The Problem of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is bad.

That seems like a really obvious thing to say, but it is.

Plagiarism still happens.

That is a really sad thing to write, but it's still true.

Plagiarism is something that plays a large part in my life. As a History and English double major, I have to be even more careful than the average student in making sure that everything I write has been checked, double checked, and often triple checked for citation accuracy. Fear of plagiarism can keep me up at night sometimes, especially when I have multiple papers going at the same time.

Plagiarism is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person." This may seem easy to avoid, and, most of the time, it is.

Just last week, I received a lecture about plagiarism in one of my classes. My French Revolution professor handed out a sheet on plagiarism, informing us about her past experiences with plagiarism in papers as a professor. In order to prevent them from happening again, she hands out information on it and discusses it for a lengthy amount of time in class. We have to sign a sheet testifying that we have learned what plagiarism is and hand it in the day of the lecture. When we turn in our final drafts, we have to turn in an additional sheet, with our signatures, our paper titles, and the date, acknowledging, once again, that we understand that, if we have plagiarized any of the papers, at least we know what we have done.

We don't take plagiarism as a joke. (I would like to point out here that my professor did mention - in jest, mind you - that we sign our contracts in blood, and then followed up the plagiarism discussion with a documentary on the history of the guillotine. It is a class on the French Revolution, after all).

It can be easily avoided, though.

A handy rule of thumb which has saved me many times: when in doubt, cite it. Better to over cite, and cite something that didn't need citations, than to not cite it, and be pulled before a board or lose your place at the school for plagiarism.

Most things that are common knowledge do not need to be cited. That typically applies to names, dates, locations - that sort of thing. But if you only find it in one source, or if you're paraphrasing or taking a direct quote from an author, then it definitely has to be cited. This is the Purdue OWL's guide to avoiding plagiarism, which most likely explains the rules better than I ever could.

The Conspirator: Hollywood's Take on the Mary Surratt Trial

As I was doing research this weekend, I discovered (or, I should say, rediscovered) this movie. It's called The Conspirator, and came out just before Lincoln did. It covers the trial of Mary Surratt, from the point of view of her lawyer, Frederick Aiken. I haven't seen this since it was released, but from what I remember, it was a really well done film. I plan to watch it again at some point, either during my research or after this semester, to see how much of the trial they actually got right. The video above is for the trailer. You can watch the film through Netflix, Amazon Prime, or on DVD.

Choosing and Researching: Beginning the Term Paper

Today in class, our professor told us to choose a topic for our term paper from any time period in American history, and then blog about our topic and research ideas for it.

That threw me for a loop.

If you've read my About Me, you know that most of the things that I tend to study and read about for fun in history are European history - in fact, at this same moment, I am researching and writing a term paper for a class on the French Revolution, which is what I would like to specialize in during graduate school. Choosing that particular topic was relatively easy - I was able to come up with a couple of topics and wound up choosing the political fashions of Marie Antoinette and Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. They will probably turn up multiple times during my discussion of term paper research throughout the process, as I wind up doing research for both papers.

Lady Georgiana Spencer, Duchess of Devonshire - Thomas Gainsborough

Because of my personal love of European history, focusing on a topic in American history is difficult. I enjoy studying the Civil War, so my first thought was perhaps studying the battles near my hometown, or the battle within my hometown. However, after thinking it over, I realized that not only is there way too much information on these battles, but that it would be difficult to get hold of in time for turning in my bibliography. My next thought was a president, or perhaps American spycraft. Spycraft seems to be a little too difficult to find sources on - while it is a fascinating topic, most of the spying that I am interested in is done within the context of European history. So that left a president.

My two all-time favorite presidents are Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. So, I quickly narrowed my possible topics down to the two of them. I asked myself what it was about the two of them that fascinated me so much - why Jefferson? Why Lincoln?

Thomas Jefferson - Third President of the United States and Most Adorable Nerd

What attracted me to Jefferson, I decided, was his ability to be an awkward nerd about life, and still be a genius. One of my favorite stories about him was that, as a student, he asked a girl out courting and, after she rejected him, suffered a headache for a day from embarrassment. I'm also fascinated by his wine collection and his time in France - why, out of all of the Founding Fathers, was it Jefferson who absorbed so much of French culture and characteristics? This seems especially interesting to me since his presidency is so intertwined with the Lewis and Clark Expedition, one of the most rough and tumble events in early America. I also love Monticello, Jefferson's house in Virginia - I've visited twice, and every time I enter I'm filled with greater respect for a man who was a genius ahead of his time, and yet also trapped within social conventions that he felt he could not escape.

