the "Classic" case

I think after reading these articles, I understand why the controversy is called "The Classic Case of Enola Gay."  The same fundamental problem arises again and again in the scholarship in the Journal of American History, Vol. 82 Issue 3: scholars believe history should be X and the public believes history should be Y. For Thelen, the result of the controversy is scholars retreating from sharing their work with the public.  Kohn describes the contest between the scholar's need to stimulate the intellect and the public's desire for patriotic emotional connection.  Harwitz describes the Smithsonian's mission versus what it was created and commissioned to do all against what expectations and different variations of both of these sets of "rules," so to speak, entail.  Politics vs. History is the contest at the core of Sherwin's essay, but for Linenthal, history and memory. Harris argues that controversy occurs from reactions rather than intentions, and thus remains outside the control or prediction of those who put forth the history that provokes such reactions.  For Woods,  Enola Gay should teach us to allow history and the public to work together like they have in the past. From his perspective as a Japanese scholar on the other side from those who fought "the Good War" (to use his term) Sodei explores the conflict between those who make history and those who write it down, particularly asserting that ""No one, however, participant or not, has any right to dictate how history should be written."  Dower, like Sodei explores whether the bomb, and Enola Gay in dropping it, marks an end or a beginning, and especially on its 50th anniversary--a triumph or a tragedy?

In the end what happens? Well, if we use Enola Gay as an example, we don't get a mix of those things, we get neither of them. We don't get history or heritage, ambiguity or patriotism. Another of my classmates, Heather, referred to the exhibit as it stands as "barebones" in her blog. It seems that if the controversy over history doesn't reach some sort of compromise or conclusion, this is what we will be left with--bare-bones history.

In my other life (outside of history that is) I study political philosophy. One of the trends in political philosophy, so to speak, is the idea that there has been a break between ancient and modern man. And one of the characteristics of modern man is that he is self-conscious, in part based on his understanding of himself as a being with history. What if this history becomes bare-boned?  What if man's understanding of himself loses its intrigue and import?

At the same time, I am not yet sure (hopefully this class will help me to figure it out) how to avoid this sort of conflict and paradox.  Professional academic historians study their subjects purposefully free of bias, anticipating effects on their judgment and working to avoid them.  Everyday historians like history because of emotion and bias.  We have said so ourselves in class. The most common answer amongst our class about what has had the most influence on your historical understanding is NOT traditional or academic history, but rather history that purposefully seeks to ignite emotion in us--be it film, historical fiction, monuments, etc.

In this vein, Kohn implicitly argues that the Enola Gay exhibit brought out many more problems than actually concerned the exhibit.  People allowed their prejudice to be voiced through the exhibit. The AFA, who, according to Kohn, had long felt that the NASM, representing the nation as a whole, particularly the Nation's Capitol, did not do the Air Force justice in comparison to the other branches of the military. In the 1995 article in fact, he discusses that there is no monument to the air force in DC, though there are several memorialized tributes to other military branches. Well, I was there this past summer, and that problem has been rectified. I drove past the monument daily. And I remember people telling us that it was a big deal when it was built, and that it was relatively new--but no one explained why--now I know.

*The National Air Force Memorial, located in Arlington, VA

Beyond the AFA's pent up anger, were other issues concerning free speech, national funding, etc. The AFA's initial article opened a gate-way for any and all complaints related to this "classic" conflict between public and scholarly history. 

Why did it take this particular museum exhibit to begin a conversation, or at least make people take it seriously? What has been done since Enola Gay to solve this problem?