On April 13 th, the Washington Post, reported that, “The National Museum of American History will close for almost two years to reconfigure the core of its often-mystifying layout and build a new gallery for the Star-Spangled Banner.”

Serious dialogue, gossip, and conjecture surrounding the redesign of the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has abounded for some time, however, the much-anticipated announcement brings with it some additional information of what exactly an overhaul of the museum will entail.

The Washington Post article describes some of the criticism that the NMAH has received in recent years surrounding the museums layout and presentation. The museum has been criticized for its lack of, “comprehensibility or coherence” and, in response to those critics, the NMAH is hoping to create a more cogent narrative in its presentation of the history of America. Not only has the general design of the museum been criticized but the way in which it presents history seems to have come under scrutiny as well.

Along with making the museum’s layout less confusing, those working with the NMAH emphasize that they want to drive home a unified point. Gary Haney a partner in the firm leading the redevelopment is quoted in the Washington Post article as stating, "You will be able to identify the purpose of the museum as you walk through the door."

But what are the potential ramifications of attempting to present a clear and totally comprehensible ‘take home message’ to the massive audience visiting the NMAH?

In some ways, the move to create a more chronological museum is an interesting one for the Smithsonian, which recently opened the heavily thematic National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). Some critics of the NMAI have blasted the new museum for being difficult to understand. Proponents of the NMAI, however, argue that the purpose of the museum is to give the audience a better understanding of the diverse traditions of American Indian right up to the present day, rather than focusing on the heritage of American Indians alone. These two differing approaches may be a reflection of the backgrounds of those crafting the new exhibits for the two museums, many of the curators at the NMAH are historians and many of those who work for the NMAI have a background in anthropology.

The potential exists for any number of historical miscues and revisionisms. While certain subject matters covered in museums easily lend themselves to overarching messages, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum or the Apartheid Museum in South Africa, for example, what exactly the point of a museum covering the whole history of the United States should be is a perhaps more opaque.

Gordon S. Wood, who was recognized recently by HNN as a history doyen, wrote in his personal anecdote, “Despite the constant repetition of George Santayana's phrase that ‘those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it,’ I don't believe that history teaches any lessons. Or perhaps better: it teaches only one lesson, that nothing ever quite works out the way the historical participants intended or expected. In other words, if history teaches anything, it teaches humility, something we all need a little more of.”

The broader historical community should give the redesign of the National Museum of American History serious consideration. The museum deserves attention not only because the halls of the institution itself reach a broad audience (The Washington Post declares it, “the largest history museum in the country and the third-most-visited branch of the Smithsonian . . .”) but also because it sets the standard for public history in the United States. Perhaps the designers of the new NMAH would be well served to read Gordon S. Wood’s quote, and think a little bit about what the ‘point’ of American history really is.