Native American dioramas at University of Michigan Exhibit Museum of Natural History to be removed
The dioramas depicting Native American life that have occupied the fourth floor of the Exhibit Museum of National History at the University of Michigan will be removed at the beginning of next year.
The decision puts an end to the debate over whether the 14 dioramas - the second most popular exhibit at the museum - should be displayed among the dinosaurs, taxidermy and fossils and minerals of the natural history museum.
Amy Harris, the director of the museum, has been studying the issue since she assumed the post in 2001 and made the decision to remove them. An overlay exhibit explaining the decision went up a week ago.
A number of concerns have been expressed over the years, Harris said.
Among them: The dioramas are dated and depict an entire culture with tiny figures in small boxes. There is no context - the dioramas appear alongside prehistoric animals and fossils but no other cultural group. And the dioramas freeze a culture at a time from the past without depicting how that culture has moved into the present.
But in the end, Harris said it was most important to consider the wishes of the Native American community.
Not long after she took over the reins of the museum, Harris attended a workshop at the Smithsonian Institution on how museums should work with living subjects.
“They talked about how we must collaborate with communities (represented in museums), and give a voice to how their culture is depicted,” she said.
Back home, a Native American Committee of faculty, students, staff and the community was formed. The exhibit was relabeled and a new exhibit was added with information explaining contemporary Native American culture.
Still, the relabeling didn’t address many of the concerns, said Philip Deloria, professor of Native American studies, American culture and history at U-M.
“There was still the small-people-in-boxes syndrome,” he said.Â
The problem, he said, “is that the experience they create for Native Americans and non-Native Americans is separate and different. Native people - not all Native people - feel they are very alienating, particularly with children.”Â
When Native American children visit the dioramas with their classmates, they often hear comments that Native Americans are extinct - like the dinosaurs in the museum - or bad, Deloria said.
And the dioramas were still out of context, sharing space at a natural history museum with mastodons but no other cultural group. While they may not be historically inaccurate, they stereotype the Native American experience and fail to explore deeper meanings, Deloria said. Information about the culture, music, beliefs and stories was still missing.
That doesn’t mean the dioramas aren’t interesting, Deloria said. “They have a fascinating character to them. It’s like stepping back into the 1950s. There’s nostalgia and they are artfully done. Curiously, that’s part of the paradox: They are so fascinating. They are so dated.”
Zoologist Robert Butsch, who went on to become director of the museum, made the dioramas in the 1950s and 1960s. They include six Michigan tribes, four as they would have looked at Colonial contact and two from more ancient times. The other eight represent cultural groups from across North America.
Even after the relabeling, Harris continued to hear concerns about the displays. One student offered a critique, creating a mock diorama that included tourist trinkets and plastic figurines. There was a protest in 2007.Â
“I realized the efforts had not been successful and I decided to remove them,” Harris said.Â
While there have been questions about the Jan. 4 removal, there has been no counter-protest to keep them, Harris said. Still, the debate continues at other museums on whether to include culture in a natural history museum.
The dioramas will be kept in storage, and the space will be filled with geology, mineral and astronomy exhibits. That will make room elsewhere in the museum for a new exhibit on archeology, which debuts Sept. 25.
Janet Miller is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com.
Comments
essene
Wed, Oct 7, 2009 : 6:34 p.m.
All, I see in today's New York Times that the Obamas have selected among others a painting "A Foot War Party in Council - Mandan," by George Catlin. He also painted stunning portraits of various chiefs. This picture was probably painted sometime in the 1830. It shows Mandans sitting in a circle around a fire with spears, arrows and shields neatly laid down behind them. It will be placed on display in the White House. By the same logic used by various writers on this site, I guess it must have contributed and will once again start contributing to genocide now that it is on display again. Or is something wrong with the logic here?
essene
Wed, Oct 7, 2009 : 3:42 p.m.
Little Andy, It looks like something you wrote got removed. I have exchanged polite e-mails with Ms. Pasfield on this subject. The dioramas are not next to the fossils but the planetarium and the DNA exhibit. The next floor down has displays of living animals, not fossils. The children who see the dioramas clearly respect the native peoples shown in relationship to the environment. I suppose if one is determined to find a link between the dioramas and continuing genocides around the world, anything remotely nearby must be the cause. The causal relationship is overwhelming, or is it the big bang that is at fault here? Get a grip.
