The power of photography and political correctness

[john_latta]

I heard this story on NPR yesterday:

>http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1269389.html<

 

It is about Subhankar Banerjee's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

photo exhibit being moved to a less prominent location in the

Smithsonian because the topic is politically charged. With the

current administration, it is somewhat surprising that the images

weren't removed entirely.

 

Sad times!

[ralph_barker]

You may have your URLs mixed up, John. I believe the Bash Bush League is being hosted by BarbaraBoxer.com.

[stephen hazelton]

This was on a post a day or two ago- was reading it on Yahoo this morning, too- I notice the Smithsonian says they relabeled & moved exhibit because the exhibit did have a particular political slant- and they try to avoid rocking the boat either way. Evidently, it wasn't the images that were the problem so much as the text that accompanied them.

[john_latta]

What did the captions say specifically?

[john_latta]

Another thought, if the problem was just the captions then why were the photos moved?

[michael_alpert1]

John,

 

Thank you for your posting. This forum needs to pay attention to what photography is and how it has significance in the world. It is not a matter of bashing but of paying attention to legitimate problems that are of concern to large-format photographers.

 

When institutions like the Smithsonian make decisions about exhibitions because they are fearful about funding, this society has a real problem. In the not-too-distant past, professional curators of exhibits (at the Smithsonian and elsewhere) usually were granted substantial autonomy, which meant that their institutions could (and would) freely allow a range of legitimate viewpoints within the general mission of the umbrella organization. These days, ideologues are too often calling the shots. Still, photography as a means of expression has the power to persuade and is not easily subject to arbitrary repression; for that we can be thankful.

[philip_glass]

It appears likely that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) Chair of the House Appropriations was behind suppression of the photographs. It was originally going to be displayed in four prominent rooms (representing ANWAR in all 4 seasons) and was instead relegated to a basement corridor. In my opinion, Stevens is profoundly disrespectful of the American people in acting to suppress information that Americans should decide on their own. He deserves ignominy for meddling in the Smithsonian's cultural activities.

[michael erlich]

Reminds me of the original plan for the Enola Gay exhibit at the National Air

and Space Museum. The politically correct revisionist text made the decision

to use the bomb seem like a completely unnecessary atrocity, ignoring the

thousands of casualties (on both sides) that would have resulted from a full

scale invasion of the Japanese home islands. Intense pressure from veteran's

groups and members of Congress made the Smithsonian change it to a more

balanced presentation of history.

[domenico_foschi]

That was indeed an unnecessary atrocity...

It would have been enough to let the bomb explode in the

atmosphere as a display of military superiority , instead of

creating un unprecedented horror in human history .

I find it offensive toward the human race that this country ,

although preaching about remembering the holocaust , so that it

will not be repeated again , has put that day of the month of may

1945 in a box never to be opened .

We should have a commemoration of that day and make it

widely public in this country , because it did happen .

[richard_trochlil]

Yo: F.

I bet you were not a member of the first wave planned to go ashore on mainland Japan, who were told "we expect 100% casualties'

 

I know people who were. You don't want to badmouth the A-bomb around them.

 

Sorry about the photo irrelevancy folks, but pseudo-piety must always be challenged.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Ralph,

,p.No one has mentioned Bush in this controversy. The villan seems to be Senator

Stevens of Alaska who also controls the Congressional purse strings for the

Smithsonian Institutions and has already once before threatened to cut off funding to

them. <P>Personally I really doubt that the Bush office would be so petty -- they

simply don't care what others think, and the bad press generated by the censorship

looks very bad. I'll bet President Bush's political guru, Karl Rove, is now more than a

little pissed off at Sen. Stevens.

[neal_shields]

I suspect that the reason that this is a sensitive subject is the large number of deceptive news reports and paid advertisements that used pictures of one part of Alaska while talking about oil exploration in other areas hundreds of miles away with a totally different aesthetics, ecology and geology.

 

And yet once again, why bring up political issues on a forum about Large Format Photography? Some of us are very experienced and well informed. We log on here to relax and learn about photography, not to be reminded of opinions that we held in our inexperienced youth. I am reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill: �He who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, he who is not a conservative at 40 has no mind.�

 

 

Maybe Photo.net needs a political forum for those who just have to express their non photo issues on a photo forum.

[__jon__]

Ellis,

<p>

Don't you mean President Rove? There was a long detailed article about Rove in the New Yorker a couple of weeks back,brilliant political player--makes Slick Willy look like a rank amateur. I wondered where the brains in the Whitehouse were--they certainly ain't in duh-b-ya. I'm sure Rove is pissed.

<p>

Mr Ralph Barker (Hey! Great name!),

<p>

Here is the URL you were looking for:

<p>

http://votetoimpeach.org/

[psychophoto]

Regardless of the possible alternative courses of action and the possible number of

casualties that could have come out of them, I find it unsettling that anyone would try

to rationalize the death of 340,000 Japanese citizens by 1950 (either in the initial

explosion or in the following years from injuries or radiation-related illness) as a

direct result of the dropping of those two bombs. 340,000 people, the overwhelming

majority of whom were civilians.

[saulius_eidukas]

Neal, the sensorship of a photographic display in such a prominent institution as the Smithsonian is relevant to all photographers including the LF forum. If you don't like the subject don't read the thread.

[dave schlick]

i remember seeing a information type show where an officer would go to a what i would guess is a jr high in an ocupied country and go to the head of the school and demand the prettiest girls in the school be brought to him, they were imediatly shipped to entertain the troops.. maybe 20 men a night.. i have no figures but i guese the numbers your talking about is paultry to the numbers they torcherd and starved. my uncle who is dead now had his boots taken from im in prison camp and his feet froze.. if they or any one else does it again they will pay the price again with my grace.. i suspect this will start of flurry of angery responses, but as they said on perry mason, the defence opened the door.. i will not answer on this topic again, as it will probably deteriorat from here.. respectfully, dave...

