As corporeal beings, we humans are necessarily yoked with physical
space; clearly, the incorporeal dimension of life - the soul - holds a place of
primacy, but our bodies and the space in which they exist are essential to the
experience of each person. Because of this, certain physical places become
elevated in their significance to the degree that significant events occur at
their location. A childhood bedroom, the church in which you were wed, the
place you first kissed your spouse can all achieve, in a certain sense,
to a level of the sacred.
Most of these events
are significant to us for deeply personal reasons. When, however, an event is
historically significant, when it redirects or otherwise affects the course of
future events for an entire culture, men have a tradition, born of the deep
desire to participate in that event and its consequences, of marking the
physical place of the occasion. Thus, we are able to visit the “High-water
mark” of the confederate army, the northern most point of the South’s advance against
the Union at Gettysburg.
Also, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the exact place
where tradition tells us that Christ took his first breath.
These places that history and cultures mark for remembrance were
also very important to the individuals who were key players of the event; yes,
Jesus’ birth is personally important to him, just as is Alonzo Cushing and
Lewis Armistead’s death on the battlefield. But these monuments were not
erected for the personal importance these events had, but for their
significance to those who would be long affected by them. The monument at
Gettysburg would have been erected no matter the names of the soldiers who died
there.
So, what is to be our response to ‘historical markers’ that are set
up to personally important events? What
is the goal of public monuments to personal moments? Yes, putting up a plaque where
Elvis played his last concert is fitting…sort of. But ought we also make a
memory garden in a place where he sat down to eat a lunch? To do so would be to
elevate not only the place, but also the person to an undue level of blessedness.
We do not even mark every place where Jesus slept for the night.
Here are two such examples.
The first is a park bench in Pongyang, North Korea, which has been
encased in plexi-glass for preservation. The significance of this physical
space is derived from the Dear Leader’s rear end. Yes, this monument has been
erected to commemorate the place where Kim Il Sung sat down in the park. I, for
one, desperately hope that it was a very comfortable respite for him.
The second is a plaque affixed outside a Chicago Baskin-Robbin’s.
This physical space was blessed by a young Barack Obama and his future wife,
Michelle, when they first kissed. Akin
to the first example, I hope with all sincerity that this was a kiss to end all
kisses.
In short, to mark the place of insignificant historical events due
to the individual participating in them is to contribute to a cult of the person.
It causes history and culture to revolve around individuals rather than
individuals contributing to history and culture.
And now that we are on the subject, I must call your attention to an
egregious omission among historical monuments in our nation that ought to be
rectified posthaste. The picture below specifies the precise location of the
missing marker.
It should be inscribed with the words, “On this site, Philip first
kissed Julia.”
Why not? After all, Barack only has two kids!
