P. C. Smithsonian? Part 1.

[Robert Braun]

P.C. Smithsonian Museum Rags on America

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, Feb. 20, 2003

WASHINGTON – A tour of America's premier federal historical museum reveals an unflattering historical portrait of America oppressing minorities. Some tourists and cultural critics say the Smithsonian curators have "washed out" the nation's European ancestry in favor of "diversity" history.

The Smithsonian's American History museum features a series of exhibits detailing America's repression of minorities, ranging from the treatment of the Pueblo people in New Mexico to the forced Japanese-American internment camps of World War II and discrimination against Hispanics and African-Americans.

The museum receives approximately two-thirds of its funding from the federal government and the rest from corporate and private donations.

One of the exhibits casts early European settlers of North America as "invaders" launching "assaults." Another exhibit links modern-day left-of-center causes such as nuclear disarmament and the Equal Rights Amendment to women's suffrage. Though the ERA has always been a popular issue for liberals, several of the nation's original suffragists had conservative views, especially regarding abortion.

At the same time, the Lincoln Memorial is featuring a video in the Lincoln Legacy room that many visitors believe implies Lincoln would have supported abortion and homosexual "rights," as well as the modern feminist agenda. The video is under formal review by the National Park Service, following a series of CNSNews.com reports.

Cultural critic David Horowitz, co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of the Popular Culture and a former 1960s radical, was not surprised by the content of the Smithsonian exhibits, which he feels represent an attempt to make Americans feel guilty about their past.

'Run by America-Haters'
"The Smithsonian is being run by America-haters. This goes back a long time," Horowitz told CNSNews.com.

"The whole museum field has been taken over by the left-wing Gestapo."

But a Smithsonian curator defending the museum said its officials "are always interested in telling diverse stories." Jim Gardner, associate director of Curatorial Affairs, said the museum was also receiving "criticism on the left that we do very conservative history."

Gardner told CNSNews.com, "We would like the museum to be as diverse as the American people, but we don't have quotas or anything like that."

Were Stunned'
Becky Thompson, a tourist from Chicago, visited the Smithsonian, and the historical displays she found left a lasting impression.

"Our family visited Washington D.C., two years ago, and we intentionally wanted to view the history of our ancestors - the Irish and other Europeans and how they impacted our land, she explained.

"Instead, we found more of the American History museum dedicated to women's rights and slavery issues, and we left disgusted and outraged," Thompson said.

"We were stunned, I mean stunned. We actually thought we wandered into the wrong display," she told CNSNews.com.

"There was literally nothing about European history, and yet I found tons of things on women's rights .... It was overkill. It was everywhere I looked," Thompson said. "European history was washed out."

'American Encounters
When arriving at the main entrance of the Smithsonian's American History Museum from the mall side, visitors are faced with an exhibition called "American Encounters: The Arrival of Columbus in the Americas in 1492."

The exhibits detail how the Kha p'o people of Santa Clara, N.M., "have endured assaults on their lives, land, economy [and] religions for almost five centuries, first by Spaniards and then by Anglo Americans" and "been subject to invasive forms of Christianity."

The display calls the Pueblo revolt of 1680 "the first American Revolution for freedom" and chided Anglos for "the many assaults by "armed men and missionary priests."

Horowitz dismissed the idea that the revolt of 1680 was "the first American Revolution for freedom."

"It wasn't part of America in 1680," Horowitz charged. "What the hell are they talking about?"

'Clearly Revisionist History'
On the first floor of the Smithsonian, an agricultural display features farm equipment and a prominent glass-encased panel in honor of migrant farmer rights leader Cesar Chavez. The exhibit praises Chavez for helping California Latino migrant workers unionize to achieve "better working conditions for the most downtrodden of American workers."

The exhibit refers to Chavez' cause as the "liberation of farm workers" and features the Spanish phrase "viva la causa."

But a critic of the labor movement scoffed at the Smithsonian's promotion of Chavez, calling the display "clearly revisionist history."

"Chavez oppressed the farm workers by putting them under compulsory unionism. You have to join the union to get a job," said Stephan Gleason of the National Right to Work Foundation, a group that opposes compulsory unionism.

"[Chavez] was a bully and an extreme leftist, and he worked hard to impose unions on thousands of employees who wanted nothing to do with it," Gleason added.

He called Chavez a Marxist whose "goal was to seize control of means of production."

Women's Suffrage and Modern Feminism?

Another exhibit, called "From Parlor to Politics: Women and Reform in America 1890-1925," links the struggle for suffrage to modern feminist causes.

Becky Thompson remembers this exhibit more than the others.

"It made me sick - 'Parlor to Politics' - it stood out in my mind. That is not the celebration of women I know," she said.

Another exhibit at the Smithsonian concentrates on submarines used during the Cold War. The third-floor exhibit features a video with former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite describing the U.S.-Soviet Union feud as "a time of mutual fear and distrust."

Other exhibits include one on Japanese American interment during World War II, Hispanic discrimination and America's repression of African-Americans' civil rights.

'Different Ethnic Areas'
Some of the visitors to the museum were disappointed by the portrayal of America's history, while others felt the Smithsonian did not go far enough in showing the past failings of the nation.

Gary Gillespie of Springfield, Va., told CNSNews.com: "I would say that probably not enough space is devoted to just American history, just American total history. It is all divided up into different ethnic areas and things like that."

South Dakota resident Wayne Stark was not happy with the museum. "I was disappointed. I was expecting more. I was just kind of disappointed," Stark said.

