Museum Do museums over do weapons?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

The museum is for displaying artifacts. Anyone can learn about historical events from books, but they can only view artifacts in a museum. If the artifacts are mostly stored in the basement, (or, worse yet, are being sold off by that museum), and are now replaced by cardboard displays concerning issues only generally related to the reason for the museums existence, then there is no purpose in going to the museum.

I this regard I have voted with my feet, or maybe wallet is a better comparison. I no longer patronize museums unless I have a really good idea of what will be displayed.

I am not a fan of museums that have taken away most of their artifacts and replaced them with a bare minimum as well as endless story boards. You can over do it in terms of artifacts, obviously and there is a limit/balance to be struck, but people love variety and all the personal connection that each object provides. For active, inquisitive minds these dumbed down museums become boring and not places to return to. You can pump school kids through them but you lose alot of people who truly love an in depth study of history.

To address the bolded text first: I wonder how much museum visitation statistics support that assertion?

Anyone can learn about historical events from books if they read history books. It's apparent front past discussions on these forums that the majority of American Civil War buffs are not voracious readers. That's to say nothing of those who don't read books at all, or if they do only fiction - which is most people. It also assumes there exists a book written on the subject. Many times there is not when the topic is not either very broad (Michigan, the American Civil War).

Furthermore, this assumes that, prior to visiting the museum the visitor was even aware of the history at all. I think you badly underestimate just how many museum visitors are novices.

Where I work, the lighthouse is the big draw. Most people don't go there because they're interested in lighthouse history, much less local history. They go there because they think lighthouses are pretty and they think the view from the top will be worth taking in (it is). We've got an exhibit about the lighthouse, and trained docents that can answer questions about the lighthouse. But while you're there are also signs about native plants and a restored pioneer home and exhibits about Native Americans. And that's just on the grounds. The indoor museum permanent exhibit informed visitors more about the Native Americans, and local shipwrecks, and the Seminole Wars, and the former US Life Saving Station nearby, and local pioneers, and local World War II activity.

Yes, there are artifacts on display which are related to the topics covered, but also many of those pesky panels especially dealing with topics we think are important to cover but for which there are no related artifacts available.

We get a lot of comments from visitors who are amazed how much history is in the area, which prior to their visit they were completely unaware of - whether they're tourists or just moved to the area or have lived in the area for decades but never got around to climbing the lighthouse.

I'm only half joking when I say that most people think Florida didn't exist before Disney and air conditioning. Florida is probably toward a more extreme end of the spectrum for demographic reasons, but I expect to some degree this is a nationwide issue.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I said 'deer skin' and things went down hill very fast. At ten years old she was probably too young to understand that First People killed deers and skinned them.

I feel sorry for that child.

One of the first things covered in my tours are the early Native Americans, whom I note were hunter-gatherers. I point out they left piles of bones and shells behind. I have never had a child aghast at the thought, but maybe it didn't really register.

On one school tour the topic of eating either sea turtles or manatees came up (I forget how). The kids were shocked at this idea, because such animals are cute. I pointed out the only reason we can't eat manatees or sea turtles now is because they are endangered. Hundreds or thousands of years ago when they were not endangered there was nothing wrong with eating them.

I do not point out the little cemetery which is the final resting place of a 2-year-old and a pair of stillborns. That probably would be a bit much for 4th graders. Then again, you'd be amazed how many children ask "Has anyone ever fallen off the lighthouse?"

 

[C. Cash]

I can't give any data. But I can tell you the Pennsylvania Military Museum stripped their museum of much of their collection(weapons included) and did the bare minimum thing. It went from a busy museum to a ghost town from my observation.

 

[major bill]

Because the Michigan History Museum works with First People groups, we have been asked to avoid the use of "Native Americans" as well as " First Americans " because both are offensive. We are still working on "Ojibwa" and "Chippawa" the jury is not yet in on if these terms are offensive. "Odawa" so far seems still acceptable.

We have had people from the Wyandotte Nation and none seemed to upset with the use of "Huron" in our displays.

 

[Library Lady]

@major bill , I'm wondering if your museum has anything on men from Michigan who served with the 54th Massachusetts? I had an art book on the Augustus Saint Gaudens Shaw/54th Massachusetts Memorial that listed the members of the regiment, their ages, where they were from, their pre-war occupations and their status after the attack on Battery Wagner. While I knew that the 54th recruited throughout the North, I was surprised by how many men came from Michigan.

