National Museum of the American Indian
The highpoint of the National Museum of the American Indian is the gorgeous building, its walls shimmering waves of beige stones. The opening atrium is a beautiful modernist take on a traditional dome, made up of thin circular cross-sections of white. Sadly after the awe of the entrance to a beautiful building, the experience deteriorated. The only other thing I really enjoyed was the cafeteria, which serves traditional native foods from yucca to fry bread.
The problem was the odd, postmodernist content of the museum, which could never really settle down on one story. Let me say that I strongly support the existence of this museum, and its symbolic place on the national mall. It just feels like it was put together by a committee of different tribes, who each put forth a few details on their own tribe without a deep sense of how the collection was supposed to educate non-native Americans. The result is a broad but rather superficial treatment that left me feeling like I didn’t really learn much.
There are a few brave moments where the museum tackles some deep ideas, but even here it pulls back, afraid of offending. One section warns that I “may be offended” by depicting Christianity as both a blessing for a troubled people and an instrument of oppression. After that followed precious few details. And one section patiently explains that there are different kinds of histories, and it matters greatly who writes them. How wonderful it would have been then to have a whole room that shows Native American and Eurocentric interpretations of a common event.
The problem was the odd, postmodernist content of the museum, which could never really settle down on one story. Let me say that I strongly support the existence of this museum, and its symbolic place on the national mall. It just feels like it was put together by a committee of different tribes, who each put forth a few details on their own tribe without a deep sense of how the collection was supposed to educate non-native Americans. The result is a broad but rather superficial treatment that left me feeling like I didn’t really learn much.
There are a few brave moments where the museum tackles some deep ideas, but even here it pulls back, afraid of offending. One section warns that I “may be offended” by depicting Christianity as both a blessing for a troubled people and an instrument of oppression. After that followed precious few details. And one section patiently explains that there are different kinds of histories, and it matters greatly who writes them. How wonderful it would have been then to have a whole room that shows Native American and Eurocentric interpretations of a common event.
