Dear Dave,
you are right: Wars and aggressions are typical for (human) beings! Nobody
can deny that. The human symbols for these lethal aggressions are - amongst
others - uniforms. I agree. Therefore, if somebody plans "glorious uniform
days" in a museum, I think he/she missed the cultural point, the reality: Of
course, humans are glorious, even in their uniforms. BUT ...
I also agree with you that the formula aggression = male does not cover the
whole story, not in these days, not in the past, not in all cultures. But
biology and statistic has it that males tend to be more aggressive than
females. That will not hold true for every individual (that's why we need
statistics). Surely, there are biological differences between the genders.
But that cannot be put into laws, which also will rule over the individual
who is generally different from the statistical mean level.
Greetings, Dave, and thanks
Peter, the Rebernik

+---------------------------------------------------
 | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
 | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
 | Anton Baumgartnerstr. 44/C2/3/2; A-1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
 | Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375; Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
 | Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
 | E-Mail: [log in to unmask]; Web: http://www.rebernik.at
+------------------------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: HARVEY DAVID ... COLLECTIONS <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Datum: Mittwoch, 13. Mai 1998 14:22
Betreff: Re: Military uniforms artifacts/politics


>Now this thread is getting a bit ridiculous.  No matter how one feels about
the military and warfare one should not try to poison the presence of
artifacts with personal political emotions.  If you want to make such a
statement then pursue it as an artist rather than as a museum professional
dedicated to using artifacts as educational tools.
>
>The truth is that the human species, like a zillion other species, has
abundant aggressive tendencies to ensure survival.  50,000 years or so of
organized human culture is a relatively short time on the biological clock -
so aggression, murder, and mayhem will continue to be part of the human
story. Military uniforms are only symbols of the Nation-State, but there
have always been all sorts of manner of ways of marking warriors in tribal
societies - tattoos, paint, costume, et.al.
>
>I personally find it amazing that, in the face of perhaps one of the most
aggressive centuries on record, that there have also been mass non-violent
movements which have altered cultural consciousness - such as Ghandi, Martin
Luther King, Mandela, and numerous others.
>
>Perhaps I am reacting so strongly about this is because that I am in the
middle of reading Guns, Germs, and Steel .  It strikes me that to denigrate
military artifacts is a form of cultural denial, and to further hold these
things up as symbols of male dominance seems to me to be political
revisionism run amok.  Maybe I a mistaken here - but hasn't warfare occurred
within matrilineal societies too?  Haven't armies been given their orders by
Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and Margaret Thatcher?
>
>Just a few thoughts and opinions entirely my own.
>
>Cheers!
>Dave
>-----Original Message-----
>From:   Heleanor Feltham [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:   Wednesday, May 13, 1998 3:33 PM
>To:     [log in to unmask]
>Subject:        Military uniforms artifacts/politics
>
>Unlike fertilizer (interesting choice, so much of it is bullshit), military
>uniforms do not exist outside the context of armed aggression.  Their style
>deconstructs into quite blatant political statement - some governments
>historically have preferred uniforms that look magnificent and identify
your
>side from the enemy, but provide little or no protection  - like the red
>coats worn in the Sudan campaign which actually turned soldiers into very
>visible targets - others prefer uniforms designed to actively promote
>efficient carnage, like the best camouflage battle-dress.  Parade uniforms
>celebrate victories.  And as for armour, and all those endless Renaissance
>portraits of nobles wearing their grotesque fantasies of violence, it
>reflects whole congeries of male dominance games.  How can you separate
>military uniform out from its purpose?  Would you consider an SS officer's
>outfit 'a-political' just because it was a nice design?  Few if any
>artifacts of any kind exist outside a social context, and that includes a
>web-work of politics.
>
>Heleanor Feltham
>[log in to unmask]
>