After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple.
The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.'
A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors.
In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.'
But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex.
It's part of a larger effort around American stories
The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center.
'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.'
It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them.
In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared.
Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation.
'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.'
It shows how the presentation of history matters
In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility.
Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not.
'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.'
Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them.
While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority.
'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Deepti Hajela And Hillel Italie, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
19 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
3 African nations have agreed to take deportees from the US. What we know about the secretive deals
FILE - Rwanda's President Paul Kagame arrives at the Seoul airport in Seongnam, South Korea, for the 2024 South Korea-Africa Summit which will be held on June 4-5, at the Seoul airport in Seongnam, South Korea, June 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man, file) JM flag wire: true flag sponsored: false article_type: : sWebsitePrimaryPublication : publications/toronto_star bHasMigratedAvatar : false :
Winnipeg Free Press
19 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
3 African nations have agreed to take deportees from the US. What we know about the secretive deals
CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — Rwanda has become the third African nation to enter into a deal with the Trump administration to accept migrants deported by the United States. The Rwandan government said Tuesday it has agreed to accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S. for resettlement but didn't immediately give any more details, including when they would arrive or what Rwanda got, if anything, out of the deal. The U.S. has already deported eight men it said were dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and another five to Eswatini. Here's what we know, and still don't know, about U.S. President Donald Trump's expanding third-country deportation program in Africa and the largely secretive deals the U.S. is striking. The U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security haven't responded to requests seeking more details on the deals in Africa. South Sudan The U.S. sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in East Africa in early July after their deportations were held up by a legal challenge. That led to them being kept for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti. U.S. officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S. When it took custody of them a month ago, the South Sudan government said it would ensure their 'safety and wellbeing' but has declined to give other details, including where the men are being held and what their fate might be. South Sudan has been wracked by conflict since it gained independence from Sudan in 2011 and is teetering on the edge of civil war again. Eswatini Two weeks after the South Sudan deportations, the U.S. announced that it had sent another five men — citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos — to the small kingdom of Eswatini in southern Africa. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said they were also violent criminals whose home countries had refused to take them back. Eswatini's government said the men would be held in solitary confinement until their repatriation, and later said that might take up to a year. A human rights lawyer in Eswatini has taken authorities to court alleging the men are being denied legal representation while being held in a maximum-security prison, and questioning the legality of detaining them indefinitely when they have served their criminal sentences in the U.S. U.S. authorities didn't name the men or say if they had been deported straight from prison or detained in another way. Eswatini, which borders South Africa, is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. King Mswati III has ruled since he turned 18 in 1986. Authorities under him are accused of violently subduing pro-democracy movements in a country where political parties are effectively banned. Rwanda Rwanda's deal with the U.S. comes after a contentious migrant agreement it reached with the U.K. in 2022 collapsed and was ruled unlawful by Britain's Supreme Court. That deal was meant to see people seeking asylum in the U.K. sent to Rwanda, where they would stay if their asylum applications were approved. The failed deal ultimately cost the U.K. nearly a billion dollars in public money, including around $300 million that it gave to Rwanda and didn't get back. Rwanda said that the deportees it will take from the U.S. will be resettled there and given work training, healthcare and help with accommodation. Analysts say that African nations might be seeking a range of benefits from the Trump administration in return for taking deportees, including more favorable tariff rates, aid and other financial assistance, and even the easing of sanctions against some of their officials. ___ AP news on the Trump administration:
CTV News
19 minutes ago
- CTV News
‘Let's be smarter than the U.S. is': Experts discuss trade strategy amid Trump tariffs
As Canadians continue to navigate the ever-changing trade policies of U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, experts say officials in Ottawa are walking a tight rope between appeasement and retaliation. '(Trump) takes retaliation very personally, so I'm not sure it's worth the calculation,' Drew Fagan, professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, told BNN Bloomberg in a Tuesday interview. 'Canada's a big country, it's the tenth biggest economy in the world, but we're a middle weight fighting with a super-heavy weight, I don't think you want to go punching with them and thinking you're an equal; you're not.' A Friday deadline passed without a trade deal between the U.S. and Canada, and the Trump administration implemented a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian goods entering the U.S. that are not already covered under the existing North American free trade agreement. Most Canadian products exported to the U.S. do fall under the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement (CUSMA) and thus remain duty-free for now. That deal, however, is slated for renegotiation in 2026. 'For (Canada), the bigger negotiation is the one over the renewal, the review and the renegotiation of CUSMA next year,' Fagan argued. 'When (Trump) negotiated the renewal of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in his first term, he put additional pressure on Canada by putting tariffs... on steel and aluminum that are key products that we export to the U.S.' It's possible, Fagan said, that Trump is carrying out a similar strategy now. 'The only thing that's really stopping him are the courts in the United States,' he said. From the start, Trump's legal justification for the tariffs placed on Canadian goods came through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the U.S. president authority to enact economic measures typically reserved for the U.S. Congress. 'There is a significant court case going on now… it's possible that the court will strike (the tariffs) down, but of course this president has a way of kind of working around court decisions… but we should expect that it'll be a bit of a full tilt in 2026,' said Fagan. Canada's next moves Although most Canadian exporters with U.S. customer bases are free to operate without tariffs for the time being, it remains unclear what moves Washington or Ottawa will make next in the ongoing trade conflict. But those industries that export non-CUSMA compliant goods to the U.S. need relief as soon as possible, says John Boscariol, leader of the International Trade and Investment Law Group at McCarthy-Tétrault LLP. 'For our exporters in the steel, aluminum and auto sector and now copper, they continue to face sectoral tariffs, so they are continuing to be hurt by those tariffs,' he told BNN Bloomberg in a Tuesday interview. 'What we are anticipating hopefully is that, as this agreement is being negotiated, we're going to see some kind of deal, some kind of resolution over those sectoral tariffs going forward and that's really how we will judge whether this is a good deal or not.' Many within the Canadian business community had been hoping for a new trade deal before last week's deadline to ease the burden on companies impacted by current tariff rates. But it's unclear if an imminent agreement is in the cards, Fagan noted. 'Conversations are continuing… the (U.S.) president and the prime minister are expected to talk this week,' he said. '(But) I don't expect, and I don't think many people expect a deal to be done soon with regard to Canada and the United States.' Prime Minister Mark Carney has said repeatedly since taking office this spring that Canada needs to diversify its economic partnerships around the world and become less dependent on the U.S. in light of the trade developments this year. But many of those partnerships are still in the early stages, and most Canadian exporters will continue to rely on U.S. markets at least in the near and medium term, Boscariol said. 'There is that opportunity to diversify and certainly the provinces are trying to do their part in reducing provincial barriers but in the short to medium term, we're looking to these trade negotiations to provide some sort of relief or resolution,' he said. While in search of that resolution, Fagan said that Canada's leaders should rely on their strengths, which have always been different than those of their U.S. counterparts. 'Let's be smarter than the U.S. is; we always are in negotiations,' he said, 'that's our superpower and I think we will be in the upcoming negotiations as well.'
