Our talk last week about what it means to be an animal or human permeated through the Objects of Ethnography reading in the way that museums and anthropologists alike have to decide what becomes an object for observation when it is removed from its real environment. And when a human or non-human becomes an ethnographic subject placed in a museum, it’s hard for me to see it as the things itself due to its distance from any natural environment (I don’t know if this makes sense). For instance, humans are no longer humans when place in a diorama; they become an object. Plus, when a subject, especially a human is place on display in an institution, that person and their people become objects on display not only within but outside the institution itself. Once something is removed as something new for observation, it stays an other. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett also discusses the mentality that the museum creates (the museum effect): besides the fact that objects in the museum stay object outside, the museum acts as a “model for experiencing life outside its walls,” meaning that the idea of separation is distilled into everyday life. So the reason these objects stay objects is because the people viewing them keep them as a spectacle