It is of course true that there will be a tendancy for
     US subscribers to dominate this museum list by shear
     weight of numbers. This has been pointed out by
     Barbara, Robert, Rich and Virginia.
 
     However, my point is one which goes beyond the simple
     arguement of bigness=most clout.
 
     The articulation of ideas occurs within a range of
     cultural contexts. Living in a society where media,
     entertainment, information (and even, or should that be
     specially, junkfood) is largely controlled by US
     interests means that within my context there is a
     concomitant push of US corporate values, messages,
     lifestyles and ideas.
 
     My cry is one of the colonised everywhere. We try and
     resist, we put forward alternatives, we argue and we
     challenge. Often we remain swamped.
 
     My request to be aware of the way terms are couched and
     ideas projected stems from the overwhelming impression
     that much of the content on this list assumes without
     question or awareness sets of value systems which not
     all of us share.
 
     Yes, we are all different and yes there are of course
     internal differences with the US. However there is a
     certain impression created that there is no considered
     or conscious awareness of difference.
 
     Eric Siegel requested an example. The recent debate on
     the list (and elsewhere) on the Smithsonian's proposed
     exhibition on the use of nuclear weapons on Japan in
     1945 is a case in point.
 
     The debate was important because it covered issues of
     control and representation of ideas, history and social
     values. It included matters relating to the role of
     government in institutions, the political influences of
     interest groups and much more.
 
     But the way the debate was conducted, the history being
     represented focussed on the US. The US was constantly
     the standard against which all else was defined. Where,
     for example was the discussion about the role of the
     other Pacific allies, the people of Asia, the people of
     the Pacific Islands, the global context of the war? It
     seemed that the terms of the debate were confined to
     that of US nationalism and this was shared equally by
     the proponents and opponents of intervention by the
     Smithsonian heirachy.
 
     It seemed hard to enter the debate on any other terms
     than those already dominating the exchanges. Sometimes
     it's easier to let things go by rather than constantly
     challenging other's ideology.
 
     This post has become overly long! Thanks for your
     patience.
 
     Roger Garland
     Manager Public Programs
     National Museum of Australia
     [log in to unmask]