Mickey Mouse History, Section IV Review

Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator Liar

Wallace begins his tirade on Ronald Reagan by blasting him so relentlessly and subjectively, it leaves one to wonder where, if anywhere, he got his facts. This would not be very difficult if he supplied his accusations with evidence. Wallace claims largely that Reagan attempted to rewrite the past by, first of all, replacing a picture of Thomas Jefferson in the White House with another. To Wallace, it was all downhill from here. Subject to the Hollywood that was his environment for so long, Reagan supposedly was so influenced from starring in movies during the era following the Second World War that he used it all as justification for American involvement in foreign affairs and also served to skew his view of the nation in general. While it is certainly plausible to believe that there are many out there who are slanted by movies, it is downright baseless to say that Reagan was such. One really begins to wonder where Wallace's priorities lie, especially in light of the blatantly hurtful words he uses throughout his treatise. This was not just a statement about the supposed bastardization of history by the Great Communicator, this was a borderline verbal attack.

In his second article, Wallace uses the controversy surrounding the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian NASM as his focus. He investigates the problematic roller coaster that curators went on with trying to best portray the events of August 1945. He discusses the problems museums have in general now of having to deal with opposing views over a given topic and finally, with a blanketed statement, says that museums just should not worry about it so much and should have a variety of viewpoints regardless of potential public backlash. Naturally, this is much easier said than done, especially when funding of museums is already not what it used to be.

A Narrative for Our Time Review

... and after that, question mark?

It is difficult to exactly understand the point of Post's post. What begins as a telling story about the trials and tribulations of the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum gradually progresses into a tirade of right and wrong and downplaying of facts in a museum display that he clearly feels should be littered with controversy ad nauseam.

It seemed as if Smithsonian's attempt at displaying the famous (infamous?) B29 Superfortress that delivered the first atomic bomb over Japan was doomed from the beginning. Although it certainly seemed as if it had the best of intentions initially. The exhibit's originator, Martin Harwit felt that a display of the Enola Gay could both pay tribute to veterans while visiting the brutality resulting in the bombings of the two Japanese cities. However, lack of revising the original script for the exhibit brought it to the forefront of national attention and stood to ruin the careers of its players and the reputation of its home, the NASM.

With Harwit's resignation clearly suggested by his new boss, Heyman, he would later publish a book accusing the NASM of being a propaganda machine while claiming that history could be told however one wishes for the right price. This did not seem too far from the truth. Heyman's threats to bring the federal funding for the museum to nil certainly had to have had at least some impact on the rather politically correct spin the exhibit wound up with. Casualties were casually mentioned and alternative strategies for pressuring Japanese surrender were completely omitted.

So, what did end up on display was the front fuselage of the B29 with a label so disparaged of information that it left visitors to "fill in the blanks" (p 391). Post further critiques the display, stating that the "museum label [is] full of facts but empty of meaning" (p 391). Of course they are empty of meaning, they are facts. As such, they are not supposed to convey some message or controversial subject matter, they are just to be facts. Therefore they are dissolved of scrutiny. Another well-placed display on just the atomic bomb or perhaps a picture of the airplane in flight next to fuselage could have just as easily addressed the issues which Post brings up. So, in essence, I am agreeing with his argument that more should have been explained answering such crucial questions (why did the Enola Gay have such weak counter-weaponry, what was such a vessel which delivered such a grand weapon of destruction named after a mother) seemingly omitted out of the fact sheet underneath the Enola Gay, however, the barebone, moderate facts are certainly deserving of their place as well. Questionable or accusatory displays should be in the region, but not the main focus.

Post begins to conclude his treatise by lashing out at revisionism and quoting a book which states that strategic American bombing already ruined Japan's chances of continuing the war and thus hints that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary. It's unfortunate Post makes this statement because what was a great story of an ill-fated exhibit which started with the best of intentions took a sharp turn towards Post subtly pushing his own feelings about the subject and doing so poorly. His quoted text, Flight: 100 Years of Aviation, is indeed nothing more than a picture book which discusses the topic of the atomic bomb in, literally, one page. Moreover, it makes no mention of the warnings Japan received prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not critiquing Post for making an argument in an article--that is often an article's purpose--however, I feel a highly-revered individual as one who has worked on two dozen exhibits at the Smithsonian (p 373) could find a better source to cite to support his claim than a book which is quite literally the headcheese of aviation history, stuffing one-hundred years of flight's past into four-hundred and forty aesthetically pleasing pages.

