NCC Washington Update, Vol. 1, #26, May 19, 1995
by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating Committee for
the Promotion of History
1. Senate Hearing on Enola Gay
1. Senate Hearing on Enola Gay. On May 18 the Senate Rules Committee
held a second day of hearings to consider the Smithsonian Institution's
Future Management Practices and its plans for avoiding another Enola Gay
Exhibit. Chairman Ted Steven's (R- A laska) said in his introductory
remarks that the hearings "will provide the Smithsonian with the public
forum necessary to explain what went wrong with their management
practices, and what steps have been taken to correct the revisionist and
"politically correct" bias that was contained in the original script." Six
Senators attended the hearing -- in addition to Stevens, John Warner (R-
VA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Wendell Ford (D-KY) and the Ranking Minority,
Claiborne Pell (D-RI), and Dianne Feinstein (D -CA). Both Stevens and
Representative Sam Johnson, the first witness and a strong critic of the
Enola Gay Exhibit, indicated that they felt that the Smithsonian is
adopting procedures that will "get them back on track." However, at a
number of points i n the hearing, the Senators, four of whom are WW II
veterans, expressed sharp criticism of the curators and the exhibit.
Although there was considerable discussion of Smithsonian's procedures and
of the development of this exhibits, there were no calls for further
resignations or budget cuts.
The real loser in this hearing was history. None of the Senators seem to
really understand that history is not static but is constantly being
refined as both the questions that are asked and the primary sources that
are available allow a more comprehensiv e and accurate view of the past to
emerge. The second witness was Edward Linenthal, Professor of Religion and
American Culture at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh and a member of
the Advisory Committee on the Enola Gay Exhibit. In an eloquent and
well reasoned statement, Linenthal testified to scholars' obligation to
provide a comprehensive and balanced rendering of the past and discussed
the tension that often occurs between the commemorative voice and the
historical voice. He not only discusse d efforts to revise the script but
also talked about how the media coverage of the issue had been
"distressingly irresponsible," taking quotes out of context. Linenthal
concluded by stating that "Unlike totalitarian countries, we never want to
give fuel to the impulse to sanitize history, to turn away from engaging
our past in all its complexity. . . . Surely we can find ways to both
honor the commemorative voice and respect the historical voice as we
continue to create public history exhibits designed to inspire and
challenge."
In an exchange with Linenthal, Senator Feinstein said that she felt that
the curators should put forth only the facts and not engage in
interpretation, which she said was editorial comment. Linenthal responded
that all history is interpretation because even wh en you put a story in
narrative you are doing interpretation, selecting facts to put in a
framework of meaning. Linenthal stressed the complexities of history, but
it was clear that what the Senators wanted was an exhibit that would "make
them feel good about America" and that "would not show victims of U.S.
weapons." When Linenthal responded to a question by drawing on his
knowledge of the development of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, he talked
about how that museum had dealt with complexities and he
noted that visitors see Americas as liberators but also they see evidence
that prewar anti- Semitism kept Jewish immigrants from coming to America.
Following this reference to the Holocaust Museum, Senator Cochran then
asked Linenthal if he felt that w hat the guys who dropped the bomb did
was equal to what the Nazis did in the death camps. Linenthal was clearly
taken back by the question and said he would never dream of making that
kind of comparison. Yet the question revealed the hostile tone that u
nderlay the hearing.
The Senators were not only harsh in their questioning of I. Michael
Heyman, the Secretary of the Smithsonian, and Tom Crouch, the Chairman of
the Air and Space Museum's Department of Aeronautics, but they were also
rude to Constance Newman, the Under Sec retary for the Smithsonian, who
tried at several points to provide technical information about Smithsonian
procedures. Stevens was, however, quite cordial to Maxine Singer of the
Carnegie Institute and Chairman of the Commission on the Future of the
Smithsonian, who presented the findings of the Commission's final report.