When studying historical objects, we’re often amazed by the artifact itself. As discussed during class, should Lester Young’s saxophone inside a museum be anything worth keeping in a museum? After all, Young played the music, not the saxophone. This is an interesting point that Professor O’Malley brought up because I think it touches a deeper conversation on the human innate need to know what they don’t know, and generally believing what we’re told by those who we see as holding more power or knowledge over us. We didn’t know Lester Young, so the next best thing is the instrument he used to make the music we hear. However, at the same time, the museum curators could’ve put any saxophone in the museum and told us what they wanted. The entire discussion surrounding history and being told how we need to view history is definitely uncomfortable because it dislocates me from everything that I’ve been told since I was little – don’t touch the museum display. As someone who loves to follow the rules and not cause any trouble, I never questioned why or who the history belongs to. As an American, some would argue everything in the American History Museum belongs to us, however I would argue that if everyone took ownership of the materialistic objects we have to present history, there wouldn’t be any history for future generations to observe. In personal experience, being able to see an artifact (even if the curators may be lying about how real it is) and learn from it is a special experience. I kind of see it like Santa Claus for adults – whatever works and allows us to be fascinated with things that have happened in the past should be celebrated.