Abraham Lincoln - The Glue that Held the Union Together

What I find most fascinating about Abraham Lincoln is his role in the Civil War. I suppose (if I'm being completely honest) what I'm really fascinated by is his assassination. I conveniently already have a source for a paper on the Lincoln assassination in my dorm room with me: James Swanson's Manhunt, a book that I found fascinating the first time I read it, and continue to find fascinating.

After a long train of thought, I decided that my topic would be the Lincoln assassination, the chase for the assassins, and their trials and executions - a topic that, if necessary, I shrink after talking with my professor.

Then it came time to look at what I needed to do for research. The previous semester, I wrote a term paper on the influence of the mistress on court life at Louis XIV's Versailles, so I am very familiar with our ILL (interlibrary loan) system. I decided that the best course of action would be to turn to Swanson and see what he had listed in his bibliography, and see how many of those books were available at Spring Hill. After that, I could start looking for ebooks through my public library back home, primary sources through the National Archives, and maybe even microfiche newspaper announcements in the archives at nearby universities. A biography of the assassin, John Wilkes Booth, might not be a bad place to start, in order to gain an understanding of his actions. This might be where I start this weekend. 

But first, I think I'll go back to the beginning - time to reread Manhunt. I'm looking forward to research!

Manhunt cover art - my first source for my paper! 

UPDATE: After discussion with my professor, I have narrowed my topic down to Mary Surratt, her involvement in the plot, and he subsequent trial. Surratt was the only woman tried among the conspirators, and was executed along with them for supposedly aiding and abetting John Wilkes Booth in his plot to assassinate the president. I have never found the evidence against Surratt very convincing, however - in fact, I have always felt that the military tribunal that tried the conspirators was attempting to try Booth in absentia through the figures of the conspirators,  since Boston Corbett had killed Booth before he could be tried. I think of all the figures, Surratt's trial is the most fascinating, and I look forward eagerly to diving into my research!

Preparing to Debate: Researching the History of the Cold War

This past week, I was assigned a debate project, along with two of my classmates, to argue that the policies used by the United States during the Cold War "promulgated and extended" it. Not only are we supposed to prepare for an intense, in-class debate (which might possibly take place in front of other professors - from our department, as well as others), we are supposed to blog about our preparation and research for the debate, as well.

This is my attempt to summarize my research process. My research methods may be unusual, so feel free to ask me questions in the comments.

You can find my companions' research here, at Maggie's and TJ's blogs.

Cold War Political Cartoon

Before I began researching, I knew the basic schematic of the Cold War. It began almost as soon as the Second World War ended in 1945 with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman and Stalin had had a rocky relationship at Potsdam, due to Stalin's attempts to subtly (not really, but that's what he thought) gain power, and Truman's recognition of his efforts. The Marshall Plan went into effect, helping to revitalize Europe's economy. Aid was promised to all European countries devastated by the war - however, those now occupied by Soviet troops were forced to refuse the aid. Americans suddenly adopted a policy of containment - to keep communism from spreading anywhere it wasn't already present - outlined for them in the Truman Doctrine. Truman then sent aid to Greeks fighting against communism in the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s,  as a measure to prove his commitment to the Truman Doctrine. And then, in the 1950s, Truman decided to back the South Koreans in their war for independence.

The Korean War was fought against the North Koreans, who were Communist and backed by the Chinese. China had undergone a brief revolution itself, and was now, under Chairman Mao, a Communist regime (although, due to ideological differences with Stalin, not the same type of communism as the Soviet Union - in fact, due to these differences in interpretation, Stalin and Mao did not get along very well). General Douglas MacArthur was placed at the head of the army during the Korean War, and all seemed well - in fact, the Americans and South Koreans passed the 58th Parallel and invaded North Korea - until MacArthur decided that he wanted to invade China as well. This did not bode well with the Chinese or Truman, who sacked MacArthur and installed a new general, who was then overwhelmed by the combination of Chinese and North Korean forces and sought a stalemate.

