It looks like the straps for their “backpacks” are looped over the women’s foreheads, not their shoulders, which accounts for the writer’s impression that they “keep their heads down, dutiful.”
40
If the women would have been dressed differently, shouldn't that aspect of the diorama be changed or fixed?
23
I live near the museum and cringe when I see visitors taking pictures in front of the statue out front. Roosevelt rides on a horse in his uniform, and a black man and a Native American man walk on foot next to him. If you haven’t seen it you should google it; I’m not sure how to explain how bad it is.
I think people photograph it without considering its message because it’s big and grand, and we’re trained to photograph big grand things. I think about all those family travel photos spreading around the globe when the visitors go back home, spreading the ugly message.
87
There is not such a thing as "historical accuracy". These corrections speak more of our times and morals than anything else. I expect another set of corrections twenty years from now.
80
How can we do justice in a diorama to the brutality, the ignorance, the murdering, the lack of compassion and understanding that all immigrants had of the Native Peoples? The current display is nauseating on so many counts and yet the truth, how could one give any kind of proper homage to that?
32
This is disrespectful to the artists.
Think about it: a bunch of painters, designers, and sculptors trained in anatomy, architectural design, life drawing, painting, metalwork, casting, textiles, jewelry making, and many other artistic techniques were hired to create this as an art piece for the museum. These people must've spent countless hours doing sketches, sourcing materials from every corner of the globe, mixing and remixing skin-tone paints, and getting cloth, jewelry, and metal to sit *just right* and for the whole scene to look *just so*. Then, we come along and start nitpicking with our critical "woke" eyes. The ships send the wrong message. The women are depicted wrong. Things are left out. It's insulting. Denigrating. Racist. White supremacist. Come on. It's a representation of an imagined scene, incorporating very real and valid material finds from archaeology and research regarding cultural interaction, meant to be understood by all who see it. Our modern "wokeness" slanders art and sensibilities of different eras, and that is unacceptable.
70
I wonder did the Lenape manage to convince themselves eventually that immigration is always a good thing?
32
And now, let's see if the AMNH will repatriate belongings to the originating communities . . .
21
I like the new exhibit which will show these people as they are today. As a white person that has many generations here, my ancestors were a part of the reason for the many losses the native people endured. I am glad that native people will be portrayed today as being equally human in the past and as having changed with today's world culture. I believe it is wrong to continue thinking of Indians as being synonymous with teepees and bows and arrows. I would love to see how their past blends with their present.
55
This is a brilliant solution that will spark conversations between museum visitors of all ages long after they see this diorama. I wish more institutions had this constructive, educational approach. Bravo!
127
This so-called solution, while seeming innovative and even perhaps admirable on its face, overlooks the most glaring thing about its audience: Many if not most can either not read at all or cannot read English. As someone who, for 11 years, has ridden the B and C trains up and down Central Park West almost every day, I can assure you that these written explanations and disclosures are LOST on the young children who represent a large number of visitors and who will continue to see these colonial images without explanation. And they will be equally lost on the many non-English speaking multitudes who frequent the museum. Will there be docents to read these to those who cannot read them themselves? I can assure you no parent of a rambunctious preschooler or early reader is going to take the time to read these to their charges.
44
@Peggy. Your negativity toward an honest attempt at improvement says more about you than the project. Parents who bother to take their children to a museum most probably will be inclined to help their children understand something about what they are seeing. English is the national language in this country. It is also, like it or not, the accepted language for international communication around the world. Foreign visitors have the same obligation to prepare themselves for the language difference as I do when traveling out of the US. At the very least, there are apps that will translate between almost any languages.
96
@Peggy As a parent and museum lover, I can tell you that this addition to the exhibit will spur conversations between adults and kids long after they see this diorama.
I love the idea of a docent. Perhaps you should consider volunteering to bridge this resource gap.
92
@Rick Papin
Who is being negative? Peggy's criticism are all on point. The power of the museum is precisely that it offers compelling visual representations of its subject matter. I've brought my children to the Museum of Natural History many times and can assure you that most of the explanatory text goes unread by parents as well as children. The United States does not actually have a legal "national language." Its true that most Americans and many immigrants and foreign visitors speak English. But anyone who has been to the museum knows that many who visit it do not.
A better design would have considered these factors. Good intentions are fine, but there is nothing wrong with noting the real limitations of this "solution." If the function of the museum is to communicate, they should welcome comments that indicate when and why they might be failingto do so.
43
Used to spend almost every afternoon after school at the museum back in the 50s and 60s. Know those exhibits like the back of my hand . I’m glad to see there’s still interest in preserving them with appropriate updates
76
The museum could install video equipment that regularly modifies the dioramas to reflect the historical accuracy of dress and women's roles. Visitors would then have accurate visual images as well as written information. I'm sure that would captivate younger visitors as well.
Fundraisers could propose that as a directed donation opportunity to a potential donor.
It is all well and good to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, but let us not mistake that for making real change in the present. I worry that the actions of tearing down statues, renaming schools and changing museum exhibits will do nothing to address the true inequalities of American society.
46
So will museums do the same regards how women are portrayed? Yes, history is written by the conquerors. Maybe that’s why empires fumble and collapse - they have a biased sense of their accomplishments.
23
Just think about all the paintings in the Met you could put multiple stickers on.
No it is not a joke. Recently visiting the Harvard Art Museum I noticed little discreet write ups (fortunately not on the art) with gems such as that the Arabist references to Middle East as Middle East reflect their Eurocentric point of view. Presumably the Harvard curators referring to American South reflects their Cambridge Centrism. After all Atlanta is El Norte to Central Americans, is is not?
17
@Just Saying
"American South" doesn't actually presume a point of view in the way that "Middle East" does. It specifies a direction within a larger named territory the way that "North Africa/West Asia" might. With respect to your example, "Southern United States" might be an even better phrasing since most Latin Americans think of "America" not as a country but as a continent running from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska.