BigAndy2
Tue, Oct 6, 2009 : 5:02 p.m.
essene, Actually, I've not used any personal epithets as of yet, if you believe otherwise why don't you report my post so it will be deleted by the moderators? The genocidal implications of the diorama's were brought up in an earlier post, before I even posted in this comment section. I simply quoted that post, as well as seconded it. If you don't see the connections between portraying Indigenous peoples as "extinct" by placing depictions of them next to actually extinct "wild" animals, and continuing genocide, I'm afraid I cannot help you. Maybe you should attend one of the workshops listed above, maybe sit in on a course about Indigenous people or the methodology of genocide? I suggest the following: [LINKS REMOVED] Thinking that I implied that diorama's cause genocide shows idiocy even more than the use of the right-wing smear term "political correctness". Why don't you go to 318 South Main Street, Ann Arbor on Wednesday, October 14, at 5:30 p.m. and ask Veronica Pasfield or Gwyniera Isaac about the museum's decision (make sure and use the term "PC":) and if diorama's cause genocide? After that, come and post your findings here please! Even better yet, I'll come and take video of your inquiries, see you there!
tidge
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 : 3:47 p.m.
Here are upcoming events: Tuesday, October 13, 7:00 p.m.Translating Knowledge: Global Perspectives on Museum and Community Series"Networks or Entanglements? Museums and Native American Knowledges"Gwyniera Isaac, Arizona State UniversityHelmut Stern Auditorium, U-M Museum of Art, 525 S. State St., Ann Arbor(Workshop on Wednesday, October 14 from 4-5:30, Museum of Art Multi-Purpose Room.) Wednesday, October 14, 5:30-7:30 p.m.Science Caf Series"Presenting Culture in Museums"Elaine Heumann Gurian (author and museum consultant); Gwyniera Isaac (director of the Museum of Anthropology at Arizona State University); and Veronica Pasfield (Bay Mills Ojibwe tribal member and U-M PhD student).At Conor ONeills Traditional Irish Pub, 318 South Main Street, Ann Arbor
essene
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 2:17 p.m.
Big Andy, You are the one who has been free with personal epithets, not I. If you actually read the last message, I was quoting you in most of it. You brought up genocide, so let's see, who was it changed the discussion? So let us all understand this better, it is the ongoing genocide of indigenous people across the world that is caused by the dioramas? Another PC comment not based on anything factual. What is your take on the human skeletons on the first floor? I suppose they symbolize the ongoing extinction of Pleistocene megafaunas? I fail to understand why you are so angry and yet blame others for it.
BigAndy
Sun, Oct 4, 2009 : 7:44 a.m.
Sure, change the subject essene! I care not what names you call me, as they are more indicative of your personality faults than my supposed faults. "The Kunstkammer was regarded as a microcosm or theater of the world, and a memory theater. The Kunstkammer conveyed symbolically the patron's control of the world through its indoor, microscopic reproduction."[1] Of Charles I of England's collection, Peter Thomas has succinctly stated, "The Kunstkabinett itself was a form of propaganda" If one treats the historical representation of the conquered native peoples as a curiosity, and wishes to control that representation in the popular mind by creating a propaganda piece pushing the idea of otherness and oddness of historical native culture, then please don't do it in a place of scientific learning and research." ~ Alan Benard (above) Like it or not, this type of propaganda (the dioramas at the museum) serves to perpetuate the continuing genocide exacted upon Indigenous people the world over. If you can't see that for what it is (i.e. - the truth) then I cannot really be of any more assistance to you.
essene
Wed, Sep 30, 2009 : 5:24 p.m.
Big Andy, How small of you to write the following. "Sorry for the use of the word "idiot" to describe people who defend genocidal dioramas using ineffectual, right-wing engineered term." So tell us all, specifically what is genocidal about the dioramas?
