus Monument in Riverside Park. Express-Times file photo.

Deegan, Jim. “A History Lesson on Easton’s Christopher Columbus Monument.”

Lehighvalleylive.com. Lehigh Valley Express-Times, 15 Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Dec. 2010.

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

[Washington DC], 5 Apr. 2017.

NPS. ​Learn about the Park - Vietnam Veterens Memorial​. ​National Parks Service,​ 12 May 2017,

www.nps.gov/vive/learn/index.htm. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017.

---. ​Learn about the Park - Vietnam Veterens Memorial.​ ​National Parks Service​, 12 May 2017,

www.nps.gov/vive/learn/index.htm. Accessed 20 Dec. 2017.

United States, Congress, House. The Antiquities Act. Government Printing Office, 1906. 59th

Congress, 2nd session, House Bill 431.

Robert Summers-Berger

---, ---, House. The Antiquities Act. Government Printing Office, 1906. 59th Congress, 2nd

session, House Bill 431.

Kosareff, Jason. “Cemetery Faces an Uncertain Future.” Whittier Daily News 25 July 2004.

Print.

Musser, Christine. “Preserving Memory: National Holocaust Memorial Museum Controversy.”

Suite101.com. Suite101.com Media Inc., 30 Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2010.

“Obscure Monument to Lobsterdom: Washington, DC.” RoadsideAmerica.com. Roadside

America, n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2010.

Lin, Maya. “Making the Memorial.” New York Review of Books. NYREV, Inc., 2 Nov. 2000.

Web. 5 July 2011.