I think what is often objected to in these cases is the glorification and
legitimization of groups, persons or ideas who represent racial hatred,
slavery and/or genocide.  Without having seen the river walk way, I can only
guess that given Richmond's history as the CSA's capital, community members
may have felt that Lee was being glorified (as he often is in this country)
by the city, despite the fact that he was in a section named 'Conflict.'
The community may also feel that a slave revolt, even if violent, has some
measure of legitimacy given the fact that the instigators are being held
against their will by masters who use their labor for personal profit.
As for the case of Oklahoma's capital, setting the Confederate flag amongst
all of the others clearly equates this flag with them.  The display of
Confederate symbols without contextual material could very easily be seen as
legitimization of the ideas of slavery.
As an aspiring Holocaust curator, I believe that these issues are very
important to the museum community.  Our job is to educate the public.
Placing symbols of these types of movements and regimes on display without
carefully thought out interpretive materials available represents a failure
to carry out our basic mission of education.  Museums and other public
history institutions should not avoid displaying these symbols of hate, but
should clearly mark them as such and avoid giving any appearence of
legitimacy to them.


Rob Waldeck

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

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. 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).