A Trump official previously complained about a caption beside his National Portrait Gallery photo mentioning his impeachments and the U.S. Capitol insurrection.
Access options:
- gift link — registration required
- archive.today
A Trump official previously complained about a caption beside his National Portrait Gallery photo mentioning his impeachments and the U.S. Capitol insurrection.
Access options:
How much of history do you alter before your museum is a farce? How much truth can you change to lies for the sake of funding before your museum is just a propaganda program for an authoritarian regime?
In other words you see this as Theseus’s museum. That’s an interesting idea. I don’t think changing one board fundamentally changes the ship, though I’m getting the impression you disagree.
It’s worth noting the plaque wasn’t changed to read ‘Trump was never impeached’, and so there isn’t a direct lie in this circumstance. This is more of a lie by omission, however even that is pretty loose as the museum likely feels they can’t legally reference the impeachments anymore due to EO14253 which explicitly effects the Smithsonian.
I do agree with your sentiment in that over enough time and alteration, a museum could become a place of advertising and not culture or history. However this brings me back to the question I raised that you have not answered twice now.
Changing this plaque can be the start of a slippery slope, yes. However, if you were stood at the summit of K2 and group of thugs walked up from behind and presented you the choice of either taking a step down the steep side or being picked up and thrown off the mountainside to inevitable death, what do you choose?
I think I’d prefer to shutter the museum over pretending that you can somehow compromise on what the truth is. The Smithsonian, like many institutions in the last year, folded with little to no resistance.
The world isn’t as black and white as you seem to perceive it. Even saying the Smithsonian ‘folded’ is hyperbolic. They seem to have simply complied with a law, just like they have fire suppression, first aid kits, railings at staircases, etc.
It’s fine and dandy for a person to think and believe they’d never commit an act of violence, but if they see someone trying to strangle a child, that person isn’t going to shrug their shoulders and say ‘I have my principles’ while they go about their merry way.
Evidently you and I are of two different schools of thought, but nonetheless it’s appreciated that you answered my question.
Cheers for that.
In no way is compliance with safety laws compromising the mission of a museum. That’s one difference between those “laws” and it’s an important one. Another difference is that an executive order is not a law.
That’s what you choose to focus on? I’m not going to get into the minutiae of what a law is.
My overarching point here was that this omission may have been a purposeful tactic, and that I don’t believe a misstep taints the institution as a whole. I attempted to bring this to a polite close once you confirmed the inflexibility of your point of view.
Consider yourself to have won this conversation if that’s what you need.
Sure, dude. The meaning of words like “law” is minutia in the same way that a museum’s dereliction of duty to the truth is just a minor misstep that will be redressed once the mad king who issues decrees from his social media account just decides to stop being a tyrant. When hasn’t appeasing a tyrant worked, after all?
It’s all just so complicated, and not at all that a single guy is saying he has all of the authority in the world, limited only by his own morality and is calling on you with powers that he doesn’t legally possess to rewrite recent, thoroughly documented events and you’re licking his boots in hopes that he’ll leave you alone for a little while.