THREAD CONCERNING DISSEMINATION OF PRAVDA REPORT ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ AND IT'S IMPACT ON CULTURAL PROPERTY
Dear Museum Security Network subscribers,
This morning I forwarded a Pravda report about the Iraq war impact on
cultural property. Some of you - most luckily only a few - reacted
outraged and decided to leave our mailinglist. I cannot, nor want to
influence individual's decision to leave our list. At the same time I
refuse to have my decision to forward reports about incidents with
cultural property influenced by the dislike of some of our 2800
subscribers. As soon as I have my moderator's activities influenced
by the possibility that individual subscribers oppose certain
information this list service will become very unimportant and
boring. It just is impossible to satisfy everybody's emotionally
motivated needs for and acceptance of information. However, I do
understand all emotions generated by this war. In my opinion the
strength of our (not just mine) mailinglist is based on the choice to
disseminate challenging information. I cherish this option most
dearly. The MSNM is not another CNN, NBC, BBC, or Pravda news
service, but an information source that has the courage to present
contradictory views. I love this and will keep doing this
notwithstanding the fact that unsubscribe messages always disappoint
me. I am convinced that (most of) our subscribes are intelligent
enough to make a clever choice between political motivated or
objective information. I refuse to make this choice for you. It is up
to you individually to ignore or accept 'information' as it is your
individual decision to stay on this list or leave. Those of you who
live in a political system that allows freedom of speech must realize
how fortunate you are. Those of you who do not have the great fortune
to live in such a wonderful system can always trust my sympathy and
enduring effort to keep you informed via our free service.
Please do realize that leaving this list because of information you
do not want to read comes very close to a refusal to disseminate
opinions you do not like. One day your opinion might be subject of
unwanted censorship. We must fight this threat.
Ton Cremers
On 26 Mar 2003 at 14:53, George Schwartz wrote:
Ton,
You may candy coat it as you may like, the Pravda piece uses
inflamatory language and it goes beyond reporting the impact on
cultural property. You exercised poor judgement in passing it on
verbatim. It is not the content that offends, but the vitriol of the
language. It is pure venom and not news reporting. It has no place in a
list like yours.
I appreciate the fine job you do, but I also came very close to
unsubscribing, like many others I'm sure, but figured that you are
entitled to your point of view, even if I don't happen to share it.
George Schwartz
One correction: the Pravda report in no way reflects my point of
view. I really hoped MSNM subscribers would be able to understand
this without my comments.
best regards
Ton Cremers
Dear Subscribers,
Today some 20 very emotional and critical messages reached me about
the Pravda report I forwarded this morning, and about as many
supportive ones. In my opinion everything that can be said about this
matter has been said. Connie Lowenthal's message below is the last
one I will put on the mailinglist. I do not expect that expressing my
hope that this war will be over soon will offend any of you.
Ton Cremers
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Send reply to: clowenthal@nyc.rr.com
From: "Connie Lowenthal" clowenthal@nyc.rr.com
Date sent: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:17:52 -0500
Dear Ton,
This American finds it extremely interesting to read any published
account of how the war in Iraq is affecting cultural sites there.
This is a war in a new media age. We here in the US receive, hear,
read many different accounts of what is going on in Iraq. There is
almost too much coverage it seems - but not too much if you have a
relative or friend in the armed services there.
Not all reporters give us the same information. Some of them change
their stories later, when they get better information.
So we have a choice - read anything we want (and watch the television
a lot) or wait until a definitive account can be told. I think most
people are getting a lot of information when it is fresh; we realize
it may not be 100% accurate.
The protection (or non-protection) of cultural property in times of
war is a subject that I think interests MSN subscribers.
I hope you will continue to provide these accounts.
Connie Lowenthal
in New York City
On 27 Mar 2003 at 7:31, @LIST7830.PML wrote:
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:13:33 +0000 (GMT)
From: P Boylan P.Boylan@city.ac.uk
To: Museum Security Network securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: PROTEST AT YOUR SHUTTING DOWN OF THE EXCHANGE ABOUT YOUR POSTING OF
THE PRESS REPORT FROM PRAVDA
Dear Ton,
I am sure that I speak from very many Museum security Network subscribers
outside the Western Hemisphere in being very concerned at the timing of
your decision to shut down discussion on the posting of today's article in
Pravda reporting that two museums have been hit by allied bombing in
Baghdad.
Because of the time zone differences I am sure that very few subscribers
in Europe, let alone Asia or the Pacific region will have been able to
take part in this exchange before it was closed down following the 20 or
so protests - presumably most or all from North, Central or South America
- judging by the transmission times recorded in the headers of the e-mails
that you circulated.
I seems to me that the issue should have been kept open to enable those
outside North America to take part in the discussion, rather than appear
- I am sure not deliberately - to be taking sides on an issue that is
clearly central to the long-established role of the Museum security
Network.
In relation to the original article, the claim in Pravda (which
incidentally has been independent of government since the fall of the
Soviet Union), whether true or not, was news to me - even though I'm doing
the cultural monitoring of the Iraq conflict and post-war recovery for the
World Bank-based Development Gateway website on the topic at
http://www.developmentgateway.org/iraq/. (I am also continuing with this
role for UNESCO and the International Committee of the Blue Shield as I
have done for over 12 years, receiving and trying to evaluate in excess of
20,000 e-mails from all points of view on various conflicts over the
period.)
Best wishes - and no hard feelings despite my complaint!
Patrick Boylan
(City University London/Development Gateway, World Bank, Washington DC)
Patrick Boylan is right about his above comments
.
Discussion is reopend (just for today) and only for comments that
show new views.
Ton Cremers
Dear Ton,
I understand the difficulties inherent in your really fine service
and sympathise with the frustration you must feel when people choose
to censor what you disseminate by threatening to leave the list. When
I read the Russian report on the Baghdad Museum, I thought that it
was of interest, surely, to anyone who finds the protection of
cultural property important. It also informed me that the alleged
"bombing" would provide conveniently good cover for the Museum's
Director, Mr. Al-Takriti (a cousin, one might think, of Saddam, since
they are part of the same clan), when he reports that its contents,
previously reported on MSN to have been boxed up, presumably, to be
ready for shipment, have instead "disappeared" in the bombing's
aftermath. None of us should be surprised if Baghdad Museum items
turn up on the art market after this conflict is over. No doubt they
will be providing for someone's comfortable retirement in exile. I
would have never gotten this valuable information from anyone but
you. Thanks. Again, thanks for your work, Ton. I appreciate it
greatly.
