One of the ironies of this exhibit is that if it is indeed trying to be PC by
presenting a viewpoint sympathetic to the Japanese (and I'm not sure that
they are--ie. trying to be PC), the whole POINT of this movement is to open
the field of discourse to multiple, typically underrepresented views....And
in so doing, what have they done but completely overlooked the views of a
HUGE constituency of vets.  So much for multiplicity.
 
Having said that, it is also worth noting (again) that this discussion we are
having is based largely on media reports.  I tried to get a copy of the
exhibit script, to no avail.  Scripts HAVE been reviewed by outsiders--the
original was the basis for the Air Force Mag. article (which, by the way,
does anyone have a copy of?) but all the newspapers are reporting the same
two or three clips, out of context, out of hand.
 
Now, about context...I happen to believe that it is very important to provide
a larger interpretive context for the objects we display.  I also agree that
it is impossible to speak of CONTEXT singular...every object exists in
multiple contexts and it is part of the interpretive task to present that
multiplicity, PARTICULARLY when there are differing views.  The issue is not
black/white, either/or. . .it is the vets AND the Japs AND the activists and
so on.  The tricky part is the so on, and where to draw the line, because
there is simply a limit to what we can present. . .And no matter how balanced
we try to be, we are still making selections about what we will say and what
we won't.
 
That's why the crux of this whole issue of context has to do with the museum
itself, and the context according to which it has selected and interpreted
particular objects for display.  In other words, if history is all
revisionist, as one poster wrote, and is always being rewritten according to
the view from the present, then let's TELL THAT TO THE VISITOR!  That's
what's going on here.  Instead of just presenting an interpretation, we need
to be upfront about the basis--the context, if you will--for that
interpretation.  That's why the West in America was such a fiasco; because
the museum never tried to explain to uninformed viewers what it was trying to
do with its interpretation.  Critical theory may be groovy to academics; but
nobody told visitors what was so groovy about it.  Of course visitors were
offended.
 
Lisa Roberts
Chicago Botanic Garden
[log in to unmask]