I know that these things can seem like ridiculous nit-picking to some people, but all the little presumptions that people of European descent are the center of the world do have a cumulatively pernicious effect. Language usage changes constantly to reflect changing understandings of the world. Most of us cringe a little when we hear the word "negro" or "oriental" for good reason, but those were terms my grandparents used. I don't know why we would think we should escape the same process.
36
This is a wonderful approach.
I agree that another diorama, of the same size (yeah, space problem!) be made entirely historically correct and placed right next to it. Or, there be an exhibit of the two devoted entirely to the ways perspectives have changed. In any case, there are rich possibilities for further clarification, study, and renewal.
New York City was called Manahatta by the Lenni Lenape. "Land of Many Hills". This exhibit has particular historical and cultural significance to the very land on which the Museum of Natural History is built.
34
@annpatricia23 - And then in another 80 years, the diorama we create today could be updated with what they will then know to be correct.
12
As a student of history, I found this article fascinating. History is a construction made out of our personal, collective and cultural choices. It should be no surprise that prejudice, politics and propaganda play a role in those choices. It is inescapable. The benefit of this article and the changes to the diorama is that it demonstrates our own limitations.
55
Well. As a Native woman and former Smithsonian employee, let me just point out a couple of faulty things with this article.
1. It's shocking-not shocking that this esteemed institution *only a year ago* decided to involve Mr. Pecore to try to resolve the issues behind this diorama, after having known it was a problem for nearly two decades. Dead stare.
2. This also speaks to the poor inclusion and massive lack of Native employees in the museum world, which continues to struggle with the representation of American Indians and Alaska Natives in museums across the country. Hire more Native people.
3. To Ms. Halderman's pithy comment that "We could have just covered it over," why not remove it entirely? I suspect that it was a lot cheaper to do what they did. Let's not diminish the role of budgets in this scenario. They cheaped out and kept it as an "example" of colonial representation - which is neither revolutionary, nor convincing. That says volumes.
83
@BothSides
As a museum professional, I agree with your points 1) and 2) but not 3). I think showing how things were wrong is an extremely important aspect of starting to get them right. Otherwise, past mistakes are ignored, doomed to be repeated. I don't anticipate that this will be the situation forever or that the explanatory panels that the museum chose to use are a permanent solution. But, for right now, with a population that is so used to seeing inaccurate representations, it's invaluable for people to be told why they are wrong.
84
@BothSides Sometimes the cheapest solution is the very best. Almost everything involves some sort of compromise. Knowing how the nation's founding document slanders and insults indigenous peoples makes me wonder whether this simple, thought-provoking, and (IMHO) elegant solution is the best compromise to instruct people and correct mistaken notions. It would've been nice if they could also have created another, more accurate diorama, or even an artist's rendering of one for comparison. But I am grateful that something was (finally) done. Funny how history portrays the more efficient savage murderers with better technology as noble, and others as primitive. It still goes on (think rocks, versus assault rifles and guided missiles fired from airborne weapons platforms).
22
@Mcp Respectfully, I disagree with your disagreement. As I mentioned in my initial comment, the misrepresentation of Native people in the museum world is a long overdue discussion that requires more than leaving things the way they are and simply inserting "text boxes" that very few people, and even fewer young children, will take the time to read. People are viscerally impacted and remember what they *see.* As a museum professional, you know this. As another commenter pointed out, if this were a diorama depicting, say, a "master and slave" scenario, it would have been long gone.
It's 2019. Let's turn the page on these dumb, inaccurate, offensive "dioramas" that do nothing but reinforce stereotypes about Native people.
Why not a diorama featuring the many, many contributions that Native people have made to the world, which are unheralded and overlooked? But no - we're stuck with this albatross and a couple of lame text boxes. No thanks.
26
I applaud the changes made to the painting's display, but am annoyed that this group wants to get rid of the Roosevelt statue out front. Unnecessary overreach.
24
@weary1
Amen.
Where is Teddy when we need him?
Warren/Roosevelt 2020
3
This solution (whether temporary or not) articulates the multi-dimensional competing historical "truths" that exist when museums and their patrons consider any era. It also suggests that, as a tool for expansive understanding, all works might be served by similar metaphorical "glass" layers, holographic perhaps, so we the viewer grasp a multiplicity of narratives in a simultaneous instant, our reading no longer fixed by the original maker but deepened and made boundless by those voices that follow. This is inspiring because we glimpse in this diorama not just the problematic past but perhaps a more elegant future.
24
"Diplomatic negotiation"? The Dutch "settlers" appear to have fully built out infrastructure: windmill, walls, buildings. Looks like they have already settled to me. I wonder what the earlier "negotiations" with the Lanape that resulted in this occupancy looked like, more rifles perhaps?
28
@Bailey There are actually countless records that have survived from that area -- land purchases, land grants, memoirs, and yes, even diplomatic letters. Few people ever delve into them. The history is already written from many different viewpoints. Dioramas such as these try to condense all that into a generalized, colorful vignettes for mass consumption. European settlers didn't just come and steal the land and kill the Indians -- they had to pay a lot of money for it, and endured terrible ordeals to get settled in on the new continent. For the next round of dioramas and great historical narratives, different aspects of these interactions will have to be highlighted, but they'll never show the *whole* truth, which would be boring for most people, even if it were possible to capture in a diorama.
24
@Gerber I’m thinking of the countless Spanish and French exploiters who paid nothing to plunder, pillage and kill people hwo lived there. So these people taking the land, English included, for economic gain with tobacco platations etc endured terrible ordeals, no question. They were there out of greed, and could have stayed home. Same goes for colonial powers who did likewise in Africa and Asia, also suffering horrible ordeals while they killed the native populations.
13
Bravo. But having grown up in The City, and having seen this diorama over the course of decades, I still think it would have been more historically accurate and proper to show the Europeans handing Native Americans blankets full of smallpox with a smirk on their faces.