Christopher Seal
Date sent: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:48:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Lyndsey Bauer klyndsey@yahoo.com
Subject: Pravda
To: securma@xs4all.nl
People have good reason to be upset these days - it's wonderful that
everyone feels so strongly and is speaking up. Be upset & be vocal
but take care not to denounce vehicles which allow your voice to be
heard. I can not imagine why people are responding in a forum that
they themselves have deemed inappropriate for political discussion
nor can I fathom why people feel that the Pravda discussion is
inappropriate in this forum. How can art lovers and art professionals
claim that destruction of art and of museums are not relevant to Art
Security? And why is this an issue now when I saw no complaints
arising from mailings of stories of the Taliban's destruction of
Buddhist art? We can't have it both ways - we can not assume
contradictory moralities as a matter of convenience. If you are upset
that life and art and history are being destroyed - be upset & be
vocal & don't destroy in return - don't shoot the messenger. There's
enough shooting going on elsewhere. Neither Mr. Cremers nor the
Security Network took responsibility for the information written by
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY / PRAVDA.Ru any more than they take
responsibility for any of the related responses or for someone's
choice of security camera, or for someone else experience on the
night watch at some museum. Perhaps the Security Network should adopt
a standard disclaimer similar to NPR when airing opinions. To Mr.
Bruners point, " ...that the "Mailinglist make no representations or
warranties of any kind with respect to it's website and mailinglist
or its contents" then you must realize that the list could be used to
say ANYTHING. Is this really your position? Can I use your forum to
propagate lies ...? Would you let such statement go out to the
mailinglist? I hope not, even if people really believed them. " The
answer to each count is YES, and you can check your first amendment
for the reason why. You can actually check several recent US District
Court Cases which uphold Freedom of Speech on the Internet & anti
censorship laws. You could also go to any supermarket check out line
& pick up a tabloid for further evidence that free speech doesn't
require 100% honesty. Honesty and belief are up to you. What
differentiates this newsletter and makes it great is that people
don't abuse it with lies and unrelated topics are filtered. So Mr.
Bruner your fictitious thieving director story will have to go to the
AP, unless it was art that he "stole". The Pravda piece to me
represented clearly unsubstantiated opinion. That opinion included a
representation that Iraqi's are Anti-American, anti-Rumsfeld and I'm
sure that's right. Iraqi's are likely to be against seeing their
cultural history, their city, their home and their families rained
upon with bombs & fire in what seems to be an unfounded act of
(largely unsupported) aggression. Art and porn will continue to be
created, there will be "sin" and innocence, war and peace, people
will have opinions, tell the truth and tell lies. Be proud that
you've got the right to make a choice about what to look at it, what
to hear and what to say. Censorship is suppression and willful
omission is a form of suppression. Mr. Cremers please continue to
treat us as interested adults. Bring it on.
Send reply to: "sharron" ripleybb@bacchusmarsh.net.au
From: "sharron" ripleybb@bacchusmarsh.net.au
To: "museum-security \(FTP\)" museum-
security@bsd1.nedport.net
Subject: Re: my comments, not for inclusion on the network
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:35:44 +1100
Ton,
I too am very unhappy with this situation.
Perhaps you do not fully realise just how truly insensitive and
inflamatory the wording of the article you picked up was in terms of
its use of English language. (While I am limited to just this one,
often confusing and sometimes frustrating language, my husband speaks
German, Japanese, Dutch and a couple of other languages and often
complains at how English words which should translate in one way,
take on such strong emotion when used in other ways.) This could have
been part of the problem.
You say that everyone should know you are simply printing things that
are sent to you, and therefore you do not edit or censor them, and
that it is right to run the site in that way. But, as was pointed
out by others, you would not include pornography, just because it was
sent to you, and you would not knowingly include lies just because
someone sent it to you.
So the argument that you included this article which had been
deliberately written in a manner to cause offense, simply because it
was sent to you, fails to carry weight.
And to then defend publishing it as something that you simply printed
because it was given to you, and that people should know it is not
your view, as other have pointed out, not an adequate response.
I do not know your opinion of the current situation. You do not know
mine. We should not know each other's opinions because it is not
relevant to the museum security network and what it does.
The basic fact is that something offensive was printed on your site
today (the fact that graphically obscene words were not used per se
does not make the language used in the way it was any less
offensive). I do not know if the facts of the story are correct or
not. The point is, that it was presented in an intended and
deliberately offensive way and was picked up and reprinted on your
site.
Ton, I am not juding the integrity of your work on one message. You
have done a very good job of supplying useful and valuable
information over the years, which is why I have always been ready to
support you. But it is important for you, too, to be tolerant of
others, and to acknowledge when something has gone amiss. Perhaps
the hardest part of having made a bad decision is recognising that
fact and acknowledging it. It happens.
There will be many more subscribers who read through your posting who
will be annoyed, or disappointed, or angry, but they will not contact
you. Life goes on. There will be some readers who find what you did
amusing...good luck to them. I am one of the ones who felt sad that
such material would be included.
Sharron
Date sent: 27 Mar 03 09:38:41 -0500
From: Jane Long jlong@heritagepreservation.org
Subject: RE:
To: securma securma@xs4all.nl
Send reply to: Jane Long jlong@heritagepreservation.org
Dear Ton,
Thank you for sharing the thoughtful comments you have forwarded from
Mr. Seale. I have no doubt that you have heard and will hear a great
many opinions about the Pravda article and your choice to run it.
You are right to follow Patrick Boylan's good advice and reopen the
discussion for a limited time, although it will be a strain on you to
manage all the additional comments. You do good work, and those of us
who have followed MSN over the years appreciate your tireless search
for relevant information.
Best regards,
Jane
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Museum security?
To: "Ton Cremers" securma@xs4all.nl
From: Keith_Wickens@pch.gc.ca
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:27:11 -0500
I sent one to another American as well, Ton. My contribution is
reallly summed up as:
In today's outspoken world, it is hard to determine whether it is
better to have only news managed by someone else, or all news and
manage it ourselves.
--------------------- Forwarded by Keith Wickens/HullOttawa/PCH/CA on
03/27/2003 09:25 AM ---------------------------
Keith Wickens
03/27/2003 09:14 AM
To: vbruner@ameritech.net
cc:
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Museum security? (Document link: Keith
Wickens)
Hi Vincent. We do not know each other. As a Museum Security
subscriber for some time, and speaking in purely a personal capacity,
I confess I agree with you to a certain extent, but not entirely, and
not in principle. To quote one voice that kindled the American
Revolution (Voltaire), "I do not agree with your opinions, but I will
fight to the death for your right to entertain them". So I filter
out some messages and judge the source, on the principle that they
are someone else's perspective which I don't share, and knowing there
are many postings that are well worth it. Moreover, it is probably a
good idea, having international dealings, to know what the prejudices
and problems I might run up against. Remember that our diplomats
call travelling exhibitions from allied states "public diplomacy",
but from enemy states it's "propaganda".