BigAndy
Tue, Sep 29, 2009 : 1:54 a.m.
essene, "So those who disagree with you are likely to be racist if they use the phrase politically correct, and then you use terms that many of us would regard as impolite?" "[E]ither an idiot, or worse, a bigoted idiot" is what I typed. Idiot is a widely used term to describe people of ignorance (i.e. - uneducated). Need a more concise definition?: 'Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person").' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_%28person%29 Actually, it doesn't matter if anyone disagrees with me or not. The use of the term "politically correct" (or any variants) is simply indicative of less intelligent, or other wise uneducated people (or idiots, if you use the term "politically correct" or any of it's variants). Or was there some other word which you thought was impolite? Sorry for the use of the WORD "idiot" to describe people who defend genocidal dioramas using ineffectual, right-wing engineered TERMS.
essene
Mon, Sep 28, 2009 : 7:53 p.m.
Big Andy, So those who disagree with you are likely to be racist if they use the phrase politically correct, and then you use terms that many of us would regard as impolite? Well, I am told that many people who call others racists are themselves bigots. What is it with this topic that somehow allows one the freedom to be rude?
Dave T.
Wed, Sep 23, 2009 : 10:44 a.m.
I will very much miss the dioramas from the Museum. It is too bad a small vocal minority will lose something so positive for their people. The dioramas were a very approachable experience for children and made them see Tribal First People in an overwhelmingly positive way (There are no depictions of the vicious intertribal wars or enslavement of defeated peoples). I do NOT use "Native American", this is a misnomer. Everyone born in America is a Native American. I use First People or Tribal First People instead to reflect the earlier immigration of humans 10000 to 12,000 years ago to the americas. Everyone immigrated, some earlier then others. Amy Harris expressed surprise that there was no protest about this. Read the comments here! No one today, in the environment of Political Correctness, would protest this. It only hurts the First People, not the main population. They are destroying their own cultural history, not mine. "Cutting off their nose to spite their face" comes to mind. What is the big deal about these being in the museum with extinct creatures? These are extinct cultures! There is some re-enactment of woodland peoples but that isn't a culture. Do you think kids believe Elephants are extinct because they see that Mastodons are. "Little people in boxes"? Go to any major Civil War monument and look at the dioramas of the battles. No one complains of little people in boxes. They see these as helpful ways to visualize things that are no longer here. Make no mistake folks, when these dioramas are moved to "storage" it is the same as their being put directly into the dumpster. They will never be seen again. The museum will protest that but when the University needs the storage space in 5 or 10 years, into the dumpster they will go. Out of sight, out of mind. The first Peoples will be the losers again. Robert Ruark wrote a popular book long ago titled "Something of Value" that had the premise when you take a culture away, do you replace it with "something of value", do the Tribal First Peoples think a mineral exhibit is a real replacement of value for their history? Dave T.
somebody7
Tue, Sep 22, 2009 : 2:04 p.m.
My children are going to be so sad. They love imagining themselves living in the different dioramas, and can spend hours looking at them. Now I'm depressed.
Mel
Tue, Sep 22, 2009 : 10:48 a.m.
I completely see both sides, but I must admit I am sad to see them go. They were one of my favorites when visiting as a kid. They are clearly rather inappropriate among the dinosaurs and fossils like they said however. Are they going somewhere we can visit them? Can we buy them? What will happen to our beloved '50s style dioramas? Perhaps this is the perfect opportunity to start talking about opening a Native American museum/center that recognizes the first peoples and pre-colonial history.
Mark Hergott
Tue, Sep 22, 2009 : 8:04 a.m.
Alan, After years and years, the efforts to make the dioramas both relevant and representative of the native experience have failed. I do not disagree that these dioramas seem out of place in the natural history museum, but it is not for a lack of trying. Your over all opinion of museums seems to be painted by the bad behavior of those who acted before us. Indeed, it seems that the only solution you would want implemented is not only the removal of the dioramas, but the complete expulsion of any anthropological exhibit at all. The dioramas are art pieces that can be presented in a way that respects the natives. They probably can not be presented in the natural history museum. To suggest that showing exhibits of humans in the museum is racist or the gloating of a conquering empire, well that is just over the top.
Alan Benard
Mon, Sep 21, 2009 : 12:18 p.m.
Mark Hergott: You and many of the commentators here confuse the purpose and functioning of the modern natural history museum, and the discipline of natural history, with its earliest modern incarnation, the "Cabinet of Curiosities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_curiosities "The Kunstkammer was regarded as a microcosm or theater of the world, and a memory theater. The Kunstkammer conveyed symbolically the patron's control of the world through its indoor, microscopic reproduction."[1] Of Charles I of England's collection, Peter Thomas has succinctly stated, "The Kunstkabinett itself was a form of propaganda"If one treats the historical representation of the conquered native peoples as a curiosity, and wishes to control that representation in the popular mind by creating a propaganda piece pushing the idea of otherness and oddness of historical native culture, then please don't do it in a place of scientific learning and research.
woodyk
Mon, Sep 21, 2009 : 9:38 a.m.
