Natural History Museums
The Dead Things That Taught Us We Were Animals
The moment a natural history museum decided to place humans inside the animal kingdom — not above it — was quietly one of the most radical acts in the history of science.
The Idea
Natural history museums feel timeless, but they are profoundly historical objects — cabinets of argument as much as cabinets of curiosity. Every choice about what gets displayed, how it is labelled, and where it sits in relation to everything else encodes a worldview. For most of their early history, these institutions arranged the natural world as a hierarchy, with humans at the apex and everything else arranged beneath us in descending order of perceived complexity or nobility. The diorama — that peculiar art form of taxidermied animals posed in painted landscapes — was partly a conservation tool and partly a rhetorical one: nature as spectacle, frozen and safely distanced from the observer. What changed things was not simply Darwin, though evolution restructured everything. It was the slow, uncomfortable decision to treat Homo sapiens as a species among species — to put human skeletons next to primate skeletons without apology, to show the fossil record as a branching tree rather than a ladder with us at the top. This is still, in many ways, an unfinished project. Many museums still struggle with how to exhibit human remains, particularly those acquired under colonial conditions. The architecture of these buildings — grand, neoclassical, temple-like — carries its own argument about authority and permanence. Walking through one is never just an educational experience. It is always also an encounter with the assumptions of whoever built it and whoever keeps deciding what stays.
In the World
In 1906, the Bronx Zoo in New York displayed a Congolese man named Ota Benga in its Monkey House alongside an orangutan. The stated purpose was educational — a living illustration of evolutionary theory. It was, in reality, a grotesque expression of the racial hierarchies that natural history institutions both reflected and reinforced. Ota Benga was eventually released following protests from African American ministers in New York, though the damage was profound and lasting. This is an extreme case, but it points to something that natural history museums have had to reckon with ever since: their founding collections were often assembled through colonial extraction, their taxonomies often served ideological ends, and their displays of human diversity frequently ranked peoples rather than described them. The American Museum of Natural History in New York spent decades grappling with its Hall of the Age of Man, eventually dismantling exhibits that presented certain human groups as primitive or prehistoric. More recently, London's Natural History Museum undertook a review of its naming conventions — several species had been named after figures connected to the slave trade — and began renaming them. It is a slow, imperfect process. But the fact that it is happening at all represents a genuine shift in how these institutions understand their own authority: not as neutral repositories of truth, but as active participants in how societies understand themselves and the natural world they inhabit.
Why It Matters
Most of us absorb our earliest ideas about nature, evolution, and humanity's place in the world not from textbooks but from museum visits — often as children, often in states of genuine wonder. That wonder is real and worth protecting. But it is worth pairing with a more critical eye for the assumptions embedded in what we are being shown. When you next walk through a natural history museum, notice the choices: what is in the centre of the room and what is at the edges, whose remains are on display and whose are held in storage, which species get full dioramas and which get a drawer in a cabinet. These are editorial decisions, made by people with particular ideas about what matters. None of this means natural history museums are not worth visiting — they remain among the most genuinely mind-expanding spaces humans have built. But understanding them as arguments, not just archives, makes you a more active participant in your own education. You are not just receiving knowledge. You are reading a very particular text, written across glass cases and painted backdrops, about what the people who built this institution believed the world to be.
A Question to Ponder
If a natural history museum built today had to honestly represent humanity's relationship to the rest of the natural world — including the damage we have done — what would it actually look like?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable