The Enola Gay controversy highlighted an aspect of public history that we have not previously been discussed in length: the role of government and government institutions in the sphere of public history. I was amazed that, after his organization had waged a furious campaign to destroy the objectionable segments of the Smithsonian exhibit, an American Legion spokesperson could praise an exhibit put on by the American University with the same material on the grounds that “AU is a private institution. The Smithsonian is a public institution, where the impression is that anything it says is official history” (222). The phrase “official history” evokes a totalitarian mandate for historical interpretation in the style of the Soviet or Nazi regimes, a concept totally inappropriate to a liberal democracy such as the US. The idea that US government funding for cultural institutions necessarily implies that the government exercises content control in these institutions is ridiculous, especially considering the long history of conservative politicians’ complaints about the “immoral” uses of public funding for the arts. The Enola Gay exhibit itself, in fact, drew similar condemnation, though certainly no concrete censorship, from the Republican controlled Congress.
The question remains, then, why anyone would believe that a Smithsonian exhibit would leave the “impression” that it is “official history.” Perhaps the Smithsonian might benefit from emphasizing that, while closely associated with the federal government, their museums are still directed and curated by professional staff, rather than government boards. If the mystique of a “public institution” were diminished by emphasizing the roles of individuals, perhaps the passion of some future censorious campaigns could be diminished. In the end, though, interest groups will probably always attempt to push their agendas on museums as small as the John Dillinger or as large as the Smithsonian. The best defense seems to be the mix of negotiation and defense, together with the support of the professional community, outlined in chapter 7’s discussion of the National Museum of American History’s tangling with the business community.
I found your critique of the reading to be very insightful. You eloquently took key points in the discussion on government involvement and argued against the absurdity that the Smithsonian is “official history.” By connecting the term “official history” to the Soviet and Nazi regimes, you illustrated the danger of allowing the government too much control in historical institutions. With museums representing the democratic society of America, you are right in stating that “official history” is “a concept totally inappropriate to a liberal democracy such as the US.” The comment that you quoted struck me as well while reading the article, but you took it a step further by emphasizing that the Smithsonian needs to diminish any connection of being controlled by the government. I find this to be an interesting and important concept. Though the man was attempting to compliment the Smithsonian by classifying it as “official history,” from a scholarly perspective, he diminished the credibility of an institution by suggesting that it was state controlled. A museum’s credibility relies on their scholarship and ability to present an accurate and thought-provoking history, not a history mandated by government officials.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading about the Enola Gay, I wasn’t thinking about the “role of government and government institutions in the sphere of public history,” as you put it in your post. As we discussed in class today, people in the US did not have knowledge of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima until afterwards. So, to an extent they only know of the US Government’s point of view of the events. When the exhibit was being planned for display many issues surfaced like sloppy journalism, anti-Japanese sentiment, and an apparent generational divide. My point is that the role of government in this specific role of public history was single sided and that makes it more controversial (whenever government is involved). But, it did ask a grand historical question of whether it was necessary to drop the bomb, which caused a further look into governmental military actions.
ReplyDeleteThe state is a reflection of the material modes of production. As humans interact and wars are waged to protect the interests of individual groups (ie nation states), history is written by the victors. What impressed me most about this article was the way it expressed that historians resisted dogmatic state assertions about the representation of the Enola Gay exhibit, but the media attempted to sensationalize this by arguing that the Japanese were fighting off rampant Western Imperialism. Whether this is the case or not, the historians duty is to describe the nature of this interaction of individuals(persons and states) as they strive for the modes of survival. Honest history scholarship means engaging the social dialogues and rhetoric without making any value claims.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument that the main focus of the article emphasized government and outside groups negative reaction to the exhibit turned away the democratic environment for the exhibit.I feel like military groups above any other agency impacts could impact a museum's decisions, especially if they are publically funded by the government because of the high number of veterans involved in the government as well as in the United States. I like that you brought up the idea of cencorship in your blog because to a certain degree that is what happened at the National Air and Space museum because if they did not change the exhibit, they would have lost some of their funding, which would have crimpled the museum. Therefore, museums must be allowed more freedom, even if they are publically funded because it is a creative and educational institution that should be allowed to demonstrate more than one perspective.
ReplyDelete