The Enola Gay exhibit located in the National Air and Space Museum did not receive a warm welcome by many different groups (such as veterans,committees, survivors, etc.).  The first few drafts of the exhibit ended in heated debate between the museum and the AFA.  The AFA claimed that the exhibit was not balanced in depicting the US and the Japanese sides, and shined a questionable light towards the US’s decision to drop the A-bomb.  The AFA fear that the exhibit depicts Japan as only the victim of US vengeance.  This brings into question the moral and political questions associated with the dropping of the A-bomb.  Was it the right thing to do, why did the US do it, was there any other way?  Depicting whether the US was right because there was no other way to end the war as quickly as possible with as few casualties on the American side as possible, or whether Japan was just an innocent victim to this makes us wonder which story is the true “official” and “unofficial story”.  On the other end, showcasing the Enola Gay as just advancements in technology sparked debates between the museum and historians, survivors, and activists.  They claimed that showcasing the Enola Gay without reference to the damage it did is immoral and disrespectful to those involved in the A-bombings.  The museum fought back arguing that the National Air and Space Museum has always just been primarily a technology museum and not suitable for providing adequate explanations to do the A-bombings justice.  I agree with the museum, the museum is only trying to show the achievements in aviation technology throughout the years and that’s all they want viewers to take out from their exhibit.

Museums use their displays to tell a story.  However, sometimes the truth of the story can become distorted if the facts are not properly told.  An “official” story is circulated instead of the truth.  One such example was the Enola Gay exhibit in the National Air and Space Museum.  This exhibit displayed the plane used to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.  One concept document stated that it would include pictures of the victims, as well as videos interviewing both survivors and crew.  One of the main themes would be “the increasing bitterness and brutality of a war that was also, for Americans, a war of vengeance for Pearl Harbor.”  Because the museum took that point of view on the attacks, its bias would come out in the display and thus influence the opinion of the museum visitors as well.  As it said in the Lavine and Karp article, “Every museum exhibition, whatever its overt subject, inevitably draws on the cultural assumptions and resources of the people who make it.  Decisions are made to emphasize one element and to downplay others, to assert some truths and to ignore others.”  When viewing a museum display, we must be careful not to be misled by the official stories and to instead seek out the truth.

During these past few weeks we have discussed in class museums and how they display certain subjects, which sometimes create an “official story” instead of the “unofficial story”. One such subject matter is the Enola Gay exhibit. When an exhibit goes on display at a museum, it becomes subject to the bias of curator and the museum setting. In the Enola Gay controversy, the problem with this exhibit is that the subject surrounding this one aircraft is too large for the actual museum, thus the curators had to decide on very specific pieces of information to display with the Enola Gay aircraft. The exhibit shows the restored Enola Gay, a brief overview of its construction and what it is capable of, and one historical fact about it being the first aircraft to use nuclear weapons. The problem with this is that the exhibit is more in situ and less in context. This is a problem because protesters argued that just by looking at this aircraft one cannot understand the devastation it helped cause and its part in World history. The other side of the argument is that there isn’t enough text to go with it, which leaves room for debate, which veterans and other political figures don’t want. The exhibit hides too much of the history behind this aircraft, but at the same time has no choice. A simple solution would be to get the Enola Gay its own area that would provide the space needed, but there is no way to solve the way in which the protesters want it seen be the people, because a museum is suppose to be neutral area in which the facts are giving and the observers make their own opinions on the subject.

In our honors 110 class we discussed “in situ” vs “in context” museum exhibits. “In situ” refers to exhibits that are just visual and have little written explanations to accompany them. On the other hand, “in context” exhibits have more written information. In the article from the Japanese Times, Dik Daso tells us that the aircraft in the Air and Space Museum are merely displayed, “There’s no descriptive information out on any of these of what they were capable of doing. . . .” He tells us that the Air and Space museum is “place is primarily a technology museum.” We must then question the appropriateness of providing the conflicting views of the historical background accompanied with the Enola Gay aircraft in the museum.

However, we also explored “official stories, “unofficial stories,” and “hidden stories.” In the case of the proposed Enola Gay Exhibit the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy says that displaying the Enola Gay merely as a technological advancement is “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.” We can see that while the above issues may disagree with each other, and there was much more conflict on the nature and background of the exhibit, it is important to look at the purpose and goal of the exhibit when deciding what it should contain.

