On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Eric Siegel wrote:
> The New York Times reported, in a long special yesterday,
> that the dogs are baying for the blood of the Director of
> the Air and Space Museum (my editorial interpretation, or
> "contextualization" if you will.) He seems, according to the
> Newtonians quoted in the article, unwilling to revise the
> exhibit based upon the veterans' concerns. The final straw,
> the capital offense, that these congresspeople described was
> his bullheaded insistence on using a very low number
> estimate (as I recall 63,000) of the American lives saved by
> the bombing, as opposed to the 2 or 3 hundred thousand
> preferred by the veterans groups. And this *despite* the
> well-informed congresspeople's insistence on the use of the
> higher number.
>
> To summarize, the congresspeople want him fired because he
> is presenting a point of view that is disconcerting to some
> Americans.
>
> What a bunch of depressing crapola. If I may editorialize
> again, I personally find this ideological simplemindedness
> to be one of the low points of American ways of thinking in
> my lifetime, and I've seen a few lows.
>
> The article says that the Smithsonian Board will be meeting
> this week to consider his dismissal.
>
> Eric Siegel
> [log in to unmask]
ES, as a journalist who makes much of his living from visiting and
reporting on Smithsonian exhibitions, I suggest that until you find out
what the controversy is actually about, you may want to
limit your output of words on the Enola Gay affray to the number you are
prepared to eat.
I am trying to assemble a complete file of the original and revised
exhibition texts in nettable form. Once they are available for
inspection, I expect that very few museum professionals will wish to
line up in support of Director Harwit and the curators of the exhibit.
+ + + + +
Hank Burchard * Weekend Section * The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW * Washington DC USA 20071-0001
VoiceMail (202) 334-7243 * Email: [log in to unmask]
|
