>          Coming from Florida (and having been to Epcot and
>          Disney World a gajillion times), I see one major
>          difference between museums and Disney.  Museums
>          don't gloss over history - they tell it like it
>          was (is).  As much as I love going to Disney
>          World, they do tend to show what they want (thus
>          making everything look good).  That was part of
>          the huge debate while they were trying to start up
>          Disney's America (I think that was the name) in
>          Northern Virginia this past year.  This is just my
>          opinion, and if I start up a huge debate and
>          controversy, I apologize.
>
Please don't apologize.  This is an enormously interesting controversary
which, in my opinion, would be great for discussion over the net.  That is,
the difference between Disney World and museums and how each "represents"
history or histories.  I disagree that museums "don't gloss over history"
and "tell it like it is." I see both sets of institutions--whether they are
entertainment parks or educational museums--as both "constructing" and
presenting history the so-called facts within a particular social and
historical context.   What becomes interesting to me is seeing the
differences within the historical contexts that might influence and
create/distinguish what might be considered a "musuem" or/from an
"entertainment park."  Of course using the category "museum" also becomes
debatable, which is why I suspect there is so much inconsistancies and
dissatisfactions with "official?" definitions of musuems.
 
I am coming from a cultural studies background within the academic sector.
I would love to hear from people working in museum and/or themepark
environments.  Are there new questions/concerns being raised about musuems?
Exhibitions?
 
Also, can someone say more about the debate surrounding Disney's development
of this entertainment park in Northern Virginia?