Written in Stone.

Professor Levinson’s book, “Written in Stone,” addresses the significance of symbols in society. He focuses primarily on the influence of monuments and flags throughout history. His prose, snarky at times, is engaging and opinionated, though it does seem to meander a little aimlessly on occasion. One of his main questions asks how we are to deal with symbols that offend a specific population. What event or person is worth the legitimacy a monument provides? While reading, I kept thinking back to our first day of class and the statue of Onate and the controversy surrounding it. That statue symbolizes something that means different things to different groups. Should it be taken down because it offends one, or should it remain standing to represent a part of our country’s past that we can’t erase? The tearing down of old monuments as new regimes are put in place is one way to try and deal with a troubling history. But in another sense, it is equivalent to a “cultural death,” denying future generations the opportunity to analyze what was once considered worthy of memorialization, whether or not it is still considered as such. Levinson’s view is that we should not destroy these pieces of the past, but rather, consider where they would be appropriately housed. He also believes that these kinds of decisions should be made locally on a case-to-case basis, not by the federal government. I tend to agree.

I thought it was interesting as he delved into different countries’ ways of dealing with the more unsavory topics from the past. In Budapest, they have taken all the statues (save one) having to deal with Communist rule and moved them to a Statue Park Museum. Levinson contemplates whether this kind of idea would work for Confederate memorabilia. Housing the flag in a museum would place it in a much different context than flying it from the top of a government building. Objects in a museum are seen in a different light than objects displayed in public space. Museums suggest to the public that an item is static, a piece of the past, whereas when it is visible from the highway, blowing in the breeze, it seems a more vital part of the present. Levinson asks whether we can consider this act unconstitutional.

Glassberg also contemplates the interpretation of a memorial and what it means to the people who view it. His example of the WWI memorial in Orange, MA shows how a community can bring a national message to a local level, giving it their own spin. Their monument, with its emphasis on the loss that is part of war rather than the victory, expands the definition of patriotism. The community is reminded of the costs associated with war, and it can be used as an educational opportunity for the future. Because the community decided how the memorial would be presented, it says something about the views of that group of people. Glassberg and Levinson both believe that this is how it should be: a message from the local community and not the federal government.