Is "US Imperialist's Aggressive War Crimes in Vietnam" an objective title for a museum exhibition intro panel? Perhaps not.
But on a recent visit to Vietnam I wanted to see whether the narrative at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City differed from the British approach. Are Vietnamese museums subtler in their ability to separate propaganda from reality? The phrase "same, but different" comes to mind.
The museum, previously called the American War Crimes Museum, clearly did not present an unbiased representation of events. The displays are similar to those at London's Imperial War Museum - armoured vehicles, tanks and missiles - although it is US artillery captured by the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam.
There are also displays on the 1968 My Lai massacre and the use of napalm and Agent Orange. The museum provides a moving account of the war, and drives home that all wars are brutal and that civilians are the biggest losers.
But what museums in Vietnam do not show is the experience of those who opposed communism, or the stories of those who fled or died trying to escape, and became known to the world as the "boat people".
Such one-sidedness is not unique. British museums convey imperial perspectives on British history. One such example was the Teas and Tigers exhibition at the National Library of Scotland last year. A panel described the largest uprising against British rule as the "Indian mutiny".
My ancestors were not pirates! They were proud people who fought an unjust system and helped free India from British (including Scottish) oppression. And to at least 2.5 million British citizens with roots in south Asia, this was the first significant war of independence.
So why do so many UK museums fail to present multiple perspectives of historical events? They should be more transparent about their authors and the wider government agendas to which they work.
The multiple and sometimes uncomfortable meanings that objects hold offer the greatest opportunities for museums to attract inter-generational users. This could help us to collectively create what so many British museums seriously lack: a real uncensored discussion.
Many British museums try or pretend to shift power back to people by developing "community" exhibitions. But how much institutional control is really given back? Most museums prefer it if they pick the panel, choose the themes and then persuade "the community" what they want to hear.
Many museums illustrate that it is the victors who write history. If museums in the UK could acknowledge this, perhaps we could generate much-needed debate on the issues that count. Not just issues of war and conflict, but those that arise from scientific research, political events, global phenomena and other important, if sometimes difficult, matters.
Kiran Singh is the education and access curator at the People's Palace, Glasgow
But on a recent visit to Vietnam I wanted to see whether the narrative at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City differed from the British approach. Are Vietnamese museums subtler in their ability to separate propaganda from reality? The phrase "same, but different" comes to mind.
The museum, previously called the American War Crimes Museum, clearly did not present an unbiased representation of events. The displays are similar to those at London's Imperial War Museum - armoured vehicles, tanks and missiles - although it is US artillery captured by the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam.
There are also displays on the 1968 My Lai massacre and the use of napalm and Agent Orange. The museum provides a moving account of the war, and drives home that all wars are brutal and that civilians are the biggest losers.
But what museums in Vietnam do not show is the experience of those who opposed communism, or the stories of those who fled or died trying to escape, and became known to the world as the "boat people".
Such one-sidedness is not unique. British museums convey imperial perspectives on British history. One such example was the Teas and Tigers exhibition at the National Library of Scotland last year. A panel described the largest uprising against British rule as the "Indian mutiny".
My ancestors were not pirates! They were proud people who fought an unjust system and helped free India from British (including Scottish) oppression. And to at least 2.5 million British citizens with roots in south Asia, this was the first significant war of independence.
So why do so many UK museums fail to present multiple perspectives of historical events? They should be more transparent about their authors and the wider government agendas to which they work.
The multiple and sometimes uncomfortable meanings that objects hold offer the greatest opportunities for museums to attract inter-generational users. This could help us to collectively create what so many British museums seriously lack: a real uncensored discussion.
Many British museums try or pretend to shift power back to people by developing "community" exhibitions. But how much institutional control is really given back? Most museums prefer it if they pick the panel, choose the themes and then persuade "the community" what they want to hear.
Many museums illustrate that it is the victors who write history. If museums in the UK could acknowledge this, perhaps we could generate much-needed debate on the issues that count. Not just issues of war and conflict, but those that arise from scientific research, political events, global phenomena and other important, if sometimes difficult, matters.
Kiran Singh is the education and access curator at the People's Palace, Glasgow
