The discussion of race/ethnicity appears to be a clear indication that the implications the subject has on documentation is a reasonable front to address. Regardless of how we choose to define these terms now, their meanings historically (at least after the seventeenth century) were separate. Race has been known to refer to mostly visible characteristics, determined by biology, including skin color, hair texture, etc. Ethnicity has been considered learned, not necessarily transmitted genetically, cultural heritage, and can include such things as common national origin, ancestry, language, ideology, etc. Because humans create the categories within these terms, and the meanings associated with them, both are socially constructed and contribute to human identity, as well as racism. As was mentioned in previous discussions, many disciplines, dictionaries, and other sources may describe these terms in variable ways. It is not my intention to present an opinion about the definitions, nor to offend anyone, but I am impressed with the discussion and would like to give a more specific opinion I hope is on topic. The movement towards multiculturalism and diversity is a magnificent trek; however, when documenting collections, I would argue the benefit of attempting to establish some aspect of "race/ethnicity" as related to people in photographs or associated with objects. Even in modern times, the multicultural movement and recognition of the value of diversity supports the implication that people recognize, acknowledge, and wish to be identified and associated with their heritage. The question would be how best to describe and identify the race/ethnicities associated with objects in collections (What was it previously known as? What is it known as now?...). I think that one can exercise sensitivity while seeking to establish the best possible provenance. The original question about how to record (or if to record) this information is legitimate. Identification can become complicated, and as Indigo mentioned, those identifications then, must apply to ALL people in photographs. The discussion concerning the significance of race/ethnicity key words for the sake of enabling a reasonable research capability for particular groups also raised interesting points. Based on the arguments alone concerning the definitions of race and ethnicity, I think this would be an interesting conference panel discussion as it relates to the realities of problems with documentation and not just interpretation in galleries (as is more frequently addressed). Many people may fear being associated with racism themselves by discussing the implications of what wording and processes should be used, but I hope they are not. Arguing over variable definitions that are subject to change may be useful to some extent, but the legitimate question about documentation appears to be problematic, and based on the various questions and viewpoints presented, I am pleased to see that museum professionals show concern, and that one took the time to seek professional consensus. Just my thoughts... M.Askew ========================================================= 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).