Paul Apodaca's assertion that context is critical in assessing the value of interpretive materials in museums is a view with which I agree wholeheartedly, but I am afraid that his description of the controversy about the Iroquois demonstrates why DEPTH of scholarly knowledge is so critical. Reading one book without checking the original sources can lead museum folks to errors: Weatherford's description of Canassetego's speech to a group of colonial legislators refers to the Albany Congress of 1754 an, wherever Weatherford may have gotten it, it comes originally from Franklin's description of the meeting. Indeed, the only source we have for the speech comes from Franklin, and we do not really know what Canassetego said; we only know how Franklin characterized it. As for Paine, he was of enormous importance to the Revolution, owing primarily to Common Sense, his brilliant attack on George III. At the time the Constitution was being drafted he was in France trying to foment revolution there. In addition, Madison, Franklin and just about all the other "founding fathers" despised Paine as an incendiary whose revolution included class warfare as well as independence. He didn't care much for them either, and would have regarded the Constitution as an outright rejection of the principles of the Revoluiton. My point is simply that we DO need to pay attention to context but that attention should be deeply informed. Working from assertions in one or two books will not get us where we need to go in museums. We are custodians of primary materials and we should take that responsibility very seriously and pay proper respect to the past-ness of the past by knowing what we are talking about before we put up an exhibit. Douglas Greenberg President and Director The Chicago Historical Society Clark Street at North Avenue Chicago Il. 60614-6099 Telephone 312 642 5035 FAX 312 266 2077 OR 312 642 1199 Bitnet U27777@UICVM Internet [log in to unmask]