The fourth section of the Wallace book deals mainly with criticism and censorship directed at the history and museum community in the then current times (criticism that does not come from him that is). The main argument, or rather statement, revolves around the fight for how history is used and who exactly should be in charge of presenting it to the general public. The two issues he concentrates on deal with President Regan and the Enola Gay exhibit. In the chapter about Regan, he makes interesting makes interesting parallels between the . Though he brings up many good points about the ways in which disregard for academic historical facts can be damaging, he does not seem to go too much into (though some might say just talking about it would be enough). However, he does bring up a few points in the last page of the chapter, mostly talking about the need for more oral history interviews. Such interviews could then be collected to form a better understanding of what a collective history is, while again placing it more under the control of the academic community. The Enola Gay chapter was an interesting examination of a highly charged controversial decision by the Smithsonian to buckle under pressure from highly politicized outside influence and drastically change the exhibit dealing with the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Wallace places this conflict in a larger political arena that included the Air Force Association and the American Legion. This article seems to address more the main argument/warning of allowing groups that have politics over academic ideals more say on how history is presented.
It is very interesting to see the use of military words and phrases by Wallace when he refers to the antagonists in the two chapters. This is most apparent in the part criticizing Gingrich and his support of censoring the Enola Gay. Words such as "troops" and "march" are used quite a bit on this page. This could be not so subtle jab at the way Wallace believed that veterans were used to promote the censorship of the exhibit or possibly a critique of the military-industrial complex as a whole.
One item in particular that struck my interest were the ways in which regionalism played into many points of Wallace's argument. In particular, the "frostbelt" were often compared/set against the sunbelt/gunbelt states. Much of the focus seems to be on the ways in which money was funneled towards the development of of the latter states by drawing capital away from the former. While this could be traced towards Wallace's dislike of corporate interests, could this also reflect a particular bent of where exactly much of where geographically much of the opposition was situated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
My impression of the part about Reagan is that the author mostly speaks of how the presentation of history was seen by the recent administration, whose head once was an actor. The constant struggle America had after WWII reflected partly on historical presentation where the Hollywood played no little role. It created a stereotype of the historical perception and when Enola Gay was put on display, it did not fit precisely in that stereotype. The point of a paramount importance in this part is that the public demanded their rights to participate in creation of the truthful exhibit, even though id did not fit somebody’s political agenda.
Wallace indeed uses some loaded language. You observe that uses military language and might have a regional bias. I wonder how much of his language is employed in a conscious effort to promote a unilateral platform, and how much is just pre-programmed rhetoric and party-lines. I've never heard of any region being referred to as the "gunbelt", but I find it interesting to say the least. The "gunbelt" is perhaps contiguous with the "bible belt" and represents Wallace's stereotype of conservative America.
You understand the effect of regionalism represented by Wallace. This seen in the book because the Enola Gay exhibit was opposed by those with very conservative politics. The regions you refer to like the "gunbelt" are also extremely conservative, and hence provided the opposition. This is a good point that I had not thought about when I was reading the text. It puts the criticism the show received into context.
Post a Comment