Of course they did, @AAMers. What you have "uncovered" is that the majority of folks find it difficult to recognize the positionality of narratives, especially dominant ones - or even that certain curatorial decisions are in fact /decisions/!

But more to the point... (cont'd) https://twitter.com/AAMers/status/1321197290678308867

It's profoundly not neutral for @AAMers to punch down at #museumsarenotneutral - a movement created by @artstufmatters & @murawski27 & supported by a large contingent of museum workers - & this, w/o even crediting them

This is the action of a professional advocacy org?!?

There are serious conversations to be had about museums, about the public trust, about the audiences purportedly served (or alienated).

What's odd is to see a professional org pay $$$ to generate "data" drawing that whole conversation into question, rather than engage w/it

But this is a standard move - making the validity of the conversation into sthg that needs justification, thus disrupting & maybe even preventing the conversation itself.

(It's the Toni Morrison quote about "the very serious function of racism is distraction.") (Also Sara Ahmed)

But what I see is:

Many museum professionals are having the conversation.

Yet the museum professional advocacy organization keeps trying to question the need for the conversation (all the while furthering misunderstandings of its premises).

So, who exactly does @AAMers serve?