Not long after this, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred; followed, not long after, by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as he rode through Dallas, Texas, during his campaign for reelection. Americans were panicked, especially when they learned that the assassin was a former resident of the Soviet Union, and had, in fact, married a Soviet citizen. It was up to Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's vice president and now president of the United States, to come up with a plan.

What he wound up doing was involving the United States in one of the most unpopular, most deadly wars in its history: Vietnam.

Like Korea, Vietnam was fought against a communist government within North Vietnam, led by Ho Chi Minh, and their allies in South Vietnam, the Viet Cong. The South Vietnamese wanted to maintain ties with Western countries, while North Vietnam wanted to unify the peninsula after colonial forces had been removed. Americans had actually been in Vietnam since the 1950s, slowly growing in number throughout the 1960s. Vietnam became a grossly unpopular war in the United States, with taunts being shouted at the president from the public outside the White House. It led to Johnson failing to win reelection, and to the presidency to Richard Nixon - because Nixon claimed to have a secret plan to win the war.

While Nixon did end Vietnam, pulling Americans out by 1972, his main contribution to the Cold War was his policy of detente. Detente was a brilliant plan - it played the Soviet Union and China's massive dislike of the other against them, allowing America to gain policies that it needed. It was a genius political move. 

After Watergate kicked Nixon out of the White House, and Ford had left, Jimmy Carter became president. His main Cold War issue was Iran - their kidnapping of hundreds of American hostages became the main focus of his last days in office. He also decided to boycott the 1980 Olympics, because of their presence in Soviet Russia. 

His successor, Ronald Reagan, did the most to bring about the end of the Cold War. He began an arms race between the two countries to cause the Soviet Union to run out of money. He also began a talk with Mikhail Gorbachev to see if the two countries could come to an agreement to end the Cold War. Before Reagan could complete his goals, his two terms ended, and his former vice president, George Bush, was elected president. In 1991, Soviet Russia fell, along with the Berlin Wall, which had divided East (Soviet-held) Berlin from West (American-held) Berlin since the end of World War II. It was the dawn of a new era.

Based on my prior knowledge, then, it would seem that both sides were at fault for the Cold War starting - mainly because of Stalin being Stalin, and Truman recognizing that fact, but not really being good at calling him on it. From that point on, it seems as if America did, in fact, do most of the actual fighting - whether it was actual fighting, as in Korea or Vietnam, or whether it was political, such as Nixon's policy of detente or Reagan's arms race. 

My goal for researching, then, would be to look at those points in time, and see whether or not the Russians and Americans ever both pushed for policies to "promulgate and extend" the Cold War.

My first instinct was to ask my father, who had studied Soviet policy in college, whether he had any suggestions as to places where I could look for more information. He was rather unhelpful, telling me  that he had only lived through the Cold War, and had no suggestions for me. So I then turned to the Spring Hill Library.

Our library is smaller than most, seeing as our school is a small school, but I did manage to find some interesting books on the topic. Our professor had posted several books to get us started, but I managed to find only one on the shelved, John Spanier's American Foreign Policy Since World War II. I also picked up a book titled Victims of Groupthink, written by Irving C. Janis, and A Journey Through the Cold War, by Raymond R. Garthoff. Although I did not pull it from the shelves, I did see a book titled Bears in the Caviar, which made me smile.

Spanier's book helped to clarify why the United States reacted as it did to the sudden appearance of communism in China, an event which has always seemed somewhat mysterious to me. Spanier notes that Americans had always considered China their pet project in Asia, going back as far as the Open Door Policy at the end of the 19th century. However, they had never really expected to have to defend the country that they were lauding heavily as a commercial market for American goods, and were shocked by the collapse of the Chinese government. It also came at the same time as the discovery of the traitorous work done by Alger Hiss, a member of the government who had passed information to the Soviet Union, and the detonation of the USSR's first atomic bomb. The fear of communism that all of these events at once combined to create was only compounded by the Korean War and China's intervention. So far, I think this has been the best source that I've found on the topic.

A brief glance through the preface of Victims of Groupthink suggested that it would focus on the psychological reasoning behind the political decisions made, especially when looking at the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Marshall Plan, and the escalation of the Vietnam War (all of which are dealt with as topics within the book). Janis makes it clear that the book's purpose is "to increase awareness of social psychological phenomena in decisions of historic importance" (Janis v). It seems like it could be a credible source for the debate, but it has also left me wondering why it was shelved in the history section, and not under psychology.

