4 ms·

It would make more sense to have such dioramas in a museum of human history, but I understand dioramas of indigenous people who still exist today not having a p

by morley 12y ago

It would make more sense to have such dioramas in a museum of human history, but I understand dioramas of indigenous people who still exist today not having a place in a natural history museum.

DougWebb 12y ago
A number of years ago I visited the War Museum in London. One of the more powerful exhibits is a diorama of the front line during WWI, showing trenches on either side of the no-mans-land. I don't know exactly when that diorama was created, but it's possible that some of the men who fought on that front were still alive, or their immediate descendants were. Granted, the War Museum is not a natural history museum, but that diorama could be placed in any museum with exhibits about the history of western Europe, including natural history museums. I don't think anyone would complain because the descendents of the depicted soldiers are still around. Getting back to Native Americans, we've lost so much of their history as it is that it's a shame that there's a push to hide the small amount that's been retained. Sure, we shouldn't make it seem like they're extinct, but the truth is that most Native American cultures are extinct, thanks to disease and war brought by Europeans. The ones that have survived and retained some of their original culture should be celebrated and protected, but we also need to remember the rest. The best place for that is in history museums, and dioramas are one of the best ways to bring them back to life.
PeterisP 12y ago
The 19th century Indian culture depicted in those dioramas is extinct now and definitely does have a place in a history museum - in exactly the same manner as the (now extinct) 19th century white American frontier town culture or the (now extinct) 19th century Bavarian farmer culture. The fact that there are living descendants of all those cultures, and some of them [try to] follow traditional aspects of this culture does not diminish the historical value of illustrations about the culture as it was back thin. There may be valid reasons to remove exhibits - for example, if the depictions are misleading and based on assumptions now known to be false; or if the depictions are irrelevant and boring. But if some people are offended by their own history, then that's not a reason worth considering, much less acting on it - if the depiction is factually accurate (which, as much as I understood from the article, isn't disputed), then it should stay. If the current treatment seems unfair, then producing more relevant dioramas of the other cultures would be a reasonable response - such exhibits can be very effective illustrations about all the "non-native" populations as well.

by morley 12y ago

It would make more sense to have such dioramas in a museum of human history, but I understand dioramas of indigenous people who still exist today not having a place in a natural history museum.

DougWebb 12y ago

A number of years ago I visited the War Museum in London. One of the more powerful exhibits is a diorama of the front line during WWI, showing trenches on either side of the no-mans-land. I don't know exactly when that diorama was created, but it's possible that some of the men who fought on that front were still alive, or their immediate descendants were. Granted, the War Museum is not a natural history museum, but that diorama could be placed in any museum with exhibits about the history of western Europe, including natural history museums. I don't think anyone would complain because the descendents of the depicted soldiers are still around. Getting back to Native Americans, we've lost so much of their history as it is that it's a shame that there's a push to hide the small amount that's been retained. Sure, we shouldn't make it seem like they're extinct, but the truth is that most Native American cultures are extinct, thanks to disease and war brought by Europeans. The ones that have survived and retained some of their original culture should be celebrated and protected, but we also need to remember the rest. The best place for that is in history museums, and dioramas are one of the best ways to bring them back to life.

PeterisP 12y ago

The 19th century Indian culture depicted in those dioramas is extinct now and definitely does have a place in a history museum - in exactly the same manner as the (now extinct) 19th century white American frontier town culture or the (now extinct) 19th century Bavarian farmer culture. The fact that there are living descendants of all those cultures, and some of them [try to] follow traditional aspects of this culture does not diminish the historical value of illustrations about the culture as it was back thin. There may be valid reasons to remove exhibits - for example, if the depictions are misleading and based on assumptions now known to be false; or if the depictions are irrelevant and boring. But if some people are offended by their own history, then that's not a reason worth considering, much less acting on it - if the depiction is factually accurate (which, as much as I understood from the article, isn't disputed), then it should stay. If the current treatment seems unfair, then producing more relevant dioramas of the other cultures would be a reasonable response - such exhibits can be very effective illustrations about all the "non-native" populations as well.