Museum Do museums over do weapons?

[archieclement]

Due to your ancestry, you feel comfortable enough to speak for all indigenous people? I'm sure my First Nations/Peoples friends throughout North America, particularly those from the Southwest, West Coast and arctic would disagree with your POV.

Yes I feel comfortable to speak to ancestry I have...... Certainly some can disagree with me, it doesn't make their view anymore valid then mine. I'm not the one advocating only presenting or catering to one view at all, such as "first peoples". In fact I would say they have a minority view, as I believe the majority of people with Native American ancestry don't subscribe to tribal lore, or object to the useage of native American or Indian. Its certainly the majority among those with non reservation native american ancestry here in Missouri.

Your "friends" would no more speak for me or many others with Native American ancestry who actually don't object to indian, Native American, or subscribe to tribal lore.

Or are you only open to views of Native Americans that fit some narrow agenda? If some of native ancestry can object to everything and insist on absurd terminology or mythology, other natives certainly can point out that hardly is the view of all, or even most natives.

 

[archieclement]

I think the National Civil War Museum in Harrisburg has a good balance of weapons and other interests, including large displays on music, medicine, and slavery (the root cause of the war was slavery, so yes it should be an aspect of the conflict included in any Civil War museum.)

A war museum by definition would have a lot of weapons, but wars don't take place in a vacuum--as we all know, war affects everything in society, and there's also more to the actual combat than who killed who, when, where and with what. Displays about medicine, music, the material culture, etc. should also be included.

And let's face it--people, esp. kids, go to museums to see things, not read display boards 3-4 paragraphs long.

The museum's video on their web page sums it up well:

Explore The National Civil War Museum – Harrisburg, PA

The National Civil War Museum is one of the largest museums in the world dedicated solely to the American Civil war.

www.nationalcivilwarmuseum.org

Its too bad, as overblown story boards over actual substance or artifacts seems to be the "new age" pattern.

 

[GwilymT]

Its too bad, as overblown story boards over actual substance or artifacts seems to be the "new age" pattern.

There has to be a middle ground for a museum display meant for kids and the general public to be effective. Tons of artifacts mean something and are cool only to folks who already know what they are and how they were used.

 

[debwallsmith]

Yes I feel comfortable to speak to ancestry I have...... Certainly some can disagree with me, it doesn't make their view anymore valid then mine. I'm not the one advocating only presenting or catering to one view at all, such as "first peoples". In fact I would say they have a minority view, as I believe the majority of people with Native American ancestry don't subscribe to tribal lore, or object to the useage of native American or Indian. Its certainly the majority among those with non reservation native american ancestry here in Missouri.

Your "friends" would no more speak for me or many others with Native American ancestry who actually don't object to indian, Native American, or subscribe to tribal lore.

Or are you only open to views of Native Americans that fit some narrow agenda? If some of native ancestry can object to everything and insist on absurd terminology or mythology, other natives certainly can point out that hardly is the view of all, or even most natives.

You seem to have missed my point. Regardless of your heritage, you do not speak for the Navajo or the K'ómoks or the Inuktitut or any other indigenous group outside of the Cherokee, and not even the Cherokee if you're not on their rolls. You especially do not the right to comment on how they view what you are describing as tribal lore and their "absurd terminology". Your arrogance is disrespectful to all indigenous people who maintain their cultural traditions.

Don't bother responding. Your gaslighting is irrelevant to the original post. Bless your heart.

Yes I feel comfortable to speak to ancestry I have...... Certainly some can disagree with me, it doesn't make their view anymore valid then mine. I'm not the one advocating only presenting or catering to one view at all, such as "first peoples". In fact I would say they have a minority view, as I believe the majority of people with Native American ancestry don't subscribe to tribal lore, or object to the useage of native American or Indian. Its certainly the majority among those with non reservation native american ancestry here in Missouri.

Your "friends" would no more speak for me or many others with Native American ancestry who actually don't object to indian, Native American, or subscribe to tribal lore.

Or are you only open to views of Native Americans that fit some narrow agenda? If some of native ancestry can object to everything and insist on absurd terminology or mythology, other natives certainly can point out that hardly is the view of all, or even most natives.

