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]
|