Ultimately, the story of the Enola Gay exhibit is one in which there seemed to be no win, at least at its inception. The attempt to do what is right--show both sides of the atomic bomb controversy--was certainly the right idea but its poor execution went uncontested until it was too late. How were they to know this, though, without actually having it out the door? Its revision, of course, was so lacking that it was borderline extreme. It is understandable here how curators suffer with the debacle of avoiding offensive topics while challenging visitors to think beyond just the facts, especially in a museum carrying the distinction as the world's most visited, as the NASM is.

American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum Review

Stuck between an exhibit and a hard place.

As a chairman at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Roger D. Launius offers a great perspective on controversial exhibits, especially those proposed in his own museum. Launius first discusses American’s varied views and uses of the past. Using Rosenweig and Thelen’s claims in Presence of the Past, he examines how Americans do not use history in a generalized and global fashion, but in fact relate to it personally. For example, studies over individuals going through exhibits over the history of aviation found families overlooking certain portions of the exhibit while focusing on an airplane design a grandparent may have helped build or a World War II aircraft a relative flew. Similarly, Vietnam veterans went directly to a display concerning the war and discussed it with other veterans while, again, ignoring other parts of the exhibit.

Launius also touches on the history of the collective American consciousness viewing its place in the world as a good power attempting to battle the rest of the world’s evils. Following events such as the Vietnam world and the end of the Cold War, this mentality has become more liberal with the advent of civil and women’s rights. Still, it remains a myth in American society that its role is that of an “Innocent Nation” and this belief was only perpetuated with the terrorist attacks and the subsequent feeling of patriotism after September 11, 2001.

The National History Standards established a basis for how history should be taught in grades K-12. This was scrutinized, however, for focusing too much on the struggles of minorities while embellishing on the shortcomings and mistreatment by white males. The education of history, it was argued—and eventually signed into law in Florida—was to be refined so as to focus more on positive aspects of American history and, as Lynne Cheney suggests, shy away from the political correctness.

This term rears its ugly head again in the discussion of museums, which Heather MacDonald summarized as overly characterized by economic, racial, and capitalist pitfalls. She proposed, of course, a curatorial blood purge of the Smithsonian to allow the institution to get back on the right track of a more centralized view of history. Indeed, it is certainly important for one of the world’s most highly revered museums to get it right as they play such a key role as contributors to “American’s public identity” (p 20).

What Launius makes apparent is the importance of American mindset and consciousness and how to best represent it. Concluding his article with a “Top Ten” list of exhibits in the world’s most visited museum that could-be but won’t-be, he provides a great example of the potential consequences and backlash of such displays in a museum. This insight is especially important to students of public history as it allows one to see the process involved in articulating an idea for an exhibit. Indeed, it is not as easy to simply have an idea and execute it, even with a simple topic such as life on other planets as this could insult those who do not believe in evolution or an examination of the moon landing as this would hastily give conspiracy theorists far too much attention.

While it is undoubtedly important to avoid stepping on as many toes as possible when designing an exhibit, it is unfortunate that potentially great opportunities to inform the general public of a topic cannot go unabashed for fear of harming the institution’s image or insulting visitors. In a nation that is so evenly split down the middle between liberal and conservative views, it is no doubt a safe bet that individuals will be offended no matter what type of compromise is attempted, such is the case with the Enola Gay. Apparently, as admitted by Launius, the only way to truly avoid this "fear of cultural warfare" (p 29) is to avoid controversial topics altogether. However, the issue then becomes that museums are not approaching new and diverse subjects, they are merely exhibiting what visitors already know and what they are comfortable with. Thus, as we have already seen in Written in Stone, it is seemingly a no-win situation.

