Lincoln Memorial Thesis

Creating monuments to memorialize the history of the United States should be heavily evaluated before action is made, for the impact on the country’s people is often greater than predicted. History is remembered and glorified through the creations of monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial as described by Kirk Savage. Therefore, it needs to be taken into consideration that the people and events chosen to be memorialized contribute to the perspective we have on the morality of these figures and their actions and once these monuments are created, our identity as a nation will consequently be affected depending on the construction of the monument. Evidently, these significances are oftentimes neglected when making said decisions.

The choice to

memorialize a piece of history is the choice to immortalize it. In the case of the photo of The Christopher Columbus Monument in Riverside Park, the figure who is frequently recognized for discovering an already inhabited country is erected in Pennsylvania with an air of glory. Considering that Christopher Columbus’s contribution to be people of the land, the Native Americans, is nothing but negative, it can be inferred that he is being honored as an explorer and a leader because no observer would assume the worst of such a tall figure in such a powerful and assertive stance. Though Sophia A. Nelson argues that monuments such as Christopher Columbus’s should not be removed and quotes President George W. Bush saying at the opening of the NMAAHC, “A great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them”, the picture taken by Jim Deegan does not display a flaw nor a correction. The statue is built with what seems to be an expensive and durable material that can withstand the harsh weather conditions that it must be exposed to and the stature of Columbus’s figure is anything but flawed. Its empowered posture and height serves as a blatant idolization of a figure of history who deserves nothing of the sort. In response to this sight, an international tourist may come to the conclusion that America’s ideologies have not changed since that time. The American identity is reinforced to be founded on the destruction of others and the mockery of their suffering while praising and idolizing white men with no valid reason. Bush argued that history needs to be remembered to keep from being repeated, but does Christopher Columbus’s strong and proud monument not encourage his actions? This is a question that had not been raised when planning to honor the alleged discoverer of America.
Similar to how the statue of Christopher Columbus glorifies his wrongs, Lawrence Downes argues in his article, “Waiting for Crazy Horse”, that Mount Rushmore is a colossal representation of white men, who we regard as founding fathers, that reeks of irony. It takes an unfathomable level of audacity and disrespect to carve four giant portraits of historical figures into land that they essentially stole. Furthermore, the construction of the monument meant destruction of its site which, as noted by Maya Lin in “Making the Memorial”, is the opposite of what makes a monument truly powerful. The grandeur of Mount Rushmore, however, distracts its viewers from this matter of fact which leads the public to believe that the greatness of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt outweighs any recollection of poor character. Creating grounds like these contributes to the American identity in a negative sense as it excuses regrettable history and encourages the notion that we are a great, if not perfect, nation. The result of an American superiority complex is inevitable through this trend which can only lead to nationalism. As if to emphasize the disregard to Native Americans, a government-neglected monument of Crazy Horse is left unfinished (Downes 2009). This idolization of false heroes speaks further to the American identity to be more than nationalism; what is encouraged is white nationalism. Surely the intentions behind the creation of Mount Rushmore were driven by patriotism, but impact has proven to be far more important than intent.
Kirk Savage examines the nature of the Lincoln Memorial for what is truly is.

His argument focuses around the false religious aspect and the insensibility of it. The Lincoln Memorial is nothing but a representation of two speeches that have been published “ad infinitum” (Savage 2009). He makes the point that religiously respected things are often relics or direct artifacts, but that the Lincoln Memorial has nothing like that yet the monument makes the history is memorializes more “extraordinary and authoritative”. The monument was also made long after Lincoln’s era and death. The massive structure is nothing but that considering its anachronistic inaccuracy. This communicates how monuments have the power of glorifying history and creating some type of personal connection and community in our imaginations and just as well, these monuments can bring groups together that don’t have positive effects such as the neo-nazis and white nationalists that are empowered by confederate monuments like in Charlottesville, Virginia. This possibility needs to be considered prior to creating monuments; it being known that monuments have the power to bring people together, there needs to be some insight as to what type of people those are because the American identity depends on

it.
It is not uncommon that the creation of monuments forms a union of people opposed to it. The role of the US is brought into question when the plan to create a Holocaust museum in the national park is proposed as discussed by Musser. It is known that during the Holocaust, the US had little contribution to the salvation of the victims (Musser 2008) and creating a monument commemorating our minimal aid would be a mockery of the suffering of those affected. Also up for debate was how large the museum should be if it were to exist. The notion that it could be too big is not one that seemed to be present when creating the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Rushmore considering the irony that they have to offer. Through these points, Musser successfully highlights the sensitivities that surround the construction of monuments that is, at other points, neglected. Celebrating our nation’s contributions to reparation of a tragedy that we only furthered is yet another example of mocking the suffering of others for the sake of inappropriate glorification of our country.
Creating monuments is only another form of writing history and it is far more sensitive than constructors and organizers tend to believe; not all of which are as conscientious as Maya Lin. The commemoration of an event or person in the form of a monument creates a sacred ground to its viewers and regardless of what that commemoration may be for, there will always be a potential group to form in its support. The question most essential and most often neglected is what impact that consequence will have on the American identity.