I am interested in researching minority representation in the US media/film industry because I want to find out why there seems to be a lack of representative stories. This is important because if you only see a few dominant groups on screen, what happens to the other groups? This can lead to the marginalization and erasure of voices, which is harmful.

1. Is there a specific film or example of media you’d like to use?
2. Can you claim/support that there’s a lack of representative stories? Representatives stories about whom? Also, what do you mean about “representative stories”?
3. Is there a specific minority you’d like to/can focus on? Can you more be specific about groups (e.g., dominant groups, other groups)?

I am interested in researching the ideological basis behind the Creationist belief of human origins.

…Because I want to find out how Creationists can call their idea on human origins a theory without facts or evidence supporting it.

…And this is important because the debate over whether Creationism is regarded as a valid ‘theory’ on the origins of human life is still debated and because Creationists continue to denounce evolutions ever happened.

Questions

1. There are many different branches of creationism, what type would you look at?

2. Would you explore the classroom/teaching controversy through this subject?

3. What area or grouping of the worlds view would you examine?

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/11-19-93.asp

This document talks about the meeting before the Enola Gay display, in which the idea for the exhibit is discussed. One of the problems for the proposed plan is that there was not enough coverage on the background information of the event. Another problem is that there was too much sympathy for the Japanese people by using an in context approach. The official story in this case would be that the Americans dropped bombs on the innocent people of Japan, who did nothing wrong. This causes bias and also makes America look bad. These problems led to a new perspective, in which the Enola Gay should just be a militaristic item. This would be an in situ approach and would decrease the bias present in the current plan. Also, the number of casualties would not be present in the exhibit, which also decreases the sympathy on the Japanese. This lessens the emotional impact a viewer may have because of the large number of casualties. The ideas and views of the people present at this meeting cause the museum display to be more of an unemotional piece. This is because the in situ approach is taken for the exhibit causing the emotional side of the Enola Gay story to disappear.

I was struck by the conclusion of the Enola Gay and the Smithsonian chronology written by the Air Force Association (AFA) – it states, at the end: “Air & Space Museum puts the forward fuselage of the Enola Gay and other items on display as part of a straightforward historical exhibition. Within a year, it draws more than a million visitors–making it, by far, the most popular special exhibition in the history of the Air & Space Museum. (When the exhibition finally closed in May 1998, it had drawn almost four million visitors.)” I feel like it implies that the exhibit was so successful because the original idea was dropped. I’m not sure that’s a correct statement/assumption. On one hand, it seems like some of the content of the exhibit was skewed towards the Japanese; for example, there were 49 photos of Japanese casualties vs. 3 photos of American casualties, 5 photos of Japanese military members in military role vs. 65 photos of American military members in military role, etc. That does paint Americans as aggressive, and also, to imply that Americans soldiers attacked for “vengeance” dishonors those who faithfully served for their country. However, is it “wrong” to show that the US harmed Japan? It may be an “ugly” depiction, but it happened. You can justify why the atomic bomb was dropped, but you can’t deny the results of what happened. Later, when the exhibit re-opened in 2003, the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy pointed out that the exhibit was “devoid not only of historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy surrounding the bombings, but even of basic information regarding the number of casualties.”

The controversy of the Enola Gay exhibit is a clash of official stories – the museum wanted to tell one story and the AFA disagreed with that story and wanted another one to be told. I’ve always thought that museums present facts, that they aim to be objective. The Enola Gay exhibit controversy brought home that while museums/museum exhibits are factual/informative, how they present the facts affect the story they tell.

        The article about the exhibit in the Japanese Times focused a lot of its commentary on the curator of the exhibit and what he had to say about how well the exhibit at the Smithsonian could accomodate their interests in terms of representation of the event. In relationship to our discussion about museums and exhibits and in situ versus in context, I would say that this exhibit, and quite possibly the National Air and Space museum as a whole, are predominantly in situ pieces. The survivors of the bombing were calling for the exhibit to show just how devastating the attack on Hiroshima was. The curator explained that it just wasn’t possible because there wasn’t space (no pun intended) for such an exhibit at the museum. Most of the important exhibits are just replicas that hang overhead from the ceiling of the museum, which is exactly how the Enola Gay exhibit was to be placed. Like most exhibits there, the Enola Gay came with just a description of what it did or could do. If this were an incontext museum, it would be on display as having been the aircraft that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and there would be more detail about the event and the importance surrounding it. This is not that kind of museum though, as the curator explained. What I thought was most important about what he said was that the museum is that it is “primarily a technology museum,” and not one that shows historical impact or importance. It is there for people to revel in the technological advances of our time, and I think Enola Gay was a big part of that advancement.

