Consensus History vs Social History

Consensus historians held that the Americans were in agreement concerning basis ideas of society and politics, and they also believed that the country’s history is greatly a success story. On the other hand, the social historians believed that displaying of Enola Gay, which was used to release a bomb on Hiroshima during the Second World War, would be to instill fear and to remind people of the decay of morality and humanity. This misinterpretation of historical events resulted in a spark between the two groups in 1995 (Sodei, 1995). That fiery controversy was a demonstration of the opposing historical accounts concerning a conclusion to have the bomb dropped. In the year 1987, a new director of NASM known as Martin Harwit took over leadership.

So clearly by 1995, the leaders were still at the crossroads. Consensus historians wanted to honor the veterans that laid their lives down for a sacrifice, but the social historians were concerned about the subsequent generations, and to have an exhibition that accurately portrayed realities of the atomic war together with their consequences as a learning point. Particularly in the public realms, the historians need to avoid divergent and discriminatory conclusions. Historians may depend on some evidence to offer support to different conclusions. However, it is important to assess the primary sources then explain the different conclusions (American Historical Association, 1993). The Journal of American History, 82(3), 1118-1123. Thelen, D. History after the Enola Gay controversy: An introduction. The Journal of American History, 82(3), 1029-1035.