Garthoff's book, upon closer reading, turned out to be a memoir of his life through the Cold War. I'm a little wary of a memoir, especially for a debate, since it is such a polarizing topic, and the lens of personal beliefs might cloud the author's judgement. However, Garthoff's preface discusses his service in the CIA and under the governments of both Kennedy and Johnson, so it might prove a viable source. 

At this point, I continue to research (I hope to find more information through primary sources at the National Archives and other web sources) and to prepare for the debate on Wednesday. My group and I are meeting tomorrow to discuss what we've found and where we want to go with the debate. I look forward to hearing what they've found!

"Mickey Mouse" History: How Disney Parks Portray the Past

Pretty much everyone I knew growing up had been to a Disney Park. It was either Disney World or Disneyland (or, if you were one of the lucky ones, both of them) or EPCOT, which, for kids my age, was not nearly as cool as the princesses and princes at the Magic Kingdom. Growing up, though, we never recognized that Disney was attempting to show us history. 

My parents, on the other hand, remember Disney in a much different fashion. They remember Disney films on everything from history to biology being shown in classrooms in their middle schools and high schools. Disney's attempts to educate were much more obvious then.

Now, however, it is much different. My generation did not grow up watching educational films on America created by Walt Disney and his corp of Imagineers; instead, we grew up on Disney's animated princes and princesses and his marvelous theme parks. These theme parks were Walt Disney's way to reinterpret history as he wanted to see it. 

There is an important distinction that should be made before I continue this post. There are two Walt Disneys, according to Mike Wallace's Mickey Mouse History: Original Walt, who is Walt Disney himself, and Corporate Walt, who is the WED Enterprises, Inc. Corporate Walt took over for Original Walt after Disney's death in 1966, and has operated ever since. 

It was Original Walt who conceived the idea for the Disney Parks in California and, later, Florida. He  created a place which was "clean, wholesome, and altogether different from the seedy carnivals he remembered from his youth" (Wallace 135). Here, Disney built his own version of history, starting with Main Street, the first place visitors come to when entering a Disney Park. 

Main Street, USA at Walt Disney World, Orlando, Florida

"It is a happy street," writes Wallace, "clean and tidy, filled with prancing Disney characters. It has a toylike quality...It is like playing in a walk-in doll's house that is simultaneously a shopper's paradise, equipped with dozens of little old-time shops with corporate logos tastefully affixed" (135-6). Supposedly, Main Street is based on the main street of Disney's childhood hometown of Marceline, Missouri; looking at Disney's actual life history (a childhood of displacement and perambulation across America) shows this to be false. Instead, Wallace points out, Main Street, USA, is Disney's idea of what Main Street should be like. "Original Walt's approach to the past," Wallace writes, "was thus not to reproduce it, but to improve it [author's italics]" (136). Imagineers call this "Disney Realism," "where we carefully program out all the negative, unwanted elements and program in the positive elements" (Wallace 137). 

Disney also embraced this perfected view of history in the Hall of Presidents. A brief video elaborating on the Constitution and the threats it had faced in the past is followed by a display of animatronic presidents, moving and talking about their presidencies. 

The Hall of Presidents

Wallace points out that each president is portrayed with a degree of detail "characteristic of Hollywood costume dramas" (139). The audience is held in rapt attention by the presidents, occasionally whispering as famous names are mentioned. When Nixon is spotlighted, however, "chortles and guffaws break out" because, as Wallace notes, "The contrast between the official history and living memories is too great...and the spell snaps under the strain." Wallace, after leaving the show, asked a worker if it had just been a bad day for Nixon, and was told in reply "that no, the crowd always rumbles when RN takes a bow" (139). 

This problem of connection between past and present led to Corporate Walt's creation in 1982 of EPCOT and its American Adventure. 

The American Adventure, EPCOT

The American Adventure departs from the history portrayed at the Magic Kingdom in that it includes African-Americans, women, and Native Americans. It follows American history, as narrated by (animatronic) Mark Twain and Benjamin Franklin, covering everything from the American Revolution to the lunar landing. Despite including groups that had been excluded or portrayed in an unflattering light in the Magic Kingdom, it still glosses over the parts of history that Corporate Disney found distasteful, including the complete elimination of the Vietnam War and the fights for union rights. While it is a step in the right direction, it still holds back.

