Hi Lynne!

I continue to write in about this thread as I find it - the
subject(s) and the discourse -- to be fascinating.  (My
apologies to those who couldn't care less.  Just hit the
'delete' button.)

> I did, indeed, suggest a connection between the practice
of
> footbinding and corsetry.  I referred to overly-tight
lacing and
> footbinding as "unreasonable", a term by which I still
stand.
> I perceive them both to be unreasonable distortions of the
body
> for the sake of "beauty" -- as each culture or era defined
it. I
> deem them to be unreasonable because of their harmful
and/or
> painful effects upon the (primarily) women who suffered
from the
> practices.

By today's standard, most people would agree with your
judgment.  However, there are women who happily wear
corsets.  While I do not believe there are women in China
who want to have their feet bound, one cannot know for sure
without a scientific poll.

> The cultural differences lie, I suppose, in whether the
desired
> effect was perceived (by the recipient of the practice) to
have
> outweighed the discomfort.  Such is why I long ago gave up
> wearing high heels, I suppose.

Exactly.  Of course, young girls and women in China didn't
have the option to not have their feet bound.  But since
when have parents given their young children options about
something fundamental to culture and social custom?

> I now find myself wondering whether any such "distortions"
> were imposed as widely upon males.

While not a physical distortion in the same sense, men have
formed the fighting forces - sometimes voluntary, usually
mandatory - for millennia.  Naturally, in war, men die.  I'm
not sure how many men died in battle for other people's gain
or ideas.  My point: There is cultural baggage heaped on
everyone - men and women.

Are women in the US military allowed to serve on the front
lines?

> Someone mentioned castration (for achieving a vocal
ideal?).
> How widespread (pardon the pun) a practice was that?
> Nonetheless, I would certainly call that an unreasonable
step to
> achieving an ideal...but in light of the ensuing
discussion, I might
> add that, yes, it may just be unreasonable by current
yardsticks
> for such things.

Castration for choir participation was not all that common.
But, there were many eunuchs necessary to work in harems and
other women's quarters.  In China - to return to the source
of foot binding - eunuchs were often employed to care for
the children (especially daughters) of royalty.

> On the other hand, perhaps a significant factor is whether
the
> person upon whom the practice was imposed had any say in
the
> matter.  If they don't object is it still unreasonable?
Would slavery
> be deemed unreasonable by the enslaved if they didn't
object to
> their situation?

How about indentured servants?  Many people, in past
centuries, indentured themselves for a given period.  This
was, usually, for protection and stability.

> Was it unreasonable if the women whose feet were bound
didn't
> object to it?

Exactly my point!

> ...and don't historians/museums have an obligation to
present
> these issues with as much information as can be had about
the
> circumstances that led to them?

Museums ought to contextualize.  That would seem to be a
vital aspect of the educational role of museums.

> Do we also have an obligation to comment on them by our
> standards?

I think it responsible to have a sign that reads, "Though
not practiced today, it was common for ________ to occur
during the ________ period."  (Fill in the blanks.)

I would not consider it appropriate to have a sign that
reads, "What were those lunatic ___________ thinking?"

> Should we be denouncing slavery but not footbinding (or
excessive
> body-piercing)?

The two are different.  It is apples and oranges.  No
comparison, really.

> Don't we teach about things historical in order to learn
from the
> past?

But is teaching and learning about the past helpful if it is
only moralistic and judgmental?  Shouldn't the teaching of
history be used to teach analytical skills (decision
making)?

> Is our obligation merely to present the issues to the
viewer (as in
> an exhibition), in as unbiased a way as we can, to let
them decide
> how they feel about it?  Does that mean we should show
what some
> members of our society deemed the "benefits" of slavery,
for instance,
> in addition to its horrors, in order that visitors to our
museums can
> decide for themselves how they feel about it?

Any responsible display about any historical issue ought to
include both or multiple views.  For slavery, there is
plenty of documentation available to demonstrate the origins
of slavery, the perpetuation of slavery, the slowly changing
minds of some and the reticence of others, all which led to
civil war and the abolition of slavery.  Certainly,
quotations from the time - both pro- and anti- slavery --
are not out of place if put in an appropriate context.
Certainly, reference to offensive terms in context (i.e.,
with an appropriate explanation that such terms are not used
today) is appropriate.  Certainly images and photographs
from the time - both pleasant and unpleasant - are
appropriate . . . again, if put in proper context.  That
there were benefits to a portion of the population is
important to note . . . as that was an enormous contributing
factor to why the Civil War took place and why the economy
in the South lagged for decades.  (Some would argue the
Southern economy has never fully recovered.)

Sincerely,
Jay Heuman, Visitor & Volunteer Services Coordinator
Joslyn Art Museum, 2200 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68102
342-3300 (telephone)     342-2376 (fax)     www.joslyn.org

Copyright retained.  My opinions - no one else's.  If you
have a problem with what I wrote, take it up with me
personally.  If this is illegal where you are, do not read
it!


=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).