Exhibits in museums are set for a specific purpose, either to glorify or reminisce. In regards to war exhibits or memorials, only one side seems to show. This is apparent in memorials, such as the African American Civil War Memorial and Museum and the Vietnam War Memorial, both located in DC, which list the names of only soldiers who fought on said side. Why in DC? Because it is the center hub for all things American and patriotic in the United States. Our government is centered here and international bureaucracy and diplomacy is mainly handled and addressed here. With such a high octane of patriotism in one location, portraying an “official story” is not always appropriate to those who produce these memorials. One vital component of the Enola Gay memorial that caught my eye was “challenge,” mentioned in the Japanese Times article. The curator of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum said that creating a display that showed not only the Enola Gay, but its devastating effect on an entire culture would be a “good challenge” to the institution. He backed his claim by declaring the institution to be “primarily a technology museum;” primarily being the key word. Primarily is equivalent to mainly or mostly, not completely, so if it’s only primarily focused on technology, at least a small portion could be dedicated to the effects of said technology, especially one as memorable and significant of the Enola Gay.

The Enola gay exhibit shows information regarding the Japanese surrender and helps to depict more clearly what it helped with in WWII. The problem with this exhibit however is that it doesn’t necessarily convey the official story. A lot of what the exhibit is missing has to do with the affects of the bombing on the Japanese as opposed to just the American story. Although the bombs may have been helpful with the war it doesn’t show the negative affects it not only had on Japanese civilians but on the war veterans in America. This exhibit would have been better presented if it had showed both sides of the story as opposed to glorifying the Enola gay to be a wonderful success in the war. Although it helped us to not only secure victory but also end the war it still had its negative effects too. Museums should present both sides of the issue to us instead of being biased. Museums are supposed to help inform let and us form our own opinion as opposed to pushing theirs and certain believes on to the rest of us.

The Enola Gay Smithsonian Exhibit is a really good example of how many people can interoperate an event in history differently by looking through a different point of view.  It seems that there are two very distinct reasons that the planned Enola Gay Exhibit created so much controversy.  The bomb’s survivors wanted the exhibit to portray the devastation that the atomic bombs caused, while World War II veterans wanted the exhibit to portray the Enola Gay as part of a proud end to the war.  For example, in Monroe Hatch’s letter to Martin Harwit, the Air Force Association refuses to support the originally planned exhibit because it focused too much on the horrors of war, failed to name Japan as the aggressor, and didn’t put the United States of America in a favorable light for ending the war.  Of course, it would be impossible to satisfy Japanese bomb survivors while still doing what the Air Force Association wanted.  Here, the difference between “in situ” and “in context” museum exhibits becomes very important.  Because an in context exhibit would satisfy only one side, the Smithsonian went with an in situ exhibit, as a sort of compromise.  One can recognize this by looking at the Enola Gay Exhibit summary on the Smithsonian’s website.  It describes the exhibit as being completely objective, and leaving much to interpretation.

http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0312/0312new4.cfm   

Enola Gay, the B-29 airplane that bombed Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, is currently on display in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. The controversy surrounding this massive creature of the sky is everywhere. On the one hand, you have the war veterans from WWII who proudly desire that this super fortress be displayed for the entire world to see.  In contrast, the public sees the aircraft as a sign of cruelty. Though the war was shortened and many U.S. soldiers’’ lives probably saved, the killing of thousands of innocent civilians can never be justified.  Japanese and people from other countries also find the Enola Gay offensive. More importantly, though, is the fact that the plane was the vehicle that carried the atomic bomb that murdered countless civilians, most of whom did not share the bloodlust of the Japanese army. Such a bone-chilling artifact should not be put on display in the National Air and Space Museum.

The controversy surrounding the Enola Gay exhibit is oddly enough due to the lack of an “official story”. The curators wanted to present the exhibit in a strictly factual, concrete way that dealt exclusively with what the Enola Gay did during WWII as well as its restoration. However, this was not good enough for many people. Controversy and petitions sprang up in regards to this “calloused” exhibit and action was called for the curators to show a more holistic view of the bomber and WWII. This demonstrates the need people have for an official story. It was not enough to merely celebrate the technology of the Enola Gay but instead the opposition craved to be fed the official story about the bomber that has become a part of everyday life. This point illustrates how much of a necessity official stories become in day to day life and how it feels almost immoral or unnatural to present the information from a different viewpoint. The story of the Enola Gay has become so engrained in our culture it feels as if it is a necessity to acknowledge all that it did and perhaps present a somewhat biased account rather than focus on the hard, cold science of the bomber.

