>An addendum to Hank Burchard's listing of Washington Post
>references on the Enola Gay controversy :
>Feb. 1, D1, an essay by Joel Achenbach ("Exhibit A: The Pablum
>Museum") that was essentially a
 ....
>Carol Ely
 
I noted that one, also -- and, as chance would have it, the Chronicles of
Higher Education for 20 January 1995 just got routed to me (long routing
list, and I'm last on it).  Interesting article, quite apropos, on p. A10
ff: "Who Owns History?  Discipline finds itself at center of public debate
over whose version of the past should prevail".
 
"'There's a growing sense that history doesn't just belong to academics.
People are asserting their own version,' says Arnita A. Jones, executive
secretary of the Organization of American Historians."
 
That one bothers me a tad.  Version of history?  You try to get at what
happened, you try to demonstrate why it happened, you bolster your
arguments and extrapolations with all the facts at your disposal.  (ALL of
them, not just the ones you like or that fit your thesis.)  Version?  Hoo,
boy.  I'm not sure that Ms (Dr?) Jones *meant* to say what I hear her
saying (after all, it is one lone quote probably taken from a larger
context), but sounds to me that versions of history is what The Evil Empire
is just now trying to break free from, and here in America it begins to
look like we're on the verge of trying to impose it.  Possibly from both
extremes -- the America Right or Right side, and the Political Correctness
or Bust side.
 
 <sarcastically>  Now ain't *that* just ducky.
 
At any rate, the article deals extensively with the Smithsonian exhibition
specifically.  Might be worth glancing at it.  (If someone has already made
the citation earlier, my apologies -- I missed it.)
 
Mario Rups
[log in to unmask]