Since it is obvious that you cannot make an objective point of view in
historical (and other) cases in exhibitions (books, articles, discussions
etc.) there is only one way out:
Try to be as objective as you can, but state clearly who you are and don't
hide behind the anonymous walls of the museum, state your name, your
profession and the part you played in the exhibition at the entrance and in
the catalogue. If you wnat to do more to intellectual integrity you could
also try to state other points of view somewhere in the exhibition or
catalogue. You have to state there that they are not what you personally
find correct, but others might.

Yours,
Peter, the Rebernik
(address etc. at the bottom after all the arguments which inspired me)
---------------------------------------

At 21:05 21.04.98 +0900, you wrote:
>(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.
>
>
-----------

+------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
|  Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
|  Anton Baumgartner-Str.44/C2/3/2
|  A - 1230 Vienna / AUSTRIA
|  Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375
|  Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
|  Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
|  E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
|  Homepage: www.ycom.at/~rebernik
+------------------------------------------------------------------------