This week's readings appear to be an encounter of last week's conflicts and struggles. Linenthal focuses on the boundaries of Holocaust memory and the often re-occuring struggles to balance the different views and opinions of this shared memory. It seems as though the second portion of the book deals mostly with the constant effort to create the appropriate and acceptable balance between often multi-sided, sensitive issues.
For instance, the permanent exhibit, throughout its planning process, faced several issues. Finding a balance between civility and the horrors of the Holocaust, between personal stories and the larger narrative, between stories and images of vicitms and those of bystanders and perpetrators, and between diluting the story and portraying it in its brutal truth. There was a great attempt to balance the differing views within the content committee, and with those of the survivors, the American public, as well as those of other communities affected by the Holocaust.
This effort to balance the different views and opinions, however, may ultimately have damaged the historical integrity of the museum. The museum's interpretations should not exist to please everyone, but rather to present a historically accurate and clear account of an event, and more importantly, should promote a social dialogue. In the creation of the Holocaust Museum it was often mentioned how great the responsibility was to establish a permanent exhibit that represented a true picture of the Holocaust. It was this responsibility, in my opinion, that should have kept the museum's creators from trying to balance all the various opinions.
Take for instance the discussion surrounding the museum's location and its exhibits; "It must not be forgotten that we are a National Museum on the National Mall and we must behave accordingly" (214). In my opinion, the fault here lies with the museum. The museum's interpretation should remain unaffected by the location of the museum, as should the story the museum hopes to portray. The historical events themselves should be clearly represented in the museum, regardless of its location, or the historical integrity of the museum is compromised.
Nonetheless, Linenthal's Preserving Memory is a great study of the issues museums face throughout their creation, and more importantly how museum creators deal with a memory still vivid, and very much still alive, as well as how museum creators deal with some of the conflicts that arise.
3 comments:
I love that you picked that quote from page 214 to discuss. When I read that I was like "Are you kidding me??" I always view museums as a place of research and truth and therefore I don't presonally expect them to "behave accordingly" I would much rather learn about the horrors of the Holocaust, however hard they may be to stomach, rather than a PC version. Maybe thats just me.
I agree with you when you say that this balancing act can damage the historical integrity of the museum. It's a hard thing when you have so many people saying so many different things. Something is bound to get left out and more than likely, it'll be something critical to the storyline. Then again, what isn't considered critical to the Holocaust memory?
I agree with you that the true story of the Holocaust was compromised in the museum as a result of committee members trying to make everyone happy. From making Elie Wiesel happy in the beginning, to the Turkish government's complaints during the museum's construction, the committee attempted to perform a task that they themselves could not mediate successfully. At the same time though, I cannot help but consider the role of the public historian as one who encourages shared inquiry and who wants the public to be heard. I think that the museum committee did the best that they could to listen to the public's opinion and concern; but as you implied, that effort back-fired with the result of the exhibit portraying the Holocaust more one-sided rather than telling the whole story.
I agree with your arguments here whole heartedly. The balancing act is prevalent throughout the book, but it also surprised me when he made the comments about how the memorial had to act according to its placement. It bothers me in much the same extent that history textbooks do in that it makes history only seem appropriate and accurate when it is padded and softened for the American public.
Post a Comment