Abstract
Abstract The public seems more likely to take issue with what history museums say than with what art, anthropology, and natural history museums say. In part, this is because these disciplines are understood to be challenging, not least because of the often opaque language and methods designed to impart psychic distance from their content. Exhibitions in these disciplines work by equipping and requiring us to step back before we step in, thereby making it easier to process difficult subjects. One such exhibition which was potentially emotionally charged did not provoke controversy. Did the disciplines through which the story was approached remove the story temporarily from the highly charged slave narrative and place it in a different, less contested—because more reified—context, a different kind of narrative? If so, was that a constructive contribution or a missed opportunity?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
