I thank Ms. Gutenkauf for her comments on my comments, but I have to admit
to being a bit taken aback by the tone of the commentary.  I did read the
thread of messages that was posted in the daily digest I receive from
Museum-L.  I responded to the initial message; the original poster had not
yet, to my computer's knowledge, followed up with her more informative
reply.  Before that appeared in my mailbox the next day, I received several
messages off-list chiding me for not knowing what, frankly, I could not have
known, whether due to the digest function of Museum-L or to the way my
provider sends messages.  

As for Ms. Gutenkauf's admonition that I "again ... might find it helpful to
follow the complete thread of this discusison [sic] as the original poster
has clarified that the volunteer was informed of the museum's SOP.
Repeatedly":  well, having hit the "send" button after reading the six posts
made available at the time I wrote the response, and having now re-read
those  posts again, I still don't find any evidence that the docent was
"repeatedly" informed of the museum's procedures.  (As a historian, I pay
attention to chronology.)

I do stand by my comments.  The word "volunteer" does not appear in
the original post; docents, in my many years of having worked at and with
museums, may be paid or unpaid.  The consequences of dealing with either
situation may differ according to institutional employment policy, state
law, etc., and as others have pointed out, those consequences may have
ramifications in other ways.  

But what I really stand by is my concern about the decision about what now
seems this problem of "historical accuracy."  Ms. Gutenkauf seemingly
assumes, when she directs me to "Read the original poster's most recent
message. The museum acted properly and in both their best interest and the
interest of the collection" that somehow I was condemning the museum's
action.  (Again please note that I was able to read in the next digest,
delivered the next day to my computer, that contained a slew of thoughtful
messages, including those of Ms. Gutenkauf and the follow-up post by the
original poster, but not before I sent my message!) 

What I did was state my concern on a more general level about the definition
of "historical accuracy," especially because the original post simply stated
that the "historical accuracy" of the materials could not be verified and
hadn't informed the list of the nature of the institution's collections.  

American historians have been, for the last decade or so, engaged in
exploring the complicated relationship of history and memory, of
authenticity and fakery, in the American past.  Questions of authenticity
have, of course, historically concerned museums, libraries, and historical
societies.  Historians as well as other scholars and the public have
depended on these institutions to ascertain the authentic as a means of
ensuring accuracy and legitimate historical and cultural interpretation.  

On the other hand, oral historians learn quickly that individuals' stories
differ from the "official record."  But that doesn't mean they should be
rejected or discounted.  

The question of historical accuracy is always relational, and the original
post did not explain it.  In the follow up, we learn that the deaccessioned
materials "do not belong in our collection. Not because they were weird or
junk, but because they were, from what I can tell, full of falsehoods. There
are lots of stories, but the donor had nothing official from the military to
back any of it up."

I'll set aside the issue of whether the military was contacted to confirm
the donor's stories.   I would argue, hypothetically, that in these presumed
falsehoods may be a form of truth.  There are many, many cases of men and
women claiming to have served in the military (especially in wartime) but
the military has no record of them.  Let's take the Vietnam Conflict.  The
Veterans Bureau still investigates many false claims.  The argument about
spitting on returning soldiers is still raging in some quarters, though
several historians cannot find anything in the record that soldiers were
treated in that matter.  The competing stories about John Kerry's wartime
record was front and center in the presidential campaign of 2004.  One of
the best-known Vietnam Conflict poems, about a nurse caring for a wounded
soldier, was just discovered to have been written by a woman who had, for
over three decades, claimed she was a nurse in the Conflict.  She was not. 
That poem's meaning, however, though no longer based on her experience, is
no less meaningful to those who find comfort in it.  Should we toss her
papers because there's nothing to support it?  If a small percentage of a
generation of men and women wish to have others believe they served, or were
somehow a part of a defining moment for that generation, then their lies
become, well, historically accurate as lies and part of a phenomenon that
has political, social, and cultural relevance.  

Again, I don't raise the issue of "historical accuracy" because I was
condemning the museum.  Rather, I wanted clarification.  This incident tells
us much about the changing and contingent nature of historical, cultural,
social value in a democracy.  That a donor may have given a museum (or
several museums) "false stories" seems to recognize the museum's
legitimating/authenticating function.   

I thought by raising the point I may aid the original poster as well as add
to the discussion.  But I was reprimanded instead, by others, on and off the
list, for not knowing museum methods and practice or for not reading
postings not yet available to me.  I would hate to think it was because I,
like another poster, admitted I wasn't currently affiliated with a museum
but rather a university.  

Shirley Wajda

=========================================================
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).