Remembering Exhibitions on Race in the 20Th-Century United States

MUSEUM REVIEW ESSAY

Remembering Exhibitions on Race in the 20th-century United States

SAMUEL REDMAN

ABSTRACT This museum review places the American Anthropological Association’s recent exhibition entitled “Race: Are We So Different?” into historical context by comparing it to other major exhibitions on race in the 20th century. I argue that although exhibitions on race in the 19th-century United States are frequently examined in the historical and anthropological literature, later exhibitions from the 20th century are frequently forgotten. In particular, I compare the AAA’s recent exhibition to displays originally crafted for the 1915 and 1933 World’s Fairs. [Keywords: museum, exhibit, human remains, race]

HE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL Association subject of race that was intended to reach a national audi- T (AAA)–sponsored touring exhibition, “Race: Are We ence. The changing foci of these exhibits are demonstrative So Different?,” offers visitors the current anthropological of the evolving understandings of racial difference among consensus on race through exploration of lived experiences both scientists and the public. Although the narratives of of ethnically diverse peoples by outlining the scientific ba- 19th-century display are relatively well understood (Conn sis of human variation and by inviting visitors to engage in 1998; Rydell 1987; Stocking 1968), more recent exhibitions discussions on issues such as affirmative action.1 The 1,500 on race—those of the 20th century—are largely neglected square-foot exhibit, designed by the Science Museum of in the historical literature. To better understand the import Minnesota, was initially set to conclude a nationwide tour of such displays as the recent AAA exhibit, it is imperative at the Smithsonian in 2011. As the exhibit drew to a close that we understand the context from which they emerged. in St. Paul, the gallery was expanded in size and a smaller In 1915, Aleˇs Hrdlicka,ˇ curator of physical anthropol- clone exhibition was created, both of which will be touring ogy at the Smithsonian, curated exhibitions on race for the until 2014 (Schwartz n.d.). Panama–California Exposition in San Diego. The exhibi- Entering the exhibit, visitors are confronted with tions later became the core of what is now the San Diego videos that explore popular ideas surrounding race. Dis- Museum of Man. Hrdlickaˇ spent years acquiring collections plays immediately introduce the notion that race has been for the fair while also filling perceived gaps in human re- historically constructed both scientifically and culturally. mains collections available in North America. While plan- Moving through the gallery, displays showing a myriad of ning the exhibition, Hrdlickaˇ explicitly stated his desire not faces capture attention before explaining genetic variation only to teach the public about race but also to highlight the and similarities across populations. Confronting historical progress of racial science in the process.2 methods of race science and classification, visitors are in- Another major exhibit on race was initiated at the Field vited to sort individuals based on various traits and are Museum for the 1933 Century of Progress Fair in Chicago. then shown why these modes of categorization have proven Henry Field, curator of physical anthropology and archaeol- inadequate. ogy, helped organize a new exhibit, the “Hall of the Races What interests me as a historian is the idea that this of Mankind.” Field, working with sculptor Malvina Hoff- exhibit is only one of several presented by the U.S. anthro- man, created displays featuring many of the supposed 155 pological community throughout the last century on the racial types that included full-length bronze figures, busts,

