This article is discussing how the curators in the National Museum of African American History and Culture had important decisions to make. The title questions how to tell all of African American history in one museum. The article, however, continues on to question how issues such as slavery, Bill Cosby, and the Baltimore Riots will be presented. I appreciate the article for bringing to light the important decisions curators have to make when making an exhibit. However, the article questions how such topics can promote healing (this is very brief, but it stuck with me while I continued to read the rest of the article). The article does not conclude that the museum is working hard to create dialogue, to promote healing, it ends with how to curate a space on our first black president.
I am hopeful that this article creates critical museum goers when the NMAAHC finally opens. I also hope, that this encourages people to ask more questions. However, when articles are written by non-museum professionals does it help or harm us? This article does not focus on how the museum wants to promote healing within the community, which it should have. The examples given throughout the article are great examples as to why visitors should go to the exhibit. Unfortunately, though, I interpreted the article as these exhibits are highly controversial. So “be aware” this museum is not for everyone. So it’s great that the public knows how difficult it is to create an inclusive history, but what are they actually taking away from this article? Are they apprehensive now about viewing controversial (but super amazing) exhibits, or do they want to go see for themselves?