The Enola Gay controversy comes from how the exhibit presented the history of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. The Enola Gay controversy debated over the script which was presented with the exhibit explaining the historical account of the bombing of Japan during the WWII era. Thelen does a great job of building some background around the controversy, and shows some of the major players in the argument such as members of Congress, WWII veterans, scholars, and the general public. I completely agree when he says that recognizing the skills and courage it took American soliders on the Enola Gay to drop that atomic bomb comes from the exhibit and the museum exhibit "has nothing to do with approving (or disapproving) Harry S. Truman's decision to drop the bomb or the consequences of the act".
Many veterans and the American Air Force Association have argued that the exhibit did not properly show their side of the event and did not portray soldiers in a positive light. The counterargument is that this is a display of history, not of heritage, so the exhibit showed the result of decisions from our government that they were to carry out. The devastation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of Truman's decision is in a hot debate in itself, weighing the number of lives actually saved versus those destroyed, and also the alternatives to the bomb that could have been utilized. The exhibit went through a huge public struggle, and ultimately ended up in December 2003 at the National Air and Space Museum.
Looking into the Enola Gay exhibit controversy made me think about our class project for the construction of I496. Granted, it is not even close to the same level of devastation and upset as dropping a bomb, but there were still consequences to the decision in building it and families suffered displacement from their homes.
BEST SUB DAY EVER!!!
15 years ago
I think one of the things that presented a problem for many people like the veterans' groups, etc. was that there is not a clear difference between heritage and history in the public mind. Most people mistake them for each other. This was enhanced by the history of other museum exhibits, both in the Smithsonian and outside of it. For years, decades even, museums had been displaying exhibits that were much closer to heritage than history, if not completely heritage. Some of the statements concerning the purpose of this NASM as presented by many of the opponents of the original Enola Gay exhibit also seem to privilege heritage over history. This expectation of a heritage-based 'history' was further excited by the timing of the exhibit. 50th anniversaries are times of celebration, which is a major component of heritage. In this view point, it makes more sense that many people, especially veterans, would have been upset with the exhibit. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were right or that everybody has to agree with them, but it is an important point to consider.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, I more or less took the standpoint of presenting facts and key players. As of right now I have not fully developed a strong opinion one way or another. Of course the veterans, and obviously many others, would be upset due to the nature of the presentation of the exhibit. The debate of heritage vs history I feel is a fine line that many people will continue to argue and have a hard time with.
ReplyDelete