Let me preface my comments by saying that I too am uncomfortable with
trying to second guess the staff at the NASM concerning their development
of the "Enola Gay" exhibit.  We are not privy to their development process
or with whom they consulted in putting together the story line.  My comments
are directed at what I think an exhibit of this nature should be about.
Whether or not that's what it actually turns out to be is another matter.
 
The NASM took on a tremendous challenge when they embarked upon this
project and I don't envy them that.  I agree with Ken Yellis that this
exhibit goes way beyond being the product of a curator's authorship.  I
would even go beyond the institution to say that this exhibit is of a
national and even international scope for two reasons.  First, the
Smithsonian is the national museum of the United States.  It is visited
by people from all over the country and all over the world.  Therefore, it
is regarded as being the voice of the nation, like it or not.  Second,
the dropping of the atom bomb was such a pivotal event in the twentieth
century.  It's fiftieth anniversary comes aroung only once and, as someone
has pointed out, this may very well be the only exhibit commemorating that
event.  This exhibit represents the one chance for viewpoints about this
momentous event to be aired.
 
Given this scope, I would agree with Ken Yellis that this exhibit is not
comparable to a book or lecture and therefore does not fall within the
sphere of professional freedom of speech.
 
In my opinion, the only way an exhibit of this nature can be meaningful,
insightful, balanced and compelling is to speak with many voices.  Various
points of view, accounts and interpretations as possible should be put up on
the wall.  Then it is up to the visitor to "hear" these many voices, confront
their own feelings and opinions, and try to make sense of it for themselves.
If they come away confused and ambivalent, so be it.  This is an extremely
complex subject.  There should be no black and white.  Nor whould the public
be spoon-fed an easy answer.
 
It is not up to the Smithsonian staff, the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
the Joint Chiefs of staff, the VFW, or the WILPF to "approve" of the content
of this exhibit.  The content should be a matter of public debate.  Visitors
should have the opportunity to express their own opinions very directly in
the context of the exhibit itself.
 
Speaking with many voices is not, in my opinion, selling out or bending to
public pressure.  It does, however, put the sponsoring institution in the
position of being criticized by everybody, not just one or two factions.
No one will come away completely happy, but hopefully, most will come away
having thought seriously about the issue and at least acknowledged that there
are many sides to the issue.
 
 
Amy Douglass
Tempe Historical Museum
[log in to unmask]