Here We Go Again: History Redux

○ Those who find traditional history museums a stuffy procession of rusty

spoons and dusty dioramas may want to explore an open-air alternative:
"living history museums" where one can time travel on the cheap. Consider
the Spanish Village in Barcelona, where travelers and scavenging scholars
can efficiently inspect 49,000 square meters of historical buildings and tilt at
old slides with Don Quixote. At Heritage Park in Calgary, Banff-bound hikers
can stop to pose for photos (and eat 19th-century ice cream) with locals
dressed up as Canadians from the days of fur trading and the occasional
American invasion. For those who can get visas to China, and local families
on their first post-Covid-zero outing, the Millennium City Park in Kaifeng
offers a hundred acres of life in the Northern Song Dynasty (a Northern Song
Dynasty in which food vendors take WeChatPay). Discuss with your team:
do such living history museums offer valuable lessons in culture and history,
or should we treat them mainly as entertainment—more Frontierland than
the Smithsonian? Should schools take field trips to them?

I am personally someone who loves those traditional history museums with stuffy processions of
rusty spoons and dusty dioramas. (and did I talk about how much dust is gathered by these priceless
artifacts) However, even to me, this idea of living in history museums does sound enticing. Living the
past is one of the best ways to learn about it, just like doing an experiment is one of the best ways to
learn about science. I think presenting these historical worlds as truly living worlds than simple
artifacts sitting in a museum is a valuable way to learn about cultures and history. Whether it be
exploring old slides of Don Quixote, taking pictures with locals dressed up as Canadians from the
days of fur trading while eating ice cream, or exploring the lifestyle of the Northern Song Dynasty,
these experiences live on in our minds. Science has shown that the best way we can learn is
through memorable experiences, and that is what these places provide, immersive worlds we can
experience. In fact, I suggest why stop there? Why not take it virtual? There are already games like
War Thunder or Total War that present historical worlds we can explore. These allow us to immerse
ourselves in and learn about history through virtual simulations. I think that these kinds of
experiences should be valued and would be great field trips. My only hope is that we don’t use these
experiences to spread propaganda and try to present the most objective version of history possible
through these experiences.

○ The most famous of these museums can also be the most controversial.
Consider Plimoth Patuxet in Massachusetts, where visitors can explore a
 colonial village and take selfies with healthy Pilgrims. The museum has
recently been criticized for not paying enough attention to the indigenous
peoples displaced and given smallpox by those same Pilgrims. One concern:
that the tribe members staffing a Native American settlement recently added
to the museum are not descendants of the actual tribe the Pilgrims first
encountered. Discuss with your team: would it be better if they were—or
would this be a different form of exploitation? Would it ever be okay for
someone not of tribal descent to staff the Native American area of the
museum? What if they weren't tribe members but had adopted tribal
practices and cherished tribal customs?

I think this is a valid concern when the very people running such museums are descendants of those
once colonized, which resulted in the death of millions of the people they’re representing. 90% of
Native Americans were killed by Smallpox, and that’s a fact many of these museums, including
Plimoth Patuxet fail to acknowledge. Furthermore, if the tribe members staffing the settlement are
not true descendants of a true Native American tribe, that is even more problematic. While it would
still not be okay to exploit the culture if they were truly Native American, that would be a debate
where they could voice their opinions and rights, and truly express themselves as they desire.
However, if it is NOT EVEN THEM in the first place, then it is a completely inaccurate reconstruction
of the past to fulfill a Western fantasy of “Native Americans.” And this is not uncommon. Look at
places like Chinatown, where there are dragons everywhere, while in mainland China, Dragons are
only reserved for the most important locations. If they had truly adopted tribal practices and
cherished tribal customs, that would be a step forward, however, it is still difficult to know if they were
being true to the practices and if their intents were those of the original tribe. Overall, I think the
whole premise is problematic and that if there is a true genuine intent to honor Native Americans (it
is possible this is just a marketing technique), then it is very important for the owners of the Museum
to respect the original culture and allow tribe members to run such a Museum how they like.

○ To make the experience more realistic, some of these museums have

diligently bred versions of animals that look more like their counterparts in
the past: wilder pigs, gamier hens, dogs that are less Pomeranian and more
wolf. Discuss with your team: is it okay to breed animals to serve as props in
these kinds of exhibits—and does it make it better or worse if they used for
food, or taken home as pets?

RED FLAG! (at least in my opinion) This is where such museums are taken one step too far. The last
case was already quite controversial, but these are REAL animals that have real lives. Yet, they are
being bred just for the sake of being props and exhibits. Furthermore, if they are used for food, or
taken home as pets, that’s even more problematic because then the two outcomes are both negative
outcomes. The first is death, and the second is adoption not out of love or care, but out of mere
prized entitlement and antiquity. THAT IS NOT WHY YOU ADOPT A PET! Antiquity and Love, are
not always the same thing, especially when owning animals. It is one thing to make animals in the
wild live in zoos, and display them. That practice is already inhumane and science shows it limits
their chances of success when sent back into the wild. However, at least some part of their true lives
are preserved. This is a different case, and everything about this question just seems wrong to an
extent in my eyes.

