Skip to main content

The Valley of Dry Bones


A recent NPR article about the possibility of moving the remains of U.S. President James K Polk reminded me what an odd concept the grave is. A descendant of our 11th president, dead now these 168 years, is quoted as saying how much Polk wanted to remain in Nashville. This was apparently requested in his will, as though his corpse, obscured underground, might enjoy its time more in Music City than elsewhere.

It is true that cemeteries/graveyards served a useful purpose at one time, as they stand as historical records during a period when such records weren't always well kept via other methods (paper, digitally, etc.) In today's age, we have much better ways of keeping track of who has come and gone on this earth. Putting a body into the ground and marking it with a headstone simply isn't necessary.

I know I sound cold about what happens with human remains, but it's an issue I've never been comfortable with. Whether you believe it's because a spirit has left and gone somewhere else, or simply that the plethora of organic gears that continually work to make a person alive have stopped working, the body that we put into the ground is no longer the person we once knew. While I understand having respect for it in the period directly after death, it would seem that long term, underground storage of it is impractical.

My father's grave is located just outside of Springfield, Illinois. Camp Butler. I've visited the site perhaps 2-3 times since he died nearly twenty years ago. Of course, the thought has crossed my mind of visiting more often than that, but then what would be the point? The living entity that was dad ceased to exist some two decades ago. Why feel obligated to visit a corpse?

James K Polk died almost 170 years ago, however, his body (or what's left of it) still resides entombed in Tennessee. George Washington has been dead two centuries, yet we can visit him at Mount Vernon. Except, it isn't really Polk or Washington that are still around, is it? Simply their remnants. And, honestly, the remains of James Polk don't care if they're in Nashville or somewhere else, so neither should we.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't