National Archives exhibit blurs images critical of President Trump

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1a4_story.html

The large color photograph that greets visitors to a National Archives exhibit celebrating the centennial of women’s suffrage shows a massive crowd filling Pennsylvania Avenue NW for the Women’s March on Jan. 21, 2017, the day after President Trump’s inauguration.

The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement.

But a closer look reveals a different story.

The Archives acknowledged in a statement this week that it made multiple alterations to the photo of the 2017 Women’s March showcased at the museum, blurring signs held by marchers that were critical of Trump. Words on signs that referenced women’s anatomy were also blurred.

In the original version of the 2017 photograph, taken by Getty Images photographer Mario Tama, the street is packed with marchers carrying a variety of signs, the Capitol in the background. In the Archives version, at least four of those signs are altered.

A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.” A sign that reads “Trump & GOP — Hands Off Women” has the word Trump blurred out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...EUE.jpg&w=1023
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...EUE.jpg&w=1023

Signs with messages that referenced women’s anatomy — which were prevalent at the march — are also digitally altered. One that reads “If my vagina could shoot bullets, it’d be less REGULATED” has “vagina” blurred out. And another that says “This Pussy Grabs Back” has the word “Pussy” erased.

The Archives said the decision to obscure the words was made as the exhibit was being developed by agency managers and museum staff members. It said David S. Ferriero, the archivist of the United States who was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, participated in talks regarding the exhibit and supports the decision to edit the photo.

“As a non-partisan, non-political federal agency, we blurred references to the President’s name on some posters, so as not to engage in current political controversy,” Archives spokeswoman Miriam Kleiman said in an emailed statement. “Our mission is to safeguard and provide access to the nation’s most important federal records, and our exhibits are one way in which we connect the American people to those records. Modifying the image was an attempt on our part to keep the focus on the records.”

Archive officials did not respond to a request to provide examples of previous instances in which the Archives altered a document or photograph so as not to engage in political controversy.

Kleiman said the images from the 2017 and 1913 marches were presented together “to illustrate the ongoing struggles of women fighting for their interests.”

The decision to blur references to women’s genitals was made because the museum hosts many groups of students and young people and the words could be perceived as inappropriate, Kleiman said in the statement.

Kleiman said the National Archives “only alters images in exhibits when they are used as graphic design components.”

“We do not alter images or documents that are displayed as artifacts in exhibitions,” she said. “In this case, the image is part of a promotional display, not an artifact.”

When told about the action taken by the Archives, prominent historians expressed dismay.

"There's no reason for the National Archives to ever digitally alter a historic photograph," Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said. "If they don't want to use a specific image, then don't use it. But to confuse the public is reprehensible. The head of the Archives has to very quickly fix this damage. A lot of history is messy, and there's zero reason why the Archives can't be upfront about a photo from a women's march."

Wendy Kline, a history professor at Purdue University, said it was disturbing that the Archives chose to edit out the words "vagina" and "pussy" from an image of the Women's March, especially when it was part of an exhibit about the suffragist movement. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the 2017 march in the District, which was widely seen as a protest of Trump's victory.

"Doctoring a commemorative photograph buys right into the notion that it's okay to silence women's voice and actions," Kline said in an email. "It is literally erasing something that was accurately captured on camera. That's an attempt to erase a powerful message."

The altered photograph greets visitors to "Rightfully Hers: American Women and the Vote," an exhibit that opened in May celebrating the centennial of women's suffrage. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1920, prohibits the federal government and states from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex.

"This landmark voting rights victory was made possible by decades of suffragists' persistent political engagement, and yet it is just one critical milestone in women's battle for the vote," reads a news release announcing the exhibit on the Archives website.

Archives spokesman John Valceanu said the proposed edits were sent to Getty for approval, and Getty "then licensed our use of the image."

A Getty spokeswoman, Anne Flanagan, confirmed the image was licensed by the National Archives Foundation but said in an email Friday evening that Getty was still determining whether it approved alterations to the image.

Karin Wulf, a history professor at the College of William & Mary and executive director of the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, said the Archives at the very least should have noted prominently the photo had been altered, to ensure transparency.

"The Archives has always been self-conscious about its responsibility to educate about source material, and in this case they could have said, or should have said, 'We edited this image in the following way for the following reasons,' " she said. "If you don't have transparency and integrity in government documents, democracy doesn't function."

We can all laugh and make jokes about Trump being the most delicate snowflake in the world, but that's not why I made this thread.

Rather, I agree with Professor Kline that yes, this is a disturbing incident of government censorship. As the article shows (including a bolded it by me), this appears to be unprecedented political censorship. Trump's name isn't graphic or offensive, nor are words like "vagina". I never imagined that the National Archive would get caught up in something like this, and I sure hope it's not as bad as it looks. Because it does not look good for the preservation of history and accurate information.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm sure the people who cry about "free speech" when someone gets banned from twitter for inciting violence will be in here aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany second now...