Museum curators are prone to criticism due to the pressures of audiences to exhibit a subject in a determined attitude.  The Enola Gay exhibit is especially controversial because of its implications during World War II.  It is important to consider the perspective of the museum, but more importantly the curator.  The museum holds its focus on aviation, so it would seem appropriate to exhibit and display solely the information pertaining to the mechanics of the B-29.  However, the devastation that it caused plays a major role in the mechanics of the machine as a weapon.  Besides holding duties to the museum and its priorities, the curator also holds loyalties to the veterans of the war, being a retired U.S. Marine.  This puts the curator in a compromising situation between the loyalties to the war veterans and museum and the responsibility the United States owns because of the Enola Gay.  If a plane had achieved incredible feats, it would undoubtedly be added to the exhibit.  It is wrong to withhold information because of sensitivities to certain groups of people, or because of guilt.  Doing this only creates a lack of knowledge that prevents society from understanding the true nature of history.

Your task for Research Journal #3 is quite open-ended. Simply explore the various explanations, documents, and perspectives found on the following pages—

• The Enola Gay Smithsonian Exhibit
• Enola Gay Archive (be sure to look at the individual documents linked to on this page)
• Japanese Times on Enola Gay Exhibit
• American Historical Association on the Enola Gay Exhibit

—And then write approximately 200 words, in which you relate the Enola Gay controversy to our class discussions on museums, exhibits, and official and unofficial stories. Be sure to read the posts of your classmates who blog before you, and try to avoid the “echo chamber” of agreement that we criticized last week. In other words, practice paying attention to the ongoing discussion and then saying something new about the topic!

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/cto/1948636742.html

The link provided opens a listing for the Washington DC area craigslist web page for classified listings of vehicles for sale.

The official story for this particular car, a 2000 Land Rover Discovery Series II SE7, is that the car is in excellent condition and is under auction from the “fist owner after corporate lease”.

Upon requesting information from the seller through e-mail, I obtained the vehicle’s VIN number and ran a search for accident reports (I also ran a carfax report on the vehicle).

While the owner declared his own official story of the car’s history, I discovered that the car had been involved in two accidents in the past ten years, one of which would have left significant damage to the hood area, resulting in major repairs and mechanical problems. As well, this was the thrid owner.

Essentially, this goes to show that an official story does not necessarily have to come in a particular format.

This article reports on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s speech defending the construction of a “mosque near Ground Zero.” The article’s title and Bloomberg’s emphasis on freedom of religion focus the reader’s attention on Islam, which has a negative connotation with respect to Ground Zero and September 11. However, the article only briefly mentions that the mosque is more of a community center. It also doesn’t mention the exact location of the building; Bloomberg mentions a mosque that’s four blocks away and questions the notion of a “no-mosque zone,” but there is no mention of the exact location of the center. (This can contribute to the misconception the the community center will built at Ground Zero or within view of it, which people find offensive.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

There has been much controversy over the years about if theres coke in coke a cola. Many believe that there is while the official story says there isn’t. However I have found they tend to leave out that there used to be coke in cola but trace amounts. This is not still true to the product we drink today but it was when it was originially manufactured. There were only trace amounts though just to get you to crave the product.

http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?ref=nav%5Ffooter%5Fabout&contentId=WCMP04-032391

Target is seen as a very respectible company. On their webiste, they state that Forbes called them one of the top 20 most respected companies in 2009, 96% of people recognize their bullseye logo, and that they give $14.9 million to schools nationwide. However, what Target does not say on their website is that they have come under-fire several times for their actions. Most recently, some LGBT groups are boycotting Target for their funding of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican with a very conservative view on LGBT rights. This and many other of Target’s decisions are not listed on their website for obvious reasons. Even in their press archives, the listings they have of the event, have very little information and are from a very neutral view. (http://pressroom.target.com/pr/news/7-30-statement.aspx)

Scientology Commercial

This commercial makes Scientology seem like a lovely, open-hearted and generous institution. The entirety of the video is designed to make you feel relaxed and happy, with images of beautiful people and a voiceover saying, “You are hope, you are imagination, you are the power to change.” The Scientology label is only added within the last couple seconds of the commercial.

The entire basis of the religion of Scientology is missing from this commercial. There is no mention of L. Ron Hubbard or space or aliens or Xenu. There is also no mention of how this cult keeps tabs on people, steals money, and seeks to silence everyone who opposes them. Scientology is suspicious and shady at best, and from the official story that they give in their commercials, you would never know.

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvku53FL3T8

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/values_in_action.html

The official story presented on the site is not unexpected. McDonald’s is a big name corporation that makes tons of money each day. They serve quick and tasty (depending on you opinion) meals to “billions” of customers each day.  McDonald’s is also involved in numerous community service projects and sponsors many events.

What is missing from the official story is the fact that McDonald’s food is by no means healthy. Their food is served quick, but when eaten on a daily basis, health and weight issues will probably arise. Evidence of this is the movie “Supersize Me” where Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but McDonald’s for a month. As a result he has enormous weight gain and health issues. What is convenient is not always good for you.

       http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/history

      The history of the White House is rich and full of defining moments of both the residence itself, the offices in it, the men who have served in it, and the nation as a whole. This “official story” of the history of the White House goes through many Presidents of the United States and their impact on the White House, particularly its construction under Washington, the two fires under Madison and Hoover, and the renovations that certain Presidents made to accomodate a growing American public. It truly illustrates how this building has been both an active participant in and a passive observer of the growth and prosperity of the nation.