Perhaps the dioramas could be donated to the American Indian Museum in Washington D.C. There would be lots of cultural context there.
Mark Hergott
Mon, Sep 21, 2009 : 9:01 a.m.
Alan... humans, despite your most ardent wishes, are natural. That is to say, they are part of nature. As such, An argument against the dioramas based on what is natural and what is not is patently absurd. Indeed, do you have similar objections to the Hubble space telescope exhibit, or are you beginning to see the futility in your line of thought?
Alan Benard
Mon, Sep 21, 2009 : 7:19 a.m.
Sam:Planets - natural historydinosaurs - natural history stuffed birds - natural historyhuman beings - human history
Sam
Sun, Sep 20, 2009 : 9:10 p.m.
Over several decades, on my many visits to the Exhibit Museum of Natural History at the University of Michigan, these beautiful dioramas have been a special attraction for me and my family. In the early 1970s I photographed them in detail as references to develop supporting literature in a Native American cultural and language preservation project conducted here by Xerox University Microfilms. Members of Michigan Native American tribes and representatives of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs participated fully in the project and never, to my knowledge, was this useful resource regarded negatively. Of course that was before the phrase politically correct was coined. The small-people-in-boxes negative comment about the scale of the dioramas is patently absurd. Would the dioramas be acceptable if the renderings were life size and/or the exhibit moved to The National Museum of the American Indian (note the non PC name) in Washington, DC? With regard to context inappropriateness, this is about Americas indigenous people, including those who were the important human element in Michigans natural history, so what better setting than our UM Museum of Natural History? Is the presence of the Planetarium in the same museum equally inappropriate because it does not deal with plant and animal life? Removing these realistic treasures will dishonor Robert Butsch who must have devoted countless hours of research as well as outstanding artistic effort and craftsmanship creating them so we can have a glimpse of what American life may have been like in earlier times. Removing them will be an enormous loss and a big mistake.
Museumophile
Sun, Sep 20, 2009 : 7:47 p.m.
A couple of corrections/comments: "The current director is temporary, yet She has the power to make this change, to remove a historic and loved collection from the Museum." -- Ms. Harris has been the director of the museum for nearly a decade. Yes, she was considered a temporary/interim director at first, but she is now a full-fledged director and has been since (I believe) 2003. Also, note that the dioramas were made in the 1950s and 60s. That is, it took over a decade for them to be made. I'm pleased that people have suggestions about what should be done with the dioramas, how the exhibit can be modified so that it's less offensive, but it seems as though most of these people don't have an idea of the effort or the money involved. All of their "solutions" likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Exhibit Museum's TOTAL annual budget is under a million dollars. I invite them all to get out their checkbooks and pony up.
Goodphotographer
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 11:46 p.m.
How about a new 'Living History' museum that addresses /Native American (NA) history up to and including it's present day social, political and cultural changes? I'm sure most adults will agree, this is a very diverse group of people. Sad thing is, so much of the NA peoples culture and history is being misrepresented and avoided still today. There are many aspects of the NA culture that are today as they have been for hundreds of years. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good Pow-Wow as much as a good Blues and Jazz festival, but I would hate to see any more exploitation of a people's culture such as another two or three day festival. As far as the dioramas... they cover a broad range of the history of civilzation and are a great addition to a natural history museum's collection however, they tell only a small part of the NA history or the history of man for that matter. At least one of them could depict the 'pony soldier's small pox laden - blanket - gift' attempt. Ok, maybe telling the whole NA story would be a rehash. At best it would be out of context to the 'Natural History' theme - just keep it real. Prehistoric man? Some folk will argue a little history is better than none. I say 'part history' is nearly as bad as 'none'. It's like getting half a Mother Goose bedtime story when you can't sleep. It's worse than a jig-saw puzzle with a few missing pieces. At least with the incomplete puzzle one can see what the finished picture will be but don't try and read a whole story from a book with over half the pages missing.
