Hi all, this is my first post. I am going to start out by commenting on the group discussion we had last week. The topic was about museums and how they choose to exhibit. I raised a fundamental question that museums have a duty to be objective. They are the keepers of our past. To me they have a moral duty to present factual history. In other words, just present what happened, when did it happen, why did it happen, who was affected, and how did it happen. These questions ask the facts. These questions don't ask for hypothetical responses. It is the public historian's duty to answer these questions with facts. When the public come to museums, they want to be informed. The people want confirmation about what they read, watch, or hear is the truth or not. Sure they want to be entertained also. Any museum can present a entertaining exhibit while also keeping it factual.
All museums have a mission statement that they adhere to. The Air Force Museum in Dayton's mission is to educate the public about military aircraft. I believe that they do a fabulous way but also in a factual way. I went to the museum just recently. One exhibit they had was about the synopsis on Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. When I read the contents of the exhibit, I was objectively informed. The exhibit was talking about the reasons behind the military use of the bomb. One fact mentions the possibility of over 200,000 U.S. casualties for a possible land invasion of Japan. This is a fact that interested me. The museum is not partisan. This is an example of disseminating historical information about a artifact. Nor did it compromise the mission of the organization.
When I raised this question a classmate raised the issue of funding and timing constraints. I don't dispute this. However it cannot be a reason to not objectively present a historical account. In these troubled times, it is still the museums' duties to present factual information. The author Wallace points out that public historians are educators. It is their job to educate. Anything on the contrary is blasphemy. Museum officials should adhere to Wallace.
I will agree with you on the fact that it public historians should seek to be as objective as possible.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think the world can be seen as so black and white. Everyone has an agenda.
The Air Force Museum is partisan. They are not going to present things that make the Air Force look bad. While the museum may be presenting facts, are they necessarily presenting ALL the facts?
Is it immoral to omit facts?
Take for example the Creation Museum. You couldn't possibly expect to go in there and expect to receive facts from an atheist point of view. Yet I don't think that is immoral of them, they have every right to present their case as they see fit.
There is a fine line between facts and opinions.
I wonder if real objectivity is possable. To be objective, one would almost not have to care about the process or outcomes of history. Facts need to be collected, but which facts? Who's facts? Do feelings and opinions matter or is history about assembling statistics? Which facts, perspectives, opinions and feelings get presented?
ReplyDeleteIs it more honest to admit the perspective you present from, or to pretend you don't have a perspective at all? I like Wallace also, he speaks the truth as he sees it from his perspective. I appreciate this and learn from it, even though I have a very different viewpoint. It's okay to be different, as long as people can be honest and respect each other.