Military uniforms are only a part of the presentation of history, and
are not of themselves more than historic documents. Do not confuse
policy and actions with material culture objects/artefacts as they are
VERY different. (One never sees that automobile museums present the
on-road deaths or destruction of the landscape as that is neither their
mission nor their intent.)

On this original topic of uniforms in exhibtion, please check the New
York Public Library's Resources on Military Uniforms:
        http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/subguides/milhist/costnypl.html

> Political correctness is an interesting pejorative, but I don't think it
> applies to this discussion.  It is probably more "PC" to exhibit all
> evidence of our military prowess, than to downplay a national policy of
> being prepared.

The US Army has many museums situated here and there around the US. If
you check on the mission statements of those museums, you will find that
their emphasis is specific. As for the National Armed Forces Museum, the
information on purpose and so forth may be found at:
        http://www.erols.com/crm114/nafm.html

I think you will find that information clarifying

> Item:
> The Army is the only branch of the US Armed Forces that currently has no
> national museum.  It is searching for a location, or so I see in the news.
> Evidently the budget dollars have already been put up by the taxpayers to
> build it.

I didn't know the army was involved in this next item:

> Item:
> Two schoolboys kill a teacher and wound classmates in Jonesboro, Ark.  The
> media publish the photo of one of them, taken before he was 5 yrs. old,
> pink-cheeked and smiling for the camera and fully uniformed and armed -- and
> not just for hunting wild game.  This lad was groomed for war before he
> could understand the meaning of peace.  He was the male equivalent of Jon
> Benet, the 6-yr-old beauty queen who lost her life even before she could
> understand what beauty is.

Weapons are a part of military, and can have direct association with
military uniforms, but they do not of themselves inply the the sale of
military weapons to the public, nor do they imply that the army tackles
such dangerous foes as deer.

> Item:
> Huge sums are invested to keep government from banning the sale of military
> weapons to the public, all in the name of the "right to bear arms."   One
> doesn't need an Uzi to kill a deer or for self-protection.

I would suggest checking out the various professional associations of
military museums to see what their mission and guidelines are. I think
that you will find that their intent is to display history, not to
shock, or thrill. Of course if you want to see an exhibition that is
moving, I would direct you the "Monument to the Defenders of Leningrad":
        http://www.guide.spb.ru/culture-n-history/historical/900/index.html

or the Artillery Museum (also in Sankt-Peterburg):
        http://www.guide.spb.ru/culture-n-history/museums/artillery/index.html

I think these few examples will give you a much clearer idea of the
purposes of military museums.

Some other examples you may want to consult are the National Army Museum
(UK):
        http://www.failte.com/nam/
and the Imperial War Museum (UK):
        http://www.iwm.org.uk

> One hopes the proposed National Army Museum will be politically incorrect,
> i.e. that it will use technology and objects to shock, rather than thrill,
> its visitors...that it will show what happened, and also how after many
> wars, our culture devotes more to the apparatus of war than it does to
> caring for the needs of humanity.

Dave Wells
[log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave <[log in to unmask]>
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 11:02 PM
> Subject: Military Uniform Symposium and political correctness
>
> >Since no one seems to want to rain on this parade of political
> >correctness on the Military Uniform Symposium, I guess it is my turn
> >(once again). The focus on military musuems is NOT the glorification of
> >war, but the preservation of a part of history. I know that scholarship
> >may be sorely lacking in the museum community, but logic would seem to
> >relative enough to see the same connection of purpose of one museum to
> >another museum.
> >
> >As with any history museum, it is something that HAS HAPPENED and is a
> >record of that; and a set of lessons from which we are supposed to
> >learn--and not repeat. If we become scantimonious, and political correct
> >(read censor) about such things, we are doomed to repeat them over and
> >over.
> >
> >IF, on the other hand, we are content to apply political correctness,
> >then I have an agenda of museums that I think should be closed and the
> >information presented should be suppressed.
> >
> >Hopefully, my less than blunt point is made. (BTW, I am not singling out
> >Ross Weeks or Herr Rebernik in particular, but the whole pervasive
> >permissiveness that allows political correctness to set reactionary
> >agendas.) (I would also guess that the silence accorded this incident,
> >is not so much a matter of unconcern, but of patient groans about 'oh,
> >no yet another'....)
> >
> >Dave Wells
> >Quinault National Museum Project
> >821 Kaiser RD NW 6A
> >Olympia WA 98502-2621 USA
> >
> >360-866-4431
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >Ross Weeks wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to repeat Mr. Rebernik's recitation, but all through my life I have
> >> wondered why military museums glorify war by not calling attention to the
> >> atrocity of all of the paraphernalia involved.  Resplendent uniforms are
> >> certainly works of art, and those who wore them deserve to be proud.  But
> if
> >> we ignore the "why" of it all, then we're simply celebrating war.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------