By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The former president has initiated a review of the Smithsonian Institution, deeming it “WOKE” and “OUT OF CONTROL”. Trump’s criticism centers on the museums’ focus on historical shortcomings, particularly slavery, instead of highlighting success. This review follows similar actions against universities and is part of a larger effort to shape narratives about American history, with some questioning whether he understands the concept of a museum. The move has sparked controversy and raised concerns about historical revisionism, especially as it aligns with other recent interventions in institutions of learning and the arts.
Read the original article here
‘Nothing about Success’: Trump rages ‘woke’ Smithsonian teaches ‘how bad Slavery was’ – It seems like the core of the issue here is a serious disagreement over how American history should be presented, specifically regarding the legacy of slavery. The criticism, spearheaded by a particular individual, seems to be focused on what they perceive as a negative portrayal of American history within the Smithsonian, alleging that it emphasizes the “horrible” aspects of the country, particularly slavery, while neglecting “success” and the “future.”
This perspective appears to completely misunderstand the very nature of museums. Museums, especially history museums, are not primarily designed to provide a “victory lap” or simply celebrate accomplishments. Their purpose is to educate, and education necessitates confronting the complexities of the past, including the difficult and uncomfortable truths. To suggest that the Smithsonian, or any institution of historical significance, should shy away from discussing the horrors of slavery is to actively participate in historical revisionism. It’s like suggesting that a medical textbook should omit the details of a disease to make everything seem “bright.”
The argument seems to stem from an almost willful ignorance. Anyone with even a basic understanding of American history knows that slavery was an abomination, a brutal system that inflicted immense suffering and denied basic human rights to millions of people. To suggest that acknowledging this is somehow “woke” is not only historically inaccurate but also deeply offensive. This notion seems to be part of a larger trend of using “woke” as a catch-all term to dismiss anything that challenges a particular viewpoint or acknowledges social injustices.
Furthermore, the idea that focusing on the negative aspects of the past somehow diminishes the achievements of the nation is misguided. In fact, acknowledging the darker chapters of history is essential to truly appreciating the progress that has been made and to avoiding repeating past mistakes. It’s about learning from the past, not glossing over it. The fact that someone would argue that slavery wasn’t “that bad” is a symptom of a much deeper problem, a failure to empathize and to recognize the fundamental humanity of all people.
The implication that somehow the focus on slavery is a deliberate effort to “divide Americans based on race” is also concerning. It’s a deflection. It’s the equivalent of blaming the messenger for delivering bad news. Slavery, in its inherent nature, was a divisive and dehumanizing practice. Acknowledging this fact isn’t about dividing; it’s about understanding and addressing the historical reality that continues to shape our society. To suggest that the Smithsonian should somehow present a sanitized version of history is to ask for a fictional narrative.
The emphasis on the future, while seemingly positive, is misplaced in the context of a history museum. History museums are not fortune-telling institutions; they are places where the past is examined and understood. While there might be an argument for museums to explore the impact of historical events on the future, the primary focus should remain on the past. The argument seems to be designed to distract from actual issues, which in turn can create a distorted and inaccurate understanding of the world.
This criticism also raises questions about the motivation behind it. Is it a genuine concern about historical accuracy, or is it a political maneuver designed to appeal to a specific demographic? The timing of these comments is particularly relevant. It is very easy to view these types of statements as a calculated strategy to garner support from certain groups. The call to “reinstate the pre-existing monuments” of Confederate soldiers is particularly telling. It’s a clear indication of a desire to return to a narrative that romanticizes the Confederacy and minimizes the horrors of slavery. This type of history does not represent the United States and the ideals of all Americans.
In summary, the core of the criticism against the Smithsonian’s portrayal of slavery is based on a flawed understanding of the purpose of history museums, a rejection of uncomfortable truths, and a troubling desire to rewrite the past. The suggestion that teaching “how bad Slavery was” is somehow a negative thing, instead of an essential aspect of historical education, is a reflection of a dangerous trend toward historical revisionism. This revisionism appears to be rooted in a desire to maintain a specific narrative and ignore the realities of the past. In the end, the desire to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable reality of the past reveals a deeper issue: a lack of empathy and a failure to appreciate the significance of the struggles faced by others.