What Disney history (or, as Wallace terms it, "Mickey Mouse" history) reveals is the desire to teach while entertaining, and improve while appearing to teach the truth. This is similar to what happened in Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s, as America struggled to find a true national heritage. By creating his own version of America, Disney commodified American history, turning it into something that could be bought and sold. It becomes an idea to be passed on to future generations - an idealization, instead of the actuality. 

What Disney promotes is a perfected idea of the past - a glossy magazine cover, with no problems, no ills, no issues of race or gender. It's a beautiful dream, but it remains just that - a perfected dream. 

The Kennedy Assassination: A Continuing Controversy

The Kennedys were America's glamorous First Family. They were peace and stability. They were culture and couture. They were happy and young. 

That all changed on November 22, 1963.

This is what the record says:

John F. Kennedy, his wife, Jacqueline, the governor of Texas, John D. Connally, and his wife, Nellie, were in a motorcade through downtown Dallas. Kennedy was campaigning for a second term as president, and had made a speech in Fort Worth earlier that morning. The top of the car was left down because of the weather. The route stretched through the center of downtown, towards a site where the president was scheduled to make a second speech that afternoon. 

At 12:30, the presidential motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. Gunshots were heard as the vehicle passed the Texas School Book Depository. Kennedy and Connally were both hit, Kennedy falling onto his wife. 

The car sped to the nearest hospital, Parkland Memorial, where the president was pronounced dead at 1:00 PM. 

Not long after the shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination attempt. As he was being transferred two days later, on November 24, Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby on national television. 

The case seems cut and dry. But because of Oswald's death, the assassination has been surrounded with controversy and mystery since the 1960s. 

Because Kennedy had been such a significant presence in American lives, the people demanded an explanation for this seemingly random act of violence. President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Warren Commission to study the events surrounding the president's death, and to discern a conclusion for the events. The Warren Commission's lengthy report (the complete report has been digitized by the National Archives, and can be read here) stated that the shots which killed the president came from the Texas School Book Depository and that they were fired by Oswald. They also determined that Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone, and not as part of a conspiracy. 

Despite its attempts to help calm Americans, who were panicked by the loss of their leader as well as the now-encroaching war in Vietnam, the Warren Commission only fueled the fire. More and more Americans tried to find an answer that they believed the government had failed to provide. They turned, inevitably, to conspiracy.

Theories began to abound (and still do today). The most popular theories today are the Grassy Knoll and the Magic Bullet. 

The Grassy Knoll theory says that a second shooter was on the Grassy Knoll behind the presidential motorcade, and fired on the president. The theorists who cling to this idea base it mainly on eyewitness testimony. 

The Magic Bullet theory is an attempt to contradict the Warren Commission's assertion that a single bullet struck both the president and the governor. It posits all sorts of contortions that the bullet had to have done in midair in order to "magically" (hence the name of the theory) hit both men. 

The Magic Bullet Theory

Both of these theories have been rigorously attacked by historians who follow the Warren Commission's report. Called lone gunman theorists, these historians attempt to present the basic facts in order to counteract the manipulation of information often used by the conspiracy theorists. 

Despite decades of investigation, the Kennedy assassination continues to draw controversy. Every year at the anniversary of the assassination, a slew of new books are published on the topic, from both viewpoints. But the topic continues to draw interest (and, thus, controversy) because of the Kennedy aura. The tragedy and the beauty of the Kennedy family certainly once drew me to learn more and form my own opinion. The case will most likely continue to draw criticism and interest for generations to come.

If you are interested in learning more about the assassination, these websites were invaluable:

The Kennedy Assassination - covers all aspects of each of the conspiracy theories (including those not mentioned on this post) and attempts to debunk them using historical evidence

The Warren Commission - already linked to previously, this goes into painstaking detail about what happened, when, where, and, when it can be interpreted, why

The JFK Presidential Library - gives a brief synopsis of the events that led up to and followed the assassination

I am also indebted to the Newseum's wonderful exhibit on the media coverage of the assassination, "Three Shots Were Fired." Sadly closed now, I was able to see the exhibit two summers ago on a trip to Washington, D.C. with my mother. It poignantly showed how the assassination touched the American public, and how it changed the face of the news media forever. 

Patriotic Correctness: The Purpose of the Public Museum

The United States is filled with museums. Some, like the Spy Museum (who I lauded heavily in my last post), are private museums, run by a board and funded by contributions from private donors. They have a greater control over what is presented in their museums - what artifacts are presented, in what order, and what story they tell.

