Its interesting that you bring up the issue of the House historian, who was fired over a comment about a curriculum which dealt with holocausts, or genocidal programs of mass extermination. I believe that the curriculum dealt with Armenia, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's Ukraine (?). She thought that the curriculum should have represented the viewpoints of Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan, though she acknowledged that these viewpoints were "unpopular" or some word to that effect. As I was thinking and posting (not necessarily in that order) about the Enola Gay exhibit, I was wondering about the difference between thinking that the Japanese Militarist point of view should be represented in the exhibit, and the opinion that got Dr. Jeffrey fired from the House historian job. Is it that Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan are more odious than the wartime Japanese leaders? Is it just politics (a chance to embarass Newt?). Is it that the Japanese suffered from the War more than Germany did? Finally, I'm glad that this historian was fired, because she was, by all accounts, a radical right-wing ideologue. And, though I can see some point about why Hitler's point of view should be represented when considering how a society gets behind a genocidal program, I can't possibly imagine what the Ku Klux Klan has to do with this question. Anyway, this is all within the complex thread of "who owns history" which has flared up in this list from time to time, and, to me, is one of the museum community's most interesting and vexing questions. Eric Siegel [log in to unmask]