In what has become a major focus of the Anchorage Museum, the publicly funded institution is expanding its ever-expanding climate-alarmist exhibits.
Through January, the museum is pushing its “How to Survive” program, which is entirely focused on manmade global climate change, melting permafrost, vanishing sea ice, unpredictable weather patterns and struggling wildlife species.”
One prominent display shows men, women and children wearing quilted hazmat suits, protective face masks, googles and rubber gloves as they wander through a green forest.
Infused with gender-bending philosophy, the art consists of pieces created by so called “female-identifying contemporary artists,” along with “cultural belongings from the museum’s collection, recent design innovations, and a Community Climate Archive featuring voices from across Alaska [to] prompt us to consider the habits we must nurture to bring forth more positive futures.”
According to the museum website, the art is deliberately intended to promote cultural activism among viewers, focusing on the “sadness and loss” stemming from climate change, while imploring museum goers to work towards a world of “sustainable futures grounded in equity and justice.”
Ultimately, the art exhibits provide no easy solutions, the museum website admits.
“There are no easy answers here, only gestures that show us other ways of being are possible and within our power to imagine and enact,” it states.
The latest displays reflect the museums ongoing commitment to increasingly embrace the cultural and political agenda of the far left.
Supported by the Municipality of Anchorage, the Anchorage Museum Foundation, and private, corporate and foundation funds, the museum has become a mouthpiece for climate change alarmism, critical race theory, diversity, equity and inclusion and LGBTQ activism.
Earlier this year, the prominent institution used its sizable public resources to recruit and train area teens to be radical climate change activists who can then be used to convince their peers to join the fight against fossil fuels and advocate for electric vehicles and other so-called “green energy” solutions.
According to the museum website past teen climate activists have been convinced that the “earth is burning” and that if they don’t act soon they may not even make it into adulthood.
The Anchorage Museum’s evolving mission mirrors what is happening to museums across the nation and the world. A 2022 Wall Street Journal article by art editor Eric Gibson notes that museums are facing a “crisis of purpose.”
“They are now widely seen as shameful relics of the era of Western colonialism, whose proper social role is to advance a progressive agenda,” he observed.
13 Comments
I’m glad my little one and I got to enjoy the Anchorage Museum before 2016 when its exhibits really were intelligent. Since 2017 it really has gone down hill. It’s not worth spending money to it either in admission or donation.
Stop funding it!
Joel: make sure to put sunscreen on your butt feathers.
Oh Lucy, don’t you have some parked cars to chase?
Tamra: Damn, that’s funny!
Not so funny is the ostrich mindset that denies the UNASSAILABLE evidence that the earth is warming because of human shortsightedness, self interest and greed and will create enormous deadly havoc for centuries. Unless your Christian god could intervene. Could s/he/it do that? Could you pray to your god and ask if he could turn down the global temperature? Would solve a ton of problems.
Lucinda, you are such a good minion for the globalists because you are mindful to hit every talking point lie whenever you can. You know, in the end, your masters don’t care about you anymore than they care about us. It is not too late for you to ask Our Heavenly Father for forgiveness and repent Lucinda.
Considering that science, not YOUR SCIENCE but the real kind, says we are headed to a solar minimum probably about the size of the Maunder Minimum, I’d say God has this well in hand. Or do you only read political screeds and not actual science?
Tamra. I haven’t heard the claim that there are two sciences! That’s fascinating. Could you give an example of each? Seriously. This really interests me.
The Maunder Minimum concept has two flaws. First, the data was collected in the late 1600s. There were fewer people on earth and few observers of the sky. Today, there are tens of thousands observations yearly. Second, there is no correlation OR causation between the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.
It’s a tempting explanation for sure. Less solar input would suggest cooling, but the data doesn’t support it.
Honestly, Lucy, you mean to say there were fewer people working in science in the 1600’s? How very silly. Read some Western Civ, learn how we know things, learn who was doing the science, and then get back to me. In the 1600s people knew the courses of the planets, understood physics, knew all about genetics, and were deeply interested in the weather, since it affected crops and their very existence. Why do modern people assume people in history were somehow dumber or less capable? Where do they think we got science from? Hint: the Scholastics in the Catholic Church based upon Greek philosophy.
We used to have a family pass to the museum. It’s become such a woke, leftist agenda’d hotspot that none of the hardworking conservatives are willing to take their families anymore- hence the constant grab for municipal and government funding- oh and free lib money from the Rasmuson foundation.
The Denver Museum actually closed its Indian Cultures Hall, maybe permanently, because it was built by white people. Why do they still speak English?
Tamra: You and I agree on something – people of the past were as intelligent and as curious as we are today. No doubt. My point about the Maunder Minimum was more about quantity of data. Fewer gatherers of data.
Your comment about where we got science from conflicts with your first point. “Science” didn’t come the Catholics or the Greeks. It long predated that. Ever try to make an arrowhead? It requires a great deal of knowledge about physics, forces, and geology.
What I’m really interested in is your comment about two sciences. You said, “Considering that science, not YOUR SCIENCE but the real kind”. I’m of the mind that there is one science.