This controversy brings to mind the concept of a museum being a temple, to be regarded with some vague respect, from a distance, or a forum, a place that provokes intense, thoughtful discussion about a piece of art, or, in this case, an exhibit that could represent a war that culminated into one of the most devastatingly destructive events in human history. Now, with something so controversial as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the curator, from the very beginning ought to have made a presentation that was much more comprehensive of the whole event, taking into consideration how massively it affected the Japanese. He also ought to have provided multiple viewpoints from America’s side relating to the event, both for and against the bombing. Unfortunately, because of the controversy the exhibit sparked, the end result of the description of the plane was equally unacceptable. By attempting to maintain a completely objective view by simply describing the Enola Gay as the plane that “dropped the first atomic weapon used in combat”, the Air and Space Museum cut out most of the human and emotional aspects of the event, leaving only the fact that the Enola Gay was a piece of technology.

In reading the concepts for the exhibits and their responses, it seems to me that the curators of the museum wanted to give the visitors a view of the facts. While they did paint a portrait of the Japanese as victims, the complaints against the museum seemed, to me, to be pushing a pro-American view of the war.

This was an exhibit that challenged the official story, presenting painfully brutal facts that were often skipped in descriptions of the bombings, but also leaving it mainly up to the reader to decide. I feel that the opposition to the exhibit was largely due to that fact that presenting these facts are generally pushed aside or skimmed when explaining the bombings.

While there seems to be no reconciling of the two views, I am disappointed that the museum caved to the official story, as I for one was fascinated by the opposing view of the original designs. The simple description “dropped the first atomic weapon used in combat” is entirely inadequate to describe the plane that ushered in a new age of warfare and changed forever the way we view civilian casualties.

Either way, this was about both sides wanting to display the facts in a certain light, or in context

The only solid fact that can be gleaned from the Enola Gay Smithsonian exhibit controversy is that different groups have contradistinctive perspectives with respect to events in the past. As far as the specifics of this particular situation are concerned, both sides of the argument as to how the exhibit should have been portrayed are clearly logical and well developed, yet significantly charged emotionally in their own respects.

To modern day college students, the pathos of the original plan for the exhibit would probably have the most appeal as compared to the “official story” generated by the war veterans and government representatives through the letter correspondences archived in the Air Force Association’s Enola Gay data base. This is not to say, however, that the perspective of the war veterans is “unethical” or “biased”; rather, it suggests that particular experiences shape conceptions of events.

When taking into consideration such a delicate topic as war, conflicting opinions will undoubtedly emerge. In this, it is inherently illogical to allow a partisan group involved with a particular event to essentially dictate the historical context of an exhibit on display in a museum for the general public. The Japanese Times article sums up this idea brilliantly, as it completely ignores the internal controversy involving the exhibit, portraying it as simply “a failed attempt” (to exhibit the effects of the bomb).

In class on Thursday, we talked about in situ versus in context exhibits. The Enola Gay exhibit would be an in context exhibit because it is presented with mostly words to explain it. In regards to the issue of the “official story” that is being presented, I feel that it should be up to the museum to display the information that it wants. In the Japanese news article, it is said that the Air and Space Museum wants to be mainly a technological museum. This would imply that the focus of the exhibit would be on the technological advancements needed to facilitate the transport of this new type of weapon. While the tales from Hiroshima are heartbreaking and relevant from a historical standpoint, they are not relevant from a scientific standpoint. If the museum were to stay focused on its scientific aspect, then the “official story”  would not be nearly as controversial, since the context could explain things like how the atom bomb works and they did the technical parts of the bombing. The atom bomb and the Enola Gay both have a fascinating back story that can be told without insult to bomb victims or war veterans  when it is told with a focus on scientfic advancement

When it comes to making exhibits about historical events, people, places, objects, etc. it is really hard to present an “official story” because everyone has a different view or opinion on what happened. This is the case with the Enola Gay, and the exhibit that the National Air and Space Museum planned in the mid 1990’s. When looking at the time line and the American Historical Association article, it can see that the museum didn’t even really try to present a basic overview of the entire story. Instead they only presented the information they wanted to present. The museum even went as far as to distort some of the information and present false facts. Only when many protested and the government stepped in, did they scrape their original idea and present more of an “official story.” So, it must be asked, why can’t even a museum present an “official story?” It is obvious why a company or a person might not present every piece of information, but why can’t a museum? Museum’s are supposed to present the basic facts, but if they don’t even do that, then what is the point of having them? If they only present slanted information, then going to a museum is just as useful as watching Glen Beck.

