Museums, sometimes by the mere fact of their existence, can prove to be politically charged and controversial. Should museums avoid, or embrace, this type of controversy?
Museums, sometimes by the mere fact of their existence, can prove to be politically charged and controversial. In May of 2006, the Museum of Soviet Repression opened in downtown Tbilisi, Georgia. EurasiaNet.org reported that, "Although Georgians insist that the museum is simply meant to commemorate the estimated 880,000 Georgians killed or exiled under Soviet rule, some Russian politicians see the one-room exhibit as a barb aimed straight at the Kremlin."
The new museum, which is housed in the existing Georgian National Museum, features, "Columns with the names of dozens of repression victims, written in red, (which) greet visitors. A photo-rich timeline follows the events leading up to Georgia's defeat by the Red Army in 1921, and ends with Soviet troops' April, 9 1989 crackdown against Tbilisi demonstrators calling for Georgian independence and the end of Abkhaz separatism".
Museums, standing as monuments or memorials to events in recent history, like the Museum of Soviet Repression can often be considered to be politically charged because of their interpretation of highly contentious events. Museums like the Museum of Soviet Repression can also be interpreted as political statements directed at a contemporary, rather than a historical, milieu. Some critics may charge that a museum commemorating slavery or the mass genocide of indigenous peoples might be more of a commentary on contemporary political situations than historical ones. Most of the criticisms however, are both unfounded and deeply misguided. More often than not, newer museums or exhibitions like those of the new National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) are not only attempting to educate the public about historical developments (and often atrocities) but also contemporary situations. The stated goal of the new NMAI is not only to present Native Americans as historical actors, but also as a thriving body of contemporary people. To pretend that Native Americans no longer exist, or that Native communities across North America are without any problems is simply denying fact, not political opinion.
The question than becomes, is it really possible to present contemporary or even recent historic political milieu without being interpreted as politically charged?
The Smithsonian struggled with the display and interpretation of the Enola Gay, one of the two US Army Air Corps bombers used to drop an atomic bomb on Japan at the end of the Second World War. Similarly, the development of the monument-slash-museum-memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack has been deeply controversial. Controversial museums, just like their monument counterparts, can prove to be radically successful. One example of this is the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C. The memorial was vastly contentious at the time the design was unveiled, however, it has become one of the most moving and powerful memorials ever created. Museums across the world continue to struggle with teaching the public that presenting evolution is not simply presenting some untested hypothesis but rather that the theory is one of the basic tenants of modern biology.
In an analogous fashion to memorials, museums intended to serve as historical monuments can prove to be either insightful and intriguing, or banal and rhetorical. While the Kremlin might rather have the people of Georgia forget the injustices that clouded over them during Soviet rule, they now have every right to commemorate that dark portion of their history via the museum.
