In a message dated 01-10-18 12:41:21 EDT, Patricia McDougall wrote:

<< Don't you think we have enough reminders?  Do you think we're going to
forget
 about what happened without putting that poor flag to rest?

 Maybe people are thinking this is a museum topic because they want this flag
 in a museum.  But I'm sure we can think of more appropriate "artifacts" from
 this disaster than a destroyed flag. >>

After all the messages on this topic, I hope the writer understands by now
why it's supremely relevant to a museum list.  Indeed, when I read the
initial statement of concern about the fate of this flag, my reaction was
something like, "At last!  An issue that's really central to museum
concerns--something that summarizes and symbolizes what museums are all about
(IMHO)."

Having said that, I agree with the writer that "we have enough reminders."
But we have enough reminders for the present.  What will the public have in
25 years to symbolize and characterize the events of 9/11?  If we allow
ourselves to think in terms of "icons" (that over-used, much-abused cliche),
I can't think of anything more iconic--and poignant--for the future than the
particular flag in question.  My colleagues at my museum have been debating
what to "collect" from the disaster, and some would like to have things like
a crushed cellular phone.  That too would be poignant and would help to tell
a unique story about the intersection of terrorism, technology, and
communication.  But my first reaction was that the whole notion of what to
collect was pretty ghoulish and even offensive.

I've made my personal accommodation with the idea of collecting disaster
artifacts.  I now think it's important for museums to collect such things,
but I'd want to hold them for exhibition by a future generation.  The concept
of displaying this flag or a battered cell phone while the smoke is still
rising from Ground Zero makes me ill.  We do have enough reminders without
presenting such things for gawking right now.

It's interesting how the disposition of this flag parallels the issues which
have confronted museums regarding NAGPRA--whether to bury reverently and
respectfully, or to preserve for future research, education, and display.
Actually, in a strange sense, I can begin to understand the discomfort that
some non-object-oriented people feel about the museum display of historic
artifacts.  They do tend to become "relics" and "curiosities" in a cabinet,
don't they, no matter how hard you try to disengage them from that tradition?
 To me, that's the museum paradox--that the very act of display, having
removed an object from its original physical context, entails so much risk.
Well, I'm trying to grab a thread here which would take too long to weave
into some profundity, so I'll quit.  Suffice it to say that I would vote for
saving this flag.  My analogy with ancestral bones actually falls apart
pretty quickly because a flag is merely a symbol, while those bones are the
residue of an actual human life.  The rules for burning a damaged flag
represent the logical extension of its symbolic value, but they're not
absolute, in my book.  It's difficult for me to see how insisting on
destroying this flag, without regard for the unique symbolism it has acquired
(added value?) is anything but form for the sake of form, representing a
bureaucratic mentality, however well-intended basic flag etiquette is.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).