Would we still have dioramas of Masters and Slaves simply "corrected"? I think not.
23
@Tony Dietrich
Actually the smallpox blankets issue arose a century after the incident depicted, and not by the Dutch but rather the English. We know that General Amherst proposed such a strategy in the Seven Yesrs War, but whether it was implemented is not clear. There was a widespread smallpox epidemic involving whites, blacks, & Indians during the revolutionary era, but it was utterly unplanned by anyone. See the book Pox Americana by Elizabeth Fenn.
35
@Tony Dietrich
I picture is worth a 1000 words. Who reads the small print. Take down the diorama. It is continually demeaning.
10
@Tony Dietrich Exactly, Mr. Dietrich. Thank you.
4
This is a very important step in counteracting stereotypes. My thanks to the museum officials for taking this step
Hopefully more museum curators and school educators will follow their lead!!
32
The Museum of Natural History dioramas are classic artistic wonders. They should be left alone.
16
@Don I agree. We should never update things or change the way we view the past.
9
@Joe bob @Don We should never change the way we view the past indeed. MEFA - Make The Earth Flat Again.
41
@Don As I understand if, the diorama *is* being left alone. The annotations are printed on an entirely different glass layer.
24
This kind of misrepresentation of history occurs in displays and monuments across America. A few years back I visited a mission site outside Santa Fe. The museum area was full of statements of how missionaries brought so many benefits to the "local natives." The reality of disease and domination of Native Americans in the area by white missionaries was never alluded to. Apparently the local tribes had been trying to get the displays redone to reflect history more accurately. But there they sat unchanged. Frankly, I was appalled by the rosy picture of beneficent missionaries that was presented. I sorely hope we can start correcting these false depictions of history. This stuff does matter to all of us.
110
Great idea but this does not go far enough.
First, text boxes are not enough. Images are powerful. This needs to be complemented with imagery that provides a much more accurate representation. This also applies to so many inaccurate representations in today's museums.
Second, we should be honest enough with ourselves to say that this inaccurate representation is not and was not innocent or borne out of a lack of knowledge.
It was meant to build and reinforce sentiments of superiority, plain and simple. The painter/creator of this image knew that, whether consciously or not, the museum leadership that commissioned it and did not remove for more than 80 years knew it as should everyone with a history degree.
This depiction, like so many across this country and the world, is a manifestation of propaganda, not history. And as such, these misrepresentations are not only inaccurate, they were and continue to be used to justify and/or whitewash past acts of incredible cruelty.
92
@howmuchlongerdowehavetoendure I wonder what level of historical scholarship existed when this was originally built so many years ago. It might not have been knowingly incorrect, but merely ignorance mixed with feelings of superiority.
In either case, a correct historical representation is long overdue. The museum should revisit all its exhibits to be sure they are historically accurate.
14
@howmuchlongerdowehavetoendure
Precisely. It does nothing but reinforce stereotypes about Native people. Small children, for example, aren't going to "read" those text boxes. They are going to be more viscerally impacted by what they *see.*
20
And for the same reason that Auschwitz is not torn down and forgotten, we should keep some of these ‘history written by the conquerors’ type depictions to show not only what was, at one time, the accepted propaganda of the day but clarify how those depictions were wrong.
9
I am glad they did this, but I am a bit confused about two of the corrections. One says the women are shown performing manual labor. I do not see that anywhere. It also says the long skirts would have dragged behind the women. I also cannot see any dragging in this diorama.
9
@Alyson Reed The "manual labor" probably refers to the fact they are carrying loads on their backs, probably something offloaded from a boat.
7
@Alyson Reed Also, I just now reread the label copy. It actually says "physical labor," not "manual labor." That makes more sense if it refers to their depicted role in carrying cargo in backpacks.
8
@Alyson Reed I found this to be pretty ironice being that an article about how to approach this issue did not seem to accurately depict the mural. Not only describes the clothing inaccurately, also later mischaracterizes what the added text boxes says about the women (unless there is something we are not seeing). Odd that the "facts" in an article about getting history right were not verified...
4
A minor point, but it bugs me: the text says that the skirts of the Lenape women in the diorama were "impractical" and "dragged behind them." But the photos show that the skirts end just below the knee. Why the disparity?
Whatever the reason, this contradiction reminds me that pictures speak louder than words.
17
@Bucky Just reread and see that they did make some changes to that part -- it drove me nuts that a story about how to accurately and objectively portray history did not get its own facts straight!
4
Isn't this a good solution for many "historical" monuments? All those statues of known white-supremacists can stay up... if those that want them to remain will pay to create equally large statues surrounding them of all the people they murdered, raped, and enslaved.
Context matters in history, and history only matters in context.
14
@J c
Frankly, I’d like to see googly eyes put on some of the Confederate statues erected during the early 20th Century, ostensively as tributes to Southern “heritage”.
8
One observation.
The fort, homes, the armed soldier all declare ownership and power. While that may be true at this point in the diorama, another square in the glass could explain how the land was taken without 1950s mythology.
24
Read the history of the interaction of the Iroquois and the Huron before assuming whites were the source of all destruction of native peoples.
32
@DaveD Why the need to defend European invaders from hundreds of years ago ? Whataboutism is an infantile intellectual and moral code.
Yes, the Iroquois wiped out the Huron. The irony is the Huron had been weakened and their numbers had been reduced by European diseases courtesy of French missionaries or else they would have been able to defend themselves.
What the Iroquois did to the Huron does not excuse what the American colonists and government did do the entire native american population of this country.
6
@DaveD
But this article isn't about the Iroquois or the Huron (yes, I know that history), but about a specific place, time and people's: the Lenape and their colonizers.
5
Maybe some broader questions is where are all the European cultures in the Museum of Natural History?
If you go through the exhibits you'll see various people of color and animals, which is a really creepy and racist World's Fair vibe. The fact that an institution hasn't changed an inaccurate diorama from the 1930s is disrespectful to the people and the history. They have the money to change this.
