Lonnie Bunch was the first professional historian to lead the Smithsonian Institution.
His tenure turned into an unmitigated disaster.
After seven years at the helm, he is retiring.
And not a moment too soon.
Bunch's race had nothing to do with the Smithsonian's precipitous fall into degraded wokism.
There are plenty of black historians, even left-wing historians, who could have avoided the destruction of the Smithsonian as a place where scholarship and education exist to enlighten and provoke thought about who we are, where we came from, and how we got here.
Bunch betrayed the Smithsonian's primary mission to facilitate "the increase and diffusion of knowledge." The Smithsonian was established in 1846 through a bequest by British scientist James Smithson, who left his estate to the United States to found an establishment under that exact phrasing.
The Institution interprets this mandate by a dedicated focus on public exhibits, scholarly research, preserving our national heritage, and bringing history, science, education, and the arts to the public.
Until 2019, when Bunch became secretary of the Smithsonian, few controversies arose.
Congress debated Smithson's funding for more than a decade, with prominent members like John C.
Calhoun arguing against accepting "foreign money." In the 1990s, an exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, caused intense opposition.
Veterans' groups and members of Congress strongly criticized the proposed text and artifacts, arguing that the script portrayed Japan primarily as a victim and cast American actions in a morally questionable light.
Following a political backlash and congressional hearings, the Smithsonian canceled the planned script, leading to the resignation of the museum's director, Martin Harwit.
In 1991, an exhibit at the National Museum of American Art challenged traditional narratives of westward expansion and Manifest Destiny.
By framing expansion around topics like displacement, environmental impact, and industrial exploitation, it drew sharp criticism from conservative lawmakers, who threatened to cut the Smithsonian's federal funding over what they viewed as a revisionist and anti-American presentation.
I should point out that there is not one interpretation of American history.
There are undisputed facts, to be sure.
The interpretation of those facts and the weight historians give to their importance is what's at issue.
The displacement of native tribes, America's early industrialization that exploited workers, and even the environmental impact of westward expansion are all important parts of the story of the way west.
But placing those stories above the drive for land by hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who were willing to risk everything for a new life and the belief that settling the continent was a God-given task is a deliberate slight to the people, regardless of color, who created a new....
