Wallace’s (Section IV); Post and Launius articles

The era of Ronald Reagan brought “revision” of history to rectify the actions of his administration, whether home, or abroad. In the search of the truth, Reagan wanted to “reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs” (p. 253). However, lots of his endeavors were based of the mythical assumptions of the dramatic past (partly, due to image that Hollywood created), which should be given a new meaning. True, it created some kind of coverage (or privilege?) from the harsh reality, but, motherless, remained political for years to come.
To see how the high political agenda could interfere with history interpretation, Wallace reveals the controversies, which arose at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) displaying exposition on Enola Gay in 1990s. One of the crucial questions, which this exposition brought, was: To what and for which audience the museum’s works should be devoted?
The original script to the proposed exposition, which underwent five changes, attracted not only WWII veterans, museum curators, but the public historians, as well. However, in the pursuit for political correctness, supposedly educational exhibit on “Enola Gay’s mission had became an effort to justify it.” (p. 281). Historians, who were opposing the partial representation of “irrevocable facts”, went along with the public voice to improve the expo but their voices, obviously, weren’t heard.
What are the possible solutions to the successful museum exposition? To paraphrase Wallace, there should be “serious analysis on the national historical development” rather than “trumpeting [its] great deeds” (p. 305). One of the approaches would be creation of the pros and cons exhibit, which demands questions and welcomes discussions; setting up research scholarships and communal projects with the assistance of the other museums and cultural associations. Now, it is time when museums are not only should display, but provide the teaching of history, as well.

Robert G. Post, “A Narrative of our time”

Continuing on the subject, Post reexamines, partly, the exhibit on Enola Gay in his quest to answer the question: how should modern museums portray historical events? The expo, which, in agreement with Wallace, presented much controversy, was obviously destined to chose between “veterans feeling good” and “consequences of the atomic bombing in Japan” (p. 374). After much debates, certain “heroic” slogans from the nonexistent National Armed Forces Museums were still on display, despite the involvement of the historians producing “extensive historiography on the decision to drop the bomb” (p. 375). At the end there was a dilemma as to how the portray a historical event: as the U.S. engineering achievement to build a plane, which could carry the first atomic weapon or the devastation of its aftermath. It met obvious lobbying from the different parts of the society, who saw in the exhibit what each of them wanted to see. As to the historians, they also parted in their opinions. Although, since 1970s and 1980s the Smithsonian called for a “non-celebrity attitude” the exhibit produced “apolitical” tone of an official presentation of history (pp. 383-84). It appears, argues Post, that the exhibit brought a sense of “practicability” (talks of a “magnificent technological achievement” for one), rather than a historical significance of the occurrence. People should not be given “basic facts concerning… history” (p. 390), concludes Post, but a chance for evaluation and fulfillment of a meaning from all points of view, including that of the public historian’s.

Roger D. Launius, “American Memory…”

This article could summarize the above two installment, for it outlines the question on what, in fact, is right or wrong in the today’s world of the museums. In other words, what do museums signify to individuals who visit their big and small halls?
As an example, the author uses the Smithsonian, the most attended museum in the U.S.
Moving from a simple compilation of themed objects to its broader representation, the history of the past transformed from its “triumphant view”, to a “dismantling of one-nation, one-people consensus” (pp. 15-16). More than ever there is a controversy between “official” and “vernacular’ memory (p. 22). To support his argument, the author offers a gradation on how people today do comprehend history.
It comes from the personal experience and involvement of a particular individual, to the family/friends sphere and finally, to the generalities of historical past, which has no immediate connection to the person. It appears true, but still, certain groups, practicing “living history” have their own image of the past, which allows them to create “their own spheres of collective memory”(pp. 24-25). But will they allow stranger with a different opinion to become a part of their “sphere”?
Finally, Launuis offers a countdown of the proposed exhibits, which less likely will take their place at the NASM. In his call for an “intellectually honest and politically acceptable” exhibits, the author suggests that each individual will re-thing his place in the history where museum and public historians could assist to overcame myths.