First let me apologize to those who don't want to continue this discussion,
I understand completely and probably should just ignore this but I'm having
a hard time.

Nick-
You do realize that you have sited all second hand sources for you "body
count" numbers.  In addition, they are all on-line news services.  The last
time I checked when I got my history degree, those are not reliable sources
and should always be used with caution, especially when reporting on current
events such as this.    In addition, you note that they only use "English
Language" sites which in itself is suspicious and biased.  In addition you
say "The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting
agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected
international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing
items" but that is an assumption not a fact.  You don't know even if they do
have "rigorous checks."  Who is going to sue them or protest if the numbers
are to high?  The US government, the  Iraqi government?  Remember that the
US military and the US Government will not and need not tell the press and
the American public everything to protect the operations that they are
working on.  And I for one support that, I don't want people killed because
I think I need to know.  I'm not saying that the body count is not right,
maybe it is, but what I am objecting to your assertion that these Iraqi
deaths are all civilians and all at the hands of heartless American killers.
You may want to remember that the whole battlefield right now is a civilian
area and as such (just as in WW2) innocent people die.  Also, Iraqi
guerrillas don't have that much respect for their people since they start
firefights in populated areas, too.

If you look at pass war experiences, war reporting is not an unbiased
activity and should not be viewed as being such.  As for high suicide rates
and low morale, have you seen any actual pictures of the conditions soldiers
are living in over there?  I have and its not  very nice.  It would be
interesting to study past wars and police actions and see if these suicide
and low morale numbers coincide in those incidents also.  And just because
people have low morale does not mean they don't support the war, that is a
very large jump.  If more soldiers truly did not support the war then they
would ask to be granted "conscientious objector status" but there are not
that many coming to light.

Also, we must rely on our laws to regulate the illegal importation of
artifacts into this country, what other choice do we have.  As museum
professionals, we need to understand what makes something illegal and refuse
those items that fall under that guise.  Just because people try and
sometimes succeed in breaking a law does not mean the law should just be
thrown out and ignored.  In addition, do you think going and leaving Iraq is
like living in the US, these men are check coming and going.  Sure something
will probably get through, but the high number of discovered attempts
illustrates that they are succeeding to some degree.

By the way, all people are potential killers (natural law) some like
soldiers and hunters only learn how to do it more effectively and on demand,
that however does not mean that all soldiers are in Iraq killing
indiscriminately as you suggest.  You need to be very careful of your gross
generalizations.  We need to look at individual peoples stories both that of
the soldiers and the civilians effected on both sides.  Museums are not
intended to pick a side of an issue and support it, they are intended to
enlighten the public with information and let them make informed decisions
about the event(s).

Whether or not any institution does or does not collect war related
materials must be decided by each institution and should be viewed in light
of their mission, their audience and the laws that govern collecting in
their area and for their institution.  I don't want to make this a personal
policy about whether I feel the war is right or wrong, rather it should be
about how I will deal with the fact that US Soldier are going, fighting and
dying in Iraq and the items they may potentially bring back and want to
donate to my institution.

