By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History quietly removed mentions of Donald Trump’s two impeachments from its “American Presidency” exhibit, reverting to its pre-2008 version. This decision, which now only references impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, allegedly came after pressure from the Trump White House. Critics online and in the media quickly condemned the move, calling it “Orwellian” and accusing the museum of bowing to political influence. The Smithsonian cited a need to update the section, but the omission, combined with Trump’s recent actions reshaping national organizations, fueled accusations of historical revisionism.
Read the original article here
“Genuinely scary”: Smithsonian accused of “rewriting history” after quietly removing Trump from impeachment exhibit | “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” That chilling quote, taken from Orwell’s *1984*, seems to echo loudly in the halls of the Smithsonian these days, and for good reason. The news, reported by outlets like NBC News and The Hill, that the Smithsonian quietly removed Donald Trump from an impeachment exhibit has ignited a firestorm of debate. It’s a situation that, if true, speaks volumes about the current state of historical preservation and the potential for manipulation of the past.
The core of the concern centers on the Smithsonian’s role as a keeper of history. Museums like the Smithsonian are supposed to be objective narrators of the past, chronicling events as they happened, regardless of political leanings. The act of removing Trump from the exhibit, which documented his impeachment, isn’t just a matter of omission; it’s a deliberate act of historical revisionism, regardless of the final outcome. And as the comments indicate, it does appear the exhibit is back to its original form. It is important, however, to stay vigilant and keep this information in mind, as anything can change.
The comments surrounding this event highlight a deep mistrust of institutions. Many people are beginning to question whether these institutions are truly run by people who are concerned with honest depictions of history. The discussion touches upon the idea that both sides of the political spectrum are culpable of manipulating the narrative and that the removal, and the subsequent restoration, is, at its core, a political move. It raises the question of whether the truth is being obscured, diluted, or even weaponized in the current political climate. The phrase “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears” from the title encapsulates the issue: Are we being told to believe a version of events that doesn’t align with what we’ve witnessed firsthand?
There’s also the issue of “perception versus reality,” particularly in the digital age. As some comments point out, if enough people believe something to be true, even if it isn’t factually accurate, then that becomes its own form of reality. This concept, combined with the ever-changing nature of the internet, where information can be easily altered, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The challenge lies in maintaining a shared understanding of the past. The question of how future generations will interpret this era is certainly up for debate.
The specific examples offered in the comments, like the contractual obligation to lie about the first manned flight to keep the Wright Brothers’ plane on display, raise questions about the motivations behind such actions. It highlights the inherent tension between historical accuracy and institutional preservation. Whether that is true or not it still makes you think. It suggests that even the most respected institutions are susceptible to pressure, financial or otherwise, that can influence the way history is presented.
One of the more striking comments emphasizes the urgency of the situation, noting that the removal and subsequent restoration could be a part of the wider issue of editing history. It highlights a crucial point: this isn’t about one person or one event; it’s about the integrity of historical documentation and the potential for its manipulation.
The discussion also acknowledges the broader context of the current political landscape. The accusations of historical revisionism and the potential for institutional bias resonate with a general skepticism toward authority. It makes you wonder who the keepers of history are, if not these institutions? It’s a matter of ensuring that history is not erased or rewritten to suit a particular narrative. The concern, as the comments reflect, is not merely about a missing exhibit, but about the erosion of historical truth in an era of unprecedented misinformation and political polarization. It is a challenge for all of us to remain vigilant, critical, and committed to seeking the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient.