| 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? |
