Now this thread is getting a bit ridiculous.  No matter how one feels about the military and warfare one should not try to poison the presence of artifacts with personal political emotions.  If you want to make such a statement then pursue it as an artist rather than as a museum professional dedicated to using artifacts as educational tools.  

The truth is that the human species, like a zillion other species, has abundant aggressive tendencies to ensure survival.  50,000 years or so of organized human culture is a relatively short time on the biological clock - so aggression, murder, and mayhem will continue to be part of the human story. Military uniforms are only symbols of the Nation-State, but there have always been all sorts of manner of ways of marking warriors in tribal societies - tattoos, paint, costume, et.al.

I personally find it amazing that, in the face of perhaps one of the most aggressive centuries on record, that there have also been mass non-violent movements which have altered cultural consciousness - such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, and numerous others. 

Perhaps I am reacting so strongly about this is because that I am in the middle of reading Guns, Germs, and Steel .  It strikes me that to denigrate military artifacts is a form of cultural denial, and to further hold these things up as symbols of male dominance seems to me to be political revisionism run amok.  Maybe I a mistaken here - but hasn't warfare occurred within matrilineal societies too?  Haven't armies been given their orders by Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and Margaret Thatcher?

Just a few thoughts and opinions entirely my own.

Cheers!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From:   Heleanor Feltham [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Wednesday, May 13, 1998 3:33 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Military uniforms artifacts/politics

Unlike fertilizer (interesting choice, so much of it is bullshit), military
uniforms do not exist outside the context of armed aggression.  Their style
deconstructs into quite blatant political statement - some governments
historically have preferred uniforms that look magnificent and identify your
side from the enemy, but provide little or no protection  - like the red
coats worn in the Sudan campaign which actually turned soldiers into very
visible targets - others prefer uniforms designed to actively promote
efficient carnage, like the best camouflage battle-dress.  Parade uniforms
celebrate victories.  And as for armour, and all those endless Renaissance
portraits of nobles wearing their grotesque fantasies of violence, it
reflects whole congeries of male dominance games.  How can you separate
military uniform out from its purpose?  Would you consider an SS officer's
outfit 'a-political' just because it was a nice design?  Few if any
artifacts of any kind exist outside a social context, and that includes a
web-work of politics.

Heleanor Feltham
[log in to unmask]