Article Review: A Narrative for Our Time. The Enola Gay "and after that, period"

In his article “A Narrative for Our Time. The Enola Gay ‘and after that, period’ ”, Robert C. Post addresses the issue of the display of the Enola Gay. He starts his overview with the 1990s controversy over the exhibition organized by the NASM. According to Post, “at the heart of that conflict was the question of how this plane was to be ‘interpreted’ ” (p.374). One of the main dilemmas that the curators and the director of the NASM faced when preparing the exhibit was whether they would put up something that would please the veterans, or something that would bring the visitors to think more deeply about the bomb and its consequences. Crouch, one of the curators, thought this would be a very difficult goal to achieve, but he ended up following his director who believed it was possible. In accordance with a previous agreement, John Correll – who was editor of the AFA’s magazine – received the first draft of the scenario in 1994. His reaction was not long to come, and in March already the NASM’s team was accused of betraying their mission to portray the courage of the Americans serving in the Armed forces. Even though the Smithsonian team did recognize the too central place given to the Japanese death and ground zero (and changed in the following drafts), they were not betraying their museum’s mission. It was part of their responsibility to educate the public, and that could only be done by offering a full overview on the subject. Even if several people seem to acknowledge the fact that the exhibition had its weaknesses, needed some change in focus and some rephrasing, the crusade initiated by Correll went far beyond any imaginable reactions. For instance, the Congress became involved, demanding changes in the presentation and threatening to cut their funding to the museum. From the 1990s exhibition, Post goes on with the Enola Gay’s history and reaches 2003 and the opening of the new Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center where the plane was transferred. The plane is now displayed among other types of airplanes (commercial, air force, etc) and bears a short notice explaining that it was the plane which dropped the first atomic bomb. Post raises several questions in relation to that presentation: whether or not such a display is sufficient for visitors? Should it mention the consequences of the bombing? Does its many omissions render it neutral? Aren’t those gaps actually stating something about those who work in public history, supposedly contributing to the public’s education? Post concludes his article with a reflection on the nature of history, and how events are interpreted and revisited. Post demonstrates how some people believe it is not the NASM’s mission to interpret history but to show its visitors the good aspects of the United States, to construct a glorified past. They criticized historians and their way of imagining pasts, instead of being true to what the country really is. How are museums to deal with these continuous attempts from some groups to influence what is to be brought to their audiences? How could museums best deal with this gap that too often exists between historians and the public? And, above all, what is the role of a museum? Should it be only a tool of the ones in power, or should it enable people to access history and interpret it on their own?
Those central questions are raised by Post, and he tries his best to encourage his readers to think over these issues and decide for themselves. If someone like Mike Wallace, in his Mickey Mouse History, blatantly tells his readers what to think, Robert Post, on the other hand, tries to broaden our perspectives and give us enough material to think for ourselves. Yes, he does point at problems, and we can easily guess his opinion, but he never tries to impose it as the truth. Post tries to show that artifacts like the Enola Gay speak by themselves to the public, that they do raise issues, whatever their display is. Museums should not play dumb and try to keep things under silence. One day, those who try to take away the museums’ mission to educate the public will realize that silence can be far more dangerous than comprehensive information.