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

aaarrrrggghhh,,,plueessee...spare me the whining....This is a case of "not in my back yard." Seems the US can feel free to squander the natural resorces everywhere in the world but when it comes to US territorry all of the sudden it is holy ground. How about the deforestation of Canada to keep up with US lumber demands, or the oil exploration carried all over the world to meet US requirements.....

I am with Neal spare me the politics, there are two sides to every issue....

[scott_killian1]

I must be missing something here. The reason the museum gave for the change in

location was their policy against the overt display of political issues on either side of

the fence. The images themselves were approved for prominent display in the

museum - it was the addition of politicalized captions that caused them to be moved.

 

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I applaud the museum for having the integrity

to live up to this standard. Surely most of the folks in charge there personally support

the message behind Banerjee's work, but they put the museum's policy and interests

ahead of their own beliefs. This isn't political correctness, it's political indifference.

 

Can't the visual power of this work stand alone or does it need commentary to make

it's point? As someone who personally supports leaving the Refuge alone, I'm Frankly

disappointed that the captions weren't eliminated as I would prefer to see his work

reach a larger audience and succeed on it's visual merits alone rather than be a tool

for any political or social message. Let people see the place for themselves and reach

their own logical conclusions.

[alex_hawley]

I think it shows the museum is maintaining a noteworthy level of objectvity despite the political leanings of some staff members. They did the same thing with the Enola Gay exhibit, which happened during a different Administration and a different majority party.

 

As for the WWII rememberances, probably not many of us had been born yet when that occurred. The world was a much different place then, quite different from what most of us have experienced. If the Japan invasion had occured, its quite likely I wouldn't have been born. The other personal connection I have is that while my father sweated out the possible invasion, his brother, a B-29 pilot, was in training for the "bomb" squadron. When the war ended, my uncle was discharged, and that was the end of it. He was always thankful that the war ended, but even more thankful that he didn't have to fly that mission and live with the ensuing moral baggage. However, if dropping the bomb put an end to the war, and it was his turn to fly, he would have done it, forever living with the sorrow, but glad he did something that ended that war for everyone.

 

Maybe a better subject for this forum would be a campaign to resurrect Ansel Adams' work inside a Japanese-American internment camp, which was squashed by the same Administration that commissioned it, way before political correctness became a phrase.

[domenico_foschi]

did the U.S. government dropped those two bombs , because of

the cost of Human lives necessary for an attack or because of

the prohibitive economic cost that such an attact would require

for the already shaky U.S. economy of the times ?

[alex_hawley]

Domenico, it all depends on which history book one wants to believe. That's all the further I care to discuss it. I'm not a representative of the US Government now, much less in 1945.

[jay_de_fehr]

Shock and awe.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The fire bombing killed alot more Japanese than the 2 atomic bombs ever did. The reason they were dropped; was to STOP the madness of World War 2. The war would have gone on another 6 months; and alot more people would have died. Had the enemy surrendered; the bombs would not have been dropped. They where warned many, many times about the grave effects of not surrendering; but THEY made the choice to ignore the clear warnings.<b> The bombs were dropped with a very good cause; to end the maddness of the war...</b>.It was a good thing; it got the bullheaded stubborn Japanese leadership to end the madness; and surrender........and allowed many to come home; the ones who didnt die in the war. If the Japanese would have surrendered; the bombs would not have been dropped. The Japanese leaders are responsible for the effects of the bombs; their leaders screwed up and didnt listen to very clear warnings; radio; leaflets; etc........and choose to thumb their noses at a blow that ended the war.<BR><BR> Total War is not a pretty clean thing.<BR><BR> Seeing friends come home from the war tortured by the enemy is heartbreaking. They were very glad Truman ordered the drop; so their ill conditions and torture stopped; and they could come home to their families. <BR><BR>The USA had only enough nuclear material for 2 or 3 bombs; where they were dropped was given alot of thought. <BR><BR>In the USA; many people at OAK RIDGE, Tenn and Washington state have died due to radiation poisioning; making the material for the 2 bombs. Mentioning the effects of the radiation damage just to people in Japan is abit one sided. I have friends today that worked at Oak Ridge; they have a hell of alot of medical problems due to radiation; many of their friends died decades ago; at an early age.....<BR><BR>The fire bombing runs of Tokyo; etc by B-29's did a hell of alot more total destruction that the two wimpy atomic bombs......The atomic bombs were used to startle the Japanese into ending the fighting; to stop the killing of humans; they did a good job; hopefully the last time they will have to be used again..<BR><BR>Was the attack on Pearl Harbor politically correct?<BR><BR>History is rewritten by each new generation; alot like to candy coat war; and ignore the actual horrors.

[domenico_foschi]

Kelly , could you please fill me in about your coffee developer ?

[douglas_howk]

Churchill should have added that he who at age 60 does not find fault with both liberals & conservatives is already senile.

Concerning horrific end of WWII, one problem was that US demanded total surrender of Japan and this included threat of prosecuting Emperor Hirohito as war criminal. I am not sure if we in US have a comparable icon which we would defend to the death.

Concerning original post, an example caption "This species, a long-distance traveler that migrates each year from Argentina to the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to nest and rear their young, is one of the top five bird species at greatest risk if their habitat is disturbed." If this is considered too offensive, god help us. For view of images:

<a href="http://wwbphoto.com/gallery1.html">wwbphoto.com/gallery1.html</a>