Rod
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 8:56 p.m.
I agree that Native American opinion on the issue should be respected, but why does anon 505 presume to know their opinions? Has there been a scientific survey? A few students expressed an opinion, but I am not sure if they can claim to represent all Native Americans. If every exhibit that offends some people has to be taken down, museums will indeed be impoverished.
ahinteriors
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 8 p.m.
This is a perfect example of why I have such a love/hate relationship with this community. We are all so blessed to live in the Ann Arbor area where we can expose our children to so many cultures and activities, but the flip side is that the community is so worried about being PC in all areas that it also takes so much away from our children. We have lived here for 3 years and this is my 5 year old daughters favorite museum. The Native American display is her favorite spot in the museum and now it must go because it is out dated? When you can use a tool to capture such young children and teach them about a period of history they may not otherwise be interested in, why would you remove that because its not PC? My 5 year old does not understand PC?
AANative
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 6:59 p.m.
The current director is temporary, yet She has the power to make this change, to remove a historic and loved collection from the Museum. Is this the right decision? Like many others who have commented on this, I too will miss the collection and have very fond memories of viewing the dioramas when I was a child and then years later with my children. I would love to be able to do so with my Grandchildren some day.
Andy Poli
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 6:06 p.m.
The directors of the Natural History Museum have failed us. They failed to convey that the dioramas on the fourth floor were part of an anthropological exhibit. They failed to relate that the first Americans are ancestors of real living persons and should not be grouped with the extinct animals on the second floor or the living animals of the third floor. How have they chosen to remedy their failure? They've decided to take away a vivid educational tool that captures our imagination and transports us through time. A tool that illustrates how Indians not only survived in harsh and varied environments from the arctic to the desert, but also developed a wide variety of cultural advancements that we take for granted: shelter, heating systems, agriculture, travel by water, and the melting and forming of metal. This is no remedy. It is simply more failure. We need more of these dioramas - not less.
Thomas Cook
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 3:31 p.m.
This is a shame to lose them. Full disclosure - mongrel N European background. I'd always tell my kids this is the way the original folks who live here long ago used to live - digging copper in the UP for trading and manufacture - just like we do now, burying their loved ones with love and respect - just like we do now, getting everyone together for a party with food and friends - just like we do now. And, like an earlier comment mentioned, these folks have ancestors just like us who live here now and sometimes they try to live their traditions, sometimes they live more "modern" lives. When there were still the display cases around the corner on Native Americans in current times it was easier to show the whole continuity. Now the museum will have zero Native displays - isn't that worse?
Ryan D
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 3:06 p.m.
The displays capture a moment in time of a culture in the same way as a degas painting or a photograph today. Sure the whole culture aspect isn't reflected but it creates a window to spark curiosity. I've used them numerous times to show my children a view of the native people who used to live here before European settlers. The only reason there have been no counter-protests is because the rest of us have actual work to do everyday. People will be offended by any number of things. Tough for them - they need to learn tolerance. That's the flip side of living in a country with a large number of freedom. I'd rather have people offended then suppress the view. Political correctness has once again gotten in the way of simple education.
Billy
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 2:28 p.m.
"Find a kid. Ask the kid, "Where do Indians live?" Learn the power of stereotyping." He told me India....and asked if I meant native Americans. I think that means you are STUNNINGLY wrong sir. Oh and...OMG PEOPLE LIVED ON EARTH A LONG TIME AGO??? YOU DON'T SAY???? Imagine that...trying to represent humans in a museum dedicated to the history of this planet.
Native to A2
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.
Why can't new dioramas be created to reflect other cultural North America at the same time period? Maybe these groups would be willing to contribute to the creations. And maybe some of the Native American tribes would like to do so, too? This could be a wonderful opportunity for people of all cultural groups to learn more about the history of other people/ethnic and/or cultural groups/racial groups/and any others. It would be helpful to have ancient; historical stereotypes (and why); and modern lifestyles comparisons in the dioramas. I'll be sure and visit the dioramas and photograph them extensively if they are going to disappear soon!!! The planned removal is going to increase the number of people visiting a hundredfold between now and then. It seems like this would be a greater threat to perpetuating feared stereotypes than ust leaving them alone and adding more groups and eras!
Alan Benard
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 12:21 p.m.
