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