The Canadian Museum of Human Rights (CMHR)
is currently reshaping the environment of its exhibits in lieu of public
opinion in which hosting a gallery predominantly focused on eighty genocide
displays is not good business; according to communications director Angela
Cassie, “People said this gallery felt like a little shop of horrors,”
Assistant Communications Manager Maureen Fitzhenry agrees, “Planners don`t want
visitors to get so depressed they would be compelled to leave.” Generally
speaking, a museum of this setting has a responsibility to make its viewers
uncomfortable, forcing a wider view of atrocities perpetrated by man in the
name of religion, race, and creed.
Arguments such as “…the museum cannot be
depressing,” made by (CMHR) president and CEO Stuart Murray, adding the comment
made by a scholar’s concerns, “I hope to hell this is not a museum of human
wrongs,” misses the mark. If it be not a museum of human wrongs than what is it
designed to convey?
Director, National Museums Liverpool, David Fleming
stressed that, “Museums are-or should be-mirrors- of society…essentially they
and we are constructs of the societies in which we live, and those of us who
are fortunate enough to live in democracies should respect this.” In this
respect Fleming is correct; museums cannot operate as it once did. The
meanings, the purpose of museums are an extension of the human experience; and
as such it must be made transparent. The function and societal purposes of
museums such as (CMHR) in Winnipeg have to contend with its delivery methods. Which stance will the (CMHR) adopt?
Ideologically, “Museums seek to transform
visitors by opening up new lines of thought, by revealing often hidden truths,
by demonstrating human immorality and suggesting, implicitly or explicitly,
that there has to be an alternative.” 1 When we ponder the nature of
museums we often remind ourselves of the educational element, “Human rights
museums proclaim themselves to be about human rights whereas human right museology
is about a form of practice: one that proclaims the social vocation of the
museum and incorporates practices other than those traditional to the museum:
i.e. teaching about citizenship practices and methods of activism. However, when it presents exhibitions and
programs on human rights, the museum provides its own interpretation of the
historical events and current standards of the rights in question.” 2
The (CMHR) has not been able to avoid the
differentiating opinions of such a proposition articulated by Carter and
Orange. As a whole, it should be made relevant in regards to human rights
issues relating to Canada. The genocidal issues of the 20th Century aside, the
focal reality of the North American Indian within British North America is and
should be the essence of the museum.
“For example, if the CMHR
were to advocate for the right of indigenous peoples to the highest attainable
standard of health by developing a program and exhibit showing the present poor
health conditions of indigenous peoples, it might affect the public’s view of
what is acceptable practice in Canada and abroad. It would not be unreasonable
to expect that a dialogue between civil society and governments would ensue.
The museum’s advocacy might cause a ripple effect that could lead to a change
in citizen and then state behaviour.”3
Attributing greater genocidal importance in
view of another is ethically immoral. However the distinction in a contextual
setting is crucial; and should be recognized.
Granted such a stance might create disconnect with the federal/provincial
governments which financially sustain such projects; and incur public mistrust
as cost overrun are added to the public purse and be made the responsibility of
taxpayers. As the (CMHR) nears completion,
the intransience of all affected parties to form a cohesive united front as to
the purpose, mandate and focal approach of the museum’s structure will reflect
negatively on the host city. An issue of special distinction according to
Carter an Orange, “The issue of museum governance is particularly important
when dealing with human rights…it must address the complexity of their mandate
and their funding…”4
A Winnipeg resident such as “LRT”
articulates opinions in which merit answers; and for the betterment of the
museum as a whole needs to be resolved,
“What I am concerned about (aside from the
cost overruns and the inability to finish the project), is the possible and
probable slanted take The (CMHR) has on Human Rights. For instance, the Friends
of the Museums have run numerous studies in regards as to what Canadians
actually want in the museum, in terms of Human Rights abuses, and awareness of
Human rights. Every survey that has been conducted has never placed the
Holocaust as the #1 exhibit that Canadians want to see. Yet, the CMHR has ignored
the wishes of Canadians, and it looks like the Holocaust will be the premiere exhibit
of display, despite the #1 choice of the plight of the Aboriginal people. There
are several other examples of groups being excluded or marginalized, but I will
leave it at that. I support Human Rights and would love to see honor the wishes
of Canadians but I have the feeling this will only occur with a complete
overhaul of the CMHR staff, and to disband "Friends of the museum.”
Fleming agrees, “There is the sense that
when any one activity dominates in the museum, it can become problematic. When
we recognize that memorial and reflective spaces enable different forms of learning
from didactic or informational ones, the need for incorporating a multiplicity
of presentation styles becomes evident.”5
According to most Winnipeggers blogging and
responding online; the overwhelming view of the (CMHR) is far from positive and
has anti-Semitic undertones. A Winnipeg citizen under the handle “Satan Devil” said
“Must be one of the Zionists who is profiting from this monstrosity. No sane person
supports this waste of space and money. The Forks was supposed to be a green
space; where it has now become a concrete jungle with the two middle fingers in
the air for all of us taxpaying zombies. The bridge and this monstrosity will be
there in the skyline giving the taxpayers the double bird for years to come,
while the Asper’s and their friends are laughing all the way to the bank. How
can you be getting paid if the place is not even open?”
Winnipeg Sun opinion columnist Tom Brodbeck
illustrates well the cost overruns and the endemic perceptions in which the
taxpayer’s purview is paramount, unquestionable and beyond reproach, “The
beleaguered (CMHR) fraught with delays, massive cost-overruns, funding
shortfalls and high-ranking resignations-won’t open until 2014 at the earliest.
But that hasn’t stopped museum brass from bulking up its taxpayer-funded
workforce, which now stands at sixty-eight employees with an annual payroll of
$5 million. That’s up a net eight staff from December 2011. Those positions and
sixty-one others now make up the museum’s ballooning workforce, which has grown
from fifty since March 31, 2011 and they’re all paid for by taxpayers. The
museum is a federal crown corporation and it’s now taking on the bureaucratic
girth that we see in most government agencies. The goal is not only to build a
museum; it is also to build a bureaucratic empire… there is very little
accountability to taxpayers. Most of these “deals” are finalized behind closed
doors without any public input.”
Either purposely or not Mr. Brodbeck does
not believe in examining the value of such an endeavour; for one simple reason…
according to Brodbeck and his audience there is no value in building such an
establishment.
The (CMHR) is a reality, it skeletal frame
built. As to the contents, structure and vision of the museum it all remains to
be unveiled. It will be up to future generations and Canadians as a whole; who
will determine its validity within the global perceptivity of such endeavours. It may become the beacon of hope,
understanding and acceptance every human being should be made to comprehend the
value of such a structure. Time will tell…
No comments:
Post a Comment