Sincerely,
Tracie Evans



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Burlakoff [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:52 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Iraq donation
>
> The facts given out by Iraq Bodycount are pretty well supported. The
> figures
> are considered pretty solid by folks involved in statistical studies. I
> take
> the liberty of posting the basic methodology:
> Methodology:
>
> 1. Overview
> Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media
> reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing
> figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are
> independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the
> Iraq
> Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before
> publication.
> 2. Sources
> Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access.
> A
> list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added
> provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
> ABC - ABC News (USA)
> AFP - Agence France-Presse
> AP - Associated Press
> AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
> Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
> BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
> BG - Boston Globe
> Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
> CT - Chicago Tribune
> CO - Commondreams.org
> CSM - Christian Science Monitor
> DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
> FOX - Fox News
> GUA - The Guardian (London)
> HRW - Human Rights Watch
> HT - Hindustan Times
> ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
> IND - The Independent (London)
> IO - Intellnet.org
> JT - Jordan Times
> LAT - Los Angeles Times
> MEN - Middle East Newsline
> MEO - Middle East Online
> MER - Middle East Report
> MH - Miami Herald
> NT - Nando Times
> NYT - New York Times
> Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
> SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
> SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
> Sg.News - The Singapore News
> Tel- The Telegraph (London)
> Times - The Times (London)
> TOI - Times of India
> TS - Toronto Star
> UPI - United Press International
> WNN - World News Network
> WP - Washington Post
> For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply
> with
> the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories
> separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3)
> source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language
> site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
> The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting
> agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected
> international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing
> items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources).
> By
> requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are
> willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the
> self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international
> media network.
> Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their
> urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this
> reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the
> iraqbodycount site.
> 3. Data extraction
> Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in
> opposite directions.
> a. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident
> is
> differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially
> confused.
> b. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both
> production
> and public scrutiny.
> c. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is
> available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by
> restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core
> facts that most news reports tend to include.
> The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract
> the
> following information only for each incident:
> * Date of incident
> * Time of incident
> * Location of incident
> * Target as stated by military sources
> * Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
> * Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
> * Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
> * Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
> Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each
> data
> extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent
> scrutineers
> prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review
> should
> further details become available at a later date.
> Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
> Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties
> and
> potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the
> same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated
> with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be
> entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following
> paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the
> minimum.
> Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by
> at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
> Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of
> the
> listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower
> number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a
> report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any
> deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount
> to
> a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum
> column.
> As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports
> refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure
> as
> a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present
> clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the
> number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column
> instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as
> meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA
> Factbook 2002.]
>
> If one visits the Bodycount website more facts can be easily established,
> and in any case, that listing is far superior than relying on an anecdotal
> representations made by one soldier. The fact simply is, that Bodycount
> figures are the best data that we have, and it is solidly based on
> ascertainable reports so quoting them is perfectly acceptable on this or
> any
> other page. We simply cannot personally verify every fact that we use, and
> faith in the accuracy of a reporting agency is always a question. In this
> case they meet standards for and accuracy.
> The question of the degree of support of soldiers for this war is best
> answered by the DoD (Department of Defense) study that reports over 70% of
> soldiers in Iraq as having low morale. Another DoD study shows that the
> suicide rate among US soldiers in Iraq is double the normal rate in the
> Armed Forces.
>
> The statement that US military's strict regulations will prevent the
> unauthorized importation of artifacts is just silly. We have many laws
> against drunk driving and tens of thousands of folks drive drunk every
> weekend, we have draconian laws against drug use and over 40% of folks in
> this country have used or are using illegal drugs. Anyone, who has been in
> the military knows that many regulations serve more as a challenge to be
> overcome than a deterrent.
>
> Last point. All of our soldiers are trained to kill. They are therefore
> either actual or potential killers. That is how they are making their
> living. In fact, because of the type of warfare currently in Iraq