○ You may know someone on a "Paleo" diet, meaning they avoid processed
foods on the theory that it is healthier to eat like our ancestors did 10,000
years ago, when their life expectancy was about 35. (To be fair, on average
people died young because the super young died often—a lot of children
never grew up.) Some archaeologists and historians are interested less in
what we should eat now, however, and more in understanding ancient
menus. What did people call dinner at different times in different places?
Consider this reconstruction of a Roman thermopolium—where a young
Caesar might have grabbed an isicia omentata to go, then discuss with your
team: would you patronize restaurants that served food more like that in the
premodern world? In North America, at least one chain, Medieval Times, has
made a business of it, though its menu is less than authentic; for instance, it
offers tomatoes, which didn't exist in Europe before the Spanish invaded
Mexico. Speaking of tragedies, check out this menu from the last first-class
meal on the Titanic; would there be a business opportunity in recreating it, or
would such a business go underwater?

Firstly, let us go through each of these “cuisines.” The Paleo diet is a type of diet that tries to
recreate the food humans would have eaten in the Paleolithic era. Quick reminder: WRITING DID
NOT EXIST for most of the paleolithic era. Thus, this type of diet just seems like a modern fad. The
rest are more interesting.

At New York’s Institute for Study of the Ancient World, they used molecular evidence, archeological
analysis, and culinary instinct to recreate ancient Chinese cuisines. While recorded recipes were
extremely vague, using archeological analysis of pots, etc. They were able to create some of the
food the Chinese would have eaten at the time. The analysis specifically looked at evidence such as
Biomarkers for Millet. This proved particularly useful for recreation. This menu was presented at the
scholarly symposium “Appetite for the past”, with many archeologists, chefs, the public, etc.
attending. From what I have read up, this seems like a successful recreation of the cuisine.
The Roman Thermopolium can be thought of as the ancient McDonalds. This is where Caeser would
have eaten the “Isicia omentata”, which was the ancient precursor to the modern Hamburger. It
contained minced meat with breadcrumbs soaked in wine, with pepper liquamen and meatballs.
Personally, I would love to see someone recreate this dish, as long as it doesn’t contain cow meat
(because I can’t eat cow meat). I think it could taste really great. However, I also wonder what
Caeser must have thought about it. Were the kings of the past not immune to grabbing a quick Isicia
omentata at the local Thermopolium? Who knows?

The Medieval times are a different story. Now if you want to go through the thorough roast of the
restaurant, I would recommend you check out the article. The article is also hilariously dramatic and
could have definitely been written by a knight in shining armor in the 14th century. Here’s a summary
of the roasts:

● Where did thy Tomatoes come from? They were discovered in the Americas centuries later.
● The goblets used PLASTIC LIPS. (Plastic was invented in the 20th century)
PREPOSTEROUS!
● The Garlic Loaf was well made (I mean this is harder to mess up than get right)
● The Stew of the Tomato Branch was watered down and could have been made with
ingredients from any supermarket.
● The Tuber of Starch was too massive and undercooked, and in the words of the reviewers
themselves, should have been cast out of the window “With the rest of the sewage”
● The Legs of Fowl were well made with a wizardly taste (well done Medieval times)
● The Rib of Boar wasn’t as terrible as some items but did not hold a candle to the Legs of
Fowl. This also feels like it could have been made with any ingredients from an all-in-one
grocery store.
● The Towel of Heat was magical and may have been enough to purge the previous sins of the
restaurant.
● The Turnover of Apple was not great. The crust was good but the apple seemed overcooked.
Would rather eat it at Burger Ki- I mean the Driveth-thru opening of King of Burger
● They were never offered a Pastry of Chocolate (sad), a disappointing end indeed.

Now that we’re done with the Medieval times (that was really enjoyable), let us talk about the
Titanic’s last first-class meal. I think there would be a great business opportunity in recreating it
within the short term. While this business would not last for long, the historical fascination, nostalgia,
and morbid curiosity of us humans would make it a worthwhile short-term investment. Perhaps a
month off the Titanic menu would be a really good business opportunity. The meal is also much
easier to remake since we already know the dishes, thus it would be a good short-term business
opportunity.
 ○ The Ulster American Folk Park isn't American at all—it's in Ireland. Visitors
can experience the lives of Irish people who moved to the United States,
from boarding crowded ships to sleeping in makeshift log cabins. Discuss
with your team: is it all right for a country to reconstruct and market another
country's history? If someone next door in Scotland were to build a similar
museum about the lives of early British settlers in India or South Africa,
would that be more problematic? Are there some periods of history that
should never be simulated in the real world, even if the purpose is to
demonstrate to visitors that they were terrible?