I am of entirely European ancestry, as far as I have been told. "The representation of the native peoples was created entirely by an white academic, with no input whatsoever from living Native Americans." "These are certainly *not* the reasons stated for the removal of the dioramas. Voicing this opinion is unnecessarily reactionary."Thanks for your opinion. "Why not have Native American truth and input into this exhibit and get it right and let the children of tomorrow know the truth of how we live?"Great idea. That's what U-M ought to have done in the first place. Any future scholarship and museum displays which include research and input from native people would be a great addition to the city and the university.I don't think I need to be native to be an ally to natives, or to oppose racism. And I don't imagine that all or even most native people agree with me.
Sherry
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 11:32 a.m.
As a Native American myself, I agree with dj. I was wondering if Alan Bernard is native himself as he sure has allot to say about this issue. I think the Museum is making a very large mistake in removing this exhibition. Unless one is truly Native American how can they fully understand the truth of our culture and how we live. Why not have Native American truth and input into this exhibit and get it right and let the children of tomorrow know the truth of how we live? Just to put history in the basement to have it hidden away it is the white man's answer. How very sad for our children to not know the truth about us. Hide us away and the white mans hope is that we will go away. No such luck. Let the Natives design it correctly and then put a display of total truth out in an exhibition. We are tired of being hidden away and lied about.
tidge
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 10:12 a.m.
"The representation of the native peoples was created entirely by an white academic, with no input whatsoever from living Native Americans." These are certainly *not* the reasons stated for the removal of the dioramas. Voicing this opinion is unnecessarily reactionary.
KJMClark
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 9:45 a.m.
A. Benard wrote, "Find a kid. Ask the kid, "Where do Indians live?" Learn the power of stereotyping." So I did that. The response was "They either live on reservations or they live in cities and towns with the rest of us." I also asked, "Do you think Native Americans live today like they're shown in the dioramas?" My daughter said "No! Of course not!" - This doesn't strike me as supporting your point. I'm an eighth Cherokee and proud of that. I think this is a ridiculous case of political correctness. These dioramas are at the top level of the museum, removed by floor from the other exhibits. The second floor is the dinosaurs, etc., the third floor is Michigan fauna, and the fourth floor is the anthropology and geology exhibits. The dioramas form part of the Michigan history part of the anthropology exhibit. Are we now saying that any human anthropology exhibit, depicting anyone's ancestors, that anyone thinks is "out of context", should be removed? These depict human history in Michigan. Where else can we now go to find out how humans lived here before the Europeans arrived? It would have been better to add whatever context people thought were missing, than erase part of human history.
jrigglem
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 9:24 a.m.
Boooo!!! I'm Native American and I like them. I think it is intersting to see how my ancestors lived. School books do not teach how Native Americans live today so should we get rid of all of those too? That was my favorite display in the Museum, myself as well as my ancestors are from Michigan, and seeing how each tribe differed is interesting. If a child doesn't understand that Native Americans no longer live that way, then the schools and the parents should be addresssing the issue.
dj
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 8:50 a.m.
I remember viewing the dioramas when I was a child and taking my children to the museum to view them. As an ardent supporter and sympathizer of native americans, I never viewed them nor did my children in a negative way. I found them tactfully done and felt they depicted what the native american life was like as naturalists before it was taken away from them. The dioramas should be put somewhere else within the University that would make more sense but stored?
Chuck Warpehoski
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 7:29 a.m.
I have a good friend on the education staff at the Exhibit Museum, and I've heard her for a few years now talk about the reflection and thought they've put into this decision. Hearing her weigh different arguments showed me that this was a thoughtful decision.
Steve Hendel
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 6:58 a.m.
The Museum's director is quoted as follows: "But in the end, Harris said it was most important to consider the wishes of the Native American community." Three questions which I'm hoping Ms. Harris will answer: 1. How do you know what the 'Native American community' wanted, i.e. how do you know that this committee you formed is representative of that entire community and not only it's most vocal segment? 2. Are you seriously saying that every 'community' should get a virtual veto over any exhibit showing it's history, culture, etc.? To put it another way, is the education and expertise of you and your staff and/or the feelings of museum-goers as a whole trumped by a vocal subset of the 'community' represented by any exhibit? Thanks 2.
DennisP
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 6:30 a.m.