 

[major bill]

@major bill , I'm wondering if your museum has anything on men from Michigan who served with the 54th Massachusetts? I had an art book on the Augustus Saint Gaudens Shaw/54th Massachusetts Memorial that listed the members of the regiment, their ages, where they were from, their pre-war occupations and their status after the attack on Battery Wagner. While I knew that the 54th recruited throughout the North, I was surprised by how many men came from Michigan.

No this is not covered by the Museum. I have wondered if so many of the men of the 54th were from Detroit because there was a pre War black militia company in Detroit. The Detroit Liberty Guard offered their services to regiments from Michigan but were turned down due to them being black. A partially trained militia company of blacks in Detroit rejected for service in any Michigan regiment would have made a tempting recruiting target for the 54th. The Detroit Liberty Guards seemed to disappear at about this point in the Civil War. I have never found a roster for the Detroit Liberty Gurads or found what happened to their privately purchased muskets. The Detriot Liberty Guard has gone from newspapers accounts before the 1st Michigan Colored Infantry Regiment formed.

 

[GwilymT]

So if Michigan had a " large" history with the Underground Rail Road the perhaps a display concerning that should be opened to explain that. However it sounds to me like a new Treasury of Virtue slant is going to be given to the ACW, that in no way surprises me at all it's all the rage up north to make themselves out to be valiant Knights only interested in false narrative.

Please delete.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Because the Michigan History Museum works with First People groups, we have been asked to avoid the use of "Native Americans" as well as " First Americans " because both are offensive.

I'm not sure how "Native Americans" can be offensive. It's factually accurate: they are people native to the Americas. (Which is why I avoid using the term "Indian" to refer to such people. It's been used for centuries and some of them have come to like it, but it's geographically wrong.) Is the objection to "native" or "American"?

"First Peoples" seems a poor term (as does "First Nations" which is common in Canada) because it doesn't specify what they are the first people/nation of. If anything, "First Peoples" to me sounds like a reference to early homo sapiens.

 

[Kurt G]

I'm not sure how "Native Americans" can be offensive. It's factually accurate: they are people native to the Americas. (Which is why I avoid using the term "Indian" to refer to such people. It's been used for centuries and some of them have come to like it, but it's geographically wrong.) Is the objection to "native" or "American"?

"First Peoples" seems a poor term (as does "First Nations" which is common in Canada) because it doesn't specify what they are the first people/nation of. If anything, "First Peoples" to me sounds like a reference to early homo sapiens.

I'm guessing America . They were here long before the name America came about . There does not seem to be a consensus . Many are fine with Indian .

 

[major bill]

"First Peoples"

Because according to their oral tradition they were the first people on the planet.

"First Peoples" to me sounds like a reference to early homo sapiens.

Again they were the first people to exist, they do not recognize the early homo sapiens as the first humans.

 

[major bill]

There does not seem to be a consensus . Many are fine with Indian .

There is rarely any consensus among the various "Nations" here in Michigan about almost anything.

 

[archieclement]

To be fair many native American museums and displays I have seen included large stone arrowhead/atl/spear point/celt and knife collections, which seems little different then ACW gun collections. They essentially are weapon relic displays.

Round here native American or Indian is most commonly used to refer to Indians. I agree "first peoples" conjures up images of cavemen to me. Indian is often used in names here like Indian Creek or Indian Mounds Park, we even have Injun Joe campground, arguably after a literary character.

 

[Old Soldier]

These people had their own nations and 'tribal' communities within those nations. They also had different languages. The situation was rather like the separate states of the USA, but with no fixed boundaries except, perhaps, rivers and other natural features. They did not follow the present state boundaries either - hence the variation within a state. They shared a similar view of themselves, their environment and the bond between them and the land and the animals and vegetation around them.

If you have seen the opening scenes of the Daniel Day-Lewis version of 'Last of the Mohicans' you will have seen them kill a deer in the forest, then kneel beside the deer, apologise and ask for forgiveness but reasoned their actions because they needed food. In a similar way, some used to say sorry to a tree before felling it. I do not see that as being anything like a 'caveman'. I am sure that not every nation or tribe did that, but , like all 'primitive' peoples (people who are not as technically and educationally advanced as we Westerners and do not have an equivalent religion), they were part of their environment, had their own loyalties, morals and beliefs that, I suspect, even 'cavemen' had. (What would you call the Plains Nations who had no caves?)

No, it was not Paradise, as there was disease, starvation, inter-tribal conflict, inter-nation wars and all the friction between small groups of families - rather like any big city now, but on a smaller scale. IOW - they were, are, as human as we are. Coming back to era, how did the First Nations see the Civil War? How were they involved? How did they see the battles and conflict?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Because according to their oral tradition they were the first people on the planet.

