We seem to have something of a straw soldier being set up here. That there
would be intense reaction to a slave auction re-enactment should come as no
suprize. When a fraternity holds a mock slave auction for the yucks of its
members, the wider community is, as it should be, outraged. We, as museum
professionals would go slackjawed at any comparison between our august
institutions and rank fraternities.  But for many, the distinction is not so
great. If we enter the arenas we claim to want to, we must accept the price of
admission. It seems to me not such a bad thing that the re-enactment engendered
such a response. It would be a bad thing if Williamsburg let it die there. If
we (collectively) think we can get away with doing a controversial act, suffer
the consequences, and not continue to engage, then we are truly spineless. (I
make no accusation of Williamsburg here, it is, in fact, courageous to have
begun, I don't know what has happened since then.)
    It is frankly irresponsible to attack folks simply because they make a
public display of their displeasure at our actions.
 
Craig Deller writes:
    "I beleive the reaction is a kneejerk one that will garner publicity for
people who do not understand the debate process.
It has always been my experience that anyone who becomes indignant has
something to either hide or whats to take advantage of."
 
    Who owns the process of debate and sets the protocols? I'm sure Mr. Deller
would be rightly offended if I answered "white, male institutions", but there
is a context for it. Most of all, public discourse is ongoing, not frozen in
time. An act (or re-enact) has repercussions. This is a sphere that is messy
and anarchistic and driven by loud voices and those who can stay awake the
longest. We, as a profession, often seem to have our faces pressed against the
glass around Hollywood, thinking "gosh, it would be so cool if we could do
that!" But the tyranny of film is that it is hermetic. You can't talk back.
It's already in the can. The wonderful thing about our medium is its potential
to be alive, responsive, changing.
    This is not easy stuff. How an institution, with its justifiable need for
equalibrium, can enter this arena that is dynamic and dangerous is an
enormously challenging problem. I respond here because it upsets me when we
turn away from the discussion that could lead us to creative engagements, and
snipe at the wrong parties.
 
Aaron Goldblatt
[log in to unmask]