There was recently a fair amount of press (at least around Washington, D.C. where they think they're the center of the universe) when a well-heeled donor's planned donation to the Smithsonian Institution was rejected due to the "demands" attached to the donation. The Washington Post on Saturday published a lengthy article detailing the specifics, the first time I have seen an article that elaborated sufficiently on the matter. It should be required reading for anyone in the preservation field, amateur, armchair or professional. It describes very concisely the differing philosophical schools about the interpretation of history.

Here's the irony: All too often, railway preservationists are accused of worshipping the machines and memorabilia of railroading while forsaking the people involved. This donation to the Smithsonian, in essence, was rejected becaused it wouls have been targeted towards honoring individuals rather than what curators call "movements" or ideas/ideals.

There is much in this article to stimulate thoughts and debates. Some of it even has tones of "socialism-versus-capitalism" debates. If you are a curator trying to explain what you do, this article may help. If you can't stand "academic" museum personnel types but can't put your finger on just why, this article might give you an idea.

Okay, time to don the asbestos suits..... I'd love to hear thoughts from the "pros" and "semi-pros" on this forum......

Washington Post: "Face of History"
LNER4472@bcpl.net

Not smart enough to avoid this so.....

1. The Smithsonian has a right to refuse whatever they want.

2. Great men are as moved as "the masses" by the forces and movements of their time - they are just more individually effective in affecting society.

3. Masses follow leaders, leaders respond to the demands of the masses.

4. Neither extreme does justice to the whole of history.

5. Leaving social touch feeleies aside, consider the effect of technological invention on the world. Can the effect of the inention be fully explained without the inventor included?

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> Not smart enough to avoid this so.....

Likewise, not smart enought to avoid this one. I fully expect that I will be written off as a pinko liberal and an egghead apologist, but here goes.

Ms. Reynold's intentions were sincere and good. However, in all ingenuousness and sincerity, what she wanted was for the Smithsonian to give her a gallery to do the glorified version of the pictures on the Wheaties boxes--a kind of "celebratory, inspirational lives of the great and good." To my mind this is quite simply not what the Smithsonian is for. As a taxpayer its certainly not what I pay my taxes for.

Mind you, I have my issues with the Smithsonian on occasion. Several years ago the Museum of American History took a boodle of money from the American Chemical Society and used it to produce an exhibit which more or less wrote scientists off as a bunch of Frankensteins. If they wanted to do that exhibit, it was pretty unfair to solicit the ACS's support.

I also thought the National Air and Space Museum's first draft of their ultimately cancelled exhibit on the Enola Gay and the Atomic Bomb was a nonstarter--again, a one-sided attack job.

All of that being said, I object to politicizing the Smithsonian from the right side as firmly as I object to politicizing it from the left side. And to my mind, that's what the Reynolds donation was.

Yes, I know that all historical interpretations represent political choices, and there is no such thing as a truly neutral exhibit. However, I think there is a rough and ready "smell test" one can apply to determine whether an exhibit is scholarly, responsible, and balanced. The Chemistry exhibit and the Enola Gay exhibit flunked, and so did the proposed Reynolds gallery of American Achievers.

Three cheers for the curators for standing up to the donor in this case.



eledbetter@rypn.org

> Likewise, not smart enought to avoid this
> one.

While I am on the right (and right IMHO) side of the political spectrum, I generally agree with Eric's comments.

While the Smithsonian has a duty to include both the achievements of individuals, and groups, I would also add that Ms. Reynolds had every right to withdraw her offered donation when she and the powers that be at the Smithsonian could not agree on the nature of the exhibit.

What does this dialogue mean to the railroad preservation movement?

1. I suspect that the masses that come to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania each year would not come just to look at the statue of Matthias W. Baldwin, or a portrait of William Wallace Atterbury. Likewise, I think that the crowds that flock to the B&O Railroad Museum do not come there to see the portrait of Charles Carroll of Carrollton laying the cornerstone of the B&O on July 4, 1828.

2. What separates these fine institutions from a collection of cars or locomotives, is that they tell a story. In both cases they try to use the equipment to tell the story of the development of railroads in Pennsylvania and Maryland respectively. In doing so they mix the equipment with the story of the people, both the leaders and the masses of the railroad industry. As a docent at the B&O Museum, I know that they try to tell the story of how both have impacted the region and the country as a whole.

