The Trump administration recently ordered the National Park Service to remove interpretive signs that discuss slavery at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, following an executive order issued last year stating that public monuments should not "inappropriately disparage Americans" and instead "focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people." A judge has ordered the signs to be reinstated. The administration also has targeted information at Grand Canyon National Park about the displacement of Native Americans and at Glacier National Park about climate change. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign political science professor Robert Pahre teaches a course on the politics of the national parks, and he is writing a book about the politics of historical interpretation at national parks. He talked with News Bureau arts and humanities editor Jodi Heckel.
You make a distinction between commemoration and explanation. How do signs or monuments purporting to do each of those things differ?
An exhibit or sign that explains something would tend to answer a "why" question. Why was Grand Portage so important for the fur trade? Why did President Thomas Jefferson commission the Lewis and Clark Expedition? Why did Missouri want to be neutral in the Civil War? What caused the Great Sioux War of 1876? Historians might disagree about the exact answers, but they recognize the conversations.
In contrast, Gateway Arch National Park commemorates Westward Expansion. It celebrates it and says that this expansion was a good thing. The original name of that park, Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, makes clear that it commemorates the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the westward trails.
Commemoration can both divide and unite. Civil War battlefields, such as Wilson's Creek in Missouri, have monuments to both the Union and Confederate soldiers who fought there. They celebrate the bravery of those who fought and describe the course of the battle. Palo Alto National Historical Park recognizes the bravery of both American and Mexican soldiers.
In contrast, the 7th U.S. Cavalry Memorial of 1881, on what is now Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, celebrated only the U.S. cavalry troopers and not the Indigenous warriors who defeated them. After the battlefield was transferred to the National Park Service in 1940, it continued to commemorate only the U.S. Cavalry. In 1991, Congress ordered that the NPS build an Indian Memorial, which was dedicated in 2003. It recognizes the Arikara, Apsaalooke (Crow), Arapaho, Cheyenne and Oyate (Lakota Sioux) tribes who fought at Greasy Grass (Little Bighorn).
What are some of the politics behind interpretation, and how well does the National Park Service provide a complete story about historical events and figures?
One recurring issue is identity: Who is "us?" The battlefields used to say that Confederates fighting the federal government were "us," but the Lakota were not. Only in the last few decades have national park units like Sand Creek Massacre and Washita given equal honor to Indigenous warriors.
Another political issue is "Who is worthy of celebration?" Herbert Hoover National Historic Site says that Hoover is worthy. His predecessor, Calvin Coolidge, does not have a national park unit, though a Vermont state historical park celebrates him. Coolidge's predecessor, Warren G. Harding, also does not have a national historical site.
The reason for the difference is not that Hoover is greater than Coolidge, though I could argue the question either way. The answer lies in the politics of park establishment. Hoover had friends who raised money to honor him. That political mobilization was led by his wife, Lou Henry Hoover. That's why he has a national historical site ― and Coolidge and Harding do not.
Hoover is also interesting because the National Archives operates the Herbert Hoover National Library and Museum. The Library and Museum offer a balanced assessment of Hoover's life and his presidency. Next door, the NPS mostly avoids the controversies over his presidency. The reason is again politics: Lou Henry Hoover and her friends.
Have there been other times in the history of the National Park Service when an administration has sought to dictate how a story is told?
There have always been swings back and forth in how the NPS tells these stories. These generally reflect public opinion or the interests of a presidential administration. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration wanted to add more historical sites to the system to commemorate a broader range of stories about American history. The administration hoped this would strengthen national unity during the Great Depression.
We also see Congress taking an interest at times, as when it chose to commemorate the Civil Rights Movement with the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail or the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. Congress told the executive branch to prioritize the stories of the Southern Arapaho and the Southern Cheyenne at Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site. Congress also told the NPS to include slavery as a cause of the Civil War in the battlefield parks.
The policies of the first Trump administration were within the normal range of changing priorities. However, I can't think of another administration that erased stories like the second Trump administration has.
The typical presidential administration adds stories that it likes, usually without removing the older stories that it doesn't like. Other administrations have removed some offensive language and monuments but not on the current scale.
What are the potential impacts of removing information from park sites that might be seen as "disparaging?"
The media have discussed parks that removed exhibits about slavery. Some of the people driving the Trump policy in this area clearly dislike talking about the fact that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other presidents held large numbers of slaves. This seems to drive the "disparaging" language in the executive order.
The objection here rests on a purely commemorative perspective. It reflects the notion that when we celebrate Thomas Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence, we should not detract from this commemoration by pointing out that slavery was inconsistent with his ideals.
I think most Americans can hold both of those ideas in their head at the same time. We can recognize that the parks can celebrate important people while recognizing that they may not always live up to their own values. When I have talked to park visitors and civic groups about these issues, a very strong majority of Americans want to know the full story.
Removing signs, exhibits, websites, videos and other forms of interpretation also makes it hard to explain history. Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers disparaged each other all the time. Some of the battlefield parks have had exhibits on the name-calling. The growing hostility between the sections in the 1850s helps explain both the Civil War and Reconstruction, as well as the South's violent reaction to the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. An honest history will include a lot of disparaging.
The same is true of historic sites that commemorate political figures. Most of the Jim Crow South reviled Martin Luther King Jr. The hate directed against him is part of the King story. As a minister, King sought to forgive his enemies. However, he was known to do a little disparaging along the way. The day before his assassination, King said "there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn't adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer … ." I have no problem including that insult in an MLK museum.
While Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address said to speak "with malice toward none, with charity for all," that speech is also critical of those who had profited from slavery. Lincoln said that if God chose to destroy all that wealth and repay every lash, "it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'" I would not want Lincoln's disparaging remarks against enslavers to be stricken from the walls of the Lincoln Memorial.