I wish I could say I'm surprised that the NYT didn't mention this fact, but I'm not. The Museum of Natural History is a respected institution, in spite of it's clearly problematic portrayals of people of color. This should change.
22
@Molly
Wow, I've been there so many times and this never occurred to me. Thanks for mentioning! If they're lacking space then they should focus on North American peoples and immigrants, since it's the "American" Museum..
1
I say replace the diorama with an historically accurate portrayal. In its current state, it is still inaccurate and borders on insulting.
15
@Mark Cutler What they did is a good, cost-effective, interim thing for the museum to do for a few years, while they plan for the next 'permanent' exhibit that should do exactly that, and more; including, for example, how they got the land for that fort; the role of other Indian tribes in the area (such as Iroquois) etc.
10
@Mark Cutler
I'd rather say leave this diorama with the labels and add another implementing the changes. I think that pointing out how the understanding of history is influenced by the culture explaining an event is a very useful tool in giving people context to WHY the original diorama was inaccurate and how very important imagery is to our understanding of the world. Especially for school children inundated with imagery without context. Healthy skepticism and what to look for in the story you are being told is important.
37
I always thought the diorama was disrespecting NJ since that's where the Indians came from!
4
This is really interesting. I read that University of Notre Dame is covering up some murals that are very much a part of the university's heritage, but they are making reproductions to show in a thoughtful manner in a less public venue. Another good approach, but I think I like the AMNH way better, where the public still has full access to the installation along with the corrections on display.
3
The self praising museum display of the invention of DSL at the supposedly prestigious Stanford University completely ignores the prior patents of the true inventors, in favor of their own staff.
Investigative reporting anyone?
2
Wonderful and strongly embedded memories of visiting AMNH as a child over 50 years ago. The dioramas captured my imagination and expanded my understanding of the situations they presented. Good to see the written corrections have adjusted the information of this diorama.
Children are visual learners and many will not read the the new amendments.
Hoping AMNH will further update the diorama with a printed visual image amendment for the sake of educating children.
12
The great thing about writing over the diorama is it exposes the conversation, which has its own powerful educational value. And it might help young students develop visual literacy, so they can look more critical at the next set of images put before them, and be less susceptible to manipulation.
17
@Michael Joseph. "might help young students develop visual literacy, so they can look more critical at the next set of images put before them, and be less susceptible to manipulation."
EXACTLY!!! If they just replaced it over night with a 'correct' version, they might never know that a major museum got things wrong- for many decades- and wasn't admitting it. They need to know those things, to be taught those things; what the museum did is turn the whole thing into a teachable moment.
21
I agree - it is a teachable moment. I think the museum is doing a service. I will be interested to cider out local natural history museum again ( it has been MANY years) and see how their older dioramas May have evolved.
5
@Michael Joseph Funny! I obviously meant "look more critically"! (Even Homer nods.)
The problem, still, is the erroneous visual depiction. Why not display a more-accurate diorama side-by-side in which the women aren't naked and are in leadership roles, as was the case. No amount of writing on glass will erase the immediate imagery.
67
Historiography reveals how ALL history is written from the limited perspective of the authors as well as the values of the society in which it is written.
Fifty years from now new labels may be needed to illuminate what was omitted not only from the original exhibit but from these labels as well.
Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to clarify the values reflected in any version of history, provided it is understood that a complete and “true” history can never be written.
12
Glad to hear the Great Canoe is in a prominent place. The development of canoes was critical to life on this continent. Light and riding high in the water, the craft is uniquely suited to waterways over here and is easily built from natural materials. The canoe is still the best craft for costal and inland North American waterways. Those big ships in the background are fine for traversing the Atlantic, but are next to useless for making a life here. The Dutch had almost no idea of how to survive on this continent, while the people who already lived here knew everything. Look at the tump lines and pack baskets the women are using to carry their loads. Ergonomically superior in all ways. Readers are rightly talking about the graphic elements that make the Dutch look superior in the diorama, but not enough is being said about the true superiority in this scene; it is in the hands, heads, and hearts of the native men and women.
16
The diorama's problems span the depictions of both cultures. For example a bit of window space outlining the fanciful idea brick and mortar existed at first meeting would put the museum in the top drawer of demonstrations how to respect and correct an exhibition piece.
7
As Lin Manuel Miranda wrote in Hamilton, "Who lives? Who dies? Who writes your story?" resonates today perhaps more than ever before?
In my life, the axiom "history is written by the victors" is being questioned more than ever - and, hopefully, that is a good thing. (I think so!)
19
@pittsburghezeYou need to apply some of that critical thinking to the musical Hamilton that you speciously quote. He was far from the heroic figure that was created on stage. He was one of those founding fathers who was quite willing to accept the enslavement, debasement, rape and killing of enslaved Africans and also Native Americans. This "principled compromise" with slave-holders has been deemed acceptable. Nobody asked the slaves, nor did they ask the Native Americans.
13
This is a terrific use of different levels of history -- the history being depicted and the history of the era when the diorama was created -- to educate and inform us about history!
How versions of history change and how history is is subject to changing interpretations, preconceptions, and biases of people writing about history, even with the best of intentions.
The broader lesson about history and how our view of historical events change over time is perhaps even more important that the specifics of the updates, annotations, and corrections of the new captions.
Kudos to AMNH!
And here's hoping this is a model for others to follow too!
37
Fascinating article, project and resulting comments. Applause for the museum. May there be more attempts like this across the country.
21
People often take offense that the natives are shown not wearing very much, the NYC seal being one example. However, native men did not originally wear leather pants as more modest depictions would have it. At least in Pennsylvania, the Lenape old men and children reportedly went about completely naked in summer. They would cover themselves with blankets, furs, etc. in colder times. European clothing eventually influenced their dress. There is an early 19th century view of Independence Hall with a group of native visitors in rather Europeanized garments.
