Listers,
For those members of the list not interested in more discussion on this subject please delete this message now.
Thank You!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been following this thread with much interest, amuesment, and at times, chagrin. The original posting has obviously inspired much discussion among the members of this list. I think this is a good thing; Intelligent discussion about the nature and quality of "American culture" can never be detrimental.
I found the original message quite amusing and a bit cynical. Although I must say that Mitchell Kaye (The State Representative from Georgia who authored the original "Bill of No Rights") indirectly addresses an interesting theme which I would like to offer up for discussion: Namely the "culture of expectation" that has developed in this country.
The "Bill of No Rights" has as an implicit theme that citizens of the United States do not have the right to "expect" the government to provide them with certain services. I think this theme can be addressed by looking at the United States Constitution and what rights it does provide to citizens.
The Constitution of the United States--in particular the Bill of Rights--provides a variety of guarantees against the intrusion upon citizens' rights by the Federal government. This guarantee that the government cannot, or will not be permitted to, impose certain restrictions or requirements upon its citizens does not correspond to a commitment by the government to promote every citizen's individual rights.
For example, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall pass no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This does not correspond to a requirement that Congress promote any and all speech. For example, let's use AAM and their public relations division. There is legislation (the First Amendment) that says the Federal government cannot restrict the views of the public relations division of AAM from being expressed. However, there is no legislation that guarantees this group the right to have their views acknowledged and/or promoted by the Federal government. This is a VERY important difference.
The lack of acknowledgement or promotion of a specific viewpoint on the part of the Federal government does not equate to an infringement upon the rights to express those views. To equate these two premises as being logically equivalent is a fallacy of logical thinking.
And this is my point. In American culture today, there is a "culture of expectation" and one of the most prominent ways in which this "expectation" is manifest is in the claim by many groups that unless the views of the group are **acknowledged and promoted**, their right to express those views are being infringed.
Many groups wrap themselves in the comforting folds of the First Amendment and claim their rights are being infringed because their voice is not being heard. The fact they can express this sentiment testifies to the fact that their views are not being "abridged" and that they are being heard. What many of these groups seek is to have their views and their voice promoted by the government and that is something to which I am vehemently opposed.
How this "culture of expectation" applies to us in the museum profession is of concern to me and the reason why I have responded to this thread. In our profession, and in the populace as a whole, there are ongoing discussions concerning the nature of American History and what it means to be an "American".
What is American History? Does it begin with Columbus' "discovery" of the new world. Does it begin with the first European settlement at Jamestown? Does it begin with the history of the Native or "First" Americans? What about the recent findings of a Viking settlement in Massachusetts from circa 1100 AD? All these are valid and important questions. But before we can address the question of what is American History I think we need to address the question of what it means to be an American.
I think the sentiments expressed in the "Bill of No Rights" can be seen as an attempt at answering this question of Americanness. This particular writer thinks that to be an American means you do not have the right to expect the Federal government to provide you with certain services. This writer thinks that the *culture of expectation* is un-American. Other individuals think that the government should provide these services. Neither of these individuals can be legally prevented from expressing these views by the Federal government. However, neither of these individuals should expect the government to promote their views.
I think this *culture of expectation* effects us in the museum profession when attempts are made to present some element of history that a specific group finds to be not to their liking. How should the museum profession react to such concerns? How does the musuem community address the twin concerns of respect for the audiences served and professionalism to the study of history?
The problem that needs to be addressed by the museum profession is how to incorporate these disparate viewpoints of *Americanness* into some cohesive whole of *American History* without diluting the history in the process. Whether you work in a small community museum, a local art museum, or one of the Smithsonian museums you will likely encounter a similar problem.
This is where I would like to see this thread go, a discussion on presenting the history of a subject to various audiences with various viewpoints concerning the history of that subject. I welcome any comments or feedback on what I have said above?
Regards.
Dennis Comerford
Videoconference Coordinator
National Museum of American History
Room 1030 MRC 606
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Vox: +1 202.357.4976
Fax: +1 202.786.2423
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimer applies
"Keeping an open mind is a virtue, but, not so open that your brains fall out."
James Oberg, Space scientist
|
