Book review: Mickey Mouse History, and other Essays on American Memory Part IV

The fourth section of Wallace’s Mickey Mouse History, and other Essays on American Memory focuses on two main issues: President Reagan and his use of and relation to History, and the controversies and debates around the Enola Gay Exhibit in the 1990s. In his first article, Wallace primary thesis is that President Reagan took control over the past and redefined history, events and their meanings. He set aside what is commonly called “history” and aimed at constructing a new mythology for the United States. According to Wallace, President Reagan came to that approach through his experience in Hollywood and his relation to its productions. This took mostly place in the 1930s-1940s when, via different movies, Hollywood was working at constructing a mythical past for the Nation; a past that was worth defending (during WWII, mostly). According to Wallace, another central idea of the time was to prove how superior of a nation the United States were, and also to celebrate those who keep the country so special: its people. Wallace goes on to explain how Reagan became so convincing to the American people, through what he offered, and the way he offered it. Wallace concludes his article by calling for an oppositional movement, for more oral history projects, and for the treatment of controversial subjects. Wallace declares that “[u]nderstanding how the present emerged from the past maximizes our capacity (whoever we are) for effective action in present” (p.267).
In his second article, Wallace then focuses on the story of the Enola Gay exhibition that was put up by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (NASM) in 1995. He attemps to present the process through which the writing of the exhibit scenario went, the opposing voices that emerged, and what ended up happening to the initial project. According to Wallace, the Air Force Association (the AFA) were the first unhappy ones with the project, and then started a general campaign against it. The press also criticized strongly the director and curators of the museum, and it even reached a point where congress threatened the museum with a total cut of financing if the exhibition was going to be constructed around the original draft. Ultimately, after several revisions, the opposition was still not content and the exhibit ended up being emptied of most of its sense.
The problem with Wallace is that he brings up interesting and important points at times, but they are railroaded by his way of accusing, highlighting others’ mistakes and proclaiming himself truth holder. For instance, he raises a very central point when discussing the Enola Gay exhibit. What is to be done about controversial subjects? Should certain issues be kept out of the public scene so as to avoid hurting one’s or another’s feelings? Or, rather, should we use the public arena to create a discussion, bring out different perspectives and let the people approach them? To what extend should we, as historians and/or museum planners, let certain lobbyist groups influence the scenario of an exposition? Likewise in his article on President Reagan, Wallace is unable to raise issues without condemning others. Wallace strongly denounces President Reagan’s attitude, his mistakes and choices, but he does not bring up the other side of the story, so as to allow readers to analyze things for themselves. Wallace declares that he lied, or that this is the truth, but why should we trust him more than somebody else? The sad thing is that Wallace actually ends up doing what he blames the others for doing: he forces people to trust him, to follow his way, without enlightening them wholly on the issues. He proclaims what is wrong and what is correct, and expects everybody to blindly follow him. Wallace enjoys criticizing everybody else for taking a stand, when that is actually all he does.