You have a right to be upset. As a Canadian I know about
miscommunication and selective news editing. The American press
focuses closely on Canadian foreign policy announcements that are
less than clear even to us, without mentioning that apparently most
of the entire Canadian Navy is in the Gulf escorting US supply ships,
Canadian communications specialists are "assigned" to US units
operating the AWACS system over Baghdad, Canadian troops are
"assigned" to the British 7th Armoured fighting in Basra, and our
engineers are working in your units, notably the 3rd Division. Nor do
I recall seeing our closest ally's newspapers reporting the surge of
Canadian troops in Afghanistan to free up American soldiers, or that
Canada has assumed full Command of the multinational naval task force
patrolling the Gulf and Arabian sea.
In today's outspoken world, it is hard to determine whether it is
better to have only news managed by someone else, or all news and
manage it ourselves. Including, I suppose, this e-mail message. All
the best in your museum endeavours.
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:25:18 -0500
From: don & patricia dpalumbo1@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Ton,You hit it right on the head.Keep up the good work, Don P
----- Original Message -----
From: "Museum Security Network" securma@xs4all.nl
To: "don & patricia" dpalumbo1@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
On 26 Mar 2003 at 19:56, don & patricia wrote:
What ever happened to Freedom of speech???????/ Don Palumbo
Don,
War evokes emotions that are stronger than reason.
Ton
From: "Larry Rankine" lrankine@biltmore.com
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Useful Idiots
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:03:34 -0500
You can remove me from your mailing list. Mr. Biernat of the
Milwaukee Art Museum is absolutely correct in his assessment of the
Museum Security mailing list. If you're going to allow obviously
slanted, prejudiced and unenlightened opinion into the list I have no
further use for it.
Lawrence R. Rankine
Director of Security & Police Services
The Biltmore Companies
Dear XXXX
I have decided to forward your message anonymously to protect you
against the kind of aggression I have been confronted with the past
24 hours. Since you are in the USA, and most of the unpleasant mails
reached me from your country I do not want people to be able to trace
you in person.
Ton Cremers
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:27:11 -0800
Dear Ton Cremers,
You are doing a splendid job with the mailing list. I am very glad
to know that you will stand firm on your commitment to disseminate
industry related information from a wide range of sources. I applaud
your courage, particularly when faced with subscribers who arrogantly
demand that you bend to their political will. We Americans seem
hellbent on insisting that we're the Boss of the World these days.
The subscribers that have written in to condemn your moderation fit
nicely into the face that America is showing the rest of the world.
We have become ugly and hated, and for good reason, as the sentiments
expressed by some former subscribers so aptly exemplify. It truly
feels like we're living in '30s Germany here in the U.S. these days.
Since you're in the Netherlands, you have no idea how closely
controlled the U.S. media has become. The disgruntled former MSN
subscribers wanted to try and control your mailing list in a similar
fashion; why not, since our cultural values seem to be heading in the
direction of telling everyone else in the world what to do and say.
Thank goodness for the Museum Security Network Mailinglist. It
provides items I'll never see anywhere in mainstream U.S.
publications.
Long live the MSNM, free from censorship!
Best wishes and many thanks,
XXXX
San Francisco, California, U.S.A. -
From: "David Hewett" dhewett@adelphia.net
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:14:26 -0500
Mr.Cremers,
by all means keep including all the news in your reports to us. I'm
one of the editors of a national monthly antiques magazine (Maine
Antique Digest) and we face the same criticism frequently. Readers
applaud when we write of the record-breaking auctions, the successful
shows, the great objects in collections, but become angry when we
tell of the fakes on the market, the auctioneers who rip off the
consignors, and write about the more seamy side of the business.
Quite frankly, reports first published by you have led to stories
we've eventually published. We continually urge museums that suffer
robberies to contact you and go public. If there is a problem with
national (and international) press coverage regarding museums and the
objects therein, it's a lack of such coverage, not too much.
Intelligent readers are able to discern the political bias behind
reports from certain sources and ignore that bias. But those readers
do need to be able to read the report.
Keep reporting.
David Hewett, Contributing Editor, Maine Antique Digest
Subject: RE: final on Pravda etc...
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:10:33 -0600
From: steve@menil.org
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Ton,
I agree with the others that your e-mail list was not a proper forum
for political opinions. Allowing political comment changes the
function of the list completely. I agree with Vincent Bruner that it
has nothing to do with censorship. I think you have to make a choice.
You have to decide if want a political forum or a professional
Security mailing list.
I also appreciate your work. Thanks for that.
Steve McConathy
Send reply to: "Werner Hillebrecht" Whillebrecht@mec.gov.na
From: "Werner Hillebrecht" whillebrecht@mec.gov.na
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: reopened discussion
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:30:41 +0200
Organization: National Library of Namibia
Dear Ton Cremers
Thank you for bringing the Pravda piece, even if it is maybe just
propanda. The knee-jerk reaction of some subscribers is rather
telling about the state of mind which made this war happen, although
I had not expected it in the museum community. Museum Security
Network is invaluable because of its universal approach.
Werner Hillebrecht - National Archives of Namibia
P/Bag 13250, Windhoek, Namibia
tel.+264-61-2935215, fax 2935217
whillebrecht@mec.gov.na
Send reply to: stlsty@joslyn.org
From: "stlsty" stlsty@joslyn.org
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: RE: final on Pravda etc...
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:20:20 -0600
Dear Ton,
Sure my jaws got a bit tight when I read the Pravda piece, but I
didn't assume that you agreed or disagreed with its message. I guess
some subscribers haven't heard the old cliche about not killing the
messenger. I still treasure this mailinglist and my gratitude to you
for sticking with it is undiminished.
Steve Tlsty
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:10:10 -0500
To: securma@xs4all.nl
From: Claude Miles cdmiles@uky.edu
Subject: Re: reopened discussion
Mr. Cremers,
First let me say that I think the mailing list is wonderful and that
I cannot imagine circumstances which would lead me to unsubscribe.
