> I'm not a member of MUSEUM-L so I don't know what all of you
> are talking about when you talk about "the team approach."
> However, I am at Field Museum and I am the Curator of the
> Pacific, and I intimately recall everything that happened over
> our present "new" Pacific galleries.  I don't think that
> MUSEUM NEWS had a thing to say about the controversy.  The New
> York Times Sunday Magazine did have something to say but got
> it mostly wrong (see January 14, 1990, Section 6) because the
> writer from New York didn't catch on that natural history
> curators don't have the same job that art museum curators have
> (and the New York Times seems to think all museums are art
> museums or somethin').
>
> Anyway, if you want to get the story straight, begin with my
> article called "Disneyland and the future of museum anthropology"
> in the AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 93(1), 1991:149-153.  Read
> between the lines and you will discover that what went wrong
> with our Pacific galleries wasn't the fault of the team approach.
> Things went wrong was because we didn't follow the team approach.
>
> (p.s.:  No, I didn't resign and am still curator of the Pacific;
> but I had to resign as department chairperson and I take
> no blame or credit for the exhibits now on display at the Field
> on the Pacific, except for the wonderful Maori meeting house
> which got done after the Pacific galleries and WAS accomplished
> using the team approach + full "native community" participation.
> This is a much better story to read about and I encourage you to
> read MUSEUMS JOURNAL for March 1993 (Vol. 93, No. 3):  "We want
> our treasures back" -- "Chicago's Field Museum has forged new links
> and greater understanding with the Maori people through its
> repatriation policy.  John Terrell explains how".)
>
> John Terrell
> [log in to unmask]
>