Dear David,

I also do hate (distaste, reject, don't like, will never agree with, think
it is stupid, simple and naive to emphasise) "political correctness",
because it is, as you, David, say, it is a possibility to suppress opinions
and censor meanings, ideas, threads to different ways of thinking. It seems
to evolve into something weakening, diminishing, dumbfounding,
indoctrinating etc.

BUT: You know, it also can help you to think (or being sensible, thoughtful)
before you embarrass someone or a group which has been embarrassed through
centuries etc. BUT: it should not be considered as a simple principle or law
to be obeyed. It can only serve as means to think before indeliberately
offending. But I do condemn those over-sensitive groups which shout out
crying after each violation of "political correctness. This is terror and
censorship. I try not to hurt anybody, but I also try not to be hurt just by
the wrong words.

"Are we afraid 'visitors' can't think for themselves?" - is a good question.
I also do like the remark on the notion that "splendour" was the key word of
the discussion.

BUT: What kind of visitor target group does a museum attract with the title
"Splendour of Uniforms of the Second World War (OR Vietnam, Arlington,
Habsburg empire etc.)", with
"Uniforms for Holocaust" or with
"Uniform Producing Companies during II.World War"?

Those target group exist without doubt. Most of the Americans visiting
Bavaria or Austria would like to visit the tomb of Hitler! As they do in
Obersalzberg in Bavaria ("the Alpine fortress") and Berlin and Braunau, his
birthplace. Paying for it! If his body would be on display, this venue would
become a fortune. - (So far: We don't have a task in culture.)

A good theatre (or movie) shows dramatic stories with personalities who do
not at all resemble us in a simple way (Hamlet, Romeo, Julia, Don Quixote,
Scarlett O'Hara). But these figures and their stories MOVE us, they force us
to contemplate about our properties, about our souls, emotions, ideas. They
do not try to avoid us. They do not try to state: This is the cloth Hamlet
wore, made of sheep wool, washed, dyed etc.

That is what culture is all about: values, emotions, thoughts, involvement -
and not cowardice.

What is a museum: a (coward) institution just playing its conserving role or
leaping into life? An institution concerned with moths in uniforms or
displaying the human role and character?
An honoured institution like the IRS or the CIA? A lively house like an
opera, a theatre, a good book or movie?
In many museum conferences the museum managers make their point in "playing
a role within the community or within an interracial community", standing
against nuclear weapons (ICOM 1995) or being against the Bosnian or Serbian
war. They want to "educate the public", "bring forth scientific knowledge"
and so on. Just words, when it comes to a simple conflict on how to display
objects like uniforms - or Egyptian mummies? Or a mission statement to be
fulfilled?.

A museum can decide on what side it is on - as every human being can make
this decision. But, it/he/she will be judged for this decision.

Yours,
Peter, the Rebernik

PS: David, I agree with you: I think it is wonderful to discuss all those
things around the world. LONG LIVE THE INTERNET!

+---------------------------------------------------
 | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
 | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
 | Anton Baumgartnerstr. 44/C2/3/2; A-1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
 | Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375; Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
 | Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
 | E-Mail: [log in to unmask]; Web: http://www.rebernik.at
+------------------------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: DavidH5994 <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Datum: Montag, 18. Mai 1998 12:22
Betreff: Threads of History


