There was also one display that showed some artwork that challenged the appropriateness of putting a living culture into a museum, which I thought was pretty interesting.

Personally I don't see a problem with it when we have things like sports museums featuring living-but-retired athletes, art museums featuring the work of living artists, places like the Ozark Folk Center and the Museum of Southern Folklore that are trying to keep cultural traditions alive rather than eulogizing them, etc.

places like the Ozark Folk Center and the Museum of Southern Folklore that are trying to keep cultural traditions alive rather than eulogizing them, etc.

Yes, but is that what's happening here? Even leaving aside the issue of why the culture may or may not be still a living one today, there is a strong tendency to divorce historical native culture from today's. I'd guess it's a pretty rare exibit/event/whathaveyou looking at historical native american culture that even references who or where these people are today or acknowledges a connection between the two.

Not having been there, I have no idea where this museum stacks up on that measure, but it's nice to see that they're aware and confront that head-on.

I'd guess it's a pretty rare exibit/event/whathaveyou looking at historical native american culture that even references who or where these people are today or acknowledges a connection between the two.

One of the big theme rooms was today's people. This exhibit was in the middle of that room. There were exhibits on people starting schools to teach the native languages, some exhibits of stuff that combined traditional crafts with modern materials (I think my favorite was a pair of Converse that had been beaded in a traditional design), and a whole bunch of video screens showing people talking about how they live today. For one of the groups, where a lot of the men go to New York City to work as iron workers, there were pictures of a bunch of the buildings they'd built, and a quote from someone talking about watching the WTC fall, knowing that his father had been one of the people who built it.

For one of the groups, where a lot of the men go to New York City to work as iron workers

This might be the Cherokee--I read a Silhouette romance about ten years ago that had the hero be one of these iron workers. (Who says you don't learn stuff from romantic fluff?)

This might be the Cherokee--I read a Silhouette romance about ten years ago that had the hero be one of these iron workers.

I totally read that one too. Assuming it's the same one.

Also, for the historical exhibits, there was a wall showing the "community curators" for each group -- people from that people who were involved in community historical and cultural stuff and had worked with the museum in setting up the exhibit.

(Who says you don't learn stuff from romantic fluff?)

I used to read a lot of regency romances, especially when I was getting my doctorate and wanted fun reading on the side. I'm now reading a history of the extended Regency and I'm amazed at how much is familiar, from people and places to clothes and carriages.

I totally read that one too. Assuming it's the same one.

Ironheart by Rachel Lee, one of her Conard County books (most of which were very intense and quite opressively dark, overall).

Yep! Most of the books in that series, or at least the three or four I read, are actually pretty good.

Oh, they're very good, which is why they survived the Great Romance Book Purge of 2006--I got rid of about 70 percent of my romances, but kept most of my Rachel Lees and Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quicks, all of my Nora Roberts and Loretta Chases, and various and sundry other titles.

Dark and oppressive romances don't mean they're not good. Kathleen Korbel (aka Eileen Dreyer for her mysteries) writes depressing romances that are fascinating to read but you really have to be ready for it--they deal with parental abuse, adult illiteracy, Downs' Syndrome, Vietnam nurses suffering from PTSD, suicidal thoughts on the parts of the hero/heroine, just to name a few.