Christin Engelhardt of St. Louis said her 7-year-old grandson Steven thought the museum portrayed an image of America that was too negative. But Engelhardt defended the museum's historical perspective. "Negative things are part of history. You can't gloss over it."

High school student Will Hubbard of Chicago thought the museum did a fine job presenting American history. "It was cool how it was all organized," Hubbard said.

---go to Part 2.

[Robert Braun]

---Part 2.

P.C. Smithsonian Rags on America.

'From What I Learned in School ...'
Asked if he thought the Smithsonian presented American history fairly, Hubbard responded: "It was pretty accurate. I think from what I learned in school, it seemed pretty real."

Chris Muth, a D.C. resident, chided the Smithsonian for not exposing more of America's "failings."

"I don't think it really gave you a cross-section of what this country has really done. I think they omit a lot, a lot of failings of this country," Muth said.

He took particular exception to the Cold War exhibit. "I didn't particularly care for the Cold War exhibit because I don't believe the Soviet Union was ever a threat. I think that it was largely to just prop up the war machine, as it is now," he explained.

"I have learned so much more about true American history since I got out of high school than I did when I was in school," Muth lamented.

'Disgrace to the Nation'
Horowitz said the exhibits at the Museum of American History presented a viewpoint typical of the way children are informed in their classrooms all across America.

"In our schools and in our cultural institutions, there is an anti-American left that is working hard to undermine and destroy America's sense of itself as a city on a hill and a beacon of freedom in the world," he told CNSNews.com.

"The Smithsonian curators are a disgrace to the nation, and they all ought to be sacked."

When told that student Will Hubbard had found the museum to be "pretty accurate" based upon what he had "learned in school," Horowitz had a quick reply.

"Of course. It's the same thing they get in their history books because the left writes the school curriculums," Horowitz noted.

'Complexity and Richness'
Gardner defended many of the exhibits: "I don't think anyone would call those left-wing or American-hating or anything else.

"We want exhibits that really reflect the complexity and richness of American history and that involve people other than Caucasians. It involves the diverse people of America," he explained.

Gardner insisted, "We get as many critics from the left as we do from the right."

"There are no quotas or mandates or guidelines or anything like that. It's what historians do - explore complexity and richness," he said.

Gardner pointed to other exhibits currently at the Smithsonian, focused on The American Presidency, First Ladies, September 11th and West Point, to refute any criticism.

He maintains that the Smithsonian does not receive many complaints about the historical exhibits. According to Gardner, "millions of visitors every year" visit the museum, and they mostly give "glowing comments."

"We have a pretty low volume of complaints," Gardner said.

But Thompson is upset that the museum never responded to her complaints. After her visit to the Smithsonian, she determined the "history was so sadly lacking" that she decided to contact the curators.

"I tried to contact the director of the museum. I called numerous numbers trying to ask honestly what happened to the museum. I thought if people cared, maybe they would look into it and try to be more accurate," Thompson said.

After repeated attempts and messages, she said, "no one ever called back."

'Redressing Past Omissions'
Gary Perkins, who coordinates exhibits at the Sweethingy
er Historical Museum in Green River, Wyo., and who has written about the difficulty our national museums face when presenting historical materials, said, "Museums are shifting from telling the story from the brave pioneer frontiersman to a lot of other guys who were not frontiersmen."

"Our awareness, our consciousness of history has been changing," Perkins said.

He believes the Smithsonian's current exhibits are "probably correct and true history, not very pretty, but probably correct."

"It's a redressing of past omissions, not affirmative action. They are trying to develop a whole picture of the past," Perkins explained.

"[The exhibits] are unpleasant .... The purpose of a museum is not to be a chamber of commerce to make us feel good, but to try to tell what really happened," he said.

'Push for Diversity'
But Thompson believes the Smithsonian is supporting "the push for diversity at the expense of telling the factual truth."

She did not have a problem including the non-European history but felt it was presented in a disproportionate manner.

"It is worth mentioning America's European ancestry. Sometimes, truth doesn't include diversity. Truth is what it is," Thompson said.

"Where is the museum that celebrates what was done right, like the hard work of those Europeans?" she asked.

"It made me sick. I actually think our tax dollars are being wasted because they are not representing the truth," Thompson said.

"If you want to know about women's suffrage and know about all injustices, then the Smithsonian is the place to go, but if want to know how the country was founded, good luck," she said.

Copyright CNSNews.com

[Chris Gordy]

Not having been to the Smithsonian for a great while I cannot say whether or not I agree with the opinions in the above article. However, I can say that I have worked with museum boards that have chosen to concentrate their programs and exhibits in a one-sided story. Is it fair to the public to offer them one side of their history and ignore the other? The answer is obviously "no" on both sides of the historical tracks.

The problem most museums face with this issue is reaching the happy medium with their audience. A perfect happy medium would truly be ideal but unobtainable. People of any country, race or gender are going to be upset when confronted with theories or facts which contradict what they have been taught. The best that these museums can, and should, do is examine and exhibit the history of people. History is a long and complicated story of people in conflict, failure, victory, achievement, and the list goes on. These are stories that will never be complete without the examination of all involved.

Am I taking the middle of the road with this issue? Yes I am, but with a purpose. As a museum professional and historian, to stand in the middle of the road in anything involving the history of people allows me to better interpret history as a whole to the public. In going back to the article on the Smithsonian, it would be unfortunate if this great institution was indeed failing to offer an unbiased educational medium of anyones history.