Oliver Hirch wrote:

<Second, to use a glib sobriquet like "pc" to dismiss the impulse toward
making this symbol universal, and then think that you have said something
profound is absurd.  This is a limbaughism used to set the stage to
snatch back the hard-won advances of the just struggles of women and
people of color over the past couple of decades -- the centuries old
struggles of people historically at the bottom and the back.  Your
intended dismissal is intellectually lazy, irresponsible, and that's the
kind interpretation.>

Thank You, Mr. Hirsch, for addressing this, on behalf of myself and the
many, many other people who have probably felt shamed into silence by the
fear of being labeled "PC".   I, for one, am proud to have the "sick urge"
to address the traditional reticence of white males to recognize the
historical contributions of women and people of color.  The great strides
made by many cultural institutions to redress this issue has been
remakable, but the work is just beginning and may never really end.  Such
are the consequences of thousands of years of opression, slaughter,
slavery, and misrepresentation (the critical issue for museums).

The term "Politically Correct" was, I believe, invented by the
ultra-conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation during the 1988
presidential campaign.   It was a term designed to characterizie the
efforts of many different people in many different fields who sought to
promote the value of ethnic diversity and wrap them all up in one neat
package.  It was meant to conjure a paranoid conspiratorial image of
unsavory radical brown people and feminists plotting to destroy Western
culture.

Carol Ely wrote:

> I just see the memorial as a metaphor, not as literal truth (which the
>photo is, and NO ONE is suggesting
>altering the photo). Photo = one thing, memorial = another thing. This seems
>to be an unpopular opinion, however.

I agree with Carol on this point, although I find it interesting that the
misconception of photographs as being the "literal truth"  still persists.
The idea of altering the information in the photograph by making the
sculpture different seems to offend many because it violates the "truth",
which is validated by the existence of the photograph.   The "truth" is,
the original photo existed at some point as nothing more than a stream of
electrons eminently capable of being manipulated in a myriad of ways.  The
ethnicity of the firefighters in the original image could have been
manipulated to make them all appear white.  Many acts of heroism performed
by people of all races happened on that day, and who is to say that the
photographer did not have their own agenda in focusing on that event to the
exclusion of others?

There are many levels upon which to challenge the "truth" of the
photographic image.  To claim that the revision of one fallible image into
another fallible image is morally wrong is an untenable position, and I
object to the implied characterization of those who proposed this revision
as being incapable of recognizing or valuing the "truth".

I belive this debate touches upon many issues which are of vital interest
to the museum community and I must say I think it is inestimably valuable
to have such a forum available for debate, no matter how much I might grit
my teeth and silently curse as I read.

Scott Hilton

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