donathos said:
Of course I read it. Your reply is both condescending and off-base, because my source does clearly state why they will remove the shrunken heads -- and it has everything to do with "political correctness." 1) Yes, museums routinely remove and add pieces to their displays. That has nothing to do with the article which states that the museum "has removed 1230 human remains from its display as part of a museum-wide effort to 'decolonize' the institution" (emphasis added). That's not simply the cycling out of a few pieces, to put up a new display, to freshen up exhibits, or whatever. That's an explicitly political effort. Further, this began with "an ethical review of its artifacts" due to "the derogatory language used in the historic case labels," which I think sits comfortably with what we all understand as political correctness. (So maybe cool it with the obnoxious "spoiler tag" kind of cleverness, and maybe spend that time making sure you've understood what you've read, instead?) The heads, "one of the museum's most popular attractions since the 1940s," are being removed to soothe the sensibilities of guests who find those remains "a testament to other cultures being ‘savage’, ‘primitive’ or ‘gruesome'," per the museum director, as quoted in the article. She goes on to say, as I'd quoted initially, that "the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking that goes against the Museum’s values today." So that's the point: to combat "racist and stereotypical thinking," because people find the heads "savage," "primitive," and "gruesome," not to "actually present these people and cultures more accurately," as you have represented. (It could be that a culture is presented completely "accurately," however that is measured, and yet some people might still judge that culture as "gruesome," or whatever. That's people, you know? Always having opinions.) 2) Further, the museum has complete control of presentation: so if this were really about simply presenting "these people and cultures more accurately," it could always provide additional information to help visitors understand the artifacts or further contextualize them, with additional displays, pamphlets, lectures, etc. Museums do that all the time; plenty of historical artifacts are strange or upsetting to modern eyes, and require additional information or context to be properly understood. In a way, that's a museum's entire job (vis a vis display) and how they educate and inform. They are choosing instead to hide genuine artifacts from view (one of their most popular attractions, mind), because they do not like how people respond when provided with the actual evidence of earlier cultures. Not only is it perverse for a museum to hide information from its visitors rather than provide the same (I could as easily have referenced Bradbury as Orwell; it's as backwards as his "fire department"), but it is both insulting and controlling. The visitors cannot be expected to understand what they're seeing. They cannot be allowed to reach their own conclusions. And speaking of conclusions, how is it you (who questioned whether I'd read the article) managed to read it and present it so dishonestly? Or maybe you are simply so blinded by your political perspective (because anyone who takes aim at "political correctness" must be the enemy, I'm sure) that you cannot see this straight. But yes, when a museum begins removing artifacts from display because the people who view them form "incorrect" opinions, that's a problem. We do not employ museums to hide from us the evidence of the past, but to show it to us. |
1) Ok let's first talk about this " 'decolonize' the institution". You have to know that Historical science for the longest time was not used to find some truth about the past but to legitimise the power of the powerful. The British Empire did this too, they used museums and exhibitions to convince the people and themself that the people they're colonizing are stupid savages who are better of if they rule over them. 'decolonizing' is the attempt to remove this colonial lens in order to truly understand who these people were.
I'm also surprised that you find this part so controversial: "the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking that goes against the Museum’s values today.", racism and stereotypical thinking are of course not part of the museums values. There is a large academic consensus that racism and racial science is nothing but pseudoscience, again invented to justify the rule and extermination of other people, stereotypical thinking is self explanatory. And yes, if the museum thinks that "savage," "primitive," and "gruesome," are the wrong conclusions they should change the exhibition so visitors come to the right conclusion.
2) Neither of us knows why they chose to remove these exhibits vom the exhibition, maybe they couldn't find a good way to present them or they have better exhibits they want to show, we just don't know but please stop with this "omg they hiding exibits from us, they hiding the truth", first of all, historians are still able to examine the removed pieces and secondly, again there are hundreds of thousands of historical pieces lying around in museums who get never shown to the public.
It also seems like you don't understand what a museum is supposed to do. A museum should educate the visitor, it should present the current state of research among historians, what a museum should not do is showing historical piece without context so the visitor have to figure it out on its own and come to its own conclusion. It is also simply impossible to show everything to the visitor, the museum always has to pick and choose exhibits and they have to pick those who overall present the most accurate picture to the visitor.
It is absolutely possible that after the exhibition started well-known historians start criticising the museum for its decisions but until then I will trust the museum to do the right thing because the people at the museum are historians and I'm not.
You however seem to be absolutely convinced that this is a huge scandal and I wonder what expertise you have for such a harsh judgment?
