Since the beginning of the semester, we have read and learned the realities of public history and how its different areas of museums, historic preservation, archives, and so forth are influenced by controversy. This week’s reading of Written in Stone by Sanford Levinson is no exception to this theme of controversy. In his book, Levinson describes the issues and questions surrounding the legitimacy of memorials. According to Levinson, memorials are more than just physical, marble structures in public areas. Instead, flags, names, and sites are just some of the memorials that communities and states create to symbolize and honor their history or culture. While this attempt to memorialize a person or an event may initially have good intentions, questions always arise. Why should Confederate soldiers be recognized? Why should the Confederate flag be flown over a state capitol, or why should it not? Should old monuments symbolizing a previous totalitarian regime in a current democratic society stay in public squares, or should they be demolished?
Overall, I enjoyed the book. I liked how Levinson used different examples from around the world to depict how truly controversial memorials really are. The one aspect that I did not like about the book was how Levinson incorporated the Constitution into the narrative. I felt that it was a forced effort by Levinson to show how knowledgeable a constitutional lawyer he really is (as he makes note of throughout the later half of the book). While I understood his argument about how states are not portraying a neutral stance on memorials, I think it could have been narrowed down to less than sixty pages and presented better.
2 comments:
I think the changing nature of history is what makes memorializing the past so difficult, almost any viewpoint marginalizes someone and prioritizes another’s outlook. While images, ideas, or words are “written in stone” people’s viewpoints are not. I think whether or not historians intercede people will create their own stories to give meaning to a monument after its original purpose has faded from memory. If a clear narrative is not established the citizens are left to assign meaning themselves.
I have found that no matter what or where monuments have been placed in our nation there has been some form of opposition in some form. I had not though about why people opposed to monuments until reading this book. Brent made up a great point by saying “the changing nature of history is what makes memorializing the past so difficult.” This is true because different people will always have different viewpoints. People tend to use their viewpoint for personal reasons. Thinking back to video from class the man who did not like the Vietnam Memorial because it was black and did not have a flag did not give a valid argument against the memorial. He showed his personal viewpoint which almost caused the project to be ended. I believe the book “Written in Stone” shows the reader that memorials are images that are for the most part “written in stone” which means they do not change day to day. I also believe it is the lasting image of the memorials they gave the book its name. Brent was right people’s viewpoints are not but someone viewpoint is and can help change the viewpoint of others. Now that the Vietnam Memorial is built we do not see veterans telling people to not visit the memorial why the people were fighting has not lasted but the memorial has. People will always have their own ideas and stories that have special meaning the monuments they create. Just as the people who visit these memorials will have their own ideas and stories. Memorials give people lasting stories to share for generations.
Post a Comment