[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 131 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11068-S11069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY HISTORY AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, particularly since there are on the
floor people who are very interested in the military of the United
States, I want to speak to an issue that should have been discussed 2
days ago during the Interior Department appropriations bill. But the
Interior Department will still be up next week when it is put back up
on the calendar, or in parts of the continuing resolution, and so I
alert my friends to a trend in military history that is very disturbing
to me as it relates to the Smithsonian Institution.
Upon debating the Interior Department's funding, this is as good time
as any to voice concern over the interpretations of American history at
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History.
Apparently, military history has assumed a minor role in the museum's
depiction of this Nation's history. The exhibit space allocated to the
display of military items has slowly decreased. A large percentage of
that which is currently on display remains in the cases in which they
were installed for the opening of the museum over 30 years ago. Further
inquiry has led me to believe that what remains of the Armed Forces'
history hall is in jeopardy.
The administrators of this museum appear to be swayed by the ideology
of revisionist/liberal historians. They desire to decrease even further
the exhibit space devoted to U.S. military history. This is reflective
of their adherence to the concept of new history as opposed to the
traditional approach, which emphasizes important people, events, and
movements.
History has typically been organized into areas of concentration,
such as military, diplomatic, political, and economic history. But a
museum devoted to a new history would, instead, reflect cultural,
social, gender, ethnic, and community concentrations. Obviously, a
conventional exhibit depicting our Nation's military history would not
fit into this theme. This approach, in itself, is not inherently bad.
But dominance of this new history to the detriment of a conventional
representative display of military history is disturbing.
This overemphasis on common people and the infrastructure of their
community tends to then decrease the importance of meaningful events
and significant people, which have played pivotal roles throughout the
history of our Nation.
Military history is, therefore, overlooked because it is a
conglomeration of momentous events and distinguished soldiers. What is
neglected by these historians is the detail that, throughout the
history of the Armed Forces, we witnessed common people leaving the
security of their communities and performing extraordinary,
consequential feats in the scheme of military affairs.
This ideology is reflective of that which is popular in many liberal
and academic circles. Military history is deemed evil in that it
involves death and weaponry. As a result, the great impact the military
has had on every American is disregarded.
Since the habitation of this country by Europeans in the 16th
century, the militia and its leaders have played a prominent role. This
is true not only in the defense of their people but in society as well.
Weapons were an important tool of the early settlers in the defending
of their families from hostile native Americans. They were important
also in the task of putting food on the table. Not only has the
military continually defended the Nation, but it has assisted in the
exploration and opening of the frontiers to settlers.
Military contractors and arsenals played an important role in
developing interchangeable parts, standardization, and mass production.
In more recent years, it has played important roles in developing new
technologies that we use every day, such as computers, new
communication techniques, et cetera. The military has touched many
facets of our lives, and this history is not exhibited in any museum.
There are various Naval, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force museums
scattered across the country. But they only concentrate on the history
of their particular service, not on the entirety of the U.S. Armed
Forces. The National Museum of American History holds the best
collection of American military artifacts, and it has the capability to
recount the whole story of the armed services. What better place to
develop a comprehensive exhibit of our Nation's military service and
its history than on The Mall at Washington, DC.
Our Nation's military history is special. It is unique from other
modes of history, such as social, cultural, political, or economic. It
involves the ultimate sacrifice of one's life for his or her country.
These sacrifices were incurred in the hope of a better future for
generations of Americans to come.
In this sense, an exhibit devoted to our Armed Forces is not only an
educational tool. More important, it is a memorial to those who risked
their lives, and those who ultimately gave their lives for our freedom.
The military has also touched many American families throughout our
history. Millions of men and women have answered the Nation's call to
duty, both as soldiers and citizens in support of war efforts. Having
such a great impact on our society, a museum of American history should
not slight exhibit space devoted to the Armed Forces.
In decreasing the importance of military history at the museum, we
are losing a significant segment of our proud history. Storage rooms
are stocked with artifacts belonging to American military heroes, many
of them used during important military engagements. These artifacts
bring to our Nation's Capital a little excitement and drama from the
battlefields of Saratoga, the naval battles on Lake Champlain, the many
fields of our Nation's Civil War, distant fields of Verdun, Normandy,
Korea, Vietnam, and the gulf war. Many artifacts link us to
[[Page S11069]]
significant individuals throughout the span of our history: Gen. George
Washington, Gen. Andrew Jackson, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Gen. John J.
Pershing, and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, to name only a few.
To ignore these military events and these personalities makes
meaningless their struggles and the struggles of the people of this
Nation who enlisted their assistance to the military. That is true
whether it was service in the Armed Forces or in the support of them.
Now, if things go as planned, I fear that many of these items will be
hidden from the American public despite the results of a recent
visitors survey. In this survey taken at the National Museum of
History, it became evident that the Armed Forces' history hall was the
second most popular exhibit area in the museum. Therefore, speaking on
behalf of most Americans, I urge the museum to reconsider its plan for
the military history hall.
We should look at this museum, responding to the needs of the
American people. If this survey shows that this is the second most
popular exhibit in the museum, we should not have some revisionist at
the Smithsonian Institution taking away what the American people like
and enjoy and depriving American people of understanding and
visualizing the sacrifice of American service men and women who do
sacrifice with lives, with injuries, with time away from family for the
defense of freedom, so that not only can the American people enjoy
freedom, but the revisionist historians still have the intellectual
environment in which they can do their work. But they ought to show
more appreciation of that sacrifice, and I think the plans for this
military history museum detract from that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________