3. If there is one problem with railway preservation nationwide, it is lack of money. All of lament that if we could just hit the lottery, we would then endow the _____ Railroad Museum, or fund the overhaul of old #_____. It annoys me that if a local art gallery, wants to raise a couple of million bucks to buy a Rembrandt, every fat cat in town wants to get his picture in the paper writing the check, while the local railroad museum often is struggling to raise the funds to protect its artifacts. We will never attract the kind of dollars we need (unless one of hits Powerball) to preserve the things that mean the most to all of us unless we find a way to tell the story of the people of the industry, both the titans and the engineers, boilermakers and Pullman porters.

OK, that's my two cents, I'll don my asbestos suit, and wait for the flames!



kevingillespie@usa.net

> While I am on the right (and right IMHO)
> side of the political spectrum, I generally
> agree with Eric's comments.

> While the Smithsonian has a duty to include
> both the achievements of individuals, and
> groups, I would also add that Ms. Reynolds
> had every right to withdraw her offered
> donation when she and the powers that be at
> the Smithsonian could not agree on the
> nature of the exhibit.

> What does this dialogue mean to the railroad
> preservation movement?

> 1. I suspect that the masses that come to
> the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania each
> year would not come just to look at the
> statue of Matthias W. Baldwin, or a portrait
> of William Wallace Atterbury. Likewise, I
> think that the crowds that flock to the
> B&O Railroad Museum do not come there to
> see the portrait of Charles Carroll of
> Carrollton laying the cornerstone of the
> B&O on July 4, 1828.

> 2. What separates these fine institutions
> from a collection of cars or locomotives, is
> that they tell a story. In both cases they
> try to use the equipment to tell the story
> of the development of railroads in
> Pennsylvania and Maryland respectively. In
> doing so they mix the equipment with the
> story of the people, both the leaders and
> the masses of the railroad industry. As a
> docent at the B&O Museum, I know that
> they try to tell the story of how both have
> impacted the region and the country as a
> whole.

> 3. If there is one problem with railway
> preservation nationwide, it is lack of
> money. All of lament that if we could just
> hit the lottery, we would then endow the
> _____ Railroad Museum, or fund the overhaul
> of old #_____. It annoys me that if a local
> art gallery, wants to raise a couple of
> million bucks to buy a Rembrandt, every fat
> cat in town wants to get his picture in the
> paper writing the check, while the local
> railroad museum often is struggling to raise
> the funds to protect its artifacts. We will
> never attract the kind of dollars we need
> (unless one of hits Powerball) to preserve
> the things that mean the most to all of us
> unless we find a way to tell the story of
> the people of the industry, both the titans
> and the engineers, boilermakers and Pullman
> porters.

> OK, that's my two cents, I'll don my
> asbestos suit, and wait for the flames!

It really fries my shorts when millions can be found to build a replica of a sailing ship or airplane, but tens of thousands can't be freed up to preserve or restore a locomotive or rolling stock. I suppose there are more ship and airplane enthusiasts in this country than railroad ones, but there must be more than a few well off individuals with an interest in rail preservation? How long has the EBT been on the National Trust's "Most Threatened" list? How many museums have equipment and structures rotting in peace? Railfans and railroaders in general are some of the cheapest people you'd ever want to meet. I do give to projects that interest me, not enough, but I don't want to have to spend my golden years working under the Golden Arches. I made a conscious decision years ago that historic preservation was a priority for me, and I have forgone things like brass models to focus on that.

By the way, the Big Game jackpot for tonight is $66M .

pww57@hotmail.com

> Ms. Reynold's intentions were sincere and
> good. However, in all ingenuousness and
> sincerity, what she wanted was for the
> Smithsonian to give her a gallery to do the
> glorified version of the pictures on the
> Wheaties boxes--a kind of "celebratory,
> inspirational lives of the great and
> good." To my mind this is quite simply
> not what the Smithsonian is for. As a
> taxpayer its certainly not what I pay my
> taxes for.

You mis-read the article, Erik--as did just about every other commentator that wrote or reported on the controversy--to their eventual embarassment--fueling the misconceptions of everyone who never reads more than a sound bite's worth of news.

It was stated in the Post article (and elsewhere where the story was covered in detail) that Ms. Reynolds would donate the money for the "Hall of Achievers," BUT WOULD NOT CHOOSE THE INDIVIDUALS TO BE HONORED. That selection was to be left to the curators of the Smithsonian. Let me emphasize--as the story has been reported, this was NOT a personal vanity project. She was apparently/allegedly pressed or goaded by reporters into naming names, and made impulsive, spur-of-the-moment nominations that apparently reflected badly upon her later.

