By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House has mandated a comprehensive review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions in preparation for the nation’s 250th birthday, aiming to align the institution’s content with the President’s interpretation of American history. This review encompasses all public-facing content, including social media and educational materials, to ensure alignment with the President’s vision of celebrating American exceptionalism and removing any divisive narratives. The Smithsonian, while reaffirming its commitment to factual presentation, will collaborate with the White House, Congress, and its Board of Regents on this matter. The review, which will initially focus on eight museums, will require the submission of materials and corrective actions to replace what is deemed “divisive” language with “unifying” descriptions.
Read the original article here
White House Orders a Review of Exhibits at Smithsonian: It seems like the walls are closing in, doesn’t it? The news that the White House is ordering a review of the Smithsonian’s exhibits is, to put it mildly, unsettling. The stated goal is to “assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,” but the implications are far more extensive. It feels like we’re witnessing an attempt to rewrite history, to shape culture according to a specific, and frankly, alarming, vision. We’re being told this is about “American ideals,” but it’s hard not to see it as something else entirely: an attempt to sanitize the past, to remove anything that might cast a negative light on a certain version of America, a very specific version of white America, perhaps?
The focus on “American ideals” versus historical accuracy is a red flag. Museums, at their best, offer us a chance to learn and understand, to confront the complexities of the past. To filter that through a single, potentially biased, lens is a disservice. It’s hard not to see this as a power grab, an effort to control the narrative and suppress uncomfortable truths. The parallels to historical instances of the deliberate destruction or distortion of art and historical accounts are impossible to ignore. It’s an authoritarian tactic, plain and simple.
This whole situation feels like a slow-motion train wreck. We’re talking about reviewing social media, exhibition text, and educational materials. That means the potential for changes to exhibits on African American history, Native American history, civil rights – all areas that could be particularly vulnerable to this kind of scrutiny. It makes you wonder what’s going to be deemed “divisive” and therefore subject to change. It’s a concerning effort by the administration that makes you think of other regimes and similar actions taken in the past.
The concern is that anything that challenges a certain narrative, that depicts white America in a less-than-flattering light, will be excised. Since a great many things in history do paint that picture, expect a lot of cuts and alterations. And who knows what other agendas are at play? There’s talk of removing things, and with it, a fear that important information will be lost.
The rhetoric about “American exceptionalism” can be especially troubling. It often gets used to justify a selective view of history, one that conveniently overlooks the less pleasant aspects. Are we going to see a version of events where everything is rosy and heroic, or are we going to get a genuine look at the past, warts and all?
The thought of what this might mean for exhibits is worrisome. One thing is certain, what’s going to be deemed appropriate is being viewed through an orange lens. I wonder what’s going to be safe from censorship? The Ruby Slippers from the Wizard of Oz? Archie Bunker’s chair?
And what happens when the Smithsonian, which has declared its commitment to “scholarly excellence” and “accurate, factual presentation,” is forced to operate under these conditions? We might see things edited to fit a political agenda. They will rewrite history to fit their narrative. Perfectly normal behavior for a healthy, democratic government, right?
The idea of rewriting history is a dangerous one, and the speed at which it seems to be happening is terrifying. This is about more than just a museum; it’s about controlling the story, controlling the narrative. I’ve heard it put this way: rewriting history is what the Taliban did. It’s what Hitler did. This isn’t just about what happened, but about what will happen.
Of course, the cynical side of you can’t help but wonder if it is the same old story. Maybe it’s all a show, a way to distract from actual problems, maybe a way to make it appear that there is action going on. It’s a play for political points, an effort to mobilize a base.
We might have to face the reality that there won’t be a response. People will protest, they will condemn, but they won’t do anything. It is maddening to be surrounded by those who are seemingly unconcerned, whose priorities lie elsewhere. But is it really new? Propagandizing historical presentation is nothing new in the US. The Smithsonian has always presented its own slant on historical events.
But let’s be clear: This is not about making America great; this is about consolidating power, and this needs to be met with forceful opposition, not just polite disagreement. Every lie must be exposed and expunged. In fact, all of these people and their actions, must be dealt with decisively.
The sad thing is that there’s a strong chance that all of this could be undone. And the potential for lasting damage, for a corrupted view of history, is enormous. We have to hope that the people working at the Smithsonian will find a way to preserve and protect these important pieces of history.