I struggled to accept the original premise of this book that Americans’ derive their understanding of history from museums. Most of the examples given about controversial museum exhibits seemed to predate the rise of easy access to information via the internet. I love history and I cannot remember the last time I went to a museum. I feel like most Americans derive their understandings of history from high school or college experiences, political versions of history, and television/internet.
I found the chapter about the Fred Harvey Museum fascinating. It seemed to encompass the problem that faces public history of all kinds. History must be marketed, commodified, and sold to a general audience in order to justify funding it. In the case of the Harvey Museum, Native Americans of the Southwest had their diverse cultures condensed into one compelling story of turquoise jewelery, pottery, and kachinas that favors the traditions and material culture of some tribes over others. The controversial exhibit of “The West as America” shows that a “wrong” interpretation of history can be just as bad as trying to tell a more nuanced and diverse story of the Southwest. The stories behind why we need these narratives of rugged western artists and mysterious Indian basket weavers can be as compelling as the truth. I would be interested to see a positive example of a museum exhibit that was able to convey a more accurate or reflective version of history that appealed to the public; Timothy Luke did not really give any examples in the chapters we looked at.
As you say, I don’t think that people use museums as their major source for learning about history. However, I do think that museums allow people to experience a more interpretive way of learning history that you don’t get from the classroom. High school and college introductory history courses seem to focus so much on facts, dates, and events, and those who don’t get past introductory courses may never learn that history is more about interpretation than memorization. Museums, on the other hand, are totally interpretive–e.g. showing patrons what you can deduce about a past group of people based on their material culture. This may be changing with the availability of information on the internet, but I think museums are still important to reveal the more interactive side of history to the general public who may not realize what the study of history can be.
I do agree that I would have liked Luke to bring in a “good” example of an exhibition that conveyed what he thinks museums should convey.