Open Forum

Is the memorial to you are referring to?

There are many ways to contextualizing a monument and it can be a good way to bring context to a history whose identity has changed since the memorial was constructed.

The biggest reason why a monument should come down is centered on the reason why it was put up in the first place. In this case, I am suspicious that it was simply to memorialize Pere Jacques Marquette. The era, the 1950s was a time of the Red Scare and with that came at the fervent hostility toward atheism. Compare the memorial above to Pere Jacques Marquette to the one below:


The second monument does have a cross but it is only a small part of a larger statue of Pere Jacques Marquette himself. While his church and spirituality were obviously a significant part of Pere Jacques Marquette, he and his history are more than that, and a well-done monument should represent that. The first monument represents Christianity, not Pere Jacques Marquette - or at least only the Christian aspect of him. The first monument appears to be more of the statement that mirrors the anti-atheistic and anti-non-Christian views of the 1950s. It is similar to Ten Commandment monuments being put on state capital grounds today. It is doubtful that those monuments will stay as well.

Monuments represent ideas, not just the individual. When a monument is looked at for its value we have to understand its meaning and purpose. In the case of the first monument, it is one that does not pass and should likely be removed and more honest and fully representative memorial of Pere Jacques Marquette and his accomplishments replace it.  Contextualizing in the form of new signage would do nothing.

Is the memorial to you are referring to?

There are many ways to contextualizing a monument and it can be a good way to bring context to a history whose identity has changed since the memorial was constructed.

The biggest reason why a monument should come down is centered on the reason why it was put up in the first place. In this case, I am suspicious that it was simply to memorialize Pere Jacques Marquette. The era, the 1950s was a time of the Red Scare and with that came at the fervent hostility toward atheism. Compare the memorial above to Pere Jacques Marquette to the one below:


The second monument does have a cross but it is only a small part of a larger statue of Pere Jacques Marquette himself. While his church and spirituality were obviously a significant part of Pere Jacques Marquette, he and his history are more than that, and a well-done monument should represent that. The first monument represents Christianity, not Pere Jacques Marquette - or at least only the Christian aspect of him. The first monument appears to be more of the statement that mirrors the anti-atheistic and anti-non-Christian views of the 1950s. It is similar to Ten Commandment monuments being put on state capital grounds today. It is doubtful that those monuments will stay as well.

Monuments represent ideas, not just the individual. When a monument is looked at for its value we have to understand its meaning and purpose. In the case of the first monument, it is one that does not pass and should likely be removed and more honest and fully representative memorial of Pere Jacques Marquette and his accomplishments replace it.  Contextualizing in the form of new signage would do nothing.