7
Is the Museum going to do anything about the equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt, outside the main entrance? TR is mounted but flanked by a Native American and by a naked African. Clearly, TR is in a position of dominance. See:
http://equestrianstatue.org/roosevelt-theodore/
Of course the statue is representational of his travels and not to be considered an historical depiction.
6
This is my initial take on what is wrong with the diorama:
1. The white men are pictured as being large, while the indigenous men are slight. Read: “White equals might.”
2. The whites are “supported” by being near a solid brick structure, while the indigenous people have no such support. Read: “White equals might.”
3. The scene feeds into a popular white narrative that people of color are eager to meet the needs of whites. Look at how one of the white men has his hand extended as the indigenous “guests” approach the two of them with gifts.
4. The line, itself, of indigenous people makes them appear as supplicants.
5. No number of explanatory labels could erase the visual impact that this picture has on children: “White is right.”
6. It’s totally imaginary, so why pretend that it’s real?
7. It feeds into white supremacist fantasies and gives them more "support" for their delusions of superiority.
126
@Oceanviewer These are all spot-on. I especially like number 5. Most children simply learn from what they see/observe and unless parents are explaining each label posted on the glass to their children then the attempt to mitigate the inaccuracy is failing an entire generation of viewers/learners.
26
@Oceanviewer Technologically, the Europeans really were far more advanced, if not "superior." The indigenous people barely had a chance. Give guns and liquor to people who have not encountered such things before, and they'll destroy themselves.
16
@Oceanviewer Not to mention the use of technology; Ships, firearms, windmill. Versus the stone age implements wielded by the Native Americans. More white superiority on display.
12
Maybe we could do more of this. Across many museums, we tend to see images of women that are shaped by our recent culture. Many of those who have examined past cultures have done so through the lens of the moment. We need more of this in museums and in classrooms. We would all benefit from a discussion of WHY the diaramas indicate what they do. Maybe a fact sheet so that we can discern what we know: the hard evidence of sherds and what we guess at: who was making/using the pots.
6
The Native Americans really tried to get along with the Puritan refugees, but the cultural differences were just too great. Nothing could prepare the indigenous tribes for the onslaught on viruses, alcohol and guns. The European refugees didn't have to actively destroy the native tribes; the latter faced so many disruptions in their lives they simply stopped reproducing.
4
@Gerber:...the wheel, books and a widely accessible written language among those disruptions.
8
@Gerber
This is, of course, rather too simple to be historically accurate, just as the contrary story is. "Native American" is not some monolithic category. Some Native Americans "really tried to get along with" the Europeans, some did not. Just as some Native Americans really tried to get along with other groups of Native Americans, whereas others instead embraced war and conquest.
People are complicated and history is even more complicated. It doesn't really do anyone any good to pretend otherwise.
18
All I can say is I love this and I hope it becomes the norm at museums burdened by historically important but socially problematic displays. I’m so tired of visiting museums and finding the old exhibits gutted and replaced by some inane iPad-heavy thing that will be obsolete in five years.
33
Bravo! I appreciate this and want to see this deeper cultural appreciation spread across the country.
20
I really appreciate this reinterpretation of old displays. It makes a museum of the museum, a document of past interpretations, and I think that is useful. Not that new, more accurate displays, or new museums of current interpretations are not also useful.
35
@APS I wish the University of Michigan museum would have done this, instead of completely removing the dioramas from their display.
6
What's wrong with it? What's right about it?
Stuyvesant was the last governor New Netherlands and New Amsterdam before the King of England seized it and gave to the Duke of York, his brother, hence the current name.
The original meetings with the Indigenous people was by Peter Minuet, not Stuyvesant. Growing up in one of the towns named for a Lenape settlement, the people would have been dressed for the climate, not as the Arawak might have been when Columbus landed in the Bahamas.
If it was the early meetings, the fine Amsterdam houses wouldn't be built, nor the giant fort and windmill, and the musket would have been a matchlock, MAYBE an early flint-lock.
What's next? Noah riding a dinosaur?
103
@Dadof2
"What's next? Noah riding a dinosaur?"
Visit the Ark Encounter theme park in Williamstown, KY ... it shows dinosaurs as pets (at least small ones). :-)
22
@Dadof2 I don't believe your history of NY/Manhattan is correct. The Dutch and English fought a series of naval battle during this period. After one successful engagement by the Dutch, the resulting peace treaty gave Manhattan to the English for territory in the East Indies. The transfer of Manhattan was "peaceful" as I understand it.
5
Three-dimensional dioramas depicting historical events, like history books, reflect the biases of those who are given the task and responsibility of designing the displays. Sometimes the biased displayed diorama can be intentional to serve a purpose. In other cases, there is a lack of anthropological and historical information to portray a factual diorama and for that reason, the designers chose to draw on their creative imagination as was the case in the American Museum of Natural History depiction of the meeting between a Dutch envoy and the Lenape welcoming party. Hollywood producers have yet to produce a movie of indigenous native Americans that comes close to portraying accurately historical events that have affected native American nations throughout the U.S. You would hope that responsible museum curators will be truthful and factual in displaying their dioramas of events in American history.
8
The depiction of the European settlers as skilled stonemasons and builders seems inaccurate, as well. In Europe, they would have had the infrastructure to quarry stone and move it to the building sites, but this depiction seems designed to portray them as superior and more civilized, even in the new world without the support of a massive building industry. It seems unlikely that the work would have been that polished.
18
The formation of capitalism is soaked in near-genocide. That said, with increasing "civilization" (not all bad) and broader travel, along with population expansion (before it became explosive and dangerous), money did become a means of exchange.
It's a huge dilemma. We've expanded and exploited, wasted and dumped, until all of earth's human population is at risk, and, of course, the injustice falls heavily on those who have the least and are least able to protect themselves.
