Name Change Proposal, Lisbon Minutes and Next Steps
2 posts | Page 1 of 1
Name Change Proposal, Lisbon Minutes and Next Steps
by caroledignard on Mon May 14, 2012 2:12 pm
Name Change Proposal: Lisbon Business Meeting Discussion, and Next Steps
by Carole Dignard
This posting is to bring the membership up to date with the question of the WG’s possible Name change. In last summer’s survey (First Consultation), members proposed over twenty potential names worth exploring, and rated them as ‘Good, Acceptable, Poor, Not Acceptable, and as well ranked them as First to Fifth preferred choices. Almost 40% of the membership replied to the survey, an excellent turn-out. The full survey results, including an in-depth analysis complete with pie charts and tables, were published in last September’s Newsletter #33, available here: http://www.icom-cc.org/54/document/ethn ... 1/?id=1007 (or, contact me). A clear result was that a majority of members (70%) agreed to change the WG’s name. Not yet clear though, was which name to choose, although a few common themes and a few names appeared as front-runners: (1) a name that includes the term 'Indigenous' (or similar qualifier), such as WG on Indigenous Collections or WG on Indigenous and Local Cultural Materials; or (2) a name that refers to a objects from a diversity of cultures, such as WG on Objects from World Cultures.
I presented the full results of the First Consultation at our WG’s Business Meeting during the Lisbon Triennial Conference last fall, and gathered feedback and comments from all. The meeting’s Minutes are provided further below. Lisbon also gave me and several of the Name Committee members present an opportunity to informally ‘gauge’ how people felt on this issue. From what I gathered, people were happy with the democratic way that this discussion is taking place. The consensus seemed to be that no straightforward or perfect solution exists due to the complexity of the issues, and that rather than extending the discussions on and on, members felt inclined to move forward towards focussing the discussion more narrowly and achieving a decision. Several asked for a narrower, more focussed set of choices (recall that in the last newsletter #33 article, as in my Lisbon presentation, there were about a dozen names that remained within top contenders).
The follow-up tasks for the Name Committee has been to develop a shorter selection of names with rationale and justification, building on discussions with the membership and the results of the First Consultation – and in particular, the two main themes identified (above) in the Consultation. I shall be sending you shortly, more information on the Committee’s findings and next steps. We will also be defining at our WG’s aims and vision, and Criteria in selecting a WG Name, in view of assisting us in articulating a possible alternative WG Name that best reflects our work and approach.
Minutes, Name Change Discussion, WG on Ethnographic Collections’ Business Meeting
Sept. 22, 2011, 17:20 – 18:00; ICOM-CC Triennial Conference, Lisbon, Portugal
Attendees: Carole Dignard (CO), and Name Committee Members Farideh Fekrsanati (also ACO), Monika Harter (also ACO), Catherine Smith, Ellen Pearlstein (new committee member); approximately 30 conference delegates (WG members and non-members).
Preamble: The following represents the minutes, with edits, of the Business Meeting’s discussion on the Name Change Proposal, which took place during the ICOM-CC Triennial Conference, in Lisbon, Portugal, as compiled by Monika Harter, Farideh Fekrsanati and myself. Rather than being an exact transcript, these minutes provide a short, paraphrased summary of the discussions and include some post-meeting clarifications. Apologies to attendees if there are any mistakes, simplifications or omissions in our attempts to summarize the core views that were expressed. We would like to invite all to send comments, additions, clarifications, etc, via our WG’s communication tools, to continue the discussions onward with the full membership.
Carole Dignard (CD) discussed the survey results (as published to the membership in the last newsletter); a hard copy of the Powerpoint was available to attendees. CD confirmed that she will continue to chair the Name Committee for another 6 months, by which time we hope that there will be a conclusion. CD asked for comments and suggestions, and opened the discussion to the floor.
Andrew Thorn: How will the decision on the name change be made, through what kind of vote?
Response CD: The ultimate decision resides with the ICOM-CC Board of Directors, who will base their decision on a report and recommendation from the WG Coordinator. The WG Coordinator will write up this recommendation in consultation with the membership and the Name Committee. Currently we are at a stage where the membership has expressed their views that the name should be changed (2 to 1 in favor) but we have not yet identified the best replacement name. Two likely name clusters have been identified: ‘indigenous’ and ‘culture’ (e.g. ‘world cultures’). That is, there is the option to have a name that specificly includes the term ‘indigenous’, such as ‘WG on Indigenous Collections’; or a name that includes all cultures, such as ‘WG on Objects from World Cultures’. Our next steps will examine these issues further. Our next steps propose that we would discuss names based on their meanings with advantages and disadvantages, and how they reflect our WG aims and vision.