>I read the lively exchange of messages about military uniforms with great
>interest and discomfort, and have gone to the trouble of printing them out
and
>saving them, thinking they might be useful for some future project,
currently
>undefined and nebulous.  I think they are important and have much to say
about
>the symbolism of objects, the mission(s) of museums, the uses of history
and
>historical artifacts, and, not least, the power of words.  I hope you all
will
>indulge me in expressing some thoughts about uniforms and this debate
before
>the threads unravel.
>
>I think some of the statements say a great deal about the fact that many
>museum people are not happy unless all their museum colleagues subscribe to
>the same uniform (pardon the expression) social agenda with which they want
to
>indoctrinate their viewers; they condemn "old-fashioned" museum displays
>which, by failing to deconstruct "splendid" objects (i.e., negatively
analyze
>them), seem to imply approval.  In the case of military uniforms, they seem
to
>fear that unless the museum explicitly reminds the viewer that war is bad,
he
>or she will conclude that war must be splendid because it occasions such
>splendid uniforms.  I wonder if perhaps we sometimes don't give museum
>visitors enough credit: are we afraid they can't think for themselves?
>
>A word about words: I have a feeling that this sometimes heated exchange
might
>never have occurred if the original announcement had not contained that
potent
>word "splendor."  Much of the debate concenns that single word.  Next,
>consider the ancillary discussion of political correctness.  To the extent
>that "political correctness" refers to wars over words, that assertion was
>accurate, objections notwithstanding.  It is clear that in some circles the
>use of the word "splendor" in connection with anything military is
considered
>politically incorrect.  While "political correctness" is a contemporary
>phrase, referring derisively to a perception of the prevailing climate of
>opinion, I suggest that political correctness is an ancient attitude.
Among
>the Nazis it would have been politically incorrect to suggest that Jews and
>Gypsies could be worthy human beings.  Political correctness implies
>reductive, agenda-driven values.  It is entirely natural that those accused
of
>holding reductive, agenda-driven ideas chafe at being stereotyped.
>Accusations and counter-accusations fly back and forth.  Museum
exhibitions,
>such as the Smithsonian's originally proposed Enola Gay display, imply or
>accuse historical figures of having an unwholesome political or social
agenda,
>and are in turn accused of having a warped revisionist agenda.
>
>Meanwhile, the historical artifacts themselves stand--or hang--mute, unable
to
>speak for themselves.  Factions tug at them, seeking to manipulate them to
fit
>one agenda or another.  Ideas and ideologies are like uniforms: however
>similar, one size does not fit all.  There is something to be said for
those
>old-fashioned, context-starved exhibitions with simple labels containing
>nothing but notes on makers, materials, and provenance (bearing in mind the
>fact that the mere act of selection and sequence of artifacts for display
>embodies an implicit idea, viewpoint, or agenda).  The viewer was supposed
to
>supply the context and interpretation, including personal prejudices, likes
>and dislikes, rather than being TOLD what to think about the objects and
their
>meaning..
>
>References have been made to the variety of contexts within which objects
can
>be read, and I heartily second that notion.  While "war" is an obvious
context
>for military uniforms, it is just as obviously not the only one possible.
In
>fact, it is a facile, superficial, knee-jerk reaction.  "Uniform" does not
>equal "war," nor does it equal male agression or domination.  People seem
to
>be reacting to the concept of "military," not "uniform."  Do the uniforms
of
>the United States Marine Band signify war to the same degree and in the
same
>way battle fatigues do?  I don't think so.  How about quasi-military
uniforms
>like those of the Salvation Army or the U.S. surgeon-general?  I don't
think
>so (I suggest a re-reading of Shaw's "Major Barbara" to suggest additional
>contexts).
>
>A few of the writers said museums "must," "should," or "shouldn't" do
certain
>things with their artifacts, which I find troubling.  I believe in academic
>and curatorial freedom, and I grow weary of hearing critics make
>pronouncements about what museums should or shouldn't do with their
artifacts,
>how they should or shouldn't display them, and what they should or
shouldn't
>say about them.  Too often, the claim that a museum "must" or "should"
supply
>"context" seems to mean that it should satisfy the critic's particular
>predetermined agenda.  I reject the notion that a museum "must" supply the
>context of war and killing in its display of military uniforms.
>
>On the other hand, I certainly would not oppose an exhibition which would
seek
>to demythologize war by showing bullet-riddled artifacts and bloodied
>uniforms, as the first (over)reaction proposed--as long as they're the
"real"
>thing (are there ghoulish curators who collect and preserve such
items?)--but
>I think artifically doctoring real uniforms in good condition might
wouldn't
>fit standard museum ethics.  Moreover, museum representations of death and
>carnage are probably unnecessary: television, movies, and even sensational
wax
>museum exhibits have educated us well, thank you.  You'd have to live a
pretty
>sheltered life nowadays not to know in advance that war is hell.  What's
wrong
>with a glorious or "splendid" exhibition of uniforms which would help to
>suggest how militarism can seem attractive and seductive?  That, it seems
to
>me, would be a challenging and educational exhibition.  To show only
carnage
>is to re-state the obvious.  I can think of other contexts in which to
display
>uniforms, some positive, some negative, some neutral.
>
>Over the centuries, much blood has been shed by armies who didn't wear
>uniforms at all, and I don't mean just naked Celts (although I suppose one
>could argue that nudity was their unifying emblem).  Recently I watched the
>French film "Queen Margot" and its description of the St. Bartholomew's Day
>massacre, and no one seemed to require a uniform to do a very effective job
of
>butchering his perceived enemies.  Now if you want to argue that uniforms
and
>all the insignia of rank and status that go with them help to make armies
more
>effective, precise fighting machines, I'm sure that's a valid theory, but I
>think a book would be a better medium for telling that story than a museum
>exhibition.
>
>I am personally opposed to war and killing, indeed totally opposed to
capital
>punishment under any and all circumstances--yet I am fully appreciative of
the
>power of the symbols of militarism and heroic ideals to rouse passions, and
I
>admit to taking delight in some of these--er--splendid symbols.
>
>So shoot me.
>
>--David Haberstich
>