It is of course true that there will be a tendancy for
US subscribers to dominate this museum list by shear
weight of numbers. This has been pointed out by
Barbara, Robert, Rich and Virginia.
However, my point is one which goes beyond the simple
arguement of bigness=most clout.
The articulation of ideas occurs within a range of
cultural contexts. Living in a society where media,
entertainment, information (and even, or should that be
specially, junkfood) is largely controlled by US
interests means that within my context there is a
concomitant push of US corporate values, messages,
lifestyles and ideas.
My cry is one of the colonised everywhere. We try and
resist, we put forward alternatives, we argue and we
challenge. Often we remain swamped.
My request to be aware of the way terms are couched and
ideas projected stems from the overwhelming impression
that much of the content on this list assumes without
question or awareness sets of value systems which not
all of us share.
Yes, we are all different and yes there are of course
internal differences with the US. However there is a
certain impression created that there is no considered
or conscious awareness of difference.
Eric Siegel requested an example. The recent debate on
the list (and elsewhere) on the Smithsonian's proposed
exhibition on the use of nuclear weapons on Japan in
1945 is a case in point.
The debate was important because it covered issues of
control and representation of ideas, history and social
values. It included matters relating to the role of
government in institutions, the political influences of
interest groups and much more.
But the way the debate was conducted, the history being
represented focussed on the US. The US was constantly
the standard against which all else was defined. Where,
for example was the discussion about the role of the
other Pacific allies, the people of Asia, the people of
the Pacific Islands, the global context of the war? It
seemed that the terms of the debate were confined to
that of US nationalism and this was shared equally by
the proponents and opponents of intervention by the
Smithsonian heirachy.
It seemed hard to enter the debate on any other terms
than those already dominating the exchanges. Sometimes
it's easier to let things go by rather than constantly
challenging other's ideology.
This post has become overly long! Thanks for your
patience.
Roger Garland
Manager Public Programs
National Museum of Australia
[log in to unmask]
|