Mickey Mouse History Review

Section I

Visiting the Past: History Museums in the United States

For years, historic preservation was a task left to society's elite. This is evidenced especially with the large turnaround Henry Ford had, transcending from an individual with large disdain for the past to someone who hoarded literally every historic artifact he could find while having antique buildings trucked in. Greenville Village, as it was known, became a "hodge-podge" of history, Ford's attempt to remind Americans what life was like before the war to end all wars. Ford rephrased his previous claim of history, now just stating that only history as taught in schools was bunk--an argument echoed by professors at this university ad nauseum. However, Ford's massive museum was clearly slanted. Omitting wars, politics, banks and lawyers, his "utopia" was chided for being anticapitalist.

Conversely, John D. Rockefeller's Colonial Williamsburg was far from the miscellaneous cluster of preservation that Ford had assembled. Indeed, Rockefeller envisioned a pristine mock up of his colonial town which was so precise, it arguably bordered on fanaticism. Where Ford appeared anti-capitalist, Rockefeller was nothing but, constructed from the top-down to reiterate notions of a corporate ideology.

A boost in historic preservation saw staunch criticisms of Rockefeller's work, most notably that is was ridiculously historically inaccurate. To counter this, initiatives were spearheaded by preservationists to make such sites as accurate as possible, even down to the flies, slaves and pig feces that blotted the colonial living space Rockefeller so poorly duplicated.

The Living Historical Farm movement grew as a result of "static" environments like that of Rockefeller's. Actors in these areas actually lived in the houses to further legitimize the colonial accuracy for which the movement strived. In the 1970s, slavery was even included using local black actors. Still, even in living history as accurate as these, notions such as politics and capitalism were as overlooked as they were when Ford built his village. Conclusively, Wallace deems using history in this way condemns it to a source of entertainment and nostalgia which insightful trivia and little else. In this manner, it could not be used as a tool to understand and change the present which, arguably, is history's purpose.

This is certainly a notable argument. With just the first chapter, what becomes apparent is the evolution of mainstream history as a hobby of the affluent to a topic of controversy of what should and should not be represented about an historic society and to what extent. Undoubtedly, any living history museum takes a risk by literally incorporating slavery into their acts. Nevertheless, this is especially important if such a museum truly wants its visitors to get a real "feel" of the era represented.

Similar affluent dominance and influence over museums is also reflected in the history of New York's exhibits. The need for diversity in the Empire State's museums was not just a matter of accurate and varied representation, however. Indeed, it also grew out of a need for a central location that allowed a struggling community torn asunder by crime to recognize its commonalities. So, giving all cultures, races and topics its place in museums was doubly crucial.

Twentieth century New York saw rampant changes in museums. Exhibits emerged representing black, Jewish and Hispanic cultures and heritage. Conversely, those who failed to get on board eventually faded into obscurity and had to close shop, such is the case with the New York Historical Society in 1993 whose community eventually turned its back on it just as it had done so to its community for so long. Thus what becomes evident is the large importance diversity has in museums in what has, for lack of a better word, become a seemingly cutthroat institution. And rightfully so. A museum fits the needs of its "customers" by providing them with accurate, assorted histories. If a museum repeatedly fails to meet expectations, especially in a late 20th century nation, it is unrealistic for it to survive.

Even Ellis Island saw controversy as it too was misrepresenting a variety of cultures and also tiptoed around provocative issues such as immigration, going so far as to cover the topic in an entirely different exhibit and having a rather one-sided approach.

So far, Wallace's approach borders on the message of caution. He brings to light some very key issues with warnings. For example, history must not become a form of entertainment. Also, it is apparent the dangers when an historical society is overly run by affluent: historical inaccuracies run amuck and other events or notions of the past are just overlooked. The NYHS especially serves as a clear example of what can happen to a museum when it fails to become contemporary and broad. Wallace also notes the incredible importance of museums as they emerged from a hobby to a cornerstone in a community. They provide a sense of commonality in an urban area or allow individuals to come and learn their or another's past. Thus, it is crucial that museums get it right as their responsibility and obligation is only growing.