 

[archieclement]

You seem to have missed my point. Regardless of your heritage, you do not speak for the Navajo or the K'ómoks or the Inuktitut or any other indigenous group outside of the Cherokee, and not even the Cherokee if you're not on their rolls. You especially do not the right to comment on how they view what you are describing as tribal lore and their "absurd terminology". Your arrogance is disrespectful to all indigenous people who maintain their cultural traditions.

Don't bother responding. Your gaslighting is irrelevant to the original post. Bless your heart.

I agree your friends don't speak for me, or many natives, I'd wager most.

I love how you presume how to tell natives what their opinions apparently should be according to you, or even if they can respond.........indeed bless your little heart.

You amply answered "Or are you only open to views of Native Americans that fit some narrow agenda?".

 

[major bill]

In the end it does not hurt to call a group of people by the name they prefer to be called. I guess the question should be what do the First Nation on Micigan want to br called. I am not going to poll all of them and will have to go with what their elected leaders say.

 

[Kurt G]

In the end it does not hurt to call a group of people by the name they prefer to be called. I guess the question should be what do the First Nation on Micigan want to br called. I am not going to poll all of them and will have to go with what their elected leaders say.

That's the problem . There is no consensus , even among the same tribe .

 

[archieclement]

That's the problem . There is no consensus , even among the same tribe .

Nor would even the tribes on the "rolls" combined represent the majority of native American ancestry, or the majority of Michigan, or the rest of the country, who are also free to decide and use the terminology they prefer.

The reality is 9.7 million Americans identify part Native American and recognize their DNA ancestry and heritige, it's likely the total number with native American ancestry is actually even higher. Of those 9.7 million less then 2 million choose to be on the so called "rolls". So the registered tribesmen even if they were unanimous, which they aren't, actually speak for only about 1/5 of Americans with native American ancestry. Which is why I recognize they do not speak for the majority.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

Women were a major demographic statistic in Michigan during the Civil War. Should any redesign include more on Michigan women during the Civil War? There has been a shift in the 30+ years about how to show women in the Civil War. We already cover women soldiers fairlyy well, but probably could do more about Michigan Civil War women who were not soldiers. The lack of women in the Civil War is offset by the use of female abolitionists in the other part of the Civil War gallery which talks about abolitionists and the Underground Railroad.

So perhaps put a few swords and pistols in storage and use the space for a couple display of what Michigan women did or the clothing they wore during the Civil War? Civil War female fashion is interesting.

Personally I think that would be a great idea! A section on women and the Michigan home front would be a wonderful addition.

 

[Michael W.]

As a museum professional I would suggest that the saying, "Less is more" is the best policy. In the past, museums have had a tendency to put EVERYTHING on exhibit especially if the artifacts were donated by locals who expect to see their precious heirlooms on display. I have always opted for items that are "the best example" or have an interesting history or most importantly, complement the story being told. Placing artifacts in storage prolongs their life if stored properly. It also gives the museum a chance to rotate in artifacts so that the pieces in the collection get a rest as well as have condition assessments made.

I understand what you are saying. You can't display everything. But from the donation point of view, especially since I'm a collector, if I donate something I want it displayed, not in storage never to see the light of day. I would rather just keep it.

 

[major bill]

I understand what you are saying. You can't display everything. But from the donation point of view, especially since I'm a collector, if I donate something I want it displayed, not in storage never to see the light of day. I would rather just keep it.

Most museums could not display 20% of what they have. Because the Michigan Historical Museum was charged with protecting important historical items as well as running a museum, we have much more than could ever be displayed and items that are too important to risk keeping on display.

 

[Borderruffian]

Please delete.

Okay

If the vaunted Union was " fighting " like white Knights on chargers to free the slaves, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation not issued until 1863? No doubt there were " Abolition Regiments " ( so termed by their fellow Blue Bellies) whi all in for the Abolition of slavery, but certainly not most.
The firing on Fort Sumter was the start of " late unpleasant " and yes the Planter Class was very much behind but don't forget or phoo phoo that the fledgling Republican party was seen as the party of Abolition also do not forget that the majority of CS soldiers ( AKA rifle toters) were not of the Planter Class nor were the Blue Belly Rifle Totars all steadfast Abolitionists .
The overwhelming feeling that lead to southerners flocking to the colors was an invasion of their homes for northern trash it was preservation of their Union and subjugation of the South and it's Constitutionally guaranteed state sovereignty
And pray tell, why did your " Father Abraham " not free slaves in Border States? Because " Mister Lincoln, what a Nit. He freed the slaves, he couldn't get."
Slavery only became a war aim as enlistment numbers began to fall and to placate the small yet vocal Abolitionist movement.

