Oh, Museum Politics…

I suppose starting with the obvious first-chapter- Holocaust-issue would be, well, obvoious. However…this was a topic in last semester’s public history undergrad course and it still amazes me; this will never be an issue that is able to be settled. There will always and forever be a “this is the truth and it should be shown side,” and a “why the %$#& are you making this entertaining” side? I, for one, am on the side of truth, and sometimes it just so happens that getting certain audiences to understand it takes certain measures, whether they are playing the role of a victim on a card the are given, or are approached by the image of thousands of shoes in a pile representing the dead. Sometimes the extremist experience is the one that effects people more and teaches them the most.
I only have one brief question about chapter 6 and the American Museum of Natural History. Granted, it was skimmed, however, the idea that the museum is an “essentially uncontested site” (p.101), seems to be founded in the statements following, that it focuses on assuring the patrons of the museum that their “life is as it should be,” “the American way of life.” This being the overarching theme of the museum, the attention gets taken away from the fact that half of the artifacts aren’t even from America, or came from before it was America. So does the name of a museum have an effect on the interpretation? It seems to me that it does.
**It is at this point the girl in the ‘quiet study room’ almost got a lesson in what that actually means, and I attempted to stray away from (accidental) manslaughter. Her teeth hurt…how is that relevant to her study group?**
The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is a great compliation of different aspects that bring in all different kinds of crowds. Not only their exhibits, but the different kinds of tours they offer are largely attractive qualities of what would initially seem a not-so-exciting scenario.
As a person who tends to lean more toward the side of a more humanitarian museum, as opposed to the nature preservation, I must admit that I was impressed with Luke’s descriptions and the way he analyzed the nature reserves, as it were. However, it seemed at times that he had an aversion to anything human-related, though it is most likely a dislike of the liberal displays of genocide and the the like. He does have a good opinion for all of it, however, and he does know what he is talking about!