However, I would like to clarify some things. Number One: The UN
Security Council unanimously approved a resolution in November
calling for "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to disarm. The fact
that the member countries did not continue to support this resolution
after inspections failed does not reverse the need for "serious
consequences". Indeed such wavering on the part of the Security
Council just undermines the overall effectiveness of the UN. Number
Two: the usage of the word terrorism as attributed to the actions of
the USA is a gross injustice to victims of actual terrorism (see
9/11/1). Number Three: Saddam Hussein has employed "vietnam style"
gorilla terrorist tactics in the "defense" of his country. Not the
least among which is hiding weapons in palaces that also contain
works of cultural heritage. This man employs Human Shields, do we
really think that he cares about endangering his nation's cultural
treasures just to buy a few more days of brutal reign over the Iraqi
people? He has authorized fake surrenders in order to ambush
Coalition forces. He uses Coalition uniforms to trick the "weak"
members of his army into surrendering to fake Coalition forces and
then kills those who surrender therby eliminating "weak" soldiers.
His actions are despicable and we will see more of them as the war
goes on. I hope the war is over soon for the sake of the Iraqi's and
their cultural heritage, but it takes what it takes to remove a
dictator, and until this is done none of the archeological or
cultural objects of Iraq will be safe.
Thank You for providing this Wonderful Forum,
Claude Miles
Chief of Museum Security
University of Kentucky Art Museum
From: David Brancaleone davidbrancaleone@lootedart.com
To: "'vbruner@ameritech.net'" vbruner@ameritech.net
Copies to: "'Museum Security Network'" securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: RE: news and views
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:21:41 -0000
Dear Vincent Bruner
By unsubscribing you are making sure to receive (and believe) only
our Western news coverage. Yes, perhaps it is best not to know what
atrocities are beign committed in our name.
David Brancaleone
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:59:55 +0100
From: paola paolague@libero.it
Send reply to: paola paolague@libero.it
To: toncremers@museum-security.org
Subject: Pravda etc...
Keywords:
Hi Ton!
I'm a Museum Security Network's subscriber.
Thank you for your 360° information!
Go on in this way! I'm with you (and I'm very sorrow for my bad
english!!!!).
Paola Guerriero, restorer, Italy
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:52:41 -0800
To: securma@xs4all.nl
From: froschheim@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: reopened discussion
At 7:52 AM +01003/27/03, Museum Security Network wrote
Patrick Boylan is right about his comments below.
Discussion is reopend (just for today) and only for comments that
show new views.
Ton Cremers
Dear Mr Cremers,
Since you have re-opened this topic for new views, I would like to
comment.
When I read the Pravda article, I (an American) was slightly offended
by the use of highly charged words to describe the US lead side of
this conflict. It was not news to me that these two sites had been
targeted. That fact was widely publicized in press and media on the
day(s) following the strikes. Certainly the Iraqi government and
press mentioned it. (In fact, with fewer "loaded" words than the
Pravda article.) I ignored the offence because I had expected nothing
different from the quoted source (Pravda).
I was much more concerned that you had chosen that specific article,
rather than one of the other articles I assume are/were available to
you as a practiced user of the Internet. I certainly found several.
The news of two building complexes, each containing some buildings
housing museum artifacts, being targeted by missiles was a fair
answer to your subs criber's question. Your choice of one of the more
inflammatory articles to provide a "view" into what other parts of
the world were saying APPEARED, to me, to have been a comment on your
part of APPEARANT agreement with the inflammatory nature of the
article (i.e. a political comment).
In the past you have been very careful to publish what is sent to you
by various parties to conflict and controversy without endorsement.
It was a strong factor in your defence of the recent law suit. It is
a strong valuable feature of the MSN.
The difference between your publishing a letter from a Chinese, or
Serbian, or Peruvian, or Greek, or British, et cetera source involves
those articles being sent TO MSN. In the instant discussion, the
article was CHOSEN BY YOU from the many available. Because of that
CHOISE some will see the article as a statement of APPEARANT bias on
your part.
Underlying this all is the fact that the US lead forces appear to
have targeted buildings in the two complexes mentioned and some of
the museum use buildings suffered some damage. I expect that the US
believed that there were MILITARY TARGETS at the receiving end of
their weapons. Otherwise why waste a million US dollar per shot
weapon on a target that would not effect the war?? From recent news
reports, both before and after the military campaign started, it
seems that the Iraqi side may have allowed various sites to be used
for military and paramilitary purposes specifically because the sites
would be immune from attack due to cultural, religious, medical or
other humanitarian reasons. Maybe the US belief was justified, maybe
not. That decision will have to wait for review of facts and factors
not currently in the public view.
In conclusion, I regret that you chose the Pravda article to
illustrate your reply. To me, it appeared, and still appears, to have
been a departure from your previous position and conduct. I will
continue to read the MSN e-mail discussion group, but would hope that
you can re-establish your previous status as an unbiased conduit for
news and comment regarding all aspects of museum security, and dispel
the fears of some subscribers that you will allow MSN to become
politicized.
Hoping that this matter is soon behind us all,
Charles Alderson
Palm Springs, California, USA
From: Sergio Tinč sergio@tine.it
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: final on Pravda etc...
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:53:48 +0100
Dear Tom,
Your sentence:
"Those of you who live in a political system that allows freedom of
speech must realize how fortunate you are. Those of you who do not
have the great fortune to live in such a wonderful system can always
trust my sympathy and enduring effort to keep you informed via our
free service"
From: "LX Polastron" polastron@noos.fr
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Cultural destructions in Irak
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:40:35 +0100
Thank you for posting news about these archaeological and cultural
destructions (especially by an illegal war), it's very useful for my
research and next book. I will more than obviously include your site
in my bibliography.
Yours,
Lucien X. Polastron
Journalist and writer
From: "Jos van Beurden" jos.vanbeurden@inter.nl.net
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:30:00 +0100
Dear Ton
It is not unexpected that the Pravda message aroused indignation with
some of the MSN subscribers. It is very unfortunate that some of them
will no longer be with us. Maybe they could have send in reports
about how blue shield sites and other important heritage places are
being respected by the parties involved in the war.
We all know that truth is the frist victim in a war. Not all
information always pleases our ears, but it is very useful to get to
know it.
Ton, I strongly support you in your policy. Please, go on,
Jos van Beurden, the Netherlands
research journalist
From: "Adams-Graf, Diane" diane.adams-graf@mnhs.org
To: "'toncremers@museum-security.org'" toncremers@museum-security.org
Subject: Thank you
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:56:57 -0600
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate expression in explaining the
purpose of the list and responses to it.
