I was looking forward to reading this article, as the topic has come up in our other readings. Until now, I was not familiar with the controversy. Everyone in the museum world knows about the dispute regarding the Enola Gay exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum. It is strongly suggested in this particular chapter that museums have become considerably more cautious in their staging of exhibits, therefore producing bland or even boring work since. It stems from the flak The Last Act and other exhibits of its kind received: exhibits that tried to present more than one viewpoint rather than just the popularly held perspective. The need for positive reviews is strongly tied to funding issues, and everyone knows how tight that area is right now.
This chapter stresses the generational conflict behind the response to The Last Act. I found myself irate as I read, disbelieving of the (what I perceived as) narrow-minded opinions of the veterans, a position that “…precludes them from even looking at any new versions” (Dubin, 192). I made myself take a step back. It’s true that I wasn’t there; I’m far removed from 1945 America. My generation is disillusioned by the notion of a proud, patriotic America; we tend to look at things a little more cynically. I tried to consider the background of those that fought in WWII, tried to see things from their point of view. I still kept coming back to the meaning of ‘museum’ and what the general public believes museums need to present. This question has been brought up in our previous readings and discussions, but I’m still curious. I agree with Martin Hartwit’s stance to “…tell everyone as complete a story as possible, bolstered by the hard copy of that time” (195). A museum may be a sort of memorial, but it is not a memorial in its entirety. The responsibilities are different. Dubin quotes Michael Neufeld: “Memorials are one thing. History is another” (217).” A memorial tends to be commemorative, but is a museum supposed to be as well? To present multiple viewpoints is a way to prevent bias from appearing in an exhibit in an attempt to find some sort of balance. Isn’t that what we want to do as public historians?
The author also stresses the strong influence of the media when it comes to controversial topics. For the most part, he did not look kindly on the media’s actions in regard to The Last Act. Out-of-context quotes were used to amplify the drama of the situation, and journalists did not do their research to confirm sources. The media, like museums, needs good reviews, needs subscribers to stay afloat. Highlighting disputed issues is one way for them to attract more attention. The public loves drama, so the media provides it, sometimes at the expense of the full story. “People would rather argue about some lofty thing like patriotism…They won’t tell you that it’s all about money” (Dubin, 212). And that seems to be what it eventually comes down to, no matter what you are talking about.
I couldn't agree with you more on your anger/annoyance with the older generation's inability to 'get over it'. I fought with my parents all through my younger years over these kinds of attitudes. I was a junior in high school when the race riots we saw in the film clip yesterday were happening and a freshman in college when the National Guard fired on the Kent State student protestors. I was still living at home and trying desperately to convince my parents who I both loved and respected how wrong their outlook on these events was. I didn't get very far, then, and while my mother (my dad died 30 years ago) has come to join my view on the Vietnam era stuff, but NOT the WWII era. I've come to the conclusion that the unique combination of American isolationism before the War; the propaganda machine that ran with total governmental approval, total complicity of the press, and total acceptance by the people; and the deep-seated need of the families of the soldiers who died to view their deaths as heroic and necessary combined to create an almost impenetrable wall of brainwashing. The "Greatest Generation" will not consider anything less.
ReplyDeleteThe enola gay controversy definately made curators in museums more cautious to the exhibits they put on because there has been no real controversy since the enola gay. I also have to agree with you that I am not from the World War II generation and feel it is ok to question certain aspects of the war, while I am sure veterans feel that whatever was needed to save lives was what needed to be done. While I understand this argument, only allowing the public of the United States to understand one viewpoint of the event could hinder on their knowledge of the subject. It is not fair to the public to not allow them to engage in this type of discussion when the relevance of nuclear weapons is very real in today's world.
ReplyDeleteI, too, was struck by the fact that many veterans felt (or at least the organizations that represented them said that they felt) like any questioning of the decision to drop the bomb was a "slap in the face." I think it helps to keep in mind that if your only way of understanding the atomic bomb was that it was used to save lives, then any questioning of its use sounds like an argument that more American soldiers should have died, which is not what the curators wanted to suggest by any means. The fact that the public was largely unaware of the long academic debate over the use of the bomb was a large factor here.
ReplyDelete