But not because they care about free speech.

[cubby]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1a4_story.html



We can all laugh and make jokes about Trump being the most delicate snowflake in the world, but that's not why I made this thread.

Rather, I agree with Professor Kline that yes, this is a disturbing incident of government censorship. As the article shows (including a bolded it by me), this appears to be unprecedented political censorship. Trump's name isn't graphic or offensive, nor are words like "vagina". I never imagined that the National Archive would get caught up in something like this, and I sure hope it's not as bad as it looks. Because it does not look good for the preservation of history and accurate information.

Orwellian levels of disturbing.

[Powerogue]

"A placard that proclaims “God Hates Trump” has “Trump” blotted out so that it reads “God Hates.”"

Pah, that's just them trying to be inclusive!

(but this is obviously stupid and we shouldn't censor history like this. Trump is misogynistic, they were protesting that among other things, that's a necessary part of the story of the picture.)

[Breccia]

Just so we're clear: if Team Trump wants to claim they're doing this because Expletive Deleted, well, I'm going to have to agree with that.

That said, yeah, there's no excuse for this, other than Trump's widdle feewings got hurt.

[Omega10]

Just so we're clear: if Team Trump wants to claim they're doing this because Expletive Deleted, well, I'm going to have to agree with that.

That said, yeah, there's no excuse for this, other than Trump's widdle feewings got hurt.

The good news is that having well known examples of the government photo-cropping images to make Trump look good makes similar cases of government propaganda less effective in other areas. The bad news is this legitimizes the act of making altering photos a standard government process.

[lockedout]

I'm sure the people who cry about "free speech" when someone gets banned from twitter for inciting violence will be in here aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany second now...

But not because they care about free speech.

Twitter is a company with rules, free speech doesn't exactly apply there.
I have no idea why they blurred out the word Trump as it isnt offensive, the other words I can agree with since children most likely will view that image.

[Spectral]

The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is a pretty funny snippet. These people have been sniffing their farts a bit too much.

[Xeones]

I have no idea why they blurred out the word Trump

Uh... the fact that he is a snowflake seems like a pretty safe guess.

[Breccia]

I have no idea why they blurred out the word Trump as it isnt offensive

This thread is filled with "Trump is a narcissist" post, backed up with years of proven words and actions. I'm sure a genuine, thoughtful poster such as yourself actually read those posts. So, if you have "no idea" you must have ruled that option out. Perhaps you could tell us what evidence led you to rule that option out? It would be completely on topic of this thread, and it would further the discussion.

[Noxx79]

Just FYI, now that they’ve been caught, they’re going to fix it:

https://twitter.com/usnatarchives/st...927906305?s=21

[Orbitus]

Twitter is a company with rules, free speech doesn't exactly apply there.
I have no idea why they blurred out the word Trump as it isnt offensive, the other words I can agree with since children most likely will view that image.

Weren't you one of the ones, like a year ago, complaining about the right wingers getting banned from there?

[Fugus]

Ain't this some shit.....

No matter who you support or oppose, you should never try and censor or whitewash your history. It should be shown in its beauty, in its horror, and everything in between so we can learn from our mistake and our successes.

The saying "History is written by the victors" is an outdated saying and needs to be left dead in the past.Let the facts and reality be the writers of history now given we have the technology where it is written and preserved by everyone with a camera.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I am TOTALLY and COMPLETELY surprised that the people who cry about free speech and censorship in threads where people get banned from twitter for inciting violence, aren't in here complaining about free speech and censorship. TOTALLY surprised they're not here. I am just floored that they have not stormed this thread with outrage!

/s

[Zaydin]

So do you think the cultists who had a temper tantrum about a Canadian TV network removing four seconds from Home Alone 2 to make room for commercials will be upset about the National Archives actually censoring images here?

[announced]

I can see why they would blur out certain female body parts and mentions on signs. No need to have your six year old ask you about those types of things. There shouldn't be any point to blurring out mentions of Trump though.

[eschatological]

I can see why they would blur out certain female body parts and mentions on signs. No need to have your six year old ask you about those types of things. There shouldn't be any point to blurring out mentions of Trump though.

You should absolutely teach your kids about what a vagina is and why women are worried about their own health.

[Malaky]

I'm sure the people who cry about "free speech" when someone gets banned from twitter for inciting violence

are perfectly agreeing with it so long it's actual incitement to violence and not just opinions you dislike or disagree with.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

So, they seem to be fixing the "oversight" and investigating it. But will anyone take the fall for it? That I'd like to see.

[Easo]

So, they seem to be fixing the "oversight" and investigating it. But will anyone take the fall for it? That I'd like to see.

I fail to see why anyone would really need to take a fall (but that depends on what kind of fall you mean), but of course this is just another case of "we did not mean it like that". The usual after fuckups...