This historical honesty is of great value, so we stop thinking of ourselves as superior, but part of a great enterprise with potential for good and evil, depending on whether we use and abuse or use and collaborate. Let's get the "social" back in socialism. [Venezuela's Maduro and Stalin were/are not "socialists" but predators interested in power and wealth; unfortunately takers are in general better able to impose on people of goodwill than those who are more generous and include themselves in community for the good of all. Bolsonaro is a predator from the right, Maduro from the left. They neither of them represent potential but rather regression to greed and violence.]
15
Returning to topic, it would be of value if we all emulated many Native American cultures by collaborating with our earth, in things like avoiding environmentally costly food "luxuries" from afar. American Indian traditions have much to teach us there.
11
@Susan Anderson Before capitalism, things were much worse. When communism came along to counter the problems of capitalism, things continued to be be bad, just in a different way. The history of the world is a blood-soaked mess, and capitalism is just one of many narrative frameworks that can be used to describe it. A lot of NYT readers seem to share a knee-jerk disdain of capitalism, but like democracy, there's still nothing better to replace it.
12
@Susan Anderson
One of the expanded things is the lifespan of native peoples, another is the alphabet with which to write their own stories.
5
I know little of American Indian history, but the United States was founded upon Indian genocide and the historical perspective we present in museums and other forums is exactly what we would expect from a victor's historical rendition of events. Sorry to offend historians, but history is perhaps the highest form of propaganda.
20
@Casey The Native Americans really tried to get along with the Puritan refugees, but the cultural differences were just too great. Nothing could prepare the indigenous tribes for the onslaught on viruses, alcohol and guns. The European refugees didn't have to actively destroy the natives; the latter faced so many disruptions in their lives they simply stopped reproducing.
2
@Gerber The Puritans were a small group of settlers. They were many more colonizing forces and many varied Indian tribes. You have a very limited frame of reference.
3
My 4 year old who can’t read just soaked up the same old unexamined eurocentric story.
5
@Jane Fujita Fortunately you pointed to the labels and read them and made the point that the diorama reflected the prejudices of the time. Right?
34
Great that the museum did this and great that the paper covered it.
"If human beings are the agents of cultural destruction, we can also be the facilitators of cultural survival. It’s a matter of choices. And choices happen on a nation state basis when enough people within the nation believe that the orientation should shift.
". . . The world in which you were born is just one model of reality. These other cultures aren’t failed attempts at being you; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit.”
-- Wade Davis, anthropologist, ethnobotanist, and author (and former National Geographic Explorer)
7
What about the buildings? Should we really believe that the colonists had such spiffy buildings, and fences with 90 degree corners?
16
@John Williams
Amazing that so much care could be lavished on lawns, considering that the lawn mower was invented by Edwin Budding in 1830. Before that, scythes had to be used.
13
@Charles E Flynn
Good eye, and great point! The bright and uniform carpet of lawn might well be the most egregious anachronism in the diorama.
At the time depicted, European lawns were the rarefied province of the aristocracy, some of whom had begun the experiments in horticulture and design that in the following decades would become the historically notable garden artifacts associated with the following centuries' grand architectural statements.
The lawns of what would become distinctive styles of grand parks and geometric gardens depended on tended flocks of grazing sheep and the snips of painstaking servants to maintain them to a degree even approaching the uniform lushness of the tell-tale 20th century American lawn featured in the AMNH diorama.
5
People, relax! Each generation has a different understanding of the past. Sometimes its because new information has been discovered. Sometimes its because attitudes have changed. Whatever is put in the place of what now exist, it will be changed again in 50 years.
14
@sjs
I am relaxed till you step on my toe and heritage.
How wonderful that such an old museum can step into the modern age - thanks to the guidance of Lauri Halderman, who consistently guides projects with her wise words. “One thread that runs through this work is understanding who gets to tell the story in museums.” Indeed.
8
@P. Dann It is always the the "winners"/the conquerors who get to tell the stories i.e. "their" stories... in our history books, museums, movies, monuments etc.
This article to me was a breath of fresh air. As a resident of Albany NY I’d love to see contextualization of the decades old exhibits in the state museum. This sort of treatment is vital for the education of our youth and it would be amazing to see it carried to our state capital.
11
How can anyone know — and “reconsider” — what really happened at this fictitious event?
8
@Jamie
We may not be able to know with precision what happened but we can know what did not happen because we know much about the Lenape and other local groups, as well as knowing much about the colonists.
5
The larger, more disturbing subtext of the diorama seems to be that the indigenous people are interlopers into a well-established, white society, which, of course, is the opposite of the truth.
141
This is extremely heartening to hear. Next, the Museum should considering renovating its Hall of African Peoples, which presents a long outdated image of Africans as primitive.
14
This diorama will continue to indoctrinate children, the less literate, and the willfully ignorant. A picture is worth a thousand words. A new historically accurate diorama should take its place. A reduced size copy of the original diorama with the latest annotations might be part of a new exhibit that focuses on the sins of our fathers.
52
@Paul
I think both dioramas should be the same size for easy comparison and questioning. The original is important in showing how we got where we are and the damage done along the way--and that diorama is not that old.
4
Congratulations to Ms. Halderman and her colleagues working to correct the problem of the cultural depictions as displayed in the historic diorama.
Her approach offers much value for anyone who prizes honesty above agenda. The sooner we insist that reality be depicted realistically, the sooner we will escape our Orwellian intellectual landscape that re-writes history to suit the emotional needs of some constituents.
We as a secular, democratic, humanitarian liberal nation state have many accomplishment of which to be proud. Spanning every aspect of human endeavor, Americans have pioneered innovation and progress.
That said, Americans have also committed what amounts to genocide of many native Americans and the enslavement of Africans and African Americans.
Yes, there were historical contexts of both peoples. European ruling classes did not view Africans, Asians or Native Americans as their equals. Not culturally, not militarily, not human, ... the lists of "nots" can go for many pages. Their views on non-Europeans were just as heinous as those of the nazis, when viewed through today's lenses.