Whenever there are catastrophic disasters in any country, two things happen. An official story, or what some refer to as a “cover story,” goes out to the people who are not directly involved with the situation. Reassurances of everything being alright or even of justice being served will spew out of the government sources so that citizens do not feel totally alarmed. When it came to the bombing in Hiroshima, however, many still believed that the bombing was utterly wrong and caused nothing but havoc, destruction, and pain. So when a museum is faced with the desire to display our history, it has to choose one of three directions. According to the articles provided, many of the veterans believed that with this exhibit people would be further vindicated to judge those who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the exhibit finally came up, going by the pictures from the museum’s website, it was more contextual than in situ. After all, to display what it was truly like bombing Japan would probably lead to far more negative feelings against those who were given the task of performing the mission. Many historians and veterans were still upset with the exhibit, and it came down not too long after being put up. Sometimes, even museums–who attempt to show the true course of history–show too much bias to allow everyone to feel at peace with their exhibits. If they were meaning to shock, job well done.

In relating the Enola Gay exhibit to what we learned in class about museums, exhibits, and official/unofficial stories it seems to me that the Enola Gay is simply a metonym of the larger controversy about the war. Sure, the Enola Gay itself has a certain controversial air about it, but what it really comes down to is the symbol that the Enola Gay represents for the larger aspects of the war.

The most obvious way that the Enola Gay is a metonym for WWII is, of course, in regard to the atomic bomb. The question whether such a devastating weapon, that can destroy a whole city in one fell-swoop, belongs in the arsenal of mankind shall always be dubious. At what point do we stop? When civilians become the targets of war’s horrific nature or when we completely destroy ourselves from an imminent nuclear war? Furthermore, if such a weapon was used, why does the Enola Gay seem to stand for the destruction of mankind instead of a solemn tribute to that fateful tragedy? This question seems to be at the very heart of the controversy and shows the problem when creating a metonym, or even a simple symbol, out of an object whose purpose was so horrific that it went against the very moral fabric of humanity.

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/e93-1.asp

http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/e93-2.asp

What really struck me as I read through some of these websites were the first two concept documents for the Enola Gay exhibit. I read through the first document and it appeared to have little bias toward any side, the sides being the Japanese or the Americans. It stated in the article that, “the primary goal of this exhibition will be to encourage visitors to make a thoughtful and balances re-examination on the atomic bombings in the light of the political and military factors leading to the decision to use the bomb, the human suffering experiences by people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the long-term implications of the events…”. This made me feel confident that the museum would display actual facts and nothing would be biased. When I read the second concept document I felt totally different. The document stated, “the exhibition would conclude by noting the debatable character of the atomic bombings, as well as their important role as one of the starting points of the nuclear age and Cold War”. I feel like this quote and many others in the document can be perceived as biased. The way this sentence is stated made me feel as if the exhibit would credit this act to be humane and was what revolutionized weapon technology. I thought it was interesting how two somewhat conflicting concepts helped to form the current exhibit.

Everyone who plays a different role in a situation has their own version of the story. The controversy of the Enola Gay illustrates how these different versions conflict as groups struggle to have their version be known as the “official story.” When the Enola Gay was displayed in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in 1995, the exhibit received criticism from veterans and politicians. They believed that Japan was being portrayed as innocent rather than an aggressor in World War II. The Enola Gay brought conflict once more in 2003, when it was to have a special exhibit once more. Rather than show the Enola Gay in context with all of its history and controversy, the museum chose to simply show the Enola Gay as a piece of technology (a more in situ approach). This time the Smithsonian was accused of not giving enough historical background, which many believe to show indifference to its victims. The Smithsonian has clearly had a difficult time displaying the Enola Gay without having a biased exhibit. On one hand, there is the group who view the actions of the Enola Gay as a heroic act to protect the United States. The other contingency sees the atomic bomb as a horrible aggressive act against humanity. This leaves the Smithsonian in the tricky position of trying to present the facts without seeming to lean to one side or another, since this is a highly debated historical issue.