GERALD WALPIN: ARE OUR MUSEUMS SUBSTITUTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS FOR INSPIRATION? **** SEE NOTE PLEASE
Are Our Museums Substituting Political Correctness For Inspiration? By Gerald Walpin*
GERALD WALPIN IS THE FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT BUSH. HE WAS FIRED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT CAUSE–WHEN HE GOT CLOSE TO DISCLOSING A POSSIBLE SCANDAL THAT LED RIGHT UP TO THE STEPS OF THE WHITE HOUSE. …..RSK
The Code Of Ethics, adopted by the American Association Of Museums, directs museums “to foster an informed appreciation of the rich … world we have inherited.” For that purpose, the Ethics Code directs, programs should “respect … traditions,” and “encourage people” by providing “inspiration,” and thereby “promote the public good,” not any museum management’s personal agenda.
My wife and I are supporters of several of New York’s excellent museums. I am saddened, however, by recent changes in two museums, that replace tradition and inspiration with someone’s view of what is politically correct. One change does not promote public good, but debases traditions, and torpedoes inspiration from our country’s major hero. The other creates a false impression of the positive role of a political hero of some.
The New York Historical Society deserves plaudits for its exhibits and speakers, and its total building renovation. Unfortunately, the new sculpture montage at the entrance highlights deficiencies, rather than positive aspects, of our country.
The bust of George Washington is central – as it should be, given his role in our country’s creation and his New York inauguration as the first President. But the description that accompanies it hardly creates inspiration. Instead, it starts by merely calling him “a symbol of liberty.” He was no simple “symbol.” He unselfishly left his luxury life to serve for years as General, leading patriots in muddy and snowy fields to a victory that gave us the freedom that we enjoy today, despite knowing that, if unsuccessful, he faced execution or years in prison. Then, for eight years, he well led this country from its birth. None of that is even mentioned there.
While ignoring these inspirational facts of Washington’s life, the Museum deprecates him by highlighting that he was “also a slave owner.” That hardly educates our youth on that hero, and provides the antithesis of inspiring understanding of the greatness of our country from its birth. Then, to add insult to injury, the Museum encircles Washington with horrible implements of slavery, slave shackles and slave badges, described as “bringing into focus the unfulfilled ideals of the 18th and 19th Centuries” – thereby implying that Washington was a hypocrite.
Compare this museum’s introduction of Washington with the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia’s description of Washington, which enumerate his many acts that make him “universally regarded as the ‘Father of his Country’.” Solely in passing, it correctly notes that “Washington was born into the provincial gentry of a wealthy, well-connected Colonial Virginia family who owned tobacco plantations and slaves,” but adds “[h]e freed all his slaves by his final 1799 will.”
I do not question that it is easy to find some defect in our great leaders – not only Washington. Jefferson owned and didn’t free his slaves, but had them sold off, separating many from loved ones. Lincoln announced acceptance of slavery if it would maintain the Union. FDR denied a boatload of Jewish refugees to land in the United States, returning them to sure death in Germany, and directed the internment of Japanese-Americans. I doubt that any museum would include any of these ‘blemishes’ in any short introduction of them. It is wrong to do so with the Father of Our Country.
The Museum’s orientation film repeats the statue’s message, described as “the contradiction of slavery and freedom ideal.” Thus, the museum does not inspire, but demeans our forefathers’ bequest of freedom and democracy, by highlighting the existence of slavery, while minimizing what New Yorkers did in opposing slavery, supporting abolition and Lincoln, and contributing substantially to the army that won the Civil War.
The movie further demeans New York and this country by highlighting that “immigrants lived in “putrid and degrading slums,” while many people lived in “opulence,” suggesting that New Yorkers were guilty of mistreating immigrants. It thus ignores that the conditions these immigrants experienced here were 2000% better than what they had left, where they had suffered starvation, death and worse. It mentions in passing that millions came and continued to come to substitute what the museum calls “putrid and degrading slums” for the conditions in their native countries, but remains silent on the opportunities for which these immigrants came, resulting in education of their children, enabling children and grandchildren to become successful, demonstrating the upward mobility that New York offered.
There are two ways to present history to our young: emphasizing the good or emphasizing blemishes that even the best person must have. It is saddening that new NYHS management should opt for highlighting blemishes rather than greatness.
The American Museum of Natural History, another great museum, recently opened a new space travel exhibit, entitled “Beyond Planet Earth.” The exhibit quotes only two Presidents, Kennedy and Obama. Kennedy was correctly included, having instituted this Country’s Space Program. The Obama quotation of a few commendatory words from him,, however, appears politically motivated and disingenuous. It ignores the reality that he ended our energetic space program, cutting off its funding, and directed that this country now rely on other countries’ space ships for space travel.
Emphasizing the politicization is quoting Obama while not mentioning Nixon or Reagan. Nixon did most to implement Kennedy’s expressed dream of our Country’s space program by inaugurating the NASA “space vessel that can shuttle repeatedly from Earth to orbit and back.” Reagan, in 1984, announced plans for a permanent human presence in space with construction of a space station – a proposal that led to the Space Station that the Museum’s exhibit spotlighted.
The Museum told me that its “references to President Kennedy and Obama was to illustrate the continuity of the space program from its inception to now.” That was no answer. How was “continuity of the space program” shown by Obama’s defunding it? Looks like a purely political preference, inappropriate for an esteemed museum.
Comments are closed.
