Smithsonian Institution Under Fire for Political and Social Commentary in American Pop Exhibit

The Smithsonian Institution is again under fire over alleged political or social commentary in the presentation of historical exhibits. I have previously criticized the Smithsonian for its stress on narratives over artifacts. There was also the outrageous exclusion of Clarence Thomas as one of the great African Americans in history. Now, the White House is demanding changes after the Smithsonian was unable to offer an exhibit on American pop culture without extraneous social or political commentary.

I have been critical of the National Museum of American History’s tendency to allocate more and more space to interpretive sections that present narratives over actual historical collections. This “less is more” approach to modern museums is not confined to the Smithsonian, but it is a shame to see so much of the collection warehoused so visitors can hear from curators on the patterns or meaning in history.

For example, many people would come to the museum to see C-3PO and R2-D2 from Star Wars, but they will find a bizarre commentary masking as a description of the items. The Smithsonian ties the movie into people fleeing from the realities of the “loss in Vietnam and revelations about Richard Nixon’s dirty-tricks presidency.” I was one of those who went to the movie when it came out, and I cannot recall anyone thinking, let alone connecting, the film to Nixon or Vietnam. It was a breakthrough technological cinematic moment. We were in awe, even if kids today mock what is now comparably low-rate special effects. 

Another description, based on a 1923 circus poster, reads: “Under the big top, circuses expressed the colonial impulse to claim dominion over the world.”

In presenting another display, the Smithsonian tells visitors, “One of the earliest defining traits of entertainment in the United States was extraordinary violence.”

Some are simply weird. For example, a display of the Lone Ranger states: “The White title character’s relationship with Tonto resembled how the U.S. government imagined itself the world’s Lone Ranger.”

What? These descriptions sound like they were ripped from a paper from a curation class at Smith College.

Much of the commentary is disconnected from not just the artifacts but reality.

For me, the problem is not political bias, but the new culture of curators emerging from higher education. Just showing artifacts with neutral, factual descriptions is considered passe and pedantic. For people who are more interested in seeing original items of historical importance, they are met with displays focusing on interpretive elements and thematic narratives.

I remember when the “Castle” on the mall housed a wonderful collection of items sent to the Capitol for our centennial anniversary, including exhibits like a liberty bell made from tobacco. It was delightful to walk through the different artifacts. You felt that you had walked back in time.  The last time I visited, it had been replaced with a boring collection that interpreted the evolution of the mall and the city. 

I may be a throwback when it comes to such questions. As many readers of this blog are aware, I am a history enthusiast, particularly in the field of military history. I love being able to walk through artifacts and reach my own interpretive conclusions. Nevertheless, most people would agree that the Smithsonian descriptions in this exhibit are bizarre and should be changed.