Paul Apodaca's assertion that context is critical in assessing the
value of interpretive materials in museums is a view with which I agree
wholeheartedly, but I am afraid that his description of the controversy
about the Iroquois demonstrates why DEPTH of scholarly knowledge is
so critical.  Reading one book without checking the original sources can lead
museum folks to errors:
 
Weatherford's description of Canassetego's speech to a group of colonial
legislators refers to the Albany Congress of 1754 an, wherever Weatherford
may have gotten it, it comes originally from Franklin's description of the
meeting.  Indeed, the only source we have for the speech comes from
Franklin, and we do not really know what Canassetego said; we only know how
Franklin characterized it.  As for Paine, he was of enormous importance to the
Revolution, owing primarily to Common Sense, his brilliant attack on George
III.  At the time the Constitution was being drafted he was in France trying
to foment revolution there.  In addition, Madison, Franklin and just about
all the other "founding fathers" despised Paine as an incendiary whose
revolution included class warfare as well as independence.  He didn't care
much for them either, and would have regarded the Constitution as an outright
rejection of the principles of the Revoluiton.
 
My point is simply that we DO need to pay attention to context but that
attention should be deeply informed.  Working from assertions in one or
two books will not get us where we need to go in museums.  We are custodians
of primary materials and we should take that responsibility very seriously and
pay proper respect to the past-ness of the past by knowing what we are
talking about before we put up an exhibit.
 
Douglas Greenberg
President and Director
The Chicago Historical Society
Clark Street at North Avenue
Chicago  Il.  60614-6099
Telephone 312 642 5035
FAX 312 266 2077 OR 312 642 1199
Bitnet U27777@UICVM
Internet [log in to unmask]