Dubin’s article “Battle Royal: the Final Mission of the Enola Gay” shows a very interesting relationship between the government, the public, and the museum (in this case the Smithsonian.) This article argues that the display of the plane responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima has had a divisive effect upon its view public. On the one hand, this plane has legendary status in the minds of remaining members of “the greatest generation” who have been steeped in Victory culture. However, since the radicalization of history and education in the 60’s and 70’s American’s have taken up this annoying post-modern tendency to actually consider another culture’s point of view and worry about whether our cultural dialogue is PC. Granted it is clear from this article that modern American culture is more interested in the rhetoric of cultural diversity than it is in actual historical accuracy and pluralistic historical interpretations. This is made clear in the article when Dubin refers to the way Americans accept at face value the critical media assessment of the Enola Gay exhibit without noticing the imbalance of media comments arguing that the Japanese were fighting to stave off westernization versus the utter lack of mention of the bombing at Pearl Harbor. Essentially the media by focusing only on the spectacle of the debate between WWII Veteran Senators, a smattering of disappointed WWII vets, and angry, left-wing academic critics was attempting to prey on these post-modern, “nobodies culture is the right culture” sentiments. This post-modern trend strikes a stark contrast with the Victory generation’s $100,000 PR campaign to properly display the Enola Gay and make the Smithsonian there “shrine in Washington.”
Yet, the curators of the Smithsonian find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Considering that American tax payer dollars go into the displays at the Smithsonian, these curators to some extent have to answer to WWII vets and their senators in their presentations. Yet, I was a bit shocked when Dubin commented that curators had a hard time knowing when to take a stand and when to “let it go” with regards to public and political upheaval. When on tour in the Smithsonian we met with a woman (whose name I cannot currently recall) who was the head of the committee responsible for making any amendments or terminations of displays at the Smithsonian. Basically her position was that as professions who take pride in academic honesty and public response they absolutely won’t budge on an issue unless it becomes a economic threat through lawsuit, or protest/vandalism. I support this take on museum presentations, especially in publically funded institutions like the Smithsonian, if not on in the interest of allowing these displays to do their jobs which is to create public dialogue. After all, if a display is so incendiary it causes the museum to lose money to performing it’s task of educating the public, then there seem to be better ways to achieve this without causing a ruckus. Yet, as academic professionals, museum coordinators must stand up for their academic honesty and reasoning for choosing a specific interpretation. Otherwise there is no hope of achieving a presentation with a pluralistic and fair interpretive lens because the government and this country’s myriad of economically vested special interests groups will be at the wheel.
No comments:
Post a Comment