So Is There A Slavery Answer?

Horton and Horton raises some important questions but provides few answers for them. Most of the case studies show the problem, question the policy and public reactions, but provides no judgement about the attempt to discuss slavery or possible solution to that problem (issues of discussing slavery in public venues). It seems the book simply wants to bring up the question of how to handle slavery in the public for future discussions rather than actually attempting to create solutions or guides for both public historians and/or a general audience to use. By simply showing the failures of numerous exhibitions it unintentionally suggests that there is no feasible or possible answer. That no matter the intentions of an institution factions of the public will always be unhappy and a minority can change an entire exhibit's context or purpose (for better or for worse). I guess my concern is to what public do public historians play to? Do we focus on presenting the accepted facts of a topic or do we challenge/portray them in a manner that is contrary to what people think they know about something? Do we allow minority groups to dictate how museums conceive, portray, and show history or do we simply give them a small voice of consideration or can we/should we ignore them? How far can public spaces force people to confront their knowledge of historical events without overstepping perceived boundaries? The book implies that slave relations and the public are changing or evolving but how much are they actually changing rather than simply playing to a crowd? I wish the book had attempted to solve or create ideas of how to solve some of these questions. It stated what has happened and plotted a potential course of the future but resolves very little. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the articles and what they showed but there could have a been a little more to bring this problem of public relationships to slavery full circle.