Curators, historians, and other museum professionals have to consider all sides of the story in order to understand what the events means to different groups. Can museum display such exhibits without controversy? No. At the same time, I felt disappointed by other exhibits or displays being down played or canceled because of Enola Gay. I think such controversial exhibits are perfect to spark social dialogue. I also feel that certain events in American history are difficult to discuss for certain cultures, but, those events have to be acknowledged in order to understand the present and future.
![enola gay smithsonian controversy enola gay smithsonian controversy](https://study.com/academy/practice/quiz-worksheet-overview-of-the-enola-gay-in-ww2.jpg)
For current generations, we rethink war because of such thought provoking exhibits. It allows people of current and past generations to rethink and better understand the moment. No doubt about it, museums displaying controversial exhibits (anything to do with American history where someone or another culture was deemed victim) promotes thought, which controversy stems from. Mostly the exhibits cause heartache and anger without benefiting those who will not budge in their interpretation.
ENOLA GAY SMITHSONIAN CONTROVERSY FREE
The controversies provide wonderful examples of what to do, and what not to do, when dealing with a difficult exhibit, but why not have examples of the successful, peaceful museums? This is probably my own concern talking because I am in the middle of planning a wedding and must choose the least resistant route in order to maintain my sanity, but besides the free publicity, the only benefit of a controversial exhibit seems to be the dialogue it sparks. I get that the Enola Gay has become an exhibit which public historians can all look to as an example of protest and controversy, but as a verb? Yes, most museums enjoy plenty of visitors and community support without controversial exhibits, but why do researchers focus on the complicated cases? I can answer my own question here. Highlights in hybrid learning: Bias Busters + Prezi Video March 11, 2022. The second chapter of this Dubin excerpt also made sense, but I did not really understand the title. Racial prejudice and fears of an Eastern takeover in the 1980s and 90s strangely mirrored some of the anxieties present during World War II. There was no winning! If the Smithsonian meticulously restored the plane’s 1940s appearance they were taking too long, but if they did not do it correctly the vets would have been upset with the misrepresentation! Contemporary issues over Japanese dominance in the world marketplace also affected the atmosphere of the Enola Gay exhibit. A comical point for me was when the veterans claimed the Smithsonian was taking too long to restore the plane and threatened to move it to the Truman library. The veterans supported a “victory culture” of hero worship and clearly delineated ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ The ‘disenchanted’ baby boomers, however, had a more postmodernist view of world culture that did not dictate the superiority of any specific group or people.
ENOLA GAY SMITHSONIAN CONTROVERSY FULL
The scaled-down display he said will not tell "the full story" of the atomic bomb, including the horrors of nuclear war as experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.What I found particularly interesting about the Enola Gay exhibit was the generational line between opposing sides. Musil, director of policy and programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility, an anti-nuclear group based in Washington, criticized the Smithsonian decision.
![enola gay smithsonian controversy enola gay smithsonian controversy](https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/enola-gay.jpg)
![enola gay smithsonian controversy enola gay smithsonian controversy](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Smithsonian-Enola-Gay-exhibit-before-and-after.jpg)
Detweiler said the American Legion will urge Congress to go ahead with the hearings. Blute is a member of that committee, which has jurisdiction over the Smithsonian Institution, supported chiefly by federal money. Spokesman Rob Gray said the congressman would confer with the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee before deciding whether to continue to press for hearings on the process by which the exhibit was created. Coinciding with the 72nd anniversary of the 6 August 1945 first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima Japan and the attendant annual attention in the media1, I am here presenting the unexpurgated version of a review essay written by your blogger, Paul C. Heyman "has made a sound decision" in scuttling an exhibition he called a "politically correct diatribe." Peter Blute, the Massachusetts Republican who helped lead the congressional call for Mr. No glorification, no nonsense that they were trying to do before." Burr Bennett, a member of a group of B-29 veterans petitioning for what it calls "proper display of the Enola Gay" said the simpler display is "what we've been asking for all along. Until the doors open and we see the exhibit we're taking a wait-and-see attitude." Jack Giese, spokesman for the Air Force Association, a group of 180,000 members, said "we are encouraged but we are extremely cautious.