New York (AP) – It seems like the simplest concept: something happens, and it gets added to a history book or to a museum display. But in any case, whether something is remembered, and especially with regard to the history of the country and its leaders, it is often the farthest from the simplest.
The latest example came on Friday Smithsonian Association I said Reference has been deleted In 2019 and 2021, the panels on the US President to President Donald Trump’s fiasco each. Trump is often urging agencies and agencies under federal oversight through fundraising pressures to focus on the country’s achievements and progress and move away from what he calls “division.”
Saturday’s Smithsonian refused to gain pressure To remove references set up from the Trump administration as part of a temporary addition in 2021, the exhibit will “be updated in the coming weeks to reflect all the ammo each procedure in our country’s history,” the museum said in a statement.
In a statement that did not directly address the mention of each ammo, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said he “full support updating the display to highlight America’s greatness.”
But does history aim to emphasize or document what happened or provide a desirable narrative? The answer, like most things about the past, can be very complicated.
It’s part of a bigger effort on American stories
The Smithsonian move comes as a result of the Trump administration’s actions Delete the name Looking for Republican supporters in Congress of gay rights activists from naval ships Refund the company for public broadcasting And remove it Leadership at the Kennedy Center.
“Based on what we’ve seen, this is part of a broader effort to influence and shape the president’s portrayal of history in museums, national parks and schools,” said Julian E. Zelizer, professor of history and public relations at Princeton University. “He is not only pushing through certain American stories, but in this case he is trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.”
In the world, especially in the political world, it is not a new struggle. If things are remembered, and they are remembered at all, there is the power to shape who participated, who participated, who took responsibility, and what led to that point in history. And the people who run things expanded their authority to stories that were often told about them.
In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on democratic supporters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing was banned and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist government. In Soviet Russia, officials who violated leaders like Joseph Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself, but also from the photographs and historical books that appeared in the past.
Authoritarian expert Jason Stanley said controlling what and how people learn about the past has long been used as an important tool to maintain power. Stanley made clear about his views on the Trump administration. He recently left Yale University and enrolled at the University of Toronto, citing concerns about the political situation in the United States.
“If they don’t control historical narratives, they can’t make false history that supports their politics,” he said.
It shows how important the presentation of history is
In the United States, the president and his family have always used their power to shape history and adjust their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cutting cuts on William Manchester’s book, “The Death of the President,” about her husband’s 1963 assassination. Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully coordinated documentary about him. People around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to hide the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility.
But Trump has taken it to a more intense level – a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where the agency can feel forced to choose the truth with him, whether he calls it directly or not.
“We are trying to position ourselves in our history as citizens of the country, as citizens of the world, as citizens of the world,” says Robin Wagner Pacificififi, Emelita professor of sociology at the New School of Social Studies. “Therefore, some of these exhibits and monuments also position us in time. Without it, it would be very difficult to position ourselves in history, as we would just burst from the earth.”
Timothy Naphtali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, moderated the overhaul to provide a more objective presentation for Watergate. In an interview Friday, he said he was “worried and disappointed” about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said the museum’s director “should have a red line” and that he considered removing the Trump panel.
While it may seem insignificant to anyone with the authority to care about museum offerings, Wagner Pacifee said earlier this year that Trump’s outlook on Trump’s history and his role, and that Smithsonian is “under the influence of a divided, racially ideology.”
“You are about that person, whoever, their power is so immeasurable, why do they bother these things because their legitimacy is so stable… why do they bother with wasting energy and effort on it?” Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: “The legitimacy of those in power must be constantly reconstructed. They can never rest in their glory.”
