By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House is conducting a review of the Smithsonian Museum’s exhibits related to the United States’ 250th anniversary. This review, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, seeks to ensure the exhibits align with the administration’s interpretation of American history, encompassing exhibition text, online content, and curatorial processes. This initiative follows an executive order mandating exhibits be “accurate, patriotic, and enlightening.” Previously, the Smithsonian removed and then re-added references to Donald Trump’s impeachments, with modifications to the descriptions of events surrounding his second impeachment.
Read the original article here
The news that the White House intends to vet Smithsonian exhibits to ensure they “align with Trump’s interpretation” of US history is, to put it mildly, alarming. The very idea of political interference in the presentation of historical facts is a deeply troubling prospect, especially when the source of that interpretation is someone whose grasp of history appears…let’s say, unconventional.
It’s difficult to imagine how such a process could be anything other than a blatant attempt at historical revisionism. Consider the documented instances of historical inaccuracies and embellishments that have come from the person in question. His pronouncements on the Battle of Gettysburg, for instance, were, to be frank, baffling. The image of a leader so seemingly detached from the realities of history is one that should give any thinking person pause. How can someone with such a shaky understanding of the past be entrusted with shaping how future generations perceive it?
This isn’t just a matter of differing opinions; it’s about the integrity of historical truth. The Smithsonian, as the world’s largest museum and research complex, holds an unparalleled treasure trove of artifacts and documents. Its exhibits, ideally, are curated by experts, historians, and scholars, whose primary goal is to present an accurate and nuanced understanding of the past, based on evidence and research. The insertion of political preferences into this process would be a grave betrayal of the public trust.
The implications are far-reaching. If the White House can dictate the narrative presented in museums, what’s to stop it from controlling other forms of historical dissemination? Imagine a world where textbooks are rewritten, films are censored, and public discourse is carefully managed to conform to a particular political agenda. It’s a chilling prospect, one that echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes throughout history. The concern about the White House controlling the internet, and limiting access to information, only exacerbates these fears.
The question then becomes: how can this be prevented? It’s crucial that those who value historical accuracy and intellectual freedom speak out and resist this overreach. Those who value critical thinking and historical accuracy must loudly denounce this. The independence of the Smithsonian, and its commitment to presenting a balanced and factual account of American history, must be fiercely defended. This is not just a matter for historians and academics; it’s a matter for all of us.
This is a fundamental attack on freedom of information. The White House’s actions raise serious questions about who is making the decisions, how they are being made, and the potential motivations behind them. It’s also concerning that this move seems to be happening under the guise of ensuring historical accuracy, when in reality, it’s just a way to rewrite the narrative.
It’s a situation reminiscent of the North Korean system, where the control of information is a tool to maintain power. The United States, founded on principles of freedom, must not willingly walk into this trap. It is essential that the public remains vigilant. We must push for transparency and accountability.
The scale of the potential task, given the millions of objects and archival materials within the Smithsonian, is staggering. However, even if such a vetting process were to be undertaken, one wonders about its legitimacy and the potential for political bias to infect the exhibits. The use of political influence to dictate how history is presented poses a grave threat to the very fabric of a free and open society.
The move by the White House raises critical questions about the role of government in shaping historical narratives. When government entities interfere in historical presentations, it creates an environment of distrust and distortion. It is also important to understand the Smithsonian’s structure. While it receives public funding, it is not directly under the control of the Executive Branch. This further highlights the illegitimacy of the proposed interference. The White House has no right to police history.
This isn’t just about one individual’s interpretation; it’s about safeguarding the truth and ensuring future generations have access to a well-rounded and accurate understanding of their past. The consequences of allowing this kind of revisionism to take hold would be devastating. This is a fight for the soul of American history itself.