The Smithsonian Institution is again under fire over alleged political or social commentary in the presentation of historical exhibits. I have previously criticized the Smithsonian for its stress on narratives over artifacts. There was also the outrageous exclusion of Clarence Thomas as one of the great African Americans in history. Now, the White House is demanding changes after the Smithsonian was unable to offer an exhibit on American pop culture without extraneous social or political commentary.
I have been critical of the National Museum of American History’s tendency to allocate more and more space to interpretive sections that present narratives over actual historical collections. This “less is more” approach to modern museums is not confined to the Smithsonian, but it is a shame to see so much of the collection warehoused so visitors can hear from curators on the patterns or meaning in history.
For example, many people would come to the museum to see C-3PO and R2-D2 from Star Wars, but they will find a bizarre commentary masking as a description of the items. The Smithsonian ties the movie into people fleeing from the realities of the “loss in Vietnam and revelations about Richard Nixon’s dirty-tricks presidency.” I was one of those who went to the movie when it came out, and I cannot recall anyone thinking, let alone connecting, the film to Nixon or Vietnam. It was a breakthrough technological cinematic moment. We were in awe, even if kids today mock what is now comparably low-rate special effects.
Another description, based on a 1923 circus poster, reads: “Under the big top, circuses expressed the colonial impulse to claim dominion over the world.”
In presenting another display, the Smithsonian tells visitors, “One of the earliest defining traits of entertainment in the United States was extraordinary violence.”
Some are simply weird. For example, a display of the Lone Ranger states: “The White title character’s relationship with Tonto resembled how the U.S. government imagined itself the world’s Lone Ranger.”
What? These descriptions sound like they were ripped from a paper from a curation class at Smith College.
Much of the commentary is disconnected from not just the artifacts but reality.
For me, the problem is not political bias, but the new culture of curators emerging from higher education. Just showing artifacts with neutral, factual descriptions is considered passe and pedantic. For people who are more interested in seeing original items of historical importance, they are met with displays focusing on interpretive elements and thematic narratives.
I remember when the “Castle” on the mall housed a wonderful collection of items sent to the Capitol for our centennial anniversary, including exhibits like a liberty bell made from tobacco. It was delightful to walk through the different artifacts. You felt that you had walked back in time. The last time I visited, it had been replaced with a boring collection that interpreted the evolution of the mall and the city.
I may be a throwback when it comes to such questions. As many readers of this blog are aware, I am a history enthusiast, particularly in the field of military history. I love being able to walk through artifacts and reach my own interpretive conclusions. Nevertheless, most people would agree that the Smithsonian descriptions in this exhibit are bizarre and should be changed.
I am a 60 year old former educator who looked forward to going to the Air and Space Museum his entire life. I finally got there last fall. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. I couldn’t believe how ‘woke’ and anti-american the descriptions were in each display. Not only that, the descriptions were very long…and very boring. We went to the national gallery as well…and it was, if anything, far worse.
This has been going on for a long time. I remember a visit in the early 1970’s and saw a display of the bombing of Hiroshima telling us how terrible the USA was the dropping the A bomb. I left and vowed never to come back.
I found this same issue when we visited the recently reopened Air and Space on the mall. SO many exhibits were “the airplane of the first female to do x”. Who cares? I want to look at an airplane that did nothing more than carry a female? Both women and men can accomplish IDENTICAL heroics in an airplane, show me the plane that did x that was piloted by a man or a woman. Also, in one area they talked about global air routes. One of the placards said something like “Matt would like to visit his boyfriend Steve in Australia, what route would be best?” Why not Matt would like to visit Steve? Nope, have to get the anal sex part in there…. Screw the Smithsonian.
It is labeled that way because at the time of the accomplishment women were largely ridiculed or ignored. None of the Freedom 7 were women because those in charge felt that only men were capable of being strapped into a can and shot into space, something they had already proved a chimpanzee could do – suggesting they felt women were less capable of the feat than a chimpanzee was. Women didn’t have to overcome the challenge of the task but the prejudice of those in charge and society at large. Apparently there are some who continue to harbor those base prejudices with a thin layer of fakery.
Why do you focus on sex? If it was boyfriend of girlfriend would you immediately leap to oral copulation?
I’m sick of seeing ‘’the narrative’’. Every sign in a national park says something about climate change. I think I’ll just miss the Smithsonian and save the trip to DC.
*. The curators at the Smithsonian are stepping up to tell Americans, the United States, we HATE you.
Thank you very much. I guess they shouldn’t be paid. Hire someone who’ll do it for nothing. Maybe they’re volunteers.
Send them home as unneeded hate.
I appreciate Turley but as a baby boomer and a professor he is a member and a careerist of the very generation that destroyed higher education. As if he just woke up and realized that most of the products of our left wing lunatic training programs are, surprise surprise, left wing lunatics.
The baby boomers let the crazy billionaires destroy liberal education from above, and they willingly kissed their feet to get into plum positions of power to do what the oligarchs wanted. Maybe Turley is the exception, but we all know what I’m talking about. Every local university is still run by boomers who have presided over cultural destruction the likes which have rarely ever been seen.
Saloth Sar
“The baby boomers let the crazy billionaires destroy liberal education from above, and they willingly kissed their feet….Every local university is still run by boomers who have presided over cultural destruction the likes which have rarely ever been seen.” Excellent (and honest) observation!
May I add that the proof (of destruction) is in the pudding: Nowadays, most universities are run by women, LGBTQ+’s, and plagiarists, to say nothing of the flimsy Wikipedia research and misbegotten cut-and-paste scholarship ….
Although you probably mean well, you are showing the marks of a true bigot by portaying all boomers as bad people. There is evil and heroism in each generation including your own. It is all of our responsiblilty to keep hate out of actions and words. God Bless you.
Dear Anon: Don’t paint with too broad a brush. Just because some members of a large group did something stupid, or evil, does not mean that all members of that group are stupid or evil.
I used to work in an art museum. I proof-read many wall labels. The best ones were short. The curators who wrote them seemed to trust in the artwork’s ability to make its own case, without lengthy commentary from them. Also, they seemed mindful that the viewer/reader was on his feet, often in a crowd, fighting for sight lines.
These same curators were beautiful writers, and I proof-read their essays in exhibition catalogues with deep admiration.
Some of the Smithsonian wall labels that Mr. Turley cites seem not just too long but also untethered to the actual artifacts on view.
There was a missed opportunity for Coca-Cola to capitalize on pubic-hair flavored Coke, just six years after the New Coke fiasco.