Ha, ha, ha! I almost joined in the karaoke, but I realized I didn't know the words!! I just hummed along. O On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 07:27:55 -0500 Tricia Edwards <[log in to unmask]> writes: >Maybe he'll weed out all the song lyrics, too.... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Olivia S. Anastasiadis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 10:23 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: filters > > >I say we give these guys a break until John gets back, up and running >weeding this stuff off for us. As all you out there have suggested, >the >delete key is the best weapon. It's a lot quicker too and you don't >have >to type an entire message to all of us. I do it because I type fast; >and >for those stodgies who like proper spelling, I try to get that done >too. > >O > > >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:00:12 +1000 "Millward, Peter" ><[log in to unmask]> writes: >>can someone please advise me if there is a filter I can apply to stop >>getting all the emails from people who wish to sign off the list and >>who it >>seems have been unable to locate the VERY SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS they >>received >>when they joined. >>Peter Millward >>Manager Education & Visitor Services >>Melbourne Museum >>9651 8162 >> >>> ---------- >>> From: Matam P. Murthy[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] >>> Reply To: Museum discussion list >>> Sent: Friday, 22 January 1999 10:57 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: joint ownership of aboriginal artefacts >>> >>> signoff museum-l >>> >>> I want to get off of this list, someone please tell me how. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> YuhangAt 09:51 PM 1/21/99 -0000, you wrote: >>> >I have wondered for some time if there isn't room for another, >>> intermediate, >>> >category of ownership. Given that museums exist to hold objects >for >>ever >>> & >>> >thus remove them in some ways from the material(ist) world, it >>ought to >>> be >>> >possible for us to use anotherform of intellectual >>categorisation.... >>> > >>> >What I imagine is something that maintains the legal ownership of >>an >>> object >>> >in the museum but also allows for a form of intellectual/moral >>ownership >>> of >>> >the object by representatives of the originating group - much in >>the way >>> as >>> >you could own a painting but the artist still retain copyright >over >>the >>> >image. >>> > >>> >In this way the 'home' culture could be acknowledged in any >>literature >>> and >>> >advise on the interpretation and care of the artefacts. The object >>would >>> >then be jointly managed by the museum who wants to store it for >>ever and >>> >interpret it to the public and originating culture who may wish to >>see it >>> >treated respectfully and in accordance with their own values and >>> practices. >>> > >>> >Obviously there might be problems if the two were in contradiction >>(which >>> >reminds me of the Japanese business man who bought some Van Gogh >>flowers >>> and >>> >said he wanted them cremated with him.... but that's another >>story!) - >>> but >>> >could it not be a useful principle to inform practice? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> "...The question of how, when, and where the indigenous >>> >> objects were obtained creates a mine-field of both >>> >> legal and moral dimensions..." >>> >> >>> >> That was well said, and I agree completely. The matter >>> >> DOES require serious consideration from a variety >>> >> perspectives. I don't think there is a simple answer >>> >> applicable to all cases, except perhaps that museum >>> >> folk should/must afford indigenous people's claims the >>> >> right to serious examination and consideration in such >>> >> matters. My knee-jerk reaction to your original post >>> >> was in response to the implication that original owners >>> >> were always still "rightful" owners. >>> >> >>> >> Even the car analogy, presuming that you sold it to me >>> >> outright and with no liens or other encumbrances, >>> >> doesn't always work. In ND if a person under 21 years >>> >> of age sells something, he/she can state they didn't >>> >> understand the matter and re-claim the sold item (and >>> >> return the purchase price) until they ARE 21. We found >>> >> that out the hard way when we accepted an artifact >>> >> donation from a 16 year old. She later changed her >>> >> mind and the lawyers held that we had to return the >>> >> item even though we'd gotten the teenager's mother to >>> >> countersign the deed of gift. We no longer accept >>> >> donations from people under 21. >>> >> >>> >> Good luck. >>> >> >>> >> Chris Dill >>> >> >>> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> >>C. L. Dill, Museum Director >>> >>State Historical Society of North Dakota >>> >>612 East Boulevard >>> >>Bismarck ND 58505-0830 USA >>> >>P: (701)328-2666 >>> >>F: (701)328-3710 >>> >>E: [log in to unmask] >>> >>Visit our Web site at: http://www.state.nd.us/hist/ >>> >>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> > >___________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]