(Patrick Boylan wrote at 20:45 JST on 14 April 1998)
>In drawing up the International Code of Museum Ethics for ICOM,
>1984-86, we gave careful consideration to the provision of the then
>recently adopted Museums Association (UK) Code of Ethics for
>Museum Curators which demanded an equal and "balanced"
>presentation of both sides of an controversial matter covered in a
>museum exhibit.  No doubt the UK rule was based on the legal
>requirement that insists that in broadcasting the BBC must offer
>"balance" - ensuring that e.g. an appearance on a radio or
>TV programme by a politician from one political party was
>"balanced" by an opposing view.
>
>Within the Committee (which I chaired) drafting the ICOM Code of
>Ethics we quickly reached the view that a so-called "balanced
>presentation" rule would be quite impracticable.  Just think of the
>possible examples. Should half the exhibition space in military
>corps commemorative museums be given over to the peace
>movement and should neo-Nazi groups be allocated half
>the floor area of the National Holocaust Museum? Should
>contemporary art museums give equal space to the views of
>people unredeemable hostile to anything more modern than early
>19th century neo-classicism?
>
>Plainly such a "rule" is nonsense, (and in fact I do not know of a
>single example where the UK "balance" rule has in fact been
>applied)...


Concerned with the above, the following article will show you the
newest example here in Japan. This, issued yesterday, is from the
website of The Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/topnews.html),
probably the most famous English-written newspaper at least in Japan.
I myself have never experienced WWII, and here am not going to refer
to an ideological matter (i.e. which side is right or wrong). But now
my idea that a history of a society can NEVER be objective stuff seems
a little bit reinforced. In other words, I think it is no more than an
interpretation conveniently manipulated by/for most/some of them. Has
any of your countries/regions ever had that sort of controversy? (Of
course I have heard that of the Enola Gay.) Or is it too common a
sense to treat it here with you? Any idea concerned would be welcomed.
Thanks in advance.

Kensuke Mizutani
MA Candidate in Museology (Museum Studies)
Reinwardt Academie, The Netherlands
(Now writing my thesis in Tokyo, JAPAN)
[log in to unmask]


**********

Tokyo Peace Hall Plan Omits 'Military City' Reference

An advisory panel to Tokyo Gov. Yukio Aoshima proposed April 20 two
versions of a draft for a planned war museum in Tokyo that drop a
controversial phrase describing the capital as a "military city"
during World War II.

One draft in addition proposes that more emphasis be given to the
massive United States air raids targeting Tokyo. The planned hall is
among a number of nationwide controversies over the contents of war
museum displays to remember war victims.

The structure, to be dedicated mainly to victims of the U.S. air raids
over Tokyo, has drawn harsh criticism from scholars and politicians
who claim the draft unfairly justifies the "genocide" of the bombings
by describing Tokyo as a city with many military facilities to be
targeted.

The opponents have formed a group, led by University of Tokyo
Professor Nobukatsu Fujioka, and argues that the governor's panel is
controlled by leftist political forces with "masochistic views on the
war."

In apparent response to the criticism, the panel unveiled two versions
of the new draft. In one version, the phrase "Tokyo -- the military
city" is dropped from the exhibits. In the second version, the phrase
is dropped and a proposal is made for more space to be given to
displays on U.S. air raids. The panel proposes that the floor space be
boosted to 400 sq. meters from 225 sq. meters. Both proposals call for
exhibits at sites of former military facilities in the capital.

Metropolitan government officials admitted the Tokyo phrase may have
been "misleading," but said the new proposals are in line with the
original framework.