donathos said:
1) You're making the case for political correctness here, for the museum to make these sorts of decisions for political ends. That's fine: you're entitled to your opinion on that, wrong as it might be. But your earlier attempt to make this seem like it was all somehow outside of politics, that it was just moving pieces in and out of display, like museums do, and that I was the one supplying the political angle, was completely disingenuous. And then to imply that I must not have read the article, that I just didn't get it? You're a damn fraud. You should be ashamed. And no, sorry, the museum is powerless that some of its visitors will conclude that a certain group, custom or culture was "gruesome," or whatever. Give people information and they will form opinions on it, not alone from the information you've provided, but based upon their own background, knowledge and perspective. It's how it all f-ing works, dude: all of people, all the time. Cannot be changed, not by the wokest bro in the sociology seminar. For example, if you told people about, like, Muhammad's polygamy, some people are going to react negatively to that based on current cultural perspectives. If you wanted to curb Islamophobia, you might present that information in some greater context -- but some people are still going to walk away with a negative impression, whether we judge their reaction to be "right" or "wrong," no matter what additional efforts you undertake. So the solution, then, is to hide information about Muhammad's life, so people don't get "the wrong idea"? Gross. Doubly gross from the perspective of anything resembling an educator, and triply gross from any kind of educational institution. Some people are going to have a negative, visceral reaction to "shrunken heads," of course. Lots of cultures throughout history -- and especially early human history -- have had practices that some people (or even many, or even most) would now regard as "savage," "primitive," or "gruesome": cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, slavery, forced marriage, the list goes on and on and on. But we're going to hide that information now, in an effort to control peoples' opinions, so that "visitors come to the right conclusion"? I wasn't wrong to compare this to Orwell; that was Winston Smith's job, too. 2) "Neither of us knows why they chose to remove these exhibits vom the exhibition"...? You mean apart from them explaining why they chose to remove these exhibits, and the very source of our discussion? Yeah, we do know. That's what the article is about. You speculate that "maybe they couldn't find a good way to present them," as though we're not talking about an elite-level museum with all of the resources in the world which have had these artifacts on display for decades. Further, "finding a good way to present" such artifacts happens to be their job, maybe even their cultural responsibility. Hiding the artifacts instead is a default on that job at the least, on that responsibility. And yes, "there are hundreds of thousands of historical pieces lying around in museums who get never shown to the public," but typically those pieces aren't being held back, or removed from display, for the bald purpose of manipulating political opinion. You would see this more clearly if we were talking about this from a different perspective, I'm sure. Imagine that the curators were conservative Christians, and they elected to hide dinosaur remains to prevent visitors from forming "incorrect opinions" about the age of the earth, or about creation. That they would be specifically wrong about the underlying matter is true, but besides the point: the point is that a museum ought not seek to manipulate people and their opinions in that fashion. "It also seems like you don't understand what a museum is supposed to do." I can't respond to this here in the manner you deserve, except to say that if I listed all the things it seems like you don't understand, we'd be here a while. But here, specifically, you say that 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"? Because you think that's what I'm advocating? (And how do we explain that grammar? Are you running this through a translator? Because that might explain something.) Did you read what I'd written? You must have, right? Because you've quoted me, and you're replying to me, so you must have taken the time to read what I'd written and understand it. Yeah? So when you read me saying (emphasis added) that the museum "could always provide additional information to help visitors understand the artifacts or further contextualize them, with additional displays, pamphlets, lectures, etc.," and that "plenty of historical artifacts are strange or upsetting to modern eyes, and require additional information or context to be properly understood," you thought I was saying they should present these things without context? The problem we're having is not alone that you're wrong (you are), but that you're dishonest. |
Yes I'm using a translator, english is not my first language and I don't have the time to look things up in my grammar books. Do you have a problem with that?
1) You misunderstood me, I've never denied that the museum is acting politically, in fact I believe that everyone is acting political in a way. It is naive to believe that either one of our positions is unpolitical. I just fail to see how all of this has anything to do with political correctness.
If you could demonstrate for example that the people who made the shrunken heads are indeed "savage," "primitive," or "gruesome,". Then I would concede that you were right and that the museum is indeed trying to hide the historical facts from the visitor but I fear you don't have the historical expertise to do so.
In all the examples you give in 1) you always use "some" and I agree with you. Some people will always think what they want, some people are never willing to get educated but as we say it in my country "Exceptions confirm the rule".
2) No we don't know, the museum director doesn't get ask why they didn't choose an alternative to removing the exhibits.
"Imagine that the curators were conservative Christians, and they elected to hide dinosaur remains to prevent visitors from forming "incorrect opinions" about the age of the earth, or about creation." In this case I could demonstrate the curators hiding important historical facts, can you do the same about the case you're so upset about?
Look you can call me whatever the hell you like but so far you have failed to demonstrate that the new exhibition, due to removing the 1230 human remains, will fail to inform the visitor about the historical facts. Without that your accusation against the museum are void.