donathos said:
I don't have a problem with your using a translator, as such, but as I said, it might explain something. Your responses to me do not indicate that you have understood me or the arguments I've made. I don't know your capacities here or how translation might affect this conversation, but I'm glad to now know that there might be... extenuating circumstances for some of this apparent lack of understanding. It softens my frustration, just a bit. That said, you still fail to see how this has anything to do with political correctness? The museum's process was triggered by a review of "derogatory language used in the historic case labels," for instance. They are removing these exhibits, in part, because people are sensitive to them, because they dislike the opinions of those who look at these exhibits and conclude that they're evidence of "savagery." Do you understand what "political correctness" is or means? What does that term mean to you? Regardless, originally you tried to argue that this wasn't political in nature -- that it was simply the routine, normal thing for museums to do, to shift exhibits in and out of display, and that they were simply trying to present these people and cultures "more accurately." That isn't true; that's not what's going on here at all. It wasn't true when you said it, and I have to believe that you were aware of it. You accused me, on that basis, of not even having read the article. (Not that you were even forthright in doing so; you insinuated it.) I don't think even "translation difficulties" explains or justifies this. You were being dishonest, and quite frankly, a jerk. And then, in your subsequent reply, you questioned whether I understood "what a museum is supposed to do." You then argued that "context" is necessary, as a demonstration of how I'm misguided, as though I hadn't argued at length for context and education in the very post of mine you were quoting and responding to. Again, you were being dishonest. I'm not "calling" you anything that you haven't earned. If you don't want to be identified as dishonest, then start dealing with people honestly. And no, I don't have to do any such thing as demonstrate that the people who made these shrunken heads are or were "savage," or anything else. That's now how I would characterize them in the first place, and in the second place it's a value judgement, not a matter of objective fact, but in the third place it's utterly besides the point. The museum's role is not to dictate to the public the opinions that we "ought" to reach, but to provide the factual record, ideally in context, so that it can be understood. The conclusions that I then draw are my own, just as your conclusions are yours. We will inescapably see the very same things differently, because we are different people. Some people are bound (yes, "some people," I'm sorry if you don't like that word choice, but it's necessary; it's true) to look at shrunken heads and see "savagery." That's not a matter of people who are educated versus the ignorant masses (and incidentally, the folk who would tour an anthropological museum at Oxford are not exactly your lowest common denominator): even educated people will reach different conclusions, sometimes wildly different. Many of the people who engineered Nazi Germany, for instance, were highly educated. Education is no barrier against holding horrendous opinion. In addition, you keep referencing this idea of "expertise," as though the validity of my argument (or yours, or anyone else's) is a function of our education, or job title, or anything else. Does it matter that I have a degree in history, or that I'm a professional educator, or a published author? No: "argument from authority" is regarded as fallacious for good reason. (Though perhaps it would go some way of explaining why I feel passionately about the subject. This seems like maybe a pissing contest for you in these absurd "culture wars," but for me this is actually a serious thing.) What matters is that a museum is electing to hide its collection from display because it doesn't wish to cause offense, because it believes that when people see the artifacts in question, they form opinions that the museum considers unacceptable. I consider that unacceptable. Finally, if you can see why it would be inappropriate for a museum to hide dinosaur remains for the sake of a pro-Christian agenda, then perhaps that's a gateway for you to eventually understand my point. These shrunken heads are primary evidence of earlier societies and cultures, and the different ways humans have lived on this planet; it is the very fruit of archaeology and anthropology, which are the disciplines to which this museum is supposedly dedicated. The further "importance" of the collection is relative and perhaps somewhat personal (there are going to be some people to whom dinosaurs do not matter at all) -- but the evidence of their importance to many is perhaps found in the enduring popularity of the collection, and also the fact that the museum has hosted it for so long. That removing an exhibit will necessarily fail to inform the visitor about that exhibit is true on its face. In very, very brief, the museum is poorer for this decision, and its visitors are subsequently poorer for it, too -- but worse still is the thinking behind the decision which, as it spreads, will continue to impoverish our educational institutions. I will leave the conversation here, lest I repeat myself further. Good luck. |
My reading capabilities are a lot better than my writing capabilities (in every language lol), so don't get too soft.
Now I have to concede that in my head I always had a stricter definition of political correctness than apparently most other people, from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
"political correctness noun: the principle of avoiding language and behaviour that may offend particular groups of people"
So I will concede that what the museum is doing is indeed political correctness, however I still heavily disagree that the actions of the museum are necessarily problematic. For me political correctness becomes problematic when truths get hidden because of it and no the information alone that they removed 1239 pieces from the exhibition is not enough evidence that they are misrepresenting or distorting history.
What you consider unacceptable is the job of museums and all other education facilities. The number one priority of a museum is to educate people about history. As long as that main goal is achieved they have to make sure that they aren't reinforcing racial stereotyps.
Now it seems to me that you're accusing the museum that they fail to met their number one priority, to educate people about history because they are "hiding" exhibits from the public. I think that is not sufficient to make such a judgment, we have to look at the bigger picture but in order to do so we would have to see the exhibition and have some expertise about the topic. This isn't a "appeal to authority" fallacy, it is the basis for a productive conversation.
This is my biggest problem with your initial post, this outrage on the basis of an incredible meager article.