Bella Zurcher: Proposed to include ‘rural’ in a new WG name, based on a conference recently attended on wooden furniture where one of the subject matters was rural furniture.
Gael de Guichen (GdG): The question of a better name was first raised in Madrid in 1972. George-Henri Rivière insisted not to use neither the word ‘object’ nor ‘materials’ but rather, ‘collections’, as we are part of ICOM (International Council of Museums) which deals mainly with museums, and museums are collecting institutions, i.e. repositories of objects that have been collected, that are selected to be preserved because of their value or meaning. A collection is more than the sum of individual objects.The term ‘collection’ would thus refer to the role and value or meaning of the objects we work with, within a collecting institution framework. Proposed to go for a name that is (1) first and foremost, simple, and (2) that uses the term ‘collections’ . Generally speaking if the name of an institution, a working group, an association contains more then 3 or 4 words people tends to drop it and use a nickname (and no one knows what it means, i.e. ICCROM).
Andrew Thorn: Stated that (as a private practitioner) he works with indigenous people, not with collections, but agrees with Gael de Guichen that the ‘collection’ aspect is important, not the ‘material’ aspect. Proposes to consult with indigenous people to get feedback regarding a name that includes ‘indigenous collections’.
Ellen Pearlstein: Emphasized the importance to get the ‘descriptive’ adjective in the new WG name right. The name needs to clearly distinguish the WG from the other WGs, and maybe describe a form or way of practise rather than a material speciality. (Additional notes from EP: I am torn between having the WG name describe the materials or collections encompassed by the WG, and describing a consultative way of working. In the end I think that many conservators—at least those who have access to living cultures, i.e. conservators of contemporary art in all media—and conservators who have access to cultural descendants, are working consultatively. It then remains important for the WG to have a title distinguishable from other WG’s, which means we need to describe the materials or collections. Given that local communities have different preferences for this language, no one term is a panacea. I think ‘indigenous’ has good precedent as it is self-identified term used within UNESCO to reference knowledge, language, intangible and tangible culture, etc. While UNESCO is not exempt from political decision making, the years of consideration applied to formulate The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People referenced many of the issues of colonization included in our WG’s discussion. The materials that are the focus of our WG are typically those that were collected by individuals and museums because they are manifestations of foreign or different cultural traditions and customs, which are specifically referred to as ‘indigenous’ within the UNESCO declaration. Further, members of our WG work to document, research, preserve, conserve and make accessible these materials. It seems to me that, while these activities may take place under the control of museums, if access is promoted then these activities align with one of the declaration’s fundamental goal to: “… maintain, protect and develop past, present and future manifestations of such cultures.”(http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61 ... 1-295.html)
John Scott (JS): A name that uses the term ‘indigenous’ is no improvement to using the term ‘ethnographic’. ‘Indigenous’ is very abstract and will not achieve any clarification. (Additional notes from JS: The term "indigenous" is very like "ethnographic" in that the terms allude either to conspicuous location (indigenous), or conspicuous representation and description (ethnographic), when modifying the collections we study and conserve. For this reason either term in our Working Group's name, could elicit the objection raised in Delhi. The objection to "ethnographic" was that the term deprecates the cultures and peoples from which collections are derived, especially with respect or in implied comparisons using values from cultures and peoples which colonize, collect from and examine other cultures. Inherent in this objection are preferences that one's own culture be neither depreciated with respect to other world cultures, nor judged by other cultures' value systems. Of course these are very understandable feelings, so of course those seem very reasonable requests. On the other hand, cultures indeed differ in important ways, ways that are important to the peoples of each culture. Culture-specific materials are important resources not only for identification, study and understanding of cultures by outsiders, but also very definitely for peoples' self-distinction, self-examination and self-understanding. Clearly we must carefully choose our cultural heritage distinctions. While the Delhi objection is legitimate and important, it is complex and perhaps not amenable to broadly satisfactory resolution.)
Student member: Stated that ‘world culture’ and ‘collections’ are concepts and that the term ‘objects’ represents a compromise between material and collections.