Public museums are different. 

Public museums, such as the Smithsonian Institute, are also run by a board of directors. But the public museum relies on donations from major public sponsors and the good will of the public in order to remain open. In the case of the Smithsonian, it receives major funding from the United States government, and depends on the goodwill of Congress and the constituents to maintain its nineteen museums, national zoo, and extensive underground storage systems. 

While sites such as the Smithsonian are dependent on public good will for funding, that does not mean that they should cater to public interests and beliefs. 

Case in point:

In 1995, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum planned to display the Enola Gay for the first time, in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the ending of World War II (which, coincidentally, would also be the fiftieth anniversary of the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). A detailed exhibit was planned, covering not just the bombings, but the background to the decision, its pros and cons, and the impact it had on world events. The public, specifically John T. Cornell, editor of AIR FORCE Magazine, threw a fit over the exhibit. Eventually, Congress became involved, as Newt Gingrich and other members of the Republican Party saw a way to control the way in which America was perceived. Declaring that "revisionist" historians had no place in American museums, a campaign was launched against the exhibit, which eventually led to the semi-forced retirement of the director of the Smithsonian Institute and a presentation of a much more subdued exhibit devoted solely to the Enola Gay, ignoring the bomb entirely.

Which brings me to my main point: what is the true purpose of the public museum? And should it have to conform to public desires for "patriotic correctness"?

Public museums (and all museums, to be completely honest) are made available to the public in order to give them a place to connect with the past. "At long last," writes Mike Wallace, "the American past is as crowded, diverse, contentious, and fascinating as the American present" (302). And Americans are drawn to this. In a museum, people are given the chance to see things and form their own opinions, based either on the placards or simply on their own personal knowledge, instead of being taught one person's opinion. There is a chance that they can exit the museum with a greater respect and knowledge of the past than when they entered. Public museums (and private ones, as well) do a great service here to the American people.

However, some people want to see only certain versions of history that go along with how they view events. This is where the Enola Gay exhibit comes into play. The public attempted to determine what kind of history was displayed at the Smithsonian, and, in trying to fix what was deemed too radical, the Smithsonian eventually cut out everything and left only the plane. The members of the public wanted a more "patriotic" look at the events that led up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a look that portrayed Americans as heroes and the dropping of the bombs as vital to the ending of the war. The original copy for the exhibit showed doubts about the necessity of the bomb and the heroism of Americans - in fact, it was heavily criticized (unnecessarily, upon reading in context) for favoring and victimizing the Japanese.

Should public museums become "patriotically correct" - sticking to the mythological America, where Americans are strong and brave and can do no wrong?

No. They should not.

Do they often have the liberty to do so?

No.

By becoming "patriotically correct," history loses some of the things that make it interesting - the darkness must balance out the light. Americans fought in Vietnam as well as in World War II. The Holocaust involved not just Nazi soldiers and the German people, but people in Hungary and Vichy France. The French Revolution overthrew a corrupt monarchy, but it also led to the mass executions of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Americans dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed citizens.

The good has to be balanced by the bad.

By cleansing the viewpoint, we lose the balance. History becomes saccharine - sickly sweet, overly cheerful, like the Hollywood films of the 1930s and 1940s. The hero always triumphs. In the end, good wins out over evil, the hero can do no wrong, and all is right with the world. But that is not how history works.

Men who seemed to be able to only do good turn out to be maniacally evil. The best laid plans turn out to have catastrophic consequences. Nothing is as it seems on the surface.

However, public museums are often influenced (in the Smithsonian's case, threatened with a Senate hearing) by what the public wants. They do not want to offend the delicate sensitivities of the public imagination. And so they leave out the controversy. They "let the objects speak for themselves" - a tactic which works sometimes, but, on occasion, fails to incite the thought process that is so heavily sought for. In their attempts to please both sides, the message of the events - of the people who fought, the people who prayed, the people who died - is lost.

Public museums are national treasures, and should be treated as such. But they should also be allowed the freedom to interpret events that is given to private museums. Public museums have just as much right as private museums to accurately portray history, and, because they are visited by so many Americans, they have a duty to do so. But by listening to the cries for patriotic correctness, they fall short of their calling, and portray only a partial portrait of history.