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST,Vol.111,Issue4,pp.517–522,ISSN0002-7294onlineISSN1548-1433. C 2009 by the American Anthropological Association. ! All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01160.x 518 American Anthropologist Vol. 111, No. 4 December 2009 • • and facemasks. Field drew direct guidance from Hrdlicka’sˇ like novelists like James Baldwin, a feature that would have earlier collections and methods of display. The “Hall of been quite out of place in earlier exhibitions. the Races of Mankind” was finally dismantled in 1968, al- We know that changing science affects museum exhi- though many of its statues remain on display at the mu- bition and, in turn, public perception about complex sub- seum (Yastrow and Nash 2003).3 Hoffman’s statues them- jects. And yet we often neglect how museum exhibitions selves remained largely free from criticism; however, the concerned with race continued to develop over the course manner in which the statues were arranged in their initial of the 20th century. Instead, we often situate historic an- display suggested to the visitor a hierarchy of racial classifi- thropological ideas of “race” and “ethnicity” squarely in cation. the fairs and museum displays of the 19th century. Refram- “Race: Are We So Different?” shares a few notable goals ing these narratives into a longer history of race exhibits with its historical counterparts. Both the AAA’s exhibit and in the United States might help us better understand the Hrdlicka’sˇ 1915 displays were consciously designed to teach AAA’s current efforts to present these complex issues to the the public about the current scientific thinking about race— public. specifically, both exhibitions serve to promote the utility of anthropology in understanding the modern world. All three NOTES exhibitions relied heavily on the pure spectacle of human 1. Samuel J. Redman is a graduate student in American history at the University of California, Berkeley. His work focuses on variation to capture the visitor’s attention and achieve their the cultural and intellectual history of the United States in the goals. Two of the exhibitions work to achieve this through 19th and 20th centuries. His dissertation examines the research overtly artistic means. In 1933, Hoffman’s bronze statues and display of human remains in the United States. E-mail: red- [email protected]; website: http://www.samueljredman.com. captured attention; the AAA exhibit currently displays stun- 2. Letter from A. Hrdlickaˇ to W. H. Holmes, Head Curator, Depart- ning black-and-white photographs by Minnesotan Wing ment of Anthropology, U.S. National Museum, January 29, 1912. Young Huie, intended to imply both diversity and com- Papers of AleˇsHrdlicka,ˇ National Anthropological Archives, Box 58, Correspondence. mon human experiences of communities in his state. 3. Hoffman’s statues still on display continue to be popular What would have surprised Hrdlickaˇ and Field most amongst visitors. The collection, having been on display so fre- about the AAA’s current effort is that so much of the dis- quently since 1933, are by now firmly entrenched in the public memory of the Field Museum. plays are historically conscious. The AAA exhibition em- phasizes modern scientific developments by both high- REFERENCES CITED lighting new discoveries and distancing current ideas from historical context of race science. Rather than totally aban- Conn, Steven doning and ignoring old ideas about cranial measurements, 1998 Museums in American Intellectual Life, 1876–1926. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. for instance, the ideas of the past are explained and then Rydell, Robert refuted. Quite unlike either of the aforementioned histori- 1987 All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at American In- cal exhibitions, the AAA’s recent exhibition defines race as ternational Expositions, 1876–1916. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. having little meaning in biology. Rather, race is presented Schwartz, Lauren as being both defined and explained primarily through N.d. RACE: Are We So Different? Educational Exhibit Dou- cultural construction. Anthropologists until quite recently bles in Size and Reach. Press release. Electronic doc- ument, http://www.aaanet.org/issues/press/aaa-race-exhibit- were basing national exhibitions on their understanding of doubles-in-size-and-scope.cfm, accessed April 4, 2009. the scientific structure of racial classification, so the pub- Stocking, George lic presentation of anthropology through museum exhibits 1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of An- thropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. directly reflects a shift in disciplinary thinking. At points, Yastrow, Ed, and Stephen Nash this exhibition shifts the mode of discourse away from the 2003 Henry Field, Collections, and Exhibit Development, 1926– scientific by asking both visitors and the everyday individu- 1941. In Curators, Collections, and Contexts: Anthropology at the Field Museum, 1893–2002. Fieldiana Anthropology als represented in the displays, “What is Race?” Quotations (n.s.) 36. Stephen Nash and Gary Feinman, eds. Pp. 127–138. from scientists are supplemented by those from individuals Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.

BOOK REVIEW

The Distorting Mirror: Visual Modernity in China. Modernity in China, is much broader in scope—and, as the Laikwan Pang. Honolulu University of Hawaii Press, 2007. title might portend, perhaps somewhat too ambitious to 280 pp. be fully successful. Delineating “visual modernity,” even if only heuristically, for the enormously uneven territory JOSHUA GOLDSTEIN that was (urban) China circa 1880s–1920s would be a University of Southern California Herculean feat. Within The Distorting Mirror are some sparkling constellations of ideas, subtle readings of im- Following her groundbreaking book on 1930s Chinese ﬁlm, ages, and interesting leads for potentially fascinating Laikwan Pang’s newest book, The Distorting Mirror: Visual projects (in particular a brief foray into images of Chinese