Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:59 pm
mike furline wrote:Have you seen pictures from Nanking or of US POW's? Were they more deserving?
No, and unlike mustangdriver I would never say that any civilian deserves the ravages of war. I'm not taking sides, except for humanity's.
mustangdriver wrote:One of my relatives was at the Japanese Death March. Enough said.
My wife and her entire family are Chinese. They have a greater sense of perspective on the conflict than many Americans.
mustangdriver wrote:And you are right about Japan wanting to give up before the bombs were dropped, but they wanted to keep China as part of the deal.
No, their only condition was to keep the Emperor, which we let them do. We held out for unconditional surrender partly to buy time to "test" the bomb.
August
Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:13 pm
[quote="k5083"T33, the things you object to are what good museums are all about. They are cultural institutions that nurture and sponsor scholarship. Look at any of the Smithsonian's other museums and see the lengths they go to to located their artifacts in a carefully considered historical context. Check out the exhibition catalogs. See how they engage the debates about other aspects of American and world history. Heck, even the NASM does this with "safe" topics; see e.g. "Legend, Memory and the Great War in the Air," their exhibition catalog of their WWI exhibit. Only one Smithsonian museum has been browbeaten by political forces into abdicating this important role of a cultural institution as to its major artifacts, and that is the NASM.
This creates two problems. First, it makes the NASM insipid and uneducational. You and I can debate the politics of WWII. You can quote casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan; I can counter that no invasion was necessary, that the U.S. had already rejected surrender initiatives from Japan on terms harsher to Japan than those ultimately imposed, and that we made up those invasion casualty estimates mainly so that we can still sleep at night. We can have these debates because we are buffs and have educated themselves about the issues. Most have not -- and a tour through Udvar-Hazy leaves them as ignorant as when they arrived. Second, the attempt to avoid politics fails. Every exhibition and display decision is politically freighted. Just the fact that the Enola Gay was preserved and restored (at the instigation of then-Director Walter Boyne, an ex-B-52 pilot) and deemed worthy of display is political. In the same way, a decision to scrap it would have been political, as would a decision to hide it in Silver Hill. Make no mistake, the NASM's displays are loaded with politics, and though they have been garbled into incoherence, they are still very much the ones that the military and veterans' lobbyists wanted.
August[/quote]
August,
I understand what you're saying about exhibition displays being politically freighted, but how could they not display the Enola Gay? I'm not saying Smithsonian shouldn't have a role in genuine scholarship and debating history and policy, but that's effective and appropriate in the context of a symposium, guest speakers with Q and A etc., and not an exhibit communicating one-way "at" the visitor with an activist agenda. In other words, debating and discussing issues should be a dialogue, an exchange or at least a presentation of differing opinions in some sort of forum. Can exhibits do that? I s'pose, but not very effectively--in most cases I see it as a slippery slope. I agree with you that it's a good thing when museums locate their artifacts in "carefully considered historical context" so long as that's not code for it being presented with an in-your-face political agenda masquerading as gospel. So should they place pro and con viewpoints at every exhibit such as EG? I don't think so. That's no substitute for lively, academic discussions and debate and besides, it is possible to be silent on the politics and present the events as they occured...and I know you'll disagree as that's plain white toast for your mind if there's not the stimulating dynamic of debate and discussion, but the alternative is awkward and inadequate if pro/con views are cliff-noted on a couple display signs next to the artifact. Correct me if I get this wrong, but I'm hearing you say NASM's exhibits are already conveying the military/veteran's slant so there should be allowance for a different point of view so they can be educational and interesting instead of bland and uninformative. Debating history and policy and considering different points of view is interesting and educational, I'm just not confident you can do it justice in the EG context. I haven't been to Udvar-Hazy and am planning on seeing it soon so now it'll be interesting to take in the exhibits and see how they come across vis a vis your perpective. I've been in the USAF Reserve for 20 years, but I'll try not to let that get in the way of free thought--ask a few of my old squadron commanders who gave me personal invitations to their offices for various acts of free-thinking...ugh!! Back to EG, it would seem a Catch-22 whether they restored/displayed it or not--someone's going to object. The EG B-29 is a significant artifact and deserves to be displayed as much as artifacts from the Holocaust Museum, though I don't accord the holocaust and the A-bomb attack moral equivalency, just that the museums should display artifacts of each of these traumatic events in history.
This creates two problems. First, it makes the NASM insipid and uneducational. You and I can debate the politics of WWII. You can quote casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan; I can counter that no invasion was necessary, that the U.S. had already rejected surrender initiatives from Japan on terms harsher to Japan than those ultimately imposed, and that we made up those invasion casualty estimates mainly so that we can still sleep at night. We can have these debates because we are buffs and have educated themselves about the issues. Most have not -- and a tour through Udvar-Hazy leaves them as ignorant as when they arrived. Second, the attempt to avoid politics fails. Every exhibition and display decision is politically freighted. Just the fact that the Enola Gay was preserved and restored (at the instigation of then-Director Walter Boyne, an ex-B-52 pilot) and deemed worthy of display is political. In the same way, a decision to scrap it would have been political, as would a decision to hide it in Silver Hill. Make no mistake, the NASM's displays are loaded with politics, and though they have been garbled into incoherence, they are still very much the ones that the military and veterans' lobbyists wanted.
