Native American Museum

As people in my world politics section will know, I really dislike the Native American Museum. I won't even grant it the luxury of having "history" be in the name. Not only do I hate the way it is laid out, I hate the whole purpose (or lack of) the museum. I will acknowledge that the cafeteria is pretty awesome.

I hate that it's a waste of space on the National Mall. It's a cool looking building, but the museum is divided into two halves: one is the museum, the other is the large, cylindrical atrium. It's cool, but why does it have to take up the same amount of space as the actual museum part? Could the makers not find enough on the Native Americans to fill up the museum? Also, the actual exhibits are a colossal waste of space. There are two common ways to lay out the artifacts: either you cram a whole bunch of random things into a glass case with little tags, or you put one artifact in a huge case and spread them out. The spread out method is ok and probably more visually appealing, but is only really ok if the museum is huge. the native american museum isn't. This seems petty but it bothers me so much because there is so much interesting history and art of the native americans that wasn't even remotely covered in the museum. Throughout the exhibits I would come across something that reminded me of other things they didn't cover. Like the trail of tears, the mounds of the mid west indians, the seven nations of the Iroquois, etc.

Oh, and can i comment on how on the fourth floor, the glass cases that drew people in were those full of gold jewely or guns? Cool. Guns. Now what were they used for? What is the importance of guns in the history of native americans? Why wasn't this explained? How can it be called a history museum if the curators simply display an artifact and then don't explain its' relevance in history?

Also, the individual tribes were lumped together as if "Native Americans" are just one people. They aren't. They're all very individual. Whey didn't the curators have an exhibit for each tribe highlighting their differences, and simultaneously their similarities?

The overwhelming feeling I got going through this museum (and get every time I walk in) is that the curators were clearly avoiding mentioning the atrocities committed by the Europeans, and later the Americans. In fact, I commented to Giuliana as soon as I walked in, "I don't really like this museum." At that time I didn't really understand why it bothered me so much (I've been to many many many many museums and haven't had any qualms with any of them), but this time I finally figured out why I get that twinge of annoyance.

Ok, so the United States wouldn't want to put a museum on the national mall that highlights our country's mistakes. Then why didn't they put the museum somewhere else? I still think the United States needs to make some sort of apology to the native americans. A museum that tries to show the history and culture of the natives that was partly ruined by the Europeans and Americans is a good idea--but the problem needs to be acknowledged. In conjunction with the good.