Diane L. Adams-Graf
Project Specialist, Museum Collections
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. West
St. Paul, MN 55102-1906
651-297-8095, 651-297-2967 (fax)
www.mnhs.org
Dear Ton--
If you wish to publish a contrasting perspective on the actions of US forces
in relation to antiquities in the current conflict in Iraq, here is a
well-written piece by a Jerusalem Post reporter as reprinted in the Wall
Street Journal. I would not dispute your right to print the Pravda article,
not would I consider unsubscribing from the Museum Security Mailing list
because you did, but if your editorial net is broad enough to include the
Pravda piece, surely it is broad enough to include perspectives like this
one as well.
By CAROLINE B. GLICK
Wall Street Journal
March 27, 2003
Voices questioning the wisdom of the U.S.-led operation against Saddam
Hussein's dictatorship charge it will cause the reckless destruction of
Iraq's cultural heritage. Is the U.S. taking sufficient care to spare Iraq's
treasures? Does the Gulf War provide any guidance? And why are the people
now accusing the U.S. making no mention of Saddam's uses of archaeological
sites as military shields then?
Millennia ago, Iraq was the cradle of civilization, hence the concern about
its cultural and archaeological sites. Yet the laws of warfare make clear
that while combatants may not target such sites, if they are used for
military purposes they lose their protection. Legally, therefore, the burden
to protect these sites falls most heavily on Saddam's regime. If Saddam used
them to shelter his forces or hide his armaments they would legally become
military targets.
Unfortunately, at the CENTCOM briefing yesterday, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks
disclosed that the Iraqis had placed military equipment and communications
equipment next to the 2,000-year-old brick arch of Ctesiphon on the banks of
the Tigris River, the world's largest surviving arch from ancient times and
the widest single-span arch in the world.
This is history repeating itself. In early February 1991, for example,
Saddam parked MiG fighter jets at a Babylonian ziggurat at Ur to deter
coalition forces from disabling them during the Gulf War. By Nineveh, the
ancient capital of the Assyrian empire, he built air bases and weapons
factories. According to archaeological scholars from the University of
Chicago, an 80-foot mound containing many ruins of ancient Nineveh also
housed an oil storage tank. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam used the site
for anti-aircraft batteries because it was the most elevated spot in the
area.
The French-built Osirak nuclear reactor, which the Israelis destroyed in
1981, was built adjacent to the Ctesiphon arch.
Erbil is one of the world's longest-inhabited cities. Ruins from its first
settlements are more than 6,000 years old. Saddam built several military
installations near the site.
In February 1991, the Pentagon contacted Robert McC. Adams, then secretary
of the Smithsonian Institution and a scholar of ancient Iraq, to help
identify important archaeological sites to safeguard them from bombing. Even
earlier Colin Powell made it clear that U.S. pilots were told to steer clear
of antiquities.
Prof. Paul Zimansky, a Boston University archaeologist critical of U.S.
bombing in the Gulf War due to its endangerment of antiquities, visited Iraq
after the war and said that the damage turned out to be minor. Another
initial critic of the bombing campaign, Prof. McGuire Gibson of the
University of Chicago, allowed in 1993, "The U.S. Air Force went out of its
way not to hit certain places."
In contrast, at the height of the bombing campaign the Pentagon produced
aerial photographs of the Al-Basrah mosque. They showed clearly that the
Iraqis had destroyed the mosque for propaganda purposes. While coalition
forces had bombed a target some 100 yards away, leaving the mosque
unscathed, Iraqi engineers sliced off the dome in the hope of duping
journalists that the U.S. had been responsible for the destruction.
The U.S., over the past decade, has amassed an arsenal of precision bombs
and weaponry. The risk of archaeological devastation is even smaller than in
1991. Besides, says retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Aharon Levran, the current
war "will be less bombing intensive because the aim is . . . to eject Saddam
Hussein from Iraq and remain on. If the U.S. were to rely on bombing
civilian infrastructures like refineries or electrical grids, they would be
shooting themselves in the foot."
The coalition is also dropping leaflets stressing its desire to preserve
religious and cultural sites but warning that it will destroy "any viable
military target."
The strongest argument that antiwar archaeology experts make is that the
chaos that may reign in a post-Saddam Iraq will probably make it harder to
safeguard archaeological sites and museums . This contention may be
reasonable. But an operation aimed at deposing Saddam because he constitutes
a clear and present danger to global security cannot be canceled because a
successor regime may commit or not prevent the commission of a crime of
another kind.
Rather than opposing a war that stands to liberate Iraqi archaeology from
exploitation and destruction by a self-serving dictator who has destroyed
and endangered Iraqi antiquities for decades, concerned archaeologists
should be advising the U.S. on how best to preserve our ancient roots in a
post-Saddam Iraq.
Ms. Glick, the deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, is an embedded
reporter with the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division in Iraq.
Erik Ledbetter
Project Manager
Nazi-Era Provenance Internet Portal
American Association of Museums
1575 Eye St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
|V| 202.289.9121 |F| 202.289.6578
Mr. Cremers,
Thought you might like to read my thought in response to the message sent by Mr. Wilkins. I think you might want to examine my points in light of your own comment that "[w]ar evokes emotions that are stronger than reason" - I suspect that applies to both sides of the debate.
Again, thanks for your hard work on the mailinglist.
Vincent Bruner
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Museum security?
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:17:30 -0600
From: Vincent Bruner
Reply-To: vbruner@ameritech.net
To: Keith_Wickens@pch.gc.ca
References:
Mr. Wilkins,
I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me; it only confirms my suspicion that there are many thoughtful subscribers to the Museum Security Mailinglist.
Your point about the value of different perspectives is well taken. I agree that it is better to be exposed to many opinions, including those that are offensive and repugnant, than to listen only to those voices that agree with you. I would argue that if my views can't withstand the an examination from opposing viewpoints then they probably aren't well thought out.
My message to Mr. Cremers, however, was less about including the article from Pravda and more about the justification he offered - that to not do so would be censorship. I must confess, I still find this line of argument to be very weak. That same logic would compel the inclusion of any message on the mailinglist, including the rather outrageous examples I mentioned in my message. I do not believe for a second that Mr. Cremers would include those types of messages, nor do I think he should. But if that is this case I would like someone to explain to me why we should read Pravda's take on the Iraq War and not Neo-Nazis' take on the return of looted Jewish art. Is it censorship to not publish what Neo-Nazis think? If it is the principle of the free exchange of ideas that compelled Mr. Cremers to include the article from Pravda (without explanatory context), then he should be prepared to use that same standard for everything else that arrives in his in-box. To do otherwise would mean he is not acting out of principle.