August[/quote]
August,
I understand what you're saying about exhibition displays being politically freighted, but how could they not display the Enola Gay? I'm not saying Smithsonian shouldn't have a role in genuine scholarship and debating history and policy, but that's effective and appropriate in the context of a symposium, guest speakers with Q and A etc., and not an exhibit communicating one-way "at" the visitor with an activist agenda. In other words, debating and discussing issues should be a dialogue, an exchange or at least a presentation of differing opinions in some sort of forum. Can exhibits do that? I s'pose, but not very effectively--in most cases I see it as a slippery slope. I agree with you that it's a good thing when museums locate their artifacts in "carefully considered historical context" so long as that's not code for it being presented with an in-your-face political agenda masquerading as gospel. So should they place pro and con viewpoints at every exhibit such as EG? I don't think so. That's no substitute for lively, academic discussions and debate and besides, it is possible to be silent on the politics and present the events as they occured...and I know you'll disagree as that's plain white toast for your mind if there's not the stimulating dynamic of debate and discussion, but the alternative is awkward and inadequate if pro/con views are cliff-noted on a couple display signs next to the artifact. Correct me if I get this wrong, but I'm hearing you say NASM's exhibits are already conveying the military/veteran's slant so there should be allowance for a different point of view so they can be educational and interesting instead of bland and uninformative. Debating history and policy and considering different points of view is interesting and educational, I'm just not confident you can do it justice in the EG context. I haven't been to Udvar-Hazy and am planning on seeing it soon so now it'll be interesting to take in the exhibits and see how they come across vis a vis your perpective. I've been in the USAF Reserve for 20 years, but I'll try not to let that get in the way of free thought--ask a few of my old squadron commanders who gave me personal invitations to their offices for various acts of free-thinking...ugh!! Back to EG, it would seem a Catch-22 whether they restored/displayed it or not--someone's going to object. The EG B-29 is a significant artifact and deserves to be displayed as much as artifacts from the Holocaust Museum, though I don't accord the holocaust and the A-bomb attack moral equivalency, just that the museums should display artifacts of each of these traumatic events in history.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:51 pm
I completely agree Paul; it would be unconscionable not to display the EG in some form.
Any exhibit that contains more than the barest recitation of trivial facts is going to impress somebody as having an in-your-face activist agenda. For example, Glenn implies that the draft EG exhibit script under Harwit was activist and calls the exhibit installed in 1995 "well done". Others feel that the as-installed script was very ideological and contained many outright factual errors. See:
http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm
http://www.gthunt.com/smith1.htm
I'm not saying that I agree with the above, only making the point that one man's balanced treatment is another's in-your-face activist agenda, and this is true of anything meaningful that is said about such a hot-button topic. I don't blame the NASM for ultimately taking the lowest-common-denominator approach of eventually saying nothing meaningful, but it is a shame.
August
Any exhibit that contains more than the barest recitation of trivial facts is going to impress somebody as having an in-your-face activist agenda. For example, Glenn implies that the draft EG exhibit script under Harwit was activist and calls the exhibit installed in 1995 "well done". Others feel that the as-installed script was very ideological and contained many outright factual errors. See:
http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm
http://www.gthunt.com/smith1.htm
I'm not saying that I agree with the above, only making the point that one man's balanced treatment is another's in-your-face activist agenda, and this is true of anything meaningful that is said about such a hot-button topic. I don't blame the NASM for ultimately taking the lowest-common-denominator approach of eventually saying nothing meaningful, but it is a shame.
August
Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:20 pm
k5083 wrote:mike furline wrote:Have you seen pictures from Nanking or of US POW's? Were they more deserving?
No, and unlike mustangdriver I would never say that any civilian deserves the ravages of war. I'm not taking sides, except for humanity's.mustangdriver wrote:One of my relatives was at the Japanese Death March. Enough said.
My wife and her entire family are Chinese. They have a greater sense of perspective on the conflict than many Americans.mustangdriver wrote:And you are right about Japan wanting to give up before the bombs were dropped, but they wanted to keep China as part of the deal.
No, their only condition was to keep the Emperor, which we let them do. We held out for unconditional surrender partly to buy time to "test" the bomb.