       However, it does leave out a crucial part of this building’s history and the imprtant work a man who helped shape it and its importance. It leaves out the influence President Theodore Roosevelt had on making the White House a place for the public to connect with the President and the President to make permanent residence while in office. President Roosevelt established the White House Press room, and opened the executive branch to the public more than it had ever been. This was an important moment in the history of the White House, and the official page of the White House conspicuously left it out.

Web Adress:

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/bio

This link which is “Michael Jackson’s official site” has very little information regarding the infamous pop star’s very public child molestation accusations. Though this site does include some biographical information about Jackson, it is very limited and only highlights his achievements in the music industry. Though I could have assumed that this site wouldn’t have portrayed Michael Jackson in a negative light  in regards to his allegations, I thought at the very least they would touch upon the situation and offer a rebuttal. However, nothing of the sort was found, instead the site ignores the issue completely as if it never occurred. Obviously this is done to keep up the positive sentiment toward the belated artist, however the whole truth would have been nice.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-29-2005-64987.asp

According to buzzle.com, the “official story” of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart spans his years as a child musical prodigy and beyond, throughout which he enjoyed immense popularity. His funeral, though not well-attended, was not a reflection of his popularity with the public, as his work was played quite frequently after his death.

While the site does describe his “official” life as a popular composer rather well, it does omit Mozart’s partiality towards incredibly lewd humor, generally of the scatological variety. It also avoids mentioning the composer’s tendency towards gambling and other extravagances, often forcing him to borrow money from his friends.

http://www.foxnews.com/ it’s their motto

Very conservative, only tells one side of story

Completely one-sided, fabricated story about Mass Effect

http://web.tigerwoods.com/aboutTiger/bio

http://web.tigerwoods.com/aboutTiger/chronology

The official Tiger Woods website displays him as an amazing professional golfer, probably the best in the world. They talk all about his sports accomplishments such as his many wins at the Masters, the U.S. Open, and more. The website shows Woods as this superstar and just an all American guy.

What the website did not mention was that Tiger is not perfect at all. All over the news and tabloids is the story about how he cheated on his wife with many women and is an addict to sex. He and his wife are getting a divorce over this new discovery, as said in the news. None of this information is posted on the website in order to keep Woods’ image more focused on his professional life rather than his personal life.

During FDR’s presidency, he concealed many things about his paralysis. He was careful to never be photographed with a wheelchair. He choreographed his public appearances so that the press would not be able to photograph him getting in or out of a car. While making a public appearance, he was always supported by an aide or his lecturn. If FDR made an official story that he was not entirely crippled. By doing this, he projected an image of strength and resilience, rather then weakness. This stronger official story would make the public have more faith in their leader, whereas the truth may have caused people to doubt him.

http://sodexocommunity.com/cmnty_en/work/work.asp

http://cleanupsodexo.org/2010/09/students-faculty-and-community-members-s.php

Sodexo, Inc. is the provider for many of the dining facilities here on George Mason’s campus, including Southside.  On their website, they claim it’s “a great place to work” with “competitive wages, attractive benefits, and a wealth of training and educational programs.”  However, there is a counter story that may prove otherwise.

Last week, several Sodexo workers gathered in front of Southside to protest poor wages and unsafe working conditions that they say resulted in injuries such as burns, cuts, and broken bones.  If this is true, then maybe Sodexo isn’t the “great place to work” that they’re advertising.  Only after deeper investigations are revealed will the full truth come out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

The link that we are looking at is the Wikipedia article on the American Civil war.  The Wikipedia article first lists the Abolitionist Movement as a major cause of the South’s secession.  Along with that, the official story often deems President Lincoln as heroic because of his efforts to save the Union.  First of all, you may know that the Civil War wasn’t at all started or even fought to end slavery. In fact, during the war, Lincoln said in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.”  Also, it is important to view the Civil War from the side of the South.  Some historians believe that the South seceded not because of the anti-slavery ambitions of the North, but because of “Tariffs of Abominations.”  These tariffs were passed by congress soon after Lincoln was elected in an attempt to protect northern industry.  From the point of view of the Southerners, their secession was quite similar to the secession of America from the British Empire.  Unfair taxes by the Crown lead to the American Revolutionary War.  King George III, the ruler of England during the Revolutionary War, is often held in negative light by current Americans.  From this point of view, it is not hard to consider Abraham Lincoln as very tyrannical and an unfavorable president, instead of heroic.