The Ulster American Folk Park is an attempt by the Irish to show the lives of Irish immigrants who
moved to the United States. This was a significant amount around 25.75% of US citizens have Irish
descendants or relatives. Personally, I think that if given permission, other countries should be
allowed to reconstruct and market another country’s history. If South Africans or Indians give
permission to Scotland, they can make a museum about the lives of early British settlers in India or
South Africa. What would be problematic is if this was done without permission, and harmed the
other country in any way. The portrayals of the past should be accurate and done in a way that does
not harm either culture while acknowledging the good, bad, and terrible of past settlers.

○ There are fewer examples of "living future" museums—with good reason.

But they do exist, often at World Expos or in amusement parks. Consider the
following examples of such museums, then discuss with your team: do they
tell us more about the future or about the past? If you were designing such a
museum today, what would it look like?
■ Tomorrowland | Museum of the Future | "World of Tomorrow"
(1939)
■ Crystal Palace | American National Exhibition (Moscow, 1959)

Since there were, unfortunately, no links for any of the museums (thanks a lot Starter Kit!), I
managed to find a few links for each of the aforementioned museums:

Tomorrowland: https://www.waltdisney.org/exhibitions/tomorrowland-walts-vision-today

Museum of the Future: https://museumofthefuture.ae/en

World of Tomorrow:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/11/the-1939-new-york-worlds-fair/100620/
Crystal Palace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Palace

American National Exhibition:

https://www.rferl.org/a/Fifty_Years_Ago_American_Exhibition_Stunned_Soviets_in_Cold_War/17839
13.html

Let us talk about each of these one-by-one:

Tomorrowland is organized by Disney and Disneyland, and it aims to show Walt Disney’s vision for
the future through animations and visual sequences. I think it is a very interesting idea, and it tells us
both about the ambitious future of Walt Disney, as well as the past. It tells us about the past as it
shows the dreams and aspirations of one of the most influential media figures of all time, and also
reflects the traditional dreams and aspirations of people living during that time. This is a common
theme with many old “living future” museums, which really reflects the dreams of that particular time,
which tend to evolve over time. Tomorrowland really showcased Walt Disney’s aspirations for
Disneyland, many of which they have achieved now.

The Museum of the Future is one I am lucky to have visited during the 2022 Dubai Global Round.
This Museum really tells us a lot about our current present aspirations for the future, and what we
hope to achieve. It also hopefully shows us what we will achieve eventually. I think that The Museum
of the Future is very close to what I would have created if I was making a “Living Future” museum for
today, which makes sense as the Museum was opened fairly recently in February 2022. This is
especially true as my dreams, similar to the rest of humanity, are currently scientific, which is very
well shown by the Museum of the Future. I think this will teach future generations a lot about our
past, and our dreams and aspirations at this point in time.

The World of Tomorrow was the 1939 New York World’s Fair, with multiple countries being invited to
the fair. The fair was very conventional for the time, with Exhibits about Superman, a time capsule
that is not to be opened for 5 millennia till 6939 (assuming we live that long). It also contained the
world’s first science fiction convention. During this fair, World War II had also started, so the fair was
an interesting mix of hope for tomorrow, as well as showing the struggles of the past. In this way, it
really shows us a lot about the past as well as their aspirations for the future. The reason I say that is
because the fair was seen as a way for Americans to get out of the Great Depression, and the
planning began in 1935. Thus, in this way, the fair tells us how those in the past had aspirations to
climb out of The Great Depression through science and technology.

There is not a lot of information on the Crystal Palace, unfortunately. However, from what I can
gather, it was mainly a fair showcasing global diversity at the time. It was a celebration of the art at
the time, as well as art styles from throughout history. It also contained many prominent works by
famous individuals such as Charles Dickens. It also had the world’s first aeronautical exhibition,
showing the dreams and aspirations of the future that would be seen to be first achieved by the
Wright Brothers. In this way, it shows us a lot about the past and the future that would come up soon.

Last was the American Exhibition in Moscow. This was part of a groundbreaking collaboration
between the Soviets and the Americans during the cold war organized by Nixon. This was during a
period of time, in 1959 when tensions were relatively low (I use the term relatively). Thus, both
countries aimed to exhibit their finest technology and science. The American Exhibition was a huge
hit in Moscow and really surprised the Soviets. The fair was so good that it received applause from
Nikita Kruschev, the Soviet Premier. However, the Soviet Exhibition in the New York Coliseum also
managed to impress many Americans. This shows us the beginning of a technological and scientific
rivalry between the Soviets and Americans that would culminate in the Space Race. In this way, it
reveals a lot about the past.

For the final part of the question, as I mentioned previously if I were to create a living future museum
today, I would take inspiration from the Museum of the Future. However, I would also combine it with
inspiration from the other past museums mentioned here, particularly ones such as the World of
Tomorrow, as we are just starting to recover from a series of Recessions and tensions in the past
few years.