But some feared that Mr. Bunch’s departure would allow the Trump administration to exert greater influence, particularly by appointing like-minded individuals to lead the institution and fill its powerful Board of Regents.
Historians try to be as unbiased as possible, but with the departure from the norm could we expect biased views about history in general?
Supporters of Mr. Bunch said that under his leadership the Smithsonian had maintained its position as the nation’s premier site for telling the story of American history, culture and technological innovation, and it has continued to enjoy bipartisan support and billions in congressional funding.
I have noticed that when Trump talks about bipartisan topics that he seems to have the goal to separate the topic into a partisan topic.
“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,”
Learning about the dark parts of history allows us to not repeat the pattern of those parts. By recognizing there were dark times, we realize that we have progressed as a society.
The White House report specifically singled out NMAH Director Anthea Hartig, citing her statement that she views history as a “prime tool of social justice.”
The idea that a museum director i being targeted for expressing that history is a teaching tool and a form of not letting mistakes repeat themselves is very frightening. This could be construed as a violation of free speech.
John T. Correll, Editor-in-Chief of Air Force Magazine, a publication of the Air Force Association, wrote that "many visitors may be taken aback by what they see" and "the presentation is designed for shock effect."
The wording of these quotes make me think that they are trying to minimize the history and over all impact of this event.
many Congress members were still outraged and insisted on an investigation into exhibition development practices at the Smithsonian. Harwit resigned on May 2, 1995, just days before he was scheduled to testify in Senate hearings.
From a political narrative these politicians seem to want someone who is easily influenced by political pressure so an incident like this does not happen again.
Despite negotiations over content and presentation with both the Air Force Association and the American Legion, each version of the script was met with severe criticism.
Even though the Smithsonian rewrote the script in a more favorable light; the other side of the negotiations seemed to be very set in what they want the exhibit to be. They didn't seem to want to compromise and come to an agreement in general.
Starting that spring, the AFA launched a full-scale assault on the exhibit as “politically biased,” and an example of “politically correct curating.”[3] Enlisting its own well-connected media relations and communications departments in the campaign, the AFA also contracted with one of Washington, D.C.’s largest public relations firms, in what was soon a campaign to fundamentally change the exhibit to the AFA’s liking, or force its cancellation altogether.
It seems like that from the very beginning the AFA (Air Force Association) did not want to compromise and wanted to control the exhibit and have final say on the exhibit in general. At the start of their campaign they enlisted PR firms to completely change the narrative of how the exhibit is interpreted.
Since I had written a doctoral dissertation on the aftermath of the atomic bombing, later published as The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-1950, Martin asked me to take the initial lead in planning the “Enola Gay” exhibit, until Tom arrived at NASM.
The historian leading the formation of the exhibit is not only knowledgeable, but well respected. He knows the topic he is teaching to others through the exhibit and is experienced on how to convey the teaching points and arguments that can be interpreted.
The Department of Interior said Wednesday the new panels “acknowledge the evils of slavery, including its injustices and hypocrisies, and, by telling the stories of the nine slaves that Washington kept in the President’s House, remind us of their essential humanity.”
Changing an exhibit about slavery made by the black community is hypocrisy they are not acknowledging.
The new panels make light of slavery, the attorney said, and focus on Washington’s “discomfort” instead of the experience of the nine people the United States‘ first president enslaved in Philadelphia.
During the time period of Washington there would be little discomfort in something that is regarded as a social norm. Why would an accomplished wealthy man feel discomfort during such a time period?
Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, a Black-led coalition of activists worked with local scholars, lobbied elected officials, and negotiated directly with Independence Park to ensure the history of slavery was centered at the site.
There are a lot of independent stakeholders invested in this project. The article also doesn't include the wider community in general.
a powerful tribute to the nine people President George Washington enslaved there during the founding of the United States.
It seems like looking at the dark parts of history does not need to be "disparaging", and in many cases can be empowering.
The government was, at first, strongly hesitant to do so.
Why was the government "strongly hesitant"? was it because of other stakeholders that disapproved of such an exhibit?
The site at the doorstep of the Liberty Bell serves as a painful reminder to the flaws of the nation’s Founding Fathers, and George Washington’s own culpability in slavery.
From the very beginning, America has been built on the premise that people are not perfect and that the government changes along with people.