Having given the article/issue some thought - I think the mural should be removed to a more appropriate facility. Some of the justification for leaving the mural there...such as their being part of the history of the building...is a little weak. I'd wonder how many other objects are still in place in that building...from before, during and after the murals were installed? The mural should be some place where they could be better cared for (doesn't quite sound like they have been), properly interpreted (just now they're thinking of doing this?), at a place where more people may be able to view them (and choose to do so) and at a location where the employees wouldn't be offended. And what about he temporary 'display' board that was placed in front of the mural? It was placed too close to the mural. Already an employee had 'rolled it away' -what if that display board accidentally tipped over? It would certainly cause damage to the mural. Removing the mural is not at all obliterating history. In fact it may help preserve it. Nobody is suggesting that it be destroyed. A couple of weeks ago I came across a disturbing story -written by a former CCC enrollee. This was written on a form where alumni could write comments or share a story about their experiences in the CCC. This one was so racist - a southerner who had enrolled in an integrated camp in RI and hated it so much that he left. Of all the other hundreds of comments I've read -never anything like this. As disturbing as it was, it's a record that needs to be retained of course. I'll never have it out for museum visitor's to read though. But it is available to anyone who may have an interest in reading it. Racism and other conflicts weren't tolerated in the CCC camps. If this man had outwardly expressed his attitude and caused a problem, there were only two choices available to him. One choice would have been to duke it out in the boxing ring -(how conflicts between enrollees were resolved) or he could leave. He would have had to fight more than one guy - so being the coward he evidently was...he left. Now this is the context/venue where I can bring up racism and hatred and properly interpret this. But this is one man's racist comment - and I will not state across the board that all southerner's were racist or that no northerner's were. The mural on the other hand is an artist's depiction of what was most likely not an actual event. The artist obviously didn't paint this based on personal experience. And the mural may suggest that all Indians participated in similar, savage behavior. As best you may provide interpretation of this mural to the public...you still can't control how people think and feel. Is this supposed to make the employees feel less offended? Pam In a message dated 7/18/2006 3:58:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: Greetings Richard et al.: As an art educator/historian (and with my own discrimination “double whammy” ): I’ll assume most on Museum-L agree that offensive and stereotypical representations are deplorable. Yet, after their manufacture, don’t we feel those objects – though maligned – are of historic and educational value? Preserving such objects is a means of teaching the present and future about the past? Don’t historical museums/societies, ethnic museums/collections, museums of tolerance, etc. have objects in their collections for the very purpose of demonstrating how backward, how unenlightened, how savage some groups of people have been to others? Is there significance in discussing the accuracy – or lack thereof – of such depictions? Also, there a significant difference in how we treat different classes/levels of offense . . . from nudes to political propaganda to racial/ethnic stereotypes. While there may be salacious tittering about the first and outright laughter about the second, the third inspires calls for destruction. While academic nudes were always admired during the 1880s, by the 1980s, Mapplethorpe’ s ‘nudes’ caused furor – albeit not because of nudity alone, but for the activities depicted. But in our day, “Bill O’Reilly vs. Stephen Colbert” results in comedic extremes in political commentary . . . but, in 1932, there were passionate opponents about the removal of Diego Rivera’s RCA Building murals – gone in one fell swoop because of the artist’s inclusion of communist ideology? (Long before McCarthy!) Thinking out loud here, and would appreciate multiple perspectives. [I’m working on an exhibition which will undoubtedly inspire some comments about its “offensive” and “propagandistic” qualities. (For those curious, its post-Vietnam era artworks from the U.S. Navy Art Collection.) As a result, I’m trying to figure out what “common sense” says about how society – in the US and beyond – handles controversial issues.] Best wishes, sincerely, Jay Heuman Curator of Education Salt Lake Art Center 20 South West Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: 801.328.4201 x 121 Fax: 801.322.4323 URL: _www.slartcenter.org_ (http://www.slartcenter.org/) Salt Lake Art Center: Celebrating 75 Years! 1931-2006 Pamela Silvestri, Seasonal Interpretive Guide Northeast States Civilian Conservation Corps Museum Connecticut State Department of Environmental Protection State Parks Division Shenipsit State Forest Headquarters 166 Chestnut Hill Road Stafford Springs, Connecticut 06076 Telephone: (860) 684-3430 e-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask] ========================================================= 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).