 

[archieclement]

I understand what you are saying. You can't display everything. But from the donation point of view, especially since I'm a collector, if I donate something I want it displayed, not in storage never to see the light of day. I would rather just keep it.

Agree if a Museum had 80% of its items in storage not being used, perhaps they should sell some off so they could least be displayed in private museums or collections. Or donate them to other museums willing to display them. Makes little sense to hoard items to keep them from being seen.

I agree its hard to imagine many donated items with the goal of them thrown in storage to never be seen. Imagine some thought they would be legacy donations. Like with an index card not only describing the item, but also with donated by "x" or "x family", just as people donate money to museums, zoo's wanting legacy recognition on a brick.

 

[debwallsmith]

I understand what you are saying. You can't display everything. But from the donation point of view, especially since I'm a collector, if I donate something I want it displayed, not in storage never to see the light of day. I would rather just keep it.

And that's your prerogative. However, most museums have donation policies that are spelled out on the donation form stating that it is up to the museum to decide if and when the item will be displayed. Artifacts on display need to be "rested" (for wont of a better word) occasionally so that their conditions can be assessed and be treated/cleaned/conserved if needed. Having an artifact on display in perpetuity is not good for the artifact.

 

[debwallsmith]

Personally I think that would be a great idea! A section on women and the Michigan home front would be a wonderful addition.

I agree that Women on the Home Front would be a great addition. We tried to add something of interest to women in all of the Civil War historic sites in this state because we saw lots of long-suffering wives dragged along to CW museums and there was little on display that captured their attention.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

I agree that Women on the Home Front would be a great addition. We tried to add something of interest to women in all of the Civil War historic sites in this state because we saw lots of long-suffering wives dragged along to CW museums and there was little on display that captured their attention.

That's definitely one of the big pluses. Museums work best when there's something for everyone. I appreciate the "war stuff" as well as the home front stuff, but I'm the exception. Most women are not super into war as a whole.

 

[Claude Bauer]

....we saw lots of long-suffering wives dragged along to CW museums and there was little on display that captured their attention.

Same can be said of wives dragged along to battlefields. It should come as no surprise that there's a large outlet shopping mall near the Gettysburg battlefield.

 

[debwallsmith]

That's definitely one of the big pluses. Museums work best when there's something for everyone. I appreciate the "war stuff" as well as the home front stuff, but I'm the exception. Most women are not super into war as a whole.

I always found the battle maps with the blue lines and red lines pretty mind numbing.

 

[debwallsmith]

Agree if a Museum had 80% of its items in storage not being used, perhaps they should sell some off so they could least be displayed in private museums or collections. Or donate them to other museums willing to display them. Makes little sense to hoard items to keep them from being seen.

I agree its hard to imagine many donated items with the goal of them thrown in storage to never be seen. Imagine some thought they would be legacy donations. Like with an index card not only describing the item, but also with donated by "x" or "x family", just as people donate money to museums, zoo's wanting legacy recognition on a brick.

Sell off their collections? It is very obvious that you know absolutely nothing about how museums operate. Might I suggest that you read what the National Park Service has to say about museums and collections? https://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/handbook.html

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

When planning the redesign should the Museum staff ask for imput for any outside groups? The Museum should meet with educators and see how they can better contribute to the 'proper' and appropriate history education experience of Michigan school children. Should prominent Michigan Civil War and Underground Railroad authors contribute?

Since the school groups are a major part of your visitation the exhibit should designed with them in mind, particularly about what topics are included. Discuss with educators what they need for the exhibits to be beneficial to field trips. However, don't design it exclusively for them.

Outside authors and historians should be used for fact checking, but they are not exhibit designers nor will they likely be sending anyone to the exhibit.

For example if a museum has focused on elementary children and special interests they aren't offering a lot to the majority of the potential audience.

Looking at Michigan demographics, it shows by far the largest potential audience is actually adult non Hispanic whites.

The average adult doesn't know much more about the American Civil War than their 4th grader. Most couldn't even tell you when it took place.

Designing the exhibit for Civil War buffs would be catering to a special interest.