Or course, Mr. Cremers does not include every article about cultural protection and security in the mailinglist, he chooses what to include. This makes sense to me. So this begs the question: how does Mr. Cremers go about selecting what to send out to the mailinglist? I do not know, but I suspect he uses his best judgment to select items that would be of general interest and usefulness to the subscribers. Again, I have no problem with this, even when it includes controversial issues - including an article from Pravda. But this is not the same as saying notions of free speech *require* the inclusion of a certain perspective.
I do not want to impugn Mr. Cremers motives, but when he says he included the article to provide "insight" I am a little skeptical. He did not provide any context at all, instead he presented it in the same manner as everything else. Compare this to how he has dealt with other controversial issues.
In the message to the mailinglist on 2/23/03 Mr. Cremers included a "moderator's comment" about Neil MacGregor's insistence that the British Museum would never return the Elgin Marbles - Mr. Cremers wrote the MacGregor should be "ashamed of himself." In a message on 3/6/03 Mr. Cremers included a "comment" that directed readers to other sources of information about Peruvian artifacts in American museums. Whatever a person's position on these issues, Mr. Cremers seemed to feel that HE needed to provide additional information. Why are we intelligent enough to decide for ourselves what, if anything, to believe from Pravda, but not when it comes to the Elgin Marbles or Peruvian statues?
Again, let me emphasize that I do not have a problem with editorial comments from the moderator of the mailinglist - that's his prerogative. But it is certainly curious that only some controversial issues warrant a comment and others don't. Isn't it obvious that it would be inflammatory to include articles that refer to the American government as terrorists? But there was no context given. Do you really think there would have been such a torrent of responses if Mr. Cremers had included a little innocuous line like: "here is a press account from Russia on the bombing of Baghdad?" I doubt it. The fact that Mr. Cremers was turned to the "other views" defense only after being called to task doesn't help. It smells of an attempt to justify his decision after the fact, especially when compared to his past behavior.
I enjoy the Museum Security mailinglist and I hope it continues to provide useful and interesting information, controversies included. But I cannot abide listening to faulty defenses that are not consistent and strain the bounds of logic. What pains me is that in trying to come up with a defense for including the article from Pravda Mr. Cremers has abandoned any notion of responsibility for content - all in the cause of a rather faulty (in my view) conception of censorship.
Sorry for the length of this message, but I feel that it is important to be as clear as possible and I'm not a good enough writer to accomplish that with fewer words. Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts.
Vincent Bruner
Keith_Wickens@pch.gc.ca wrote:
Hi Vincent. We do not know each other. As a Museum Security subscriber for some time, and speaking in purely a personal capacity, I confess I agree with you to a certain extent, but not entirely, and not in principle. To quote one voice that kindled the American Revolution (Voltaire), "I do not agree with your opinions, but I will fight to the death for your right to entertain them". So I filter out some messages and judge the source, on the principle that they are someone else's perspective which I don't share, and knowing there are many postings that are well worth it. Moreover, it is probably a good idea, having international dealings, to know what the prejudices and problems I might run up against. Remember that our diplomats call travelling exhibitions from allied states "public diplomacy", but from enemy states it's "propaganda".
You have a right to be upset. As a Canadian I know about miscommunication and selective news editing. The American press focuses closely on Canadian foreign policy announcements that are less than clear even to us, without mentioning that apparently most of the entire Canadian Navy is in the Gulf escorting US supply ships, Canadian communications specialists are "assigned" to US units operating the AWACS system over Baghdad, Canadian troops are "assigned" to the British 7th Armoured fighting in Basra, and our engineers are working in your units, notably the 3rd Division. Nor do I recall seeing our closest ally's newspapers reporting the surge of Canadian troops in Afghanistan to free up American soldiers, or that Canada has assumed full Command of the multinational naval task force patrolling the Gulf and Arabian sea.
In today's outspoken world, it is hard to determine whether it is better to have only news managed by someone else, or all news and manage it ourselves. Including, I suppose, this e-mail message. All the best in your museum endeavours.
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:52:32 -0500
From: Michael Botwinick
Subject: RE: Recent posting
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Send reply to: mbotwinick@hrm.org
Dear Ton,
Can you bear one more exchange on this issue? I and everyone else on the list knew for certain that you in no way approved of the any part of the Pravda posting. We all have come to rely on your courage in addressing very tough issues, and why I will support your decisions without reservation.
The point I was trying to make was quite different. This is a list that deals with Museum Security issues in the largest possible sense. We have come to rely on you to present a very wide range of perspectives on these issues. We have learned to hear a very wide range of points of view on these issues. We rely on you to help us confront uncomfortable truths that are often being spoken by people that we would otherwise shut our ears too.
We must expect (no, we must have) a list with a variety of points of view on the issues as they relate to the preservation of cultural heritage in war zones, conflict zones, closed societies and open societies. And when we want to hear different voices on issues of national patrimony we will log on.
The posting in question did not represent a serious view of the issues of cultural heritage. It may have indeed been a very different political perception of the motives or beliefs of Donald Rumsfeld or the administration. For that perspective, I go to Lists other than Museum Security Network. Museum Security Network does not bring us the wide world of political perceptions. The posting was political and rhetorical and had nothing to do at all with the survival of Iraq's heritage, and everything to do with the writer's perception of the motives and culpability of the american administration. That belongs on a list devoted to world politics, or even a list devoted to the misdeeds of America, but not Museum Security Network. The issue never was whether you personally support this, or any other posting. The issue is that even if you judged it to be a perfectly valid snapshot of what some people are writing...at the end of the day that article was not relevant to the purpose of MSN.
I look forward to more and more serious information about the challenges that lie ahead in a part of the world where so much significant world heritage lies, and where so few of the principle actors on any side really care.
Sincerely,
Michael Botwinick
P.S. This is really a note from me to you. I do not think that this extended colloquy should burden the list.
Cheers, MB
**************************************
Michael Botwinick
Director
The Hudson River Museum
511 Wilburton Ave
Yonkers, NY 10701
914.963.4550
914.963.8558 fax
****************************************
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:15:03 -0800
From: Daniel VanArsdale barnowl@silcom.com
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
Hello,
It is my opinion not repeating the Pravda article is something like
censorship. If you do not repeat it verbatum, then it becomes your own
opinion, as modified. Bombing from aircraft in large scale, a practice in my
opinion initiated by the Japanese in the 1930's, against much global protest
(in the US many deemed it dishonorable conduct), I think by definition is
likely to impact cultural heritage. With the sorts of bombs used now, I
consider it very likely even undiscovered buried cultural heritage could be
damaged. It is good to hear different sides of any story, and it seems to me
in this
war it is very hard to find any unbiased sources.