I put Native American mythology between Greek mythology and most Biblical claims. Which is to say I will acknowledge many people earnestly believe such things (and do/did for a long time), despite most of them being unproven and some of them being obviously false. Earnest belief does not create fact. Trying to force people who teach history to teach your religious mythology as fact is offensive.

 

[Old Soldier]

I put Native American mythology between Greek mythology and most Biblical claims. Which is to say I will acknowledge many people earnestly believe such things (and do/did for a long time), despite most of them being unproven and some of them being obviously false. Earnest belief does not create fact. Trying to force people who teach history to teach your religious mythology as fact is offensive.

Trouble is, If you do not know how they thought and what they believed in, you cannot understand them, their motives or actions. Understanding their beliefs is not forcing anything on anyone. Most of these 'myths' were a way of explaining things they could not understand and did not have the knowledge to explain. How do you explain lightning, if you know nothing about static electricity?

They possessed skills most of us do not have today. Could you make a bow from the right wood and string it with animal sinew? Could you make an arrow from wood and feather and knap a piece of flint or chert to make an arrowhead? These skills are only taught as extreme survival skills today.

 

[archieclement]

These people had their own nations and 'tribal' communities within those nations. They also had different languages. The situation was rather like the separate states of the USA, but with no fixed boundaries except, perhaps, rivers and other natural features. They did not follow the present state boundaries either - hence the variation within a state. They shared a similar view of themselves, their environment and the bond between them and the land and the animals and vegetation around them.

If you have seen the opening scenes of the Daniel Day-Lewis version of 'Last of the Mohicans' you will have seen them kill a deer in the forest, then kneel beside the deer, apologise and ask for forgiveness but reasoned their actions because they needed food. In a similar way, some used to say sorry to a tree before felling it. I do not see that as being anything like a 'caveman'. I am sure that not every nation or tribe did that, but , like all 'primitive' peoples (people who are not as technically and educationally advanced as we Westerners and do not have an equivalent religion), they were part of their environment, had their own loyalties, morals and beliefs that, I suspect, even 'cavemen' had. (What would you call the Plains Nations who had no caves?)

No, it was not Paradise, as there was disease, starvation, inter-tribal conflict, inter-nation wars and all the friction between small groups of families - rather like any big city now, but on a smaller scale. IOW - they were, are, as human as we are. Coming back to era, how did the First Nations see the Civil War? How were they involved? How did they see the battles and conflict?

That was the point, I don't see American Indians as "cavemen" they were not neanderthal or cro magnon as the "first peoples" were.

Though certainly evidence supports paleo and early archaic american natives having utilized caves. The evidence however does not put the first humans originating in Americas.

 

[Tony Z]

I can't give any data. But I can tell you the Pennsylvania Military Museum stripped their museum of much of their collection(weapons included) and did the bare minimum thing. It went from a busy museum to a ghost town from my observation.

Sorry to hear that. I have been there several times, with the last visit well over a dozen years ago.

 

[DixieRifles]

I am working at the Micigan History Museum todat. The next gallery scheduled to be redone is the Civil War gallery. This gallery has a fair amount of swords, pistols, and muskets Although the Museum is for all ages, are primary visitor are school classes of 3rd to 5th grade.

Are you sure the primary group that visits this museum is 3rd, 4th & 5th Graders? I understand how schools will use local museums as a field trip for their children. However, from my experience that only happens once a year and by only a few of the schools. I've also learned that the majority of the children don't fully understand the history of the Civil War as it is barely covered in their classes. It seems hard to believe the Museum Staff would design their gallery around this group.

Another comment suggested that less items are better. I agree there are some museums that are cluttered with items everywhere. That is distracting to most of the public. Of course, for most people in CTW, we would look at every item we could. The opposite extreme is to have fewer items no display and more written history. When I attended the Holocaust Museum in DC, I was frustrated trying to read all the text. People were bumping into each other as the shorter or elderly folks tried to position themselves so they could better read it. Further into the exhibit, this seemed to have improved as there were more items to view.

 

[carptrash]

I do not see that as being anything like a 'caveman'.

I don't think that @archieclement was comparing the Indians to cavemen, I believe that we was saying that cavemen were what the term "first people" brought to mind. Although (opinion) there were no "cavemen" in the Americas before the Indians arrived.

 

[carptrash]

I've also learned that the majority of the children don't fully understand the history of the Civil War

I'm not sure that the adults here would agree on what " fully understand the history of the Civil War" means either.