I can understand the position of Native Americans on the nature of these displays. However, the person who made them was a scholar and created them based upon the science and archeology of the day--not merely to entertain by creating scenes premised on inaccurate mis-perceptions and prejudices. It isn't as if these are mock-ups of Lone Ranger episodes. They were based upon archeology and history. I don't know as anyone decries them as inaccurate. If they were, then their removal would have been a no-brainer and Ms. Harris would not have had any issues or difficulties arriving at her decision. The fact is they represent a small slice of daily life of an amazing culture at an amazing time in the history of the Americas. The problem, and I can respect it, appears to be one of their context in a natural history museum instead of a cultural history museum and the lack of Native American input on perspective. I don't find merit in the argument that they reinforce stereotypes in the minds of today's children. Again, as far as I know, no one declared them to be grossly inaccurate. Such an argument implies that the rich history depicted in the dioramas is something to be ashamed of. The Native American culture and the way they lived their daily lives was and is a rich one that has an embedded influence in the laws, philosophy and culture that grew into the nation of today. It is imperative we teach and learn it. Further, I don't believe that only Native Americans can be proper scholars of Native American history or culture and that any other input is necessarily biased and stereotypical or flawed. Today's Native American perspective is valuable in understanding the evolution of the culture, but science and scholarship should operate on neutral principles independent of any one investigator's biases. I'm less concerned about the impact the dioramas, themselves, have on reinforcing stereotypes among today's children because, frankly, I think the kinds of parents and teachers who take kids to museums are more than likely to try and offer a respectful and broader perspective of Native American culture. However, I think that the Natural History Museum is the wrong venue for this display and is unable to provide the added information and perspectives to better enable parents and teachers to more fully instruct. It is a narrowly focused display and is out of context in that setting. It would take a whole wing in the Kelsey Museum or some other location (even the Art Museum) to give a fuller picture of then versus now. In short, the dioramas just don't do fair justice-standing alone-to the culture they seek to portray. I have less problem with the dioramas then with their venue. I believe in a proper display and museum they could enlighten and not trivialize. I don't think they reinforce stereotypes and I don't believe that scientific and archaeological study and teaching of cultures can only come from persons of that culture. But, I do believe that a culture and society is too complex to treat narrowly and without a full perspective and should be done in the proper forum. So, while I disagree with several of Mr. Benard's points, I do applaud Ms. Harris' reasoned and deliberate approach to the decision she arrived at. We should never seek to conceal the past just because we fear that someone somewhere may get a wrong impression, but we should always strive to present the information fully and in a proper forum. When that can't be done because of limitations of space and resource, then the museum should do something else--and she did.
cook1888
Sat, Sep 19, 2009 : 5:57 a.m.
Many years ago my children and I spent a lot of time at the Museum. We were all fascinated by the beautiful dioramas. Never did we think they were anything except captured moments of history. There was nothing disrespectful about their depiction of early life. The self sufficiency they represented was admirable. The Native Americans in MIchigan must have a different sensibility than the Native Americans in the western state I came from. There they still refer to themselves as Indians and revel in and celebrate their past.
Alan Benard
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 10:53 p.m.
"I think you would be hard pressed to find children who think these dioramas remotely resemble how Native Americans live today." Find a kid. Ask the kid, "Where do Indians live?" Learn the power of stereotyping.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 10:24 p.m.
Placing imagery of Native Americans as they lived hundreds of years ago, out of present-day context, will give school children -- the intended audience -- the idea that this is how Native Americans live today, as no other information to the contrary is provided. You're kidding, right? With television, computers, handheld internet devices, I think you would be hard pressed to find children who think these dioramas remotely resemble how Native Americans live today.
Laura Bien
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 8:31 p.m.
Interesting discussion. I think this is a golden opportunity for the museum to create a new exhibit: "Why We Removed the Dioramas." Display the dioramas in the rotunda and add informational signs pointing out the specific features of the displays that influenced the decision to remove them. Explain why they are being removed. Visitors would be appreciative of the honesty and would be fascinated to learn how a museum makes decisions like this. Plus, "controversy sells newspapers"; if publicized, more bodies will come to the Museum to see the "controversial" meta-exhibit. I would!
PformerPfizer
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 8:15 p.m.
