As I was reading the articles for this week, Battle Royal, The Final Mission of the Enola Gay and The Postmodern Exhibition, I was once again struck by the power of memory and the tenacity with which people of all races, genders, and cultures cling to their own memory of history. Just as the ‘Lost Cause’ adherents cling to their vision of the Civil War, so to do the WWII veterans and those who lived through that war cling to their memory of the Enola Gay; as the Japanese cling to their version of the Japanese invasion of China.
This desire or need to remember the history in which we were involved in a favorable way is seemingly universal. I have been thinking back over my own personal remembrances and I find that I am guilty of the same tunnel vision. I remember things ‘my’ way even when confronted with solid, seemingly truthful evidence to the contrary. I consider the evidence, sometimes I’m even swayed by the evidence, but slowly and surely I return to ‘my’ memory of the event.
We’ve seen this same battle between differing memories in many of our readings: the controversy over the Conquistador statue, Williamsburg and Greenfield, the House of the Seven Gables, and the home of the slave trader, Brown, just to mention a few. It seems we can take it for granted that any exhibition, re-creation, or re-telling of history can be a battlefield between differing memories of the site or event. Which leads me to realize how vitally important it is that the trained historians, especially the public historians, maintain their dedication to telling the entire story.
In my opinion, the Smithsonian was wrong to back down. As Michael Neufield stated in Battle Royal, “Memorials are one thing. History is another” (pg. 217). Admittedly from a purely practical viewpoint the curators probably should have waited until the 100th Anniversary to launch the exhibit they envisioned, but never should they have backed down from their carefully researched attempt to tell all sides of the story. All the Enola Gay does now with no labeling and no description is to serve as a placeholder for a future exhibit that will be able to educate.
There is nothing wrong with a memorial, nor is there anything wrong with memory. The truth of any thing is usually found in the middle and if the publics’ strong trust in museums is any indication of the public will, they expect museums and the historians who staff them to find that truth.
I like your assessment of the articles and examples we have seen thus far in the course. By mentioning the Conquistador statue, Williamsburg, Greensburg and the home of the John Brown, you validated the point that historians need to remain dedicated to the complex histories despite the battles between memory and history. I agree with you that museums need to tell the difficult histories that memory attempts to conceal. As the controversy of the Enola Gay illustrated, the lack of dialogue does not benefit the public. Due to the controversy, people missed out on participating in a discussion on an important moment in American and international history. I especially like how you connected the aspect of memory to your experiences. It is important to not think solely as a scholar when looking at controversies in public history. From the perspective of scholar and public historian, it would be easy to disregard memory, because it does not follow the logic of fact associated with history. I think it is important to remember that memory exists in our own understanding of events. When working with the public, it is essential to understand their thought processes and feelings.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to train as a historian because of the problems between memory and "history" the "true" story (that should include multiple narratives...). Last week's discussion about the Hortons' book on memory vs. history also makes this point. I agree with Kathy that the exhibit was well-researched and planned, but would have probably been more appropriate for a 100 yr anniversary. Yet what Tyeler said about losing the opinions of those who actually experienced the war is also a concern. It is unfortunate that the exhibit has scared other curators from controversial exhibits, but there is much to learn from those that ruffle some feathers.
ReplyDeleteI also think it would be a shame to lose the memories of those who were actually there. There are many projects which collect these memories, like the oral history projects the Library of Congress is doing and many local historical societies are trying to collect WWII memories as well. One of the benefits of the techno age is that it's becoming much easier to launch a project to collect stories. Next we're going to have to deal with the backlog of transcription and cataloging/indexing! :)
ReplyDelete