"If You Don't Tell It like It Is, It Can Never Be as It Ought to Be"

I think Roger Launius’s article, "American Memory, Culture Wars, and the Challenge of Presenting Science and Technology in a National Museum" might just be my favorite reading so far. Dr. Launius writes with self-awareness and humor which is much-appreciated. His article nicely demonstrates more pitfalls of shared authority in a museum setting. He candidly expounds on the trickiness of sorting through what history is versus what people’s perception of history is and shows just how difficult this can be with a topic as controversial as the moon landing. The challenge facing all public historians is how to address the zeitgeist while still doing accurate history that people will want to come and see in a museum. Is there some way to take a "customer is always right" approach while presenting good history that teaches people and encourages them to question what they know?

Launius’s article definitely showcases how harsh criticism of museums and their exhibits can be. Some of the critiques cited in the article were tremendously severe. However, I think that controversy is worthwhile when it starts important conversations and brings attention to little-known or vital topics. As I was reading, though, I was wondering if national, publically-funded, government-affiliated museums like the Smithsonian are more lightning rods than privately-funded museums might be. Are there different or higher expectations? Certainly, more voices must be brought into the mix.

I was really interested to read about the exhibits that Dr. Launius would like to see come to fruition, but which haven’t due to difficulty or controversy. Since we read the AAM’s 2008 Annual Report, I’ve been thinking that maybe the wave of upcoming retirements won’t be such a bad thing. It might be useful to get some new blood into museums which could result in some innovative ideas for tackling tough issues and controversies.

I also enjoyed James Horton and Lois Horton’s Slavery and Public History. Again, this book emphasized for me how public historians must find a way to address all the voices in a conversation, which is extraordinarily difficult. That being said, I don’t think we should shy away from controversy just because it’s difficult. I loved David Blight’s essay, particularly his use of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude as a metaphor for the role of memory in history. Blight also had one of the most striking quotes in his essay when he discussed the forum he participated in. Here, Fred Shuttleworth said, "If you don’t tell it like it was, it can never be as it ought to be." This sums up exactly why I’m doing public history, but Shuttleworth put it more eloquently than I ever could have.

The Hortons’ book also made me wonder why as a society we’re so much more willing to accept museums and exhibits about the Holocaust than about slavery. I think some of the answers might be obvious, but maybe we can learn from the way museums deal with the Holocaust in order to better address slavery. Overall, I thought the book did an excellent job of laying out the problems and difficulties of including slavery in public history, but I wanted more suggestions on how to remedy the issues. I did, though, love the quote they used to end the book: "We accept this and together we will transcend it." Would that we, as the next generation of public historians, further that goal.