Best Wishes,
Alan Van Arsdale (California)
From: "Duncan Kinder" duncan@neoclassicists.net
Subject: Re: subscribers' opinions about MSNM and Pravda report
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:50:12 -0500
Speaking as a member of this list whose email box was temporarily down when
it came out and hence missed the now famous "Pravda report," please allow me
to register the following points.
1) This list is routinely filled with political items such as the Elgin
marbles controversy, etc.
2) I tend to ignore these items or to lightly scan them, since their content
becomes obvious after a brief glance and they generally fail to inform me of
anything about which I had previously been unaware..
3) Accordingly, I probably would have given the Pravda report a brief glance
over and then moved on.
4) However, this massive flap over the now famous Pravda report intrigues
me. The flare-up suggests to me that it must contain something significant
besides the usual political cant Accordingly, I would like to read it.
From: alexander.rich@ars.aon.co.uk
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:17:06 +0000
I would be grateful if you could un-subscribe me immediately.
I have no opinion about the recent e-mail exchanges about the Iraq war on
the museum security database. However, since I work in the fine art
insurance industry I seem to be a rather busier than most curators and
journalists. Since they've got so much time on their hands and can type
reams of e-mails - they've started clogging up my inbox which is already
full.
Many thanks for taking me off.
I'm happy for you to use the contents of this e-mail to let anyone know
what effect that this whole ridiculous correspondence is having
I may re-subscribe when I'm not so busy and the war is over!
Please do not include my name or email address in this note. While I'm not
afraid to partake in a debate, I don't want anyone to think that I speak for
my organization, my profession, or my country. I only speak for myself - as
a fully formed independent human.
For two days now I've resisted weighing in on this discussion over the
Pravda article, but now I'll do so quickly.
Has anyone on this list done any research to either corroborate or prove
false the Pravda news item? I read Mr. Boylan's message and was intrigued
that in his professional positions he had not heard about it. Nor have I
heard about it. Is the story true? If it is true - then why aren't there
further postings about it? Where was the museum? What was in it? What was
damaged? Usually on this site we get many articles about each issue - where
are the other articles about this one? I'm rather shocked that we would be
at this point without anyone sure of the truth of the story. I sincerely
want to know what happened.
I also wonder what so many of these postings from either side have to do
with museum security? I don't think anyone is asking for censorship -
otherwise we wouldn't be participating in a forum on the internet. But is
this discussion about war and its effect on museum security - or just a
vehicle to cast one's vote for or against the current conflict? Is it
possible to turn this debate more on topic with the website? When I want to
read about politics or sports or even the war in Iraq, I head to my favorite
and most trusted spots on the internet. When I want information about
museum security, I come here. If there are pertinent areas - such as the
bombing of a museum in Iraq - then by all means, I want to read about it
here. But I don't want to read debates over the legitimacy or illegitimacy
of a conflict here. Again, I don't feel that this is censorship - just
filtering for a narrowly defined website.
That said, keep up the good work Ton. I think you do an amazing job. I
also value MSM, with all its people and their various points of view.
XXXX
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:01:22 -0500
From: "Susan Bagley" sbagley@risd.edu
Subject: Re: subscribers' opinions about MSNM and Pravda report
Ton,
My concern in reading the Pravda article printed on MSN is by placing
it on the website you have given validity to an inflamed political
opinion. The statement by Lucien X. Postian that he will be referencing
this site as a supporter of that anti-US rhetoric in his next book is an
example of how the article will be taken out of context to support a
position this network (I certainly hope) had no intention of
supporting.
As a member of the US Military I have recently spent 7 months away from
my family and civilian life to defend America's freedoms. I truly
believe in freedom of speech enough to sacrifice my personal freedoms to
allow others theirs. I just don't think the MSN should publish articles
that are easily identified as unreliable and inflammatory. In this
instance there are a wealth of news stories on this subject available to
provide the information without the drama.
Sincerely,
Susan H. Bagley
RISD Museum
sbagley@risd.edu
401 454 6508
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:16:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Carla Beth Price cb_price@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: reopened discussion
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Dear Ton and Fellow Subscribers:
Here's a reality check for those who elected to unsubscribe from your services.
I am a thirty-two year old college student, graduating this spring with a B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies. This is my first college degree, and I anticipate graduating summa cum laude. Upon completion of my degree, I will continue my museum internship in a securities capacity, assembling a detailed report on security issues as they pertain to the needs and concerns of this museum. I will also return for a second bachelor's degree -- a dual degree in Criminology and Art History -- while I research graduate programs. Here is why I feel your subscribers should care ...
My degrees and combined interest in law, criminology, and art history, is unique at my small university in my small town. A recovered math major, I opted for a more worldly, self-created degree that would enable me to draw from a multitude of experiences, interests, view points, and educational sources. Many of my professors don't know what to make of me, with my varied class selections, math scholarship (how does that apply to art history, they wonder), and willingness to entertain ALL ideologies/beliefs as they pertain to an enlightened world view.
Though fairly new to your web site, Ton, I feel that active participation in the international community of security and museum professionals is the next logical step in my self-education. And this is precisely why I found the Pravda news article so incredibly applicable and useful in my research. As a U.S. citizen, I appreciate the strong reaction this article generated in your subscribers. Yet I find it rather disturbing that these people seem incapable of appreciating the significance and applicability of differing world views to the field of cultural property theft and destruction. Which triggers the following question ... How can an established working professional isolate museum security and cultural property issues/concerns from the broader local/national/global situation in which those issues/concerns are embedded?
From the perspective of a small town American dreamer (with high career ambitions), you are wrapping yourself in a tightly wound and narrow little world when you opt to exclude varying view points and sources of information, no matter how unwelcome those view points and sources may be. For example ... Allied attacks on Bhagdad are considered to be "terrorist" attacks by numerous groups/nations around the globe. This sentiment is shared by throngs of people right here in the U.S. Yet there are also common threads that many of us share, and one of those threads is concern for Iraq's cultural property, which includes the Bhagdad museum.
To attempt to extract and isolate from news sources ONLY those details that pertain to the museum's survival (or destruction) is an impossibility during a time of war. If you are to remain informed and to maintain high academic standards, you must give fair consideration to the CONTEXT of your information sources. (Naturally, this includes U.S. media sources, as well.) Perhaps this is why Ton elected to send us the Pravda article in its entirety. Here is something I doubt you are aware of ... I emailed Ton my request for ANY information he might have on how the Bhagdad museum is faring. His first response (paraphrased) was, "I honestly don't know right now." And then he followed that up with the Pravda news article, which I immediately thanked him for.
