A Historian's Responsibility

 

I have gone from knowing nothing about Public History to having a greater understanding and enjoyment of it. The more I learn, the more I feel that I would rather be a Public Historian than anything else. I have discovered that there was a lot about being a Public Historians that I already enjoyed and was interested in but was not aware of. What are the responsibilities of historians within public historical institutions? At this point it would be fitting to include a quote from the reading (History after the Enola Gay Controversy: An introduction) and go from there.  

“Instead of rehashing familiar themes, we turn to the controversy to explore how scholars and curators can engage the public in conversations about the past. Precisely because the debate came from and led in so many different directions, precisely because the leading participants were unable to agree about how and where and when to engage each other, this controversy presents an extraordinary opportunity to inquire how history is, and might be, practiced in our culture and institutions. We can examine how historians may risk shipwreck as we seek to 
navigate recent scholarship beyond safe professional harbors.” 

Certainly, there was controversy. Who are the parties concerned here? There were the directors and curators of the museum who did not seem to suspect that a controversy was brewing and were acting under the best of intentions. There were the veterans who seemed to desire a memorial to the efforts of so many as much as history not counting a legacy for their cohorts who did not return from the conflict. Japanese Americans who were offended. A more delicate handling of historical facts along with an effort to honor possible Japanese American contributions to the allies in WW2 would have provided a bit more of a safety net.  

And what of were the actions at play that accelerated and complicated the situation? The Smithsonian A&S museum directors and curators had not anticipated that there were going to be problems, much less what those problems would be. Perhaps while the Enola Gay was being renovated many supposed that this arduous and tedious effort would be most significant hurdle to comes. Of course, it was not. Miscommunication was a problem. Possible early warning signs that may have been ignored would have been a problem.  

And when, or the timing of this event is significant in the overall equation. This exhibit was to be displayed in all its glory fifty years after the events in question. It might have been supposed that 50 years was the most fitting of numbers. What was forgotten was that many of Japanese American descent had not forgotten even though it had been 50 years. When the exhibit was cancelled there was in a sense a revoking of much potential dialogue and perhaps closure.  

When you consider where the exhibit was going to be and tied to the fact that it was cancelled, it is much the more egregious. For example, having a holocaust museum in America may have, perhaps, been considered controversial until one considers that many survivors ended up seeking a new life in the new world. At first glance, why would a display of the Enola Gay have been more controversial? But even such a famous and influential museum in Washington D.C did not stand up to the heat even though it was in one of the most notable capitals of freedom. As such, where this took place was much the more outlandish and inconceivable.    

How and why did this happen? The how is easier to target when we look at the why. The well-intentioned plans and actions of the Smithsonian A&S museum inadvertently and (initially) unwittingly, stepped on a lot of toes and there were proverbial shrieks and cries of consternation from every quarter. In short, a fiasco wherein the curators and directors of the A&S museum were not really at fault though they might have, perhaps, been more delicate, holistic and persevering. Their intention at the start was not at fault, but perhaps the manner of portrayal.  It is an indelible reminder that responsibility is both the privilege and duty of the Historian’s lot. 

 

Sources:  

1. Thelen, David. “History after the Enola Gay Controversy: An Introduction.” The Journal of American History 82, no. 3 (1995): 1029–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2945110. 

  

2. Kohn, Richard H. “History and the Culture Wars: The Case of the Smithsonian Institution’s Enola Gay Exhibition.” The Journal of American History 82, no. 3 (1995): 1036–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/2945111. 

 

3. Kyvig, David E, Nearby History, Exploring the past around you, AltaMirra Press (2000) (https://archive.org/details/nearbyhistoryexp0000kyvi_b4g4/page/18/mode/2up?view=theater
   

Connecting Public History

 

For some time, I have claimed to be an aspiring historian, and this is riding on the fact that I like history. And there are times when I really feel like this aspiration is morphing into something more long standing and settled.  I felt this way when I began to read the two articles and their natural differences, points of contrast and similarities began to present themselves.  

On the one hand Mr. Everyman is appealing because a picture in my mind is often more substantial than an explanation and the writing style and literary vehicle used by Carl Becker effortlessly spoke to my imagination. Also, the unconventional observations often uncherished and never put in the spotlight by many traditional historians and or methods but brought out by Edward T Linenthal was like watching an alternate ending to an interesting movie. Carl Becker used Mr. Everyman as a literary vehicle to not only keep his reader’s, or listener’s attention, but to help them remember what he said. Edward T Linenthal reminded his listeners that there was another side of the coin in many historical situations and events that were in the historical shadows of neglect, indelicate rendering and that, collecting dust, so to speak, were pleading for redress in a proper and holistic portrayal.   

Carl Becker reduces history to its lowest terms, the memory of things said and done. This appeals to me since it is sort of like cleaning house before a busy week. It feels like a fresh start and is, broadly perhaps, reminiscent of Leopolde Von Ranke’s modus operandi in approaching available information before an academic endeavor with a minimalist or intent. Edward T Linenthal tells us that to be genuinely true to history, we cannot be content with telling only part of the story, but that it must be told using both sides of the coin, or all sides of the dice so to speak. They are similar in that they both have very good points that do not really conflict.  

In Mr. Everyman, or everyman his own historian, we are given an example in a lengthy but not tedious word picture of history rendered in an uncluttered and straightforward manner. In Committing History in Public, we are reminded that history, whether we are talking about Custer, or the National Park Service or Pearl Habor (etc.) is not one-sided and that it must be treated, preserved and interpreted in the most holistic (and delicate at times) manner possible. 

Is history absolute or relative? As Carl Becker notes, “Let us admit that there are two histories: the actual series of events that once occurred; and the ideal series that we affirm and hold in memory. The first is absolute and unchanged – it was what it was whatever we do or say about it; the second is relative, always changing in response to the increase or refinement of knowledge.  - For all practical purposes' history is what it is and for the time being, what we know of it.”  

On the one hand, in view of the actual series of events that occurred, how could history be any less than absolute? And on the other hand, with such a profound lack of that view, how could History be anything more than relative? And yet history is so often relative since, while there has been absolute history that occurred, how much or how little of that History is the memory of things said and done inscribed in the pages of books old and new and now the internet? It seems, perhaps like a catch twenty-two or like the overused egg before the chicken question that many people seem happy to forget.  

What is history? I tend to agree with both Becker and Linenthal. It is the memory of things said and done and it should be as holistic as possible. As an aspiring future historian, I look forward to using history to throw light on history.  

Sources: 

1. Linenthal, Edward T. 1994. "Committing History in Public." The Journal of American History 81 (3) (12): 986. https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fcommitting-history-public%2Fdocview%2F224923538%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D3783. 

 

2. Becker, Carl. “Everyman His Own Historian.” The American Historical Review 37, no. 2 (1932): 221–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1838208. 

 

3. Kyvig, David E, Nearby History, Exploring the past around you, AltaMirra Press (2000) (https://archive.org/details/nearbyhistoryexp0000kyvi_b4g4/page/18/mode/2up?view=theater