October 11, 2016 - 14:41
after returning to bryn mawr from dc, i had an interesting conversation with rosa about our experiences at the new national museum of african american history and culture. we talked about what pleased us at the museum and what disappointed us. rosa voiced a concern for the politic of the museum. she pointed out that there was almost no text about mass incarceration and presented a linear narrative of progress. she's right. the content at the nmaahc is not particularly radical. it doesn't make a push for the abolishment of prisons or police forces, both things that she and i and many other people see as important to black liberation.
what are the expectations that we put on a museum representing blackness? are they realistic? what is the job of the museum? what is the job of this museum? why do we put pressure on the african american museum to be radical but not on the american museum when they exist within the same institution?
the national museum of african american history and culture does not endorse a radical politic. it's a smithsonian museum funded largely by the federal government. it exists because african american history and culture are not represented in the national museum of american history. it exists to represent african american hisory and culture. and it does just that.
for me, right now, the mueum is enough. it's enough to have a museum in the nation's capital dedicated to african american representation and experience. to have a museum where black folks can walk through and find themselves in the stories it tells. to have a museum that works to write african americans into american history. that's enough for me right now.