Do you feel that my appreciation for this article makes me a naive, uninformed, Socialist, or however else you choose to frame it? And do you feel that Ton is directly engaging in a political battle with his subscribers by sending it our way? What if the news source was The New York Times or a London newspaper? The politics are inevitable, unavoidable, especially during a time of war, regardless of the source, the framing, the agenda. Granted, the Pravda article strongly framed the war, yet isn't that really a matter of perspective? Are you aware of the pro-war sentimentality of most mainstream U.S. news sources? You simply CANNOT escape politics/framing/agenda. I therefore thank Ton, once again, for the Pravda news article and for his obvious committment to this international museum security network he created.
I'm out of steam (thank God, you're saying). I'll leave it at that. :o)
Sincerely,
Carla Price
Small Town, U.S.A.
From: RVHorth1@msn.com
Subject: Re: subscribers' opinions about MSNM and Pravda report
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:51:20 -0800
Mr. Cremers,
I must admit... I read the listings somewhat blankly each day, and never
really thought about where they were coming from other than the bylines your
attribute to each article. I never really thought about responding to the
content of the articles other than to invest myself with more knowledge
which may or may not be helpful on any given day.
I am one of those people who read works which I disagree with
specifically so that I am aware of what I disagree with. I read "Mein
Kampf", so that I could more easily debate the topic. How are we to disagree
with something if we are unaware of the other side. The Creationism
argument. "Das Kapital". Nietzsche. Etc.
Right or wrong, I enjoy the fact that you inspired debate. We, in the US
have become so immune to debate that we scarcely understand it's relevance
now, lest you are a member of a congressional committee. We need to have the
sort of information lent to us by the PRAVDA article specifically so that we
know what the rest of the world is saying. Regardless of our own biases and
allegiances, you must be able to internalize information and disseminate it
for your self.
I appreciate you having included the PRAVDA in the last email. And I do
not question your ideas for doing it; nor do I question your opinion on it.
You made people THINK. And is that not what we are in Art for?
Best regards,
Reed Van Horth
Historian and Researcher,
Collection Privee de Peinture et de Sculpture.
Miami Beach, Florida
From: "Goldsmith, Robert" GOLDSMITH@frick.org
Subject: RE: reopened discussion
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:03:08 -0500
Sorry, I've been away and am late getting to this discussion. Well, here's
my two bits, whether the forum remains open or not:
God forbid that Americans should be exposed to any perspective other than
the party line promulgated by the White House! To oppose the sharing of
different perspectives, even if they are inflammatory, strikes me as just
the sort of repression the U.S. purports to oppose.
Okay, so the Pravda piece is biased. Let's credit our fellow readers with
the intelligence to discern that and accept or reject the position taken by
the author on their own. No one needs to do the censoring for us. Does
anyone honestly think that reporting by the American press is entirely
value-neutral? If so, why not create one national newspaper and one TV
station to report the news and have done with it? The Bill of Rights of the
US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and freedom of the
press; and I, for one, think we are better off for the diversity of ideas
and opinions that this permits.
Keep up the good work Ton. I may not agree with you all the time, but I
cannot question your sincerity, honest motivation, or your commitment to
providing an open forum from which we all benefit.
Robert Goldsmith
New York, NY
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:52:45 -0500
From: Stephen Jones Stephen.Jones@yale.edu
Subject: Fwd: Pravda news and unsubscribe messages
Dear Ton,
You have stated your views clearly and I support your approach to the
list. What we want from the list is timely reporting of relevant issues
concerning the impact on the global cultural heritage due to natural or
man-made factors. We all have the freedom to subscribe and
unsubscribe. We are free to delete messages and personal statements that
do not hold our interest or with which we disagree. Additionally, I fail
to see any contribution by subscribers airing personal views at large on
the list.
Best regards,
Steve Jones
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:15:17 -0800
To: securma@xs4all.nl
From: froschheim@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: reopened discussion
At 10:37 AM +01003/27/03, securma@xs4all.nl wrote
Believe it or not: I did not choose from several articles, but this one
was the only one that reached me.
Thank you for your feedback!
Ton
==================
Ton,
You are welcome for the feedback. I accept your comment about lack
of choice. I am just a bit surprise by it though.
I did a Google search for "Peace+palace+Baghdad" and
"Flower+palace+Baghdad" and got several 1000 references. I am
including a few from the first pages so you can see why I expected
that you had seen the other coverage. I did not include the pravda
reference as I expect that you have that.
Thank you for allowing this to be further discussed on the open MSN.
Hopefully, we are all learning form this and MSN will emerge an even
more useful resource in the future.
Charles Alderson
Date sent: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:24:37 -0900
To: securma@xs4all.nl
From: Ken Deroux ken_deroux@eed.state.ak.us
Subject: Pravda thread
I fully support the posting of the Pravda piece on the museum bombing. If
someone knows of additional sources for more information on the truth of
the claim, I invite them to post them. As we all know, during war, there is
a lot of misinformation as well as a lack of information. We should
understand the context this is occuring in, including the context of
intensified emotions.
With regard to the claim that including such biased commentary would open
the door to unfounded claims by anyone (such as neo-Nazis) I would just
remind everyone that Pravda is a major newspaper of a major nation. The
fact that it expresses such bias is significant and different than a bias
expressed by some special interest group. The validity of all our bias'
will be hard-tested in the near future.
Has the security network posted this link? It's from the Sydney Morning
Herald and is a photo of damage to the museum in Tikrit. Granted, it's
Saddam's home town. http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2003/03/23/1048354462161.html
Ton, thanks for all the work you do.
Kenneth DeRoux
Curator of Museum Services
Alaska State Museum
395 Whittier Street
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 465-2396
FAX: (907) 465-2976
ken_deroux@eed.state.ak.us
www.museums.state.ak.us
From: Jessica V Jessica.Volpe@ArtLoss.com
To: toncremers@museum-security.org
Subject:
Date sent: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:39:57 -0000
Dear Mr. Cremers,
Your list is an invaluable resource for those of us in the Art Trade and
with any interest in Museum Security.
I commend your dedication to the site, especially as you are not paid.
All these people who have unsubscribed because of the Pravda report are
narrowminded and clearly wish to be spoon fed with politically correct
information, rather than see various points of view and make up their own
mind. Those who cannot disseminate between an valuable open forum for ideas
and a censored one should take note!