And that's the point. "Today's lenses."
The dioramas are part of "today's lenses." Just as K-12 education on American history is part of today's lenses.
A people who are honest with themselves want the reality of history to be viewed through today's lenses. Ms. Halderman and her colleagues are helping us to be honest with our consciences.
Thank you.
13
@TDurk Respectfully, what you seem to miss is that the 1919 Diorama depicts the 1919 interpretation of a 17th-century event. That interpretation is as much part of our history as the actual event and was rightfully preserved. That we feel that something is wrongfully describing events in the past that make us feel us uncomfortable does not mean that we should hide the fact that everyone was OK with that description until even recently. Rewriting history, for good or bad reasons, is always a bad idea. The museum did the right thing here.
7
@GvN
My point is that "to do the right thing" is more than "whispering" that something is wrong. Doing the right thing is correcting that wrong in as big and noteworthy way as the size of the wrong. Boxes of small print on huge mural is a whisper, if that. Folks see the picture which speaks a thousand words.
1
So long as we’re re-assessing historical accuracy of American cultural artifacts and appropriately adjusting, somebody ought to take a look at the movies of John Ford, who’s Westerns have probably done more to degrade Native Americans and perpetuate ugly stereotypes than any single cultural collective in the last 100 years.
Ah well, re-editing the library of famous but stoopid Hollywood Westerns is not really possible. But it’s worth calling ‘em out. Just like calling out the AMNH's dioramas.
8
@RR
Not to mention that a high percentage of cowboys were people of color.
@RR Ford's Monument Valley westerns can be looked at as allegories for the Cold War! The safety and protection of the fort (US) versus the mystery and unknown Apache and Navaho (Communists) that resided in the expansive wilderness!
3
What a wonderful and enlightening approach vs just deleting this and saying that it never happened! (History can be denied but won't go away, and you can't learn from what you cannot see or experience). Wish we had that approach here in the south relative to the confederate monuments!
11
@papabear People choose to go to museums. People have no choice but to walk by public monuments which are there to glorify certain people. No explanation will change that fact, unless it is on a sign that hides the monument completely.
11
What stuck me is that, in a way, the context of diorama's creation is now itself an exhibit. Meant to show history when installed, it now shows how racism was practiced and how deep it was ingrained in 1939. I'd like to see more "maturing" of our culture like this, owning our past rather than denying or erasing it.
24
So how come we don't do this with Confederate statues?
Leave 'em where they are; then attach a plaque noting the affects of the cause for which these men were fighting. You could start with "4 million people in chains" and go from there.
10
"The women did not wear impractical skirts that dragged behind them." Judging from the pictures that accompanied the article, the women in the diorama are wearing skirts that are just below knee-length, not "brushing the ground." They are also all wearing headbands attached to packs so keeping their heads down would help bear the weight of whatever is in the packs. I am NOT saying that this portrayal was not influenced by incorrect and dated assumptions and I am happy to see the museum using this opportunity to make more accurate information available.
22
As an archaeologist (retired) and lifelong consumer of museum exhibitions, I can say that this is the best story I read in today’s NYT. My surmise is that the essential elements of this story – knowledge, awareness, a willingness to recognize mistakes, and the involvement of indigenous people in the process of their own portrayal, is something that can, should, and will be replicated in many museums across the world. Most people probably think of museums in only cultural as opposed to political terms, and yet these institutions are profoundly political. The museum’s solution to the problem of erroneous information recognizes the political agenda, but acknowledges that this thing we call “history” is neither static nor one-sided, and is a dynamic process whose complexity must be recognized.
173
Great article. Could the same approach be used to address other controversies, i.e. with the Confederate statues? Rather than tear them down - find a creative way to contextualize and clarify. Similarly when universities find that their founder or a major funder was involved in practices/trade/behavior that's unacceptable today - use as an opportunity to educate rather than wringing hands and trying to paper over (name change, statue removal, etc.) the errors of the past.
18
@LeeMD Trevor Noah suggested putting next to the noble statues of the southern leaders statues of slaves in tattered clothes and chains so that we can remember what those leaders were all about.
15
Great! This is the way to do it!! Congratulations.
Museums should be involved in using their materials to teach, not simply entertain or display curiosities.
People will learn much more in depth from this than from merely making new dioramas. New dioramas would in any event have assumptions built into them. Everyone needs to understand the problematic nature of representations whether movies, news media, paintings, museum displays or accounts of travelers. Etc.
Classy!!
33
One very important feature of this is that it will draw awareness to other problematic historic murals, art, and depictions of native peoples just by deconstructing the iconography on display. Many people will return to their home communities and start seeing things a bit differently.
47
The amendments are fine, fro now. But the whole thing needs to be redone, just like corrections in a later edition of a scholarly book. You don't just paste notes over the erroneous material.
11
@Larry Bennett Yes, and on the other hand, these amendments may cause us to consider other "historical presentations" - which haven't been amended - with a more skeptical eye. Sure, the museum could completely redo the exhibit to make it more historically accurate, and it's likely they considered that option. But that would only be good for that one exhibit. I think this is a more effective, albeit subtler, solution causing all to inquire more into the historical accuracy of all exhibits everywhere.
14
@Larry Bennett The museum’s presentation of an inaccurate diorama with notes pointing out the errors will get much more attention than if the display was merely eliminated and replaced by a new and corrected version. The fact that the NYTimes ran this article and you and I are discussing it is proof that the museum’s position is valid and highly effective. This shows that the museum views its mission as a dynamic process that requires continuous updates as advances in science, history and our ever-changing culture come to light. Adding educational revisions to displays that are due for a major correction is a positive step for any museum, and I’m sure many others will follow suit as the publicity on this spreads. Even the NYTimes publishes prompt corrections to erroneous published statements, listing what was wrong about them and what the correction is.
