Stories like the one below (tweeted) always give me a slightly dissatisfied feeling. It’s like the big organization is claiming that it can be neutral or objective. Or if that is going too far, at least it implies that its overall perspective is better than the one it tries to replace. This may be the case in many instances. But to subtly suggest that we can objectively rewrite the past is questionable.
I say this because the author writes within the framework of the Smithsonian. An objective institution? Well, take a look at the funding and decide for yourself.
Admittedly, just because someone is funded does not mean that overt bias is present. But surely there is subtle bias. The way a story is presented. What is acceptable and what is not.
So the first tweet (top) raised a bit of a red flag for me today. I get the same feeling whenever Wikipedia tries to be monolithic. Humans are biased. It’s one power group over another. Always has been that way and probably always will be.