> additional
> training in killing is given drivers, mechanics and other non-combat
> personnel. All our soldiers are volunteers who have acquired the skill of
> destroying human life. They may be our sisters, brothers, sons and
> fathers,
> but they are also trained to kill and should be considered dangerous.
> The core question that we should not forget on this list is: Should a
> museum
> accept war booty? In my opinion, under no circumstances should a civilian
> museum do so, on moral grounds alone, leaving aside legal and policy
> questions. The facts above help contribute to the moral dimension of this
> problem.
> PeaceNick
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf
> Of Tracie Evans
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Iraq donation
>
> Idewey-
> I wonder if perhaps we could keep the unsupported "facts" about the war
> off
> this list because if you have not been in Iraq and seen the pre-war as
> well
> as war time conditions, it might be important to not believe everything
> you
> read!  Body counts have a way of being manipulated so I would caution you
> about believing an "on-line" site with the counts (who is doing these
> estimates?) and how was it determined that "the overwhelming majority of
> those people have been killed by the US military and its government."
>
> I have spoken to one of the men who served on the front lines over there
> and
> he indicated that he saw killing happening by their own army.  Also, we
> spoke about several of the historic locations that they saw and he talked
> about how they positioned themselves to protect these locations, not
> destroy
> them.  He told me about one museum that the Iraqi people had looted and
> destroyed and about the curator who stayed to protect what he could all by
> himself.  He also talked about the terrible conditions of the country that
> we there before they arrived and the anti-tank and air-craft guns that
> were
> placed in playgrounds and school yards. (I even saw photographs)  Iraq is
> not like the US, do not apply your standards to their culture or political
> activities.  Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy and he regularly shielded
> himself and his government with his own people which placed them in
> danger.
> Also, not all Iraqi want us there, but not all many this soldier
> interacted
> with were happy to have them there.  Use caution when drawing conclusions
> about what is happening in Iraqi based on news reports which have various
> biases themselves.
>
> The US military and the US now have very strict regulations about the
> materials that people (military and non-military) are allowed to bring
> back
> with them.  Unfortunately, not everyone understands the importance of
> historical materials and will try to smuggle illegal items back home as
> souvenirs.  If those types of materials are offered, museums should handle
> them the same way we would illegally obtained materials from other places.
> Please be sure however that it is a looted item and illegal, the Middle
> Eastern culture does produce many fake antiquities to sell to the
> "tourist"
> and these can be purchased, traded for by the soldiers and sometimes even
> found on the ground.
>
> I'm not giving you my political views about whether our soldiers should or
> should not be there, but I do believe that the majority of our soldiers
> are
> not killers or looters.  Remember that interpretation is just that and
> your
> "truth" may not always coincide with other peoples "truth."  It will be
> interesting to relook at this war (as well as the earlier war with Iraq)
> in
> the future to see how our views of today's "truths" will change.
>
> Sincerely
> Tracie Evans
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ldewey [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:42 AM
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      Re: Iraq donation
> >
> > Was it Samuel Johnson who said 'patriotism is the last refuge of
> > scoundrels'? I forget. It's not important.
> >
> > In any event, I support the GIs who question and dissent from their own
> > role in the occupation, and I assume many do. We have heard of a few
> > who have refused to go along, there are probably many who we will not
> > hear about.
> >
> > Still, most of the people who have been killed in Iraq are
> > non-combatant Iraqi people. The current estimate is somewhere between
> > 8,800 and 10,000, according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ . And the
> > overwhelming majority of those people have been killed by the US
> > military and it's government. That is a simple fact.
> >
> > Audience research shows that uninterpreted object displays are not very
> > effective as self-directed communication. So if a museum intends to
> > display 'war booty', it ought to include the context. Certainly that
> > should include the conditions of the war; the aerial bombardments of
> > urban residential areas, water supplies, and power plants (all
> > proscribed as 'war crimes' by the Geneva Convention, btw), the cluster
> > bombs and maimed children. Perhaps an autographed picture of government
> > emissary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein (1983), or a
> > list of the US, British and German firms who supplied the chemicals
> > used in the Iraq-Iran war. Perhaps an annotated map showing the
> > international oil investments near Tirkut.
> >
> > -LD (aka person C)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, April 5, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
> >
> > > Date:    Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:44:49 -0700
> > > From:    Deb Fuller <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Re: Iraq donations
> > >
> > > --- Indigo Nights <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You have a history here of touting the soldiers and
> > >> their beleagured families.  Your patriotism is
> > >> admirable.  But this is a multinational list with
> > >> folks who do not feel the same way, including some of
> > >> your own countrypersons.
> > >
> > > I don't want to drag this out either but let me set the record
> > > straight about
> > > my attitude towards the whole situation. I don't consider myself
> > > "patriotic"
> > > but someone who genuinely cares about all people, regardless of race,
> > > religion,
> > > occupation or nationality. I happen to believe that the average person
> > > out
> > > there is trying to do the best they can with what they've got. So I do
> > > get
> > > defensive of people who I think are trying to do their best and are at
> > > the
> > > mercy of a usually one-sided media world.
> > >
> > > In any highly controversial political situation, I find that it's an
> > > alarming
> > > tendency to jump on the "little guy" like the soldiers instead of the
> > > people up
> > > the chain of command who are calling the shots. Blame is usually put
> > > on the
> > > people who have the least control of the situation but happen to be
> > > right in
> > > the middle of it.
> > >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > 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).
>
> =========================================================
> 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).
>
> =========================================================
> 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).

=========================================================
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).