The role of public historians in the preservation and interpretation of memory is almost as hotly debated as narratives of public memory are. As discussed last week, much of our national identity has been founded on comfortable, often emotionally charged, myths which a considerable percentage of Americans are not willing to give up in favor of challenging new historical scholarship (Boyer 1996, 139). This is particularly true of topics that raise the most discomfort and lead to tough questions centered on morality. How can we tell the story of American heroes, in a way that makes us feel good to be Americans, if their stories are tainted by things like slavery or genocide? This presents a critical dilemma for public historians; what holds more value to us as historians, pleasing the "public" with inspirational myths that uphold traditional narratives or exploring new methodologies to seek new perspectives on long held, or even untold, stories that are inclusive of marginalized voices?
One might think that public historians hold the power in deciding the "big" question of whose history gets told, however, the truth appears to be that time and again, public historians are pitted against the very public they aim to serve. "Public" may be a bit of a misnomer, however. As illustrated by the controversial cases of the National Parks Service’s Civil War commemorations (Black 2016), the living history interpretations of slavery by Colonial Williamsburg (Horton 2006), and the cancellation of the original Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum exhibition of the Enola Gay (Linenthal 1996) show, the "public" rarely consists of only those who public historians consider their audiences.
These exhibits were created with specific audiences in mind; tourists, families, school children, retirees, etc... people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs. In other words, the general public rather than the "public." The goals of these exhibits, among others, were to encourage public engagement with American history, to facilitate conversations on difficult topics in America’s past that might serve to improve the future, and to advance public knowledge and understanding of perspectives that had often been overlooked precisely because of the challenges presented by deviations from “romanticized notions of America as the land of the free” (Horton 2006, 36). Indeed, the “public” that these exhibits ultimately wound up serving, to varying degrees, was not so much the general public as previously defined. Instead, often, politics and funding were the major factors in the final product presented by public historians to the general public in these cases. For a student of history, examining the impact of politics on public history is at best distressing and at worst devastatingly depressing.
An episode from ABC News Nightline from October 24, 1994 highlights the battle between memory versus commemoration and political correctness versus patriotic correctness, as well as public historians versus the "public" that was fought over the exhibit.
Throughout the Enola Gay controversy, Smithsonian historians were portrayed as unpatriotic “revisionists” who, according to then presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, had sinister, conspiratorial motives to “inculcate the American youth a revulsion of toward America’s past” (Linenthal 1996, 59). Political backlash to “unpatriotic” perceptions of the originally planned exhibit that did not aim to glorify and commemorate the mission of the Enola Gay ultimately led to threats of defunding the Smithsonian which in turn led to a complete overhaul and sanitization of a challenging, but pivotal moment in public memory.
The impact of this controversy can still be seen at the National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, where a lack of interpretative signage in the Enola Gay exhibit offers a lasting tribute to victors in the fight against “revisionist historians” that dared to threaten America’s self-esteem (Boyer 1996, 131; Linenthal 1996, 62).
Bibliography
Black, Olivia Williams. “The 150-Year War: The Struggle to Create and Control Civil War Memory at Fort Sumter National Monument.” The Public Historian 38, no. 4 (November 2016). 149-166. Accessed January 12, 2023, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26420937
Cauvin, Thomas. “Collecting and Preserving People’s Stories: Oral History, Family History, and Everyday Life.” In Public History. 89-105. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Boyer, Paul. “Whose History Is It Anyway? Memory, Politics, and Historical Scholarship.” In History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. Editors Edward T. Linenthal and Tom Engelhardt, 115-139. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996.
Horton, James Oliver. “Slavery in American History: An Uncomfortable National Dialogue.” In Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory. Editors James O. and Lois E. Horton, 35-55. New York: The New Press, 2006.
Kohn, Richard H. “History at Risk: The Case of the Enola Gay.” In History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. Editors Edward T. Linenthal and Tom Engelhardt, 140-170. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996.
Linenthal, Edward T. “Anatomy of a Controversy.” In History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. Editors Edward T. Linenthal and Tom Engelhardt, 9-62. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1996.
Comentários