Therefore, the emphasis is NOT that the Smithsonian turned down the donation of a gallery honoring people to be chosen by the donor--an apparently incorrect assumption in the first place, but were it correct, one that could be justified quite easily. Rather, the emphasis is that the Smithsonian is either philosophically "opposed" to honoring individual genius and/or achievement, or is too scared of the "political-correctness" or whatever other ramnifications of such a gallery to consider or endorse such a proposal.

You know, come to think of it, if we carry this to an extreme, the Smithsonian could thus make the case for eliminating the "Spirit of St. Louis". Can't go on honoring reckless, impulsive mavericks risking their lives, you know. And by the way, I haven't heard much about George Stephenson, Peter Cooper, or Robert Fulton lately. >;-)

Washington Post: "Face of History"
LNER4472@bcpl.net

You are 100% on target. Rail museums mean nothing without the people story, leaders and followers. Why does it have to be one or the other? I love the middle of the road, except that you get hit by both sides.


haaghistory@yahoo.com

Paul,

I made that same decision a few years ago too, when I saw that industrial preservation activites were unlikely to be funded to the level that we needed to accomplish our goals. So I said to heck with it, and started funding it myself to the extent that I can. Right now I am on the jumping off point into an almost 50k loan to construct the building for the Tod engine, and when it is approved I won't hesitate to sign that loan paper. I've never really cared about how nice of a car I drive, Never really cared to live in a new home with a three car garage, manicured lawn and Martha Stewart designed interior to keep up with the Joneses. But my passion is seeing that engine restored and displayed, so by god I am going to use whatever bit of resources at my disposal to get it done.

Contrary to what the Smithsonian believes, this is being done by an individual, not a movement.
In a couple years the only movement you will see is 300 tons of iron moving into that building!

The Tod Engine
todengine@woh.rr.com

The version I heard about who would choose the people featured in this proposed exhibit was that Ms. Reynolds would write a list of "nominees." This list would be submitted to a board of review made up of Smithsonian personnel but not including Ms. Reynolds, and they would then choose between the nominees. This setup would technically mean that Ms. Reynolds would not choose the people to be featured in the exhibit, however she could certainly choose who not to include. The Post article didn't say this, I had just heard this earlier during the debating.

Frank Hicks

frank@gats.com

I vote that one of us with a rail related project get ahold of Ms.Reynolds and see how she feels about donating some or all of those bucks to restoring something and then honoring the person most noted to have been involved with the item. Then we could all be happy. We could be happy because we'd have something rail related that was preserved, she could be happy because she got to honor a person's singular achievement.

And by the way, if museums aren't interested in honoring singular achievements then what is this film about the Antarctic and that crazed fool Shackleton doing making all the IMAX rounds with it's accompanying display? All that idiot did was ruin a perfectly good ship, kill a bunch of dogs, and almost kill his crew. Then he gets accolades for getting everyone out of it after putting them all through a lot of misery. Seems to me that was his duty, not a heroic feat.None the less, that seems to be honoring singular achievement, however misguided

-Angie

Ladypardus@cs.com

> The version I heard about who would choose
> the people featured in this proposed exhibit
> was that Ms. Reynolds would write a list of
> "nominees." This list would be
> submitted to a board of review made up of
> Smithsonian personnel but not including Ms.
> Reynolds, and they would then choose between
> the nominees. This setup would technically
> mean that Ms. Reynolds would not choose the
> people to be featured in the exhibit,
> however she could certainly choose who not
> to include. The Post article didn't say
> this, I had just heard this earlier during
> the debating.

Frank confirms my impressions from having read the entire sequence of coverage of the debate. I am not satisfied that the curators retained control under the proposed arrangements. Sandy disagrees. Well, if nothing else this is clearly a case where a lot of people differ and disagree.

Wash Post article
eledbetter@rypn.org

Too many different stories and a bit of diversion from the topic. It would be nice to know just what the conflict is - philosophical differences about the content of history worthy of interpretation, or just persons disagreeing on the individual subjects, or any other not even mentioned in all of the various aticles. Whichever, it doesn't mean a thing in practical terms to any of us unless the donor chooses to make the offer to a railroad museum.

I am left with the impression that the staff at the Smithsonian believe their own publicity however.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net