August
First off K5083, if you would have read my comments rather than just assume that I am saying what you thought I did, you would have noticed that I said that I don't feel bad about it, and that they started the conflict. It was not a surprise attack. I did not say that the civilians deserved it. As for teh Enola Gay in the museum all along, I was at a meeting at the NMUSAF when the topic was up about them not displaying the Enola Gay. I was told that the NASM said the if the NMUSAF wanted it on display that we should help fund it's restoration. I do not know if that was done or not. I only bash the NASM after I have had personal experience with them. I do not talk poor of their staff and volunteers but their policies.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:30 pm
Any way the question of this thread is whether Ollie should film in there. I just can't see why they would not allow it? After all they used to let a few discovery channel shows film in there, but not the enola gay.
debate
Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:35 pm
Man, we could have some real good debates on these forums if all Wixers weren't so shy and timid about espressing themselves.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:44 pm
Maybe they really don't want someone who criminally sold weapons to Iran to profit from a show shot at an exhibit funded by US taxpayers. Really. Not good publicity I would think...
Re: debate
Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:15 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:Man, we could have some real good debates on these forums if all Wixers weren't so shy and timid about espressing themselves.
Sorry Bill I guess I get fired up. I sure don't mean to offend anyone, including the guys I debate with.
opinions
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:07 pm
Mustang, I was trying to make a wry attempt at humor. Of course everybody has a right to an opinion; except for all those commie fascist sympathizers, peacenik, vegan, yogurt eating, goose steppin, jet flying, fools who don't agree with me.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:29 pm
Fuzzy41 wrote:Maybe they really don't want someone who criminally sold weapons to Iran to profit from a show shot at an exhibit funded by US taxpayers. Really. Not good publicity I would think...
I don't think the NASM has a morals clause or are judging peoples pasts.
Did they do a background check on me before denying me access to the gunsight collection?
It's the almighty $$$! Someone there probably made a deal with Showtime(?) and no one else is allowed in. I can only imagin the deal was made behind closed doors and benefited a "someone" more so than the museum.
Regards,
Mike
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:47 pm
I like Bill's perspective! 
My only thought on the "should Ollie be let in or not" is that as it is a taxpayer funded, free museum open to the American people and those who come to visit our nation, reasonable attempts should be made to facilitate film and photographic requests.
When I worked for a "celebrity" congressman in D.C., he had so many photo and autograph requests that we just set a standing day and time for anyone with such a request to drop by the office to meet him, pose for a picture and get an autograph. I can imagine that at places like NASM and the NMUSAF, the volume of such requests is overwhelming. Maybe NASM could just have a similar standing time, before or after working hours, a few days a month when filmmakers, journalists, documentary makers and others with reasonable credentials can make appointments to gain admission to the museum to get their footage or to do their standups.
Such a policy might help open up access for such folks, and would not inconvenience the museum's visitors having to trapse around camera crews.
Just a thought... but like I said, I'm with Bill
kevin
My only thought on the "should Ollie be let in or not" is that as it is a taxpayer funded, free museum open to the American people and those who come to visit our nation, reasonable attempts should be made to facilitate film and photographic requests.
When I worked for a "celebrity" congressman in D.C., he had so many photo and autograph requests that we just set a standing day and time for anyone with such a request to drop by the office to meet him, pose for a picture and get an autograph. I can imagine that at places like NASM and the NMUSAF, the volume of such requests is overwhelming. Maybe NASM could just have a similar standing time, before or after working hours, a few days a month when filmmakers, journalists, documentary makers and others with reasonable credentials can make appointments to gain admission to the museum to get their footage or to do their standups.
Such a policy might help open up access for such folks, and would not inconvenience the museum's visitors having to trapse around camera crews.
Just a thought... but like I said, I'm with Bill
kevin
Re: opinions
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:51 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:Mustang, I was trying to make a wry attempt at humor. Of course everybody has a right to an opinion; except for all those commie fascist sympathizers, peacenik, vegan, yogurt eating, goose steppin, jet flying, fools who don't agree with me.
I hear you bud. K5083, you have brought up some good points, I am not the greatest at hidding my feelings when it comes to anything I am passionate about.
Re: opinions
Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:06 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:Mustang, I was trying to make a wry attempt at humor. Of course everybody has a right to an opinion; except for all those commie fascist sympathizers, peacenik, vegan, yogurt eating, goose steppin, jet flying, fools who don't agree with me.
Ok Bill, now you really got me fired up with that jet comment!
Re: opinions
Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:07 pm
T33driver wrote:Bill Greenwood wrote:Mustang, I was trying to make a wry attempt at humor. Of course everybody has a right to an opinion; except for all those commie fascist sympathizers, peacenik, vegan, yogurt eating, goose steppin, jet flying, fools who don't agree with me.
Ok Bill, now you really got me fired up with that jet comment!
Oh no here we go again!
Re: debate
Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:02 pm
I think I'll fire up the microwave and make some popcorn. This is getting interesting!Bill Greenwood wrote:Man, we could have some real good debates on these forums if all Wixers weren't so shy and timid about espressing themselves.
For once a debate on politics where I'm a spectator! I kind of like it!!!! You go girls!