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?
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.