On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, Eric Siegel wrote:
> Hank, thanks for your efforts to get the original texts. It
> will certainly be useful to see. I am basing my opinion not
> on the text itself, obviusly, but upon extrapolation from
> every other museum exhibit that I've seen in my life. I have
> yet to see one created in the last 30 years that proposes
> any idea so insupportable that it warrants the firing of the
> creators of the exhibit.
>
> Unless the proposed Enola Gay exhibit sets new standards for
> ideological bias, I would continue in my opinion that it is
> pretty outrageous for the congress to dismiss a museum
> director because of the proposed contents of an exhibit.
>
> Eric Siegel
> [log in to unmask]
ES, as a staunch advocate of curatorial freedom and innovation, I am
inexpressibly saddened by the contretemps at Air & Space. But not because
the curators and the director got screwed; they have been unbelievably
arrogant and wrongheaded on the Enola Gay exhibit from go.
In my reviews I have applauded the Director Harwit's attempts to
introduce aesthetic and intellectual content into the exhibits at what
has always been basically a hardware store where display space and
content has been on sale to the highest bidder (I've seen correspondence
with commercial exhibitors that amounts to toadying, and with nonprofit
groups that amounts almost to extortion).
But intellectual content and independent judgment are not the real
issues here. Even a cursory reading of the initial Enola Gay script
forces a fair-minded reader to wonder what the hell the authors can
possibly have been thinking about. It asserts, baldly, that The Bomb was
dropped by vengeful Americans on a people who were desperately trying to
maintain their unique culture. It says nothing about Japan having started
the war, nor does it discuss the savagery with which the Japanese
routinely, even casually, tortured and slaughtered civilians and
prisoners, whom they regarded as subhuman because nonJapanese.
By selectively citing minority opinions, it pooh-poohs the Allies'
belief that invasion of Japan's home islands would be necessary,
and their estimates of the casualties to be expected. It's easy to
second-guess these things now, but it is instructive, I think, to note
that that half a million Purple Heart medals were minted in anticipation
of the invasion; they've carried us through Korea, Vietnam and Desert
Storm, with plenty left over for future engagements.
The text ignores Japan's aggressive war for the subjugation of China,
Southeast
Asia and the Pacific. It leaves the clear impression that America's
involvement in the war was a racist crusade in the service of capitalism.
The veteran's groups among whom it was circulated understandably went
ballistic, and the response of Harwit & Co. was grudging at best and
insulting at least. Their contempt, which embraced the then-Secretary of
the Institution's attempts to calm the waters, was made manifest to
all--and in writing!
Incoming Secretary Heyman, arriving too late to cool what had become
a full-scale battle, did what any prudent general would do when faced
with incompetent and insubordinate subordinates who have taken an
indefensible position. He retreated. He probably will fire Harwit by and
by; judging from the internal angst at Air & Space under Harwit
even before the Enola Gay affair, there's plenty of cause.
Even leaving all of the above aside, the worst thing about the
exhibit is that it handed the yahoos on Capitol Hill a stick with which
to pound the Smithsonian, which was already taking beaucoup lumps at the
hands of people like Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who holds the
Smithsonian's purse strings and thinks the place is a nest of pointy
headed liberals anyway.
+ + + + +
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]
|
