Glad you liked the discussion on military uniforms. I often play the
opposition in discussions especially when it appears there is a
group-think consensus without research and scholarship to back it.
Fortunately, this was a good discussion and many points of view and
authority were used.

I am reminded of James Burke's the Day the Universe Changed, when he
discussed the trials and burning of witches. If we view the buring of
witches from out present day views, it would seem that was a
reprehensible and silly series of brutal acts; but viewed from within
the context the burnings were seen as a means of liberating the people
from the claws of evil. Times and contexts do change as does perceptions
about right/wrong.

On the 'splendour' or 'splendid' of military uniforms, it would appear
that there has been some intent to impress especially with the dress
uniforms. I too, think the ire was over the 'military' and not over the
'uniforms.' There are some fine lines that can be drawn between a set of
Henkel's Four Star cutlery that is used in a kitchen and a set of
Henkel's Four Star cutlery that is used in a murder. The relationships
can give us much information about the objects or artefacts we have
(hence the need for the archive documents).

I also agree that we can think of visitors as ignorant dolts--and I am
sure they are among the visitors--but not everyone will know or not know
about the exhibit contents.

I did find the 'bullet-riddled, blood-stained' context as a little
naive. People, afterall, are collectors and unless something has a very
particular importance, it is usually the 'perfect' that is sought to be
collected (Nelson's uniform is among those I would point as an
exception--and although he was killed in it, there are no blood stains,
but there are few English who can look at that and no know the
circumstances).

My lists of 'must' involve relationship, context and scholarship.

The debate and heat over the Smithsonian's Enola Gay reflects a
continuing debate about the implied necessity of the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the implication those were acts of brutality;
that relating the story from one viewpoint even in context can be narrow
and one-sided (US view vs Japanese view); and that perhaps military
themed exhibits are going to draw 'fire' from both the sabre-rattler and
the peace-nik public--or all three at once.

These kinds of discussions and debates seem of hinge on 'whose story?',
"point-of-veiw when?" and "are there other ways of knowing?"

The value of this public forum and pool of expertise (and enquiry) is
that we can learn from one another and we can 'try out' those ideas with
a divers public of our colleagues.