12
@Larry Bennett - This reminds me of pop up videos (in a good way).
1
Reconsidering of our past biases and cultural miasmas is essential to help children and young adults to have improved understanding of our past and that our ancestors did do harm to others.
Kudos to the American Museum of Natural History, and to other museums and cultural touchpoints revising past portrayals.
29
I applaud the effort to turn this into a teachable moment, rather than simply removing (and therefore hiding) the stereotypes. But I can't help thinking that the distortion of fact exists in both directions. Specifically, did the Dutch settlements in the 1600s really have such finely constructed buildings -- with glass windows? And what about their clothing? I doubt very much that any European settlers or traders of that era were ever that clean.
185
@Stevem
The buildings were my question, too.
I lived for awhile in Vancouver, Washington. On the top of the hill was a stunning Catholic Church of brick.
I found out that it was built with forced labor from the prison.
So much for 'separation of Church and state'.
But if this masonry is accurate, then who built it?
Slaves?
Captive Native Americans?
Prison labor?
Soldiers being punished in the stockade?
Sailors who had been Shanghied?
Whose land were the granite blocks quarried from?
Yes, let's point out the deliberate inaccuracies.
This is a structural functionalist's fantasy....
29
@Stevem
Yes, the diorama is highly idealized and unrealistic!
9
@Stevem The Dutch began to settle lower Manhattan around 1625. So New Amsterdam would have been 35 years old when the diorama's "1660 encounter" would have happened.
I can't speak to how finely the buildings were constructed or the cleanliness of the settlers, but there does exist an illustrated map of New Amsterdam drawn in 1660. It's called the Castello Plan and shows a fairly large built-up town with many elaborate buildings, including the wall where today's Wall Street is.
The AMNH could expand this new dialog about this diorama by saying that those finely constructed buildings were more than likely built by African Slaves, Indentured Europeans and Prisoners. A labor force the British continued to use when they took over in 1664.
38
Since I was very young in the early 1960s, I have loved and also not understood this diorama. It never appeared to be accurate. There should really be an entire museum - better, a great amazing historical correction center - that honors and celebrates all of our North American native ancestors, sharing truth continually as it comes more and more to light.
My family is of Eastern European descent. Frankly, I'm kind of indifferent about that, though glad and fortunate to have been born and raised in this one-of-a-kind city. It is the plundering and destruction of indigenous peoples by colonizers everywhere that needs to openly discussed and finally ended.
The wrong historical narrative that's on display in the AMNH's New Amsterdam diorama is the same narrative exhibited by Lee J. Cobb's character in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, and by the Australian senator this week who's fear-based hatred of immigrants got him a well deserved egg.
39
@sol hurok You're contradicting yourself -- you're implying the Native Americans should have welcomed the Puritans. And if they spoke out against the Puritan invasion, by your own logic, the Native Americans deserved to be egged for their bigotry and intolerance.
3
@sol hurok Despite its unfortunate name, there is an entire museum - the National Museum of the American Indian - in New York City.
6
@JaneE The National Museum of the American Indian could start with renaming itself. "Indians" is inaccurate (turns out the new land was not India) and the very word "Indians" is problematic and envisions a grab bag of cliches. That in itself is inaccurate.
How about National Museum of Native Americans?
Or better yet, The National Museum of Native American Nations. THAT would be accurate. There are still members of 573 nations living here today.
9
I applaud the museum for the additions to the exhibit. Beyond this, it would be great to have another mural created that would more accurately show what the scene would have looked like. Images are powerful and words alone can not blot out a misinformed mural.
149
@Kat I agree. In the first one, "women would not have worn the skirts depicted" In the second, show me what they did wear.
22
@Kat, my thoughts exactly! Thank you.
9
@Kat Brilliant idea, and it would work even if the picture was much smaller. The people and buildings would be entirely different.
7
As a tour guide at AMNH I get reactions to many exhibits, none as enthusiastic as comments by visitors from Brazil on this diorama. They were so appreciative that the 'dialogue' on display was as prominent as the figures themselves.
It sparked a discussion where they too have had to come to terms with the way they as colonizers treat the indigenous peoples of Brazil. By not removing the exhibit but rather putting it into a present day context, a positive learning experience was created and much appreciated.
258
@robert goldwitz
The newly added clarifications are good, but I would challenge the museum to counteract the mistaken visuals a bit more actively. Since a (false) picture offsets a thousand (correct) words, maybe some nearby accurate pictures are in order, for example of how the Lenape would actually have been dressed. I wonder if such corrected pictures could even be printed on the glass like the new commentary is.
37
My compliments to the AMNH. It seems that they may have blazed a path that other institutions can follow and adapt for improving the breadth, context, and accuracy of their storytelling, and acknowledging that point of view matters.
82
Great. Love this, in contrast to trying to totally remove or "delete" any "bad" public figures, artwork or monuments.
24
Couldn't we do something similar with statues of Confederate "heroes" that many find offensive? Leave the statues standing, but provide plaques next to them explaining their racist past. That should satisfy those who insist the statues are part of history and should remain. Like the dioramas, the statues portray what was, not what is today.
21
The new display materials carefully explain how the dioramas do not, and never did, accurately describe the past. They do not depict what was; they depict how some people at the time tried to shape the American historical narrative.
25
@Shalby
The difference is that these museum exhibits were always intended to educate, however misplaced their assumptions. Confederate monuments we're only ever intended as propaganda, and focused on intentionally misleading and indoctrinating the viewer.
248
@Shalby
I see what you mean--everything is an opportunity for education. But the performance of American Confederate Religion manifesting as the statue in the public park does something that the performance of critical thinking and Western historiography as the diorama in the museum doesn't do. It is hard to remove the pedestal and centrality of the statue, or to otherwise impede on the devotional space in any significant way, or in a way that would reach ordinary park visitors. I think they will continue to see a "great man" riding to glory sword raised, no matter the bronze plaque erected nearby.
46