David,
 
I can agree that there are many points of view, but I think that it is
simplistic to argue that are merely two, polar, irreconciliable ones.  I
also agree that the all historians take a point of view and are biased
and that this is a good thing.  What concerns me about the former House
Historian is that she believes that a curriculum she was reviewing was
not offering enough of the point of the Nazis, and that as it stood, it
only had a limited appeal to a small religious minority (she meant
Jews).  I think it possible in an exhibit or a curriculum to discuss the
paranoia and antisemitism which led to the Holocaust, but I dont think it
would be helpful to perpetuate the myths of a Jewish conspiracy without
instantly undermining them with the facts (and I, unlike some historians
who have been mesmerized under the influence of poststructuralism, believe
there are still real, verifiable historical facts).
 
With the Enola Gay exhibit, I think this should be displayed with an even
handed discussion of how this plane helped to inaugurate the atomic age
and the destruction the bombs caused in Japan.  But I dont think there is
any need to apologize for the bomb nor to neglect the fact that it saved
countless American lives in what would have been a lengthy invasion.
 
 
Franklin Headley
 
 
 
On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, David wrote:
 
> Franklin, I see some parallels between the two controversies.
>
> Both the Holocaust and the Hiroshima bomb left their "legacies" with
> which we still live.  Obviously, both can be represented from at least
> two points of view as can any issue.
>
> Your characterizaton of the (former) House Historian as "interested in
> promoting" may be a bit strong, but at the bottom of each controversy lies
> someone who is "interested in promoting" our seeing the other viewpoint,
> whether or not we desire to do so.
>
> In each case is one school of opinion that seems to say "I don't *want* to
> learn about or even hear that viewpoint!" while another says we should
> explore both sides of any such major historical record.
>
> Yet it seems for some of us, the telling of the other side is desirable in
> one case but not so desirable in the other...we all retain our own
> prejudices, don't we?
>
> A recent post contends that history does not belong to all of us,
> it belongs to the teller.  I believe that is true.  The rest of us must
> enjoy or suffer with the prejudices of the teller.  But if books are written
> which offer (or attempt to promote?) a viewpoint which I find abhorrent,
> I can refuse to buy.  It is, perhaps, that when we are forced to buy
> that we become angry.
>
> The Enola Gay argument (it seems to me) can be condensed to the feeling
> "if my tax dollars are paying for the telling, I don't want to see that side
> of history which I detest or find unacceptable."
>
> I've visited the Holocaust Museum and I did not walk away with the opinion
> that this museum was trying to give any two-sided view of that terrible
> event.  Why should they?  And back to that other discussion...
>
> If one views Hiroshima as the concluding event to Pearl Harbor, then there
> is some heavy emotional baggage involving in "explaining" Hiroshima in terms
> of "we did something wrong."
>
> And there seems to be some *very* heavy emotions involved, so back to a
> business I have some control over while the politicians and academicians
> work this one out.....
>
> Don't forget the Golden Rule.
>
> david laro
> [log in to unmask]
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Franklin J Headley wrote:
>
> > No, in fact it is not the case that Gingrich fired the house historian
> > because she merely wanted to bring in a second opinion. (There are many
> > interesting controversies over both the causes and the meanings of World
> > War II, which I agree could be discussed in a high school classroom).
> > Instead, she was interested in promoting a particular political
> > agenda which privileged the racist ideology of Nazis and KKK members.
> > Their views are well known to history because we still live with the
> > legacies of the Holocaust and racial discrimination.
> >
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Nancy Wynen wrote:
> >
> > >     On this thread - isn't this the whole reason that Gingrich fired
> > >     his historian friend? She wanted to bring in 'a second opinion'
> > >     to an educational experience. That in itself is a lesson as to
> > >     WHY we need history to remain controversial and multi-sided.
> > >     Waiting until the upper levels of college to become aware of the
> > >     dynamics of history means preaching only to the converted. We
> > >     need to start in high school where we still reach everyone. Or
> > >     through our museums and public programs that reach large groups.
> > >     Nancy Wynen
>
>
>