Dave Wells
Olympia WA

David Haberstich wrote:
> I read the lively exchange of messages about military uniforms with great
> interest and discomfort, and have gone to the trouble of printing them out and
> saving them, thinking they might be useful for some future project, currently
> undefined and nebulous.  I think they are important and have much to say about
> the symbolism of objects, the mission(s) of museums, the uses of history and
> historical artifacts, and, not least, the power of words.  I hope you all will
> indulge me in expressing some thoughts about uniforms and this debate before
> the threads unravel.
>
> I think some of the statements say a great deal about the fact that many
> museum people are not happy unless all their museum colleagues subscribe to
> the same uniform (pardon the expression) social agenda with which they want to
> indoctrinate their viewers; they condemn "old-fashioned" museum displays
> which, by failing to deconstruct "splendid" objects (i.e., negatively analyze
> them), seem to imply approval.  In the case of military uniforms, they seem to
> fear that unless the museum explicitly reminds the viewer that war is bad, he
> or she will conclude that war must be splendid because it occasions such
> splendid uniforms.  I wonder if perhaps we sometimes don't give museum
> visitors enough credit: are we afraid they can't think for themselves?
>
> A word about words: I have a feeling that this sometimes heated exchange might
> never have occurred if the original announcement had not contained that potent
> word "splendor."  Much of the debate concenns that single word.  Next,
> consider the ancillary discussion of political correctness.  To the extent
> that "political correctness" refers to wars over words, that assertion was
> accurate, objections notwithstanding.  It is clear that in some circles the
> use of the word "splendor" in connection with anything military is considered
> politically incorrect.  While "political correctness" is a contemporary
> phrase, referring derisively to a perception of the prevailing climate of
> opinion, I suggest that political correctness is an ancient attitude.  Among
> the Nazis it would have been politically incorrect to suggest that Jews and
> Gypsies could be worthy human beings.  Political correctness implies
> reductive, agenda-driven values.  It is entirely natural that those accused of
> holding reductive, agenda-driven ideas chafe at being stereotyped.
> Accusations and counter-accusations fly back and forth.  Museum exhibitions,
> such as the Smithsonian's originally proposed Enola Gay display, imply or
> accuse historical figures of having an unwholesome political or social agenda,
> and are in turn accused of having a warped revisionist agenda.
>
> Meanwhile, the historical artifacts themselves stand--or hang--mute, unable to
> speak for themselves.  Factions tug at them, seeking to manipulate them to fit
> one agenda or another.  Ideas and ideologies are like uniforms: however
> similar, one size does not fit all.  There is something to be said for those
> old-fashioned, context-starved exhibitions with simple labels containing
> nothing but notes on makers, materials, and provenance (bearing in mind the
> fact that the mere act of selection and sequence of artifacts for display
> embodies an implicit idea, viewpoint, or agenda).  The viewer was supposed to
> supply the context and interpretation, including personal prejudices, likes
> and dislikes, rather than being TOLD what to think about the objects and their
> meaning..
>
> References have been made to the variety of contexts within which objects can
> be read, and I heartily second that notion.  While "war" is an obvious context
> for military uniforms, it is just as obviously not the only one possible.  In
> fact, it is a facile, superficial, knee-jerk reaction.  "Uniform" does not
> equal "war," nor does it equal male agression or domination.  People seem to
> be reacting to the concept of "military," not "uniform."  Do the uniforms of
> the United States Marine Band signify war to the same degree and in the same
> way battle fatigues do?  I don't think so.  How about quasi-military uniforms
> like those of the Salvation Army or the U.S. surgeon-general?  I don't think
> so (I suggest a re-reading of Shaw's "Major Barbara" to suggest additional
> contexts).
>
> A few of the writers said museums "must," "should," or "shouldn't" do certain
> things with their artifacts, which I find troubling.  I believe in academic
> and curatorial freedom, and I grow weary of hearing critics make
> pronouncements about what museums should or shouldn't do with their artifacts,
> how they should or shouldn't display them, and what they should or shouldn't
> say about them.  Too often, the claim that a museum "must" or "should" supply
> "context" seems to mean that it should satisfy the critic's particular
> predetermined agenda.  I reject the notion that a museum "must" supply the
> context of war and killing in its display of military uniforms.
>
> On the other hand, I certainly would not oppose an exhibition which would seek
> to demythologize war by showing bullet-riddled artifacts and bloodied
> uniforms, as the first (over)reaction proposed--as long as they're the "real"
> thing (are there ghoulish curators who collect and preserve such items?)--but
> I think artifically doctoring real uniforms in good condition might wouldn't
> fit standard museum ethics.  Moreover, museum representations of death and
> carnage are probably unnecessary: television, movies, and even sensational wax
> museum exhibits have educated us well, thank you.  You'd have to live a pretty
> sheltered life nowadays not to know in advance that war is hell.  What's wrong
> with a glorious or "splendid" exhibition of uniforms which would help to
> suggest how militarism can seem attractive and seductive?  That, it seems to
> me, would be a challenging and educational exhibition.  To show only carnage
> is to re-state the obvious.  I can think of other contexts in which to display
> uniforms, some positive, some negative, some neutral.
>
> Over the centuries, much blood has been shed by armies who didn't wear
> uniforms at all, and I don't mean just naked Celts (although I suppose one
> could argue that nudity was their unifying emblem).  Recently I watched the
> French film "Queen Margot" and its description of the St. Bartholomew's Day
> massacre, and no one seemed to require a uniform to do a very effective job of
> butchering his perceived enemies.  Now if you want to argue that uniforms and
> all the insignia of rank and status that go with them help to make armies more
> effective, precise fighting machines, I'm sure that's a valid theory, but I
> think a book would be a better medium for telling that story than a museum
> exhibition.
>
> I am personally opposed to war and killing, indeed totally opposed to capital
> punishment under any and all circumstances--yet I am fully appreciative of the
> power of the symbols of militarism and heroic ideals to rouse passions, and I
> admit to taking delight in some of these--er--splendid symbols.
>
> So shoot me.
>
> --David Haberstich