Has anyone asked the figures how they feel about this? Seriously. From what I gather they awaken at night and have a grand old time traipsing about the museum with all the other artifacts, animals, paintings and life-sized sculptures. Maybe they don't want to be boxed up with packing peanuts!
anon505
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:21 p.m.
For all who think that removing the dioramas is unfair or foolish, I say simply it's not for you to decide what is hurtful to someone of another culture. I think the right people are making the right decisions - very careful, well considered decisions.
Alan Benard
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:14 p.m.
The coming exhibit on contemporary brass objects from Ghana also has small human figures. Who made those representations of Ghanans?
Alan Benard
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:12 p.m.
What is it about small human figures in a diorama that evoke such feelings of being put down? These exhibits are the only representations of human beings in a natural history museum. Putting representations of one group of human beings on display next to stuffed animals and skeletons of extinct animals places those human beings in the context of being both non-human, and extinct.The representation of the native peoples was created entirely by an white academic, with no input whatsoever from living Native Americans. Placing imagery of Native Americans as they lived hundreds of years ago, out of present-day context, will give school children -- the intended audience -- the idea that this is how Native Americans live today, as no other information to the contrary is provided. The act of displaying dolls of native peoples at all is dehumanizing. It is also representative of the cultural domination of Western society and political power over native peoples, which is racist. Such displays reinforce white supremacy.
tidge
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 7:10 p.m.
I've always thought that the dioramas were among the few exhibits that brought "life" to the Natural History museum.
essene
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 6:32 p.m.
I think it is a case of PC gone amuck. The dioramas are on the top floor of the museum and the fossils (and some modern skeletons) are on the first floor. Presentations of living animals are on display on the floor below the diorama, and the planetarium and a display of DNA are just down the hall. I would be much more interested in hearing from the children themselves what they think of the dioramas, not the adults. The coming exhibit on contemporary brass objects from Ghana also has small human figures. What is it about small human figures in a diorama that evoke such feelings of being put down?
J. Sorensen
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 6:32 p.m.
I think instead of being kept in storage they should at least be put on display at least once a year at one of the museums or even the library. I've been looking at these since my first field trip to the museum from Haisley 30 some years ago. It would be a pity for them to just disappear!
81wolverine
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 5:48 p.m.
Personally, I liked the dioramas, although I can understand the problem with context being so close to the dinosaurs, fossils, etc. Certainly, we need to be sensitive to the wishes of the Native American commmunity here. That being said, I think that these types of exhibits CAN offer an insight to museum visitors into life in the past that is visual in nature. If there were a way to do this accurately and with respect to the history and culture of the tribes being represented, I'd be in favor of that. In the meantime, this is probably the right thing to do.
dunne
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 5:34 p.m.
I think this is horrible. It is one of the coolest exposures my little ones have had to the way things used to be in Michigan & our region. Which, I believe, is the whole point of the museum!!! They have also enjoyed the Ojibwa museum in St. Ignace, but the dioramas are awesome because they display so many different ways things used to be. I totally disagree about them being out of place. Why not use the opportunity to improve the exhibit, seems like the previous attempts were half-hearted. Yes, they may look dated, but unless the representations are actually incorrect about the ways things were, they should not be removed! Believe me, to children under 5 they are engrossing & not at all alienating! I can't belive Deloria only thinks they have a 'nostalgic' quality! To me they have been one of the highlights of our trips. My 2 yr old spent MOST of his time in front of them. I love Michigan and I absolutely love getting a visual of what was here before the Taco Bells and strip malls. The cultures represented were many diverse wonderful people. Let them remain represented to us!
Mark Hergott
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 5:09 p.m.
I recently visited the museum with my daughter and took pictures of every diorama. While the dioramas may not be culturally sensitive in their current location, they are beautiful and worth preserving in some fashion. The idea of these art objects moldering in storage is offensive in itself. I wish they could find somewhere to present them in a fashion that is respectful to the native community. I agree that seeing them in the same facility as mastodons is culturally insensitive. It just seems that hiding them in a basement is insensitive in its own way...
Otto Mobeal
Fri, Sep 18, 2009 : 4:13 p.m.
While I am usually wary of the usual political correctness, these dioramas have always seemed out of place. They should be removed. It is too bad that they cannot be displayed a more appropriate setting, like part of a larger American history display.