An updating of exhibits at Fort Union National Monument in New Mexico will provide more insights into Officers Row, now in ruins/NPS
Federal funding is allowing Fort Union National Monument in New Mexico to update its museum exhibits, which have grown outdated down through the years.
This three-year project is being funded from the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, with a phase completed each year. FLREA funds come from the recreation fee revenues – entrance fees – and must be used directly for visitor enjoyment. The project is intended to address major deficiencies in outdated museum exhibits constructed in the early 1960s at the park's visitor center.
Fort Union National Monument commemorates the largest frontier military post in the Southwest and multi-cultural stories of Hispanics and Native Americans of the region. Although “state of the art” when built, displays are outdated in content, theme, perspective and relevance to our changing society, park officials said.
Rehabilitated exhibits are expected to provide visitors a better view of the changes brought about by the U.S.-Mexican War, Fort Union and the U.S. Military, the Civil War, the Santa Fe Trail, and the American Indian and Hispanic cultures of the region. New exhibits and interactive displays will focus on the multicultural aspects of the Civil War in the New Mexico Territory, Civil War battles, Indian Campaigns and Great Plains tribal communities, women’s history, and lasting impacts to the local economy and political scene.
Comments
That's a dodge.
So, you think you get the complete story of the fort and road to Santa Fe with the current exhibits? That they reflect some immutable truth handed down from on high? That some people today wouldn't want to hear about women and slaves and Indian people and the Civil War?
To use my earlier example, Wiley's Johnny Reb is great history even today. But it didn't say a lot about women. Is the life of Confederate women worth less study than Confederate men?
But I am being too fair, you just want to bellyache about "political correctness." Old right-wing snowflakes are just weak and scared of change.
No Young, I want the exhibits to reflect actual history. Actual events as they occured interpreted in the context of the day. I don't want some PC spin of today to change the meaning of what actually happened. If there is new information that changes our historical understanding, then fine, show it. But don't change history just because our society has "changed" in the last 50 years.
Why do you think exhibits from 40 years ago better represent "Actual events as they occured in the context of the day?" People had biases and blind spots in the past, too. The only way your criticism makes sense is if you're saying that exhibits (and history books) shouldn't exist at all.
Hell, Bob Utley is still alive and he was the Chief Historian when those exhibits were being designed. Want to ask him if he and his team missed anything? I'd wager good money he'd say "yes." He might disagree with a new interpretation or re-evaluation of sources but he's not going to dismiss it.
Not that you care or are able to make a distinction between "disagreement" and "dismissal."
I don't know that they do. However, I do no that the history should not be changed do reflect today's changing society.
No, that is what your are saying. What is the purpose of recording history if it is going to be changed every fifty years to suit the mood of a "changing society". Once gain, you have new facts, new contemporary information, use it but don't judge historical events in the context of "a changing society".
Hmmm, sounds like we're witnessing elements of Faux News the way some make words and history what they want them to be. Pretty disturbing, really.
It's not at all uncommon for historians to discover "new" history as they dig through old archives and find information that has never been published before. Just one example is the sudden surge in elderly veterans of WWII who are now telling their stories after years of remaining silent because memories were too painful. Or the recent case of a family from North Carolina who found a box full of letters from the Civil War and donated them to the state archives. Is that "rewriting" history?
Another factor to consider is the change in display technology and public changes in response to changing technology. Any veteran school teacher can tell that American's attention spans are shorter and people don't react to educational materials (or VC displays) in the same ways they did back when Ft. Union's displays were last upgraded.
Let's look at a few real facts and stop playing endless circular word games with people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time.
(Hey, Kurt, is there any chance of increasing font size in the comment box so old eyes with bifocals can see what we're typing?)
Lee, if you paid attention to my comments rather than trying to find ways to attack them, you would see that I have repeatedly said any new information should be incorporated. And, I have no objection to updating the technology. What I object to is changing the history or its interpretation merely to please a "changing society". I'm sorry if that distinction is over your head.
I think Battle of the Little Big Horn National Monument may be good example of changeing society...it used to be called Custer Battlefield, the only battlefield named after the loser. It did not incorporate all views, only one side. Now they have markers for many of the indians who perrished and the last time I was there, the story teller there told the Native American Perspective.