Paradise Lost? Review: Introduction, Chapters 12 & 16

Introduction

The introduction briefly covers the diverse history of Florida. It describes the state as a vast area rich with wildlife and an incredible environment that settles first found when discovering Florida. Naturally, a nod to the futile search for the Fountain of Youth is mentioned as well. During the past 100 years, Florida has transcended from a plush “land of diversities” into the nation’s fourth largest state. Interestingly, this was due largely to a mixture of the roaring 1920s, post World War II prosperity, and the advent of the air conditioner. Indeed, the latter transformed the previous six-month tourist season into a year-round affair. The perfected drudge-and-fill process also made Florida more habitable, turning land into water and vice-versa. Carelessness led to irreversible scarring of Florida’s once paradisaical landscape. Now, campus oaks older than the university itself exist simply because man chooses for it to exist. The Everglades run on what is quite literally a life support system.

With a summarized look into the vast floral, fauna bird, and wild life, it is easy to see after just a few pages into this unappealing look into what Florida has become where the book’s title originated. The moral of Florida’s environmental history could perhaps best be summarized with the classic cliché: everything in moderation. While any sort of human contact would have undoubtedly scarred Florida’s environment, excessive construction and manipulation took its toll beyond any desired effect to the extent that environmentalists and politicians alike are trying to right its wrongs.


Chapter 12
Lake Apopka: From Natural Wonder to Unnatural Disaster
Nano Riley

Long ago, Lake Apopka—just north of Orlando—was once described as one of Florida’s most beautiful lakes. Once the state’s second largest lake, in the early 1900s it was touted for having water so clear, one could easily see the fish. Five decades of human activity, however, transformed the lake into literally a cesspool.

The first transgression against Apopka came in the 1920s with the local dumping of raw sewage and wastewater. However, this was just the first in a series of environmental disasters. Fears of food shortage during the Second World War would spark the Army Corps of Engineers to build a levee to drain 20,000 acres of the lake for farming. As a result of this tampering, the water’s color became green and an abundance of nutrients gave rise to algae and other plants, which in turn ruined the fish population. For the next five decades, farmers were allowed to use their part of the drained lake while the remaining 30,000 acres were used for drainage and dump-offs.

Attention to Lake Apopka came in recent years when environmentalists noticed a severe drop in the alligator population. Further examination showed that many of the male alligators had not developed sexually while others were not properly gender-defined at all. Alligators were not the only victims, however, as fish in adjoining lakes suffered abnormalities as well.

As it seemed like the pollution was getting out of hand, environmental activists and groups emerged and started to work together. A massive joint effort was established by the year 2000, 90% of the acreage belonging to farmers had been collectively bought out for the price tag of one $100 million. Gradually, the lake began to be flooded by to its original glory, but an old concentration of chemicals in the restored lake led to the death of over 1,000 birds. It would later be determined that this was the result of poisoned fish from said chemicals such as DDT.

The effects of the restoration effort reached beyond just birds and fish, however. Indeed, many farmers were without jobs. Families who lived on these farms were without other skills. The relocation program provided them did not leave them with adequate housing.

An investigation was eventually opened up and laid ultimate blame on the St. Johns River Water Management District. In an agreement settled in court, the United States agreed not to file criminal charges in exchange for them to comply under several rules and regulations that involved maintaining the lake and its wildlife in addition to educating other water districts regarding wildlife laws.

Currently, the lake’s restoration is still undergoing. Certainly, fifty years of damage cannot be undone immediately. While the story of Lake Apopka serves as a reminder as to what can happen when mankind messes with nature, it is also a testament to the ability of individuals to correct its environmental wrongdoings.


Chapter 16
“The Big Ditch”
The Rise and Fall of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal
Lee Irby

The story of the Cross-Florida barge canal is quite literally a roller coaster. Originating in the 16th century, lack of funds or support impeded its construction. The canal did not receive a large boost until after the Depression whereupon advocates of the project promised “unemployment relief” as a benefit to building the canal. Clearly, putting idle men to work as a definite perk at the time.

The plans to build went so far as to even have a clear route designed. Still, the proposal involved clearing a path through the pristine Ocklawaha River, known for its beauty to the extent that even natural dignitaries traveled its water on sightseeing tours. Railroad industries would also suffer and spoke out against the canal. Moreover, lobbyists touted the damage that could be done to the Floridan Aquifer used as drinking water. Indeed, the tainting of water by outside salt water would seem inevitable.

However, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt obviously saw the perks behind the canal and construction began in 1935. In 1936, however, a group called the Central and South Florida Water Conservation Committee pressured for construction to be delayed so that a more comprehensive study on the environmental impact of constructing the canal could be done. This is testament to the impact that environmentalism began to have. Thus the initial $5 million approved by FDR to begin construction would be the last dollar spent for another thirty years.

The Cold War years again saw the importance of a canal. So did John F. Kennedy who used the canal as a campaign platform to gain votes in Florida, at this time the nation’s twelfth largest state. Kennedy kept his promise and after election, construction again began on the barge canal. By 1971, however, a constant back and forth battle between environmentalists with the construction would cease as President Richard Nixon would issue an executive order, done so because of potential environmental impacts.

While this would be the end of the canal, it was not the end of the environmental struggle. Marjorie Carr and others who worked tirelessly to combat the building of the canal now served as advocates to the restoration of the Ocklawaha River and forests which were damaged by the construction, going so far as to address Florida Governor Jeb Bush who advocated restoration of the famous river by 2006.

Written in Stone Review

In Written in Stone, Stanford Levinson looks at a variety of ways in which historic figures are remembered in the public eye and some of the surrounding controversy. Discussing a range of examples from a typical monument or statue to even street names and flags, Levinson points out the different ways that such controversies are handled and discusses methods to perhaps find that happy medium.

Levinson first notes how statues from Russian regimes are regularly removed or torn down following a successive regime. Similarly, Albania attempted to erase any history related to Enver Hoxha. Scholarly debates are abound over keeping monuments. One solution is to construct a current monument in contrast to one already in place so as to show both sides of a debated event. The sensitivity over such issues is certainly validated. An immediate impression of monuments is that they serve not only to stand as a reminder of an individual or an event, but do so in a glorified statement. Indeed, that is its definition.

The discussion over the Confederate flag dominated Levinson's book and rightfully so as it is a topic for debate even today. But memorializing the Confederacy extends beyond just flying the flag; monuments play a key role in how the Civil War is remembered. The monument in Texas, for example, is understandably controversial especially in regard to its rather skewed plaque which claims Southern failure on overwhelming numbers instead of the Confederate's own shortcomings.

One solution to questionable monuments is incorporating accurate explanations of the atrocities committed onto the plaque of said monument. Another method used by Hungary involved placing statues of Communist figures in a centralized location for visitors to come and learn about them. I feel this is the best solution as it allows the history to remain and be learned from while "de-glorifying" it. I would argue that one of the best ways to get a true understanding for the impact an individual had on history is to see that as a consequence of his actions, he was important enough to have a statue built in his honor by his followers. This drives home the point that such a figure was once highly revered and teaches the lessons which are so important for historians to drive home--to learn from the past.

Presence of the Past Review

In Presence of the Past, Rosenzweig and Thelen compiled a national study of individuals in order to have a better understanding of how history is used at the interpersonal level in day-to-day life. The authors drew from a sample that consisted of a variety of ethnic backgrounds. While the project was certainly important and ambitious, a pool of just 1500 individuals interviewed seems a bit shy to truly get an understanding on the national level of how history is utilized, especially in relation to the American population as a whole.

What I found particularly noteworthy and as a good testament to the importance of personal, microscopic interpretations of history was how one individual may perceive an event differently from another. While this may seem obvious or cliche, it develops a different sentiment in light of historical context. Indeed, such personal reflection is almost certainly overlooked by history teachers or textbooks which presents events in broad, sweeping descriptions (page 38).

Also important and especially interesting is the obvious distinctions between white Americans and other ethnic Americans and how they use history. While whites tend to relate history to their family backgrounds, blacks and Native Americans relate it to not only their families, but their communities as a whole. This seems consistent to a minority mindset. Obviously, being seen and treated as an outcast will undoubtedly create stronger family ties as well as community ties. Still, to see such a mentality perpetrate itself even to the extent as to how such individuals relate to their past seems particularly fascinating.

The Afterthoughts section helps to bring the previous chapters together in a conclusive format. There seems to be a cautious responsibility and obligation for historians to insure that history remains accurate while also moving it beyond the walls of the university and into the public in a professional and accurate yet understandable and relating format that is digestible by the layperson.