A hearing was held this week by the Subcommittee for Delivering on Government Efficiency to examine the NMAH’s promoting of what critics see as a divisive, inappropriate and factually inaccurate programming of U.S. history. NMAH Director Anthea Hartig was thoroughly questioned on the direction the institution has taken.
The hearing was prompted after the Trump administration published a 162-page report titled “Saving America’s Story” on July 4. Fox News reported it accused the museum of becoming a taxpayer-funded institution that has moved away from “straightforward historical education and scholarship" to "extreme political activism."
Dr. Matthew Spalding is an author and constitutional government professor at Hillsdale College. He spoke on “Washington Watch” about how it is “strikingly odd” and “deeply disturbing” that during the 250th anniversary of America, the Smithsonian has replaced American history with something that doesn’t tell the true story.
“There's this is kind of a postmodern theory of history, which is not about history. Everything's about struggles, about oppression and oppressed peoples and things,” Spalding told show host Tony Perkins. “So, everything about America that we would think you would find in a history museum of national American history is gone or, at least, so downplayed and decentered that it's meaningless.”
As for the public, people are assuming, Spalding says, that the history museum is fine and that others are trying to whitewash it, when the exact opposite is happening in reality.
Recent problematic additions, he states, include a young girl’s diary of wanting to be a man, outfits used for sexual practices and drag queens.
Cherry-picking historical facts
If a school were to go on a field trip, Spalding says they would learn nothing about the narrative or chronology of history.
“They will learn that Benjamin Franklin had indentures and slaves, and it ponders whether he actually did electrical experiments on his slaves. They don't know that,” Spalding states.
Also, it goes unmentioned in the NMAH that both Franklin and founding father Alexander Hamilton became leaders in abolitionist organizations in their home states. It doesn’t fit the museum’s narrative, Spalding said.
Spalding calls this an ideological takeover of the museum.
“It's a one-two punch. There are things there that are problematic, but why are they there? Their view of history is how to bring those things in and replace history with what they think it ought to be,” he says.
Spalding also notes the controversy surrounding the change in the museum’s mission statement in the last several years. According to the Hartig, the change in language was to “get out of the ‘American First’ mentality” when it comes to history.
The beginning of the previous mission statement said: “Through incomparable collections, rigorous research, and dynamic public outreach, we explore the infinite richness and complexity of American history.”
The current mission statement reads: “Empowering people to create a just and compassionate future by exploring, preserving, and sharing the complexity of our past.”
Gradual change in focus
All of this was able to go unnoticed, Spalding says, because the right people weren’t paying attention. However, he points out that one can see for themselves what is happening because it is clearly laid out in the museum’s documents.
He says this goes back to postmodern Critical Theory, in which there are no permanent truths, and, in this case, history is an assertion of power. The theory is connected, he continues, to many ideas in the academic world that have helped bring on new socialist movements.
“We could have seen it coming, but now we're seeing the fruits of it. The taxpayers are paying for this, and we're paying for it. Their budget is about a billion dollars a year and about two-thirds comes from Congress,” Spalding states.
