“Those who control the past control the future and those who control the present control the past.” -George Orwell, 1984

The Smithsonian, a collection of museums, research, and educational centers, was established by the U.S. Government “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men” and thrives today as one of the most visited and well-respected institutions of knowledge in the world.  It’s past, however, has witnessed considerable controversy as various secretaries have navigated political and private pressures, resulting in exhibits that were celebratory of American history. This celebratory aspect of exhibits, which also includes celebrating corporate donors and philanthropists, has diminished the educational mission of the museums and tarnished the institute as it has weathered.  In the twenty-first century, the institute has developed new museums such as the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), that favor more a more academic approach to the history. For the NMAI this means an entire museum presented to the public as stories from Indians themselves.  Nevertheless, controversies that arose as recently as the 2000’s continue to haunt the institute today and remain a cautionary tale for historians as art continues to evolve.

The story of the Smithsonian’s controversial past is meticulously detailed in the book Who Owns America’s Past? The Smithsonian and the Problem of History, by Robert C. Post, historian and now curator emeritus after twenty-three years working at the institute.  In his book, Post describes the institute as buried in the culture wars, with competing stakeholders’ interests and fundraising concerns “blurr[ing] the lines between commercialism and public enlightenment, between education and celebration and unalloyed prejudice,” describing the essence of the controversary that has plagued the institute since its inception.  Out of this arises Post’s contention that the institute has always been bound by a “collision” between education and celebration. 

This is no better illustrated than in the story of the Smithsonian and the Enola Gay, which made national headlines during the 1990’s. The airplane, a relic of the second World War from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, was to be the subject of a new exhibit at the institute. Its history as a machine of war was not understated in the proposed exhibit. Various stakeholders including the Air Force Association (AFA) and the American Legion vehemently objected, and Post recounts a statement by the AFA found in an article from Air Force magazine, writing “the museum betray[ed] its formal mission to portray ‘the valor and sacrificial service of the men and women of the Armed Forces…as an inspiration to the present and future generations of America.’” Although it was a political embarrassment to the institute to revise the exhibit, Post concedes that “the Smithsonian [was rocked by] the disputed narratives for the Enola Gay, and this was when it first became known that stakeholders with sufficient political power could claim ownership of ‘what is exhibited and how.’”

Fast forward to 2004, and the institution opened the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI).  In the past, the Smithsonian had presented Indian lifeways using Eurocentric interpretations that “treated them as ‘cultural curiosities,’ displaying their artifacts (often stolen) as part of the ‘natural history,’ not ‘national history,” silencing Indian voices.  Because of the controversary surrounding the Enola Gay exhibits were “’framed’ in accord with the ‘worldview’ of its most influential outside constituencies” so the NMAI was conceived entirely as a space that amplifies Indian stories and voices to create its experience.  The stories of Indian people make up the entire museum, “instead of [people] ‘adding’ these stories to the voices of anthropologists, archaeologist, ethnologists, and historians.” This created a similar backlash, as the “museum [became] vulnerable to accusations of purveying ‘old pastoral romance’ and providing ‘too little information’” Both the story of NMAI and the Enola Gay are linked through time “because they were ‘constituency driven’ – dominated by stakeholders” likely because a single director was responsible for both, one Robert McCormick Adams, who “wanted stories that ‘went deeper’ than the museum’s stakeholders wanted.” This method of historical analysis is in tension with a public that expects informative information presented at the Smithsonian museums.

Post spends a good deal of time recounting the various directors and their tenures at the Smithsonian and provides insight into how they helped nurture both education and celebration by courting donors, using top-down decision making, employing, and encouraging scholars and scholarship, developing new real estate for the institute including new museums, and interfacing with the U.S. Congress.  In the 1950’s, director Daniel Boorstin was known “as a historian who took technology to be a central element in American history, and he was certainly connected politically,” and it was his mission to institute narratives that “were celebratory and patriotic. And they had an unmistakable point of view: ‘American exceptionalism,’ a freighted expression to this day,” Here the institute took a turn toward framing exhibits with text that was nationalistic and celebratory of American progress.  But in the late 1980’s, director Martin Harwitt “regarded the museum’s celebratory image as a stigma,” and after the Enola Gay incident, the “Smithsonian Council called for exhibits with a ‘non-celebratory attitude’” and those calls echo today.

The author uses eye-witness testimony and builds his text around best explanations from his personal contacts, research, and publicly available resources.  Post’s method is effective, as he has deep and relatable experience working as a curator at the Smithsonian, and he has meticulously researched the political and institutional leadership over the past 250 years. This method exposes the power structures that animate the dynamic between education and celebration that Post witnessed during his twenty-year tenure.  These power structures include a board of regents, the U.S. Congress, constituencies, and soft power structures such as prestige and scholarly relevance.  Over time, these power structures have biased the Smithsonian museum’s efforts toward a celebration of American exceptionalism, and while those efforts may sustain its finances and offer an attempt at appeasement, it does diminish the educational efforts that many Americans also expect from their national museum.

References

Post, Robert C. Who Owns America's Past? The Smithsonian and the Problem of History. Baltimore, Maryland. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2013.