Response CD: Good point. As presented earlier, both ‘Objects’ and ‘Collections’ were terms discussed with the membership in emails, in the Discussion Paper and in the First Consultation. The outcome was that the membership opted in a general way for the term ‘collection’ rather than ‘object’. That said, I think that it is reasonable that ultimately the whole name (all the terms together) must be assessed as fitting.
John Scott: Will the discussion continue? Couldn’t a decision be made now?
Response CD: Making a decision now would not be fair to all those who are not here in Lisbon today.
Regien Geerke, freelance conservator: Stated that she does not always work on collections, but also on single objects.
Response CD: yes that is true for many. Thank you.
Stefan Michalski: An ethnographic collection in a museum context is not an indigenous collection, but a stolen collection. From a linguistic point of view the use of the term ‘indigenous’ for the WG is illogical, a collection is not ‘indigenous’. The objects themselves may be of Polish, Cree, etc origin; but the collection itself is not .
Response Regien Geerke: What do you suggest instead?
Response Stefan Michalski: It is not possible to address a large cultural issue through a name change.
Carole Dignard: Regarding the name change it has earlier been decided to consult with, but remain independent from, other groups that are using the term ‘ethnography’, such as e.g. ICOM’s International Committee for Museums of Ethnography (ICME) - ICME has in their name, the word ‘Ethnography and the ICME chair was invited to write up a text about this issue in one of our newsletters. There are many, many publications discussing this issue and this term, there was a list of useful references published in the First Discussion Paper, and myself as well as others no doubt, consulted many of them when forging thoughts on the issue. From what I see, there is no universally accepted consensus. A few museums have changed their names, omitting the term ‘ethnographic’, while many others have kept their the term that is part of their history. It is rare though that a recently-founded museum would use that term, I have not seen this. I think that we should continue to seek thoughts and advice on what others in the museum field, and stakeholders or community representatives, think on this issue, and that we as conservators should resolve our WG name change ourselves, coming up with a name that reflects who we are and what we do in this WG, based on our ethics and experience when working in the museum and dealing with communities.
Andrew Thorn: Is there a clear distribution of votes – of good names and bad names? The ‘best’ name will only be the least ‘bad’ name. The worst name will be the least ‘good’ name.
Response CD: The votes were distinct: people were asked to identify ‘good’ names, or ‘bad’ names, etc. A ‘good’ name did not mean ‘least bad’. People did not have to choose ‘good’ names if they did not think any were good. What I wanted to show in the survey results was that, among the names that got the most ‘good’ votes, these names also did not get a large number of dissenting, or ‘bad’ votes; to me this suggests that we are close and that there is a good possibility to rally a majority opinion over one of these names, or over a similar name variation. Please consult the survey results in the last Newsletter for the full details.
Response Farideh Fekrsanati: We are aware that it will not be possible to find a name that satisfies everyone. There was an extensive discussion within the name committee that is available to everyone who is interested (contact us, or CD, for a copy). The question regarding ‘indigenous’ is, what does it mean within the context of an international organization for conservators, who is ‘indigenous’. We need to discuss further what we want to achieve with a name change and to encourage everyone to participate in the discussion.
Gael de Guichen: You went through a democratic process and established the name that is the best and least ‘bad’. I would suggest to take a vote now as a first orientation of what people want. Otherwise the process will take much longer than 6 months.
Response CD: No, with all due respect, I would prefer not to, as this may give too much weight to the outcome of this vote which would be of only a small number of members. It would risk distorting the online discussions that will be carried out with the full membership after this conference. The survey results are at this point the most valid, representative, results.
Andrew Thorn: I would suggest: either remove the worst names and vote on those that remain, or vote on the two best names and include the option to keep the current name. At the end of this exercize, we need a final, clear vote: Do you want …such and such new name… or not -- the default being the old name?
Carole Dignard: I think that it is clear from you all, what I am gathering, is that you favour a shorter list of names to consider, based on the results of the First Consultation. I propose that the Name Committee focus on this and brings back to the membership a clearer set of Names, but also with rationale and justification. We need to make sure that the meaning of a Name fits our WG aims, approach and activities, and is well understood by everyone – we don’t want ambiguity. Yes your suggestion of a final ‘yes or no’ vote would be a clear way to finish, I agree.
Emily Kaplan: Whatever will be chosen will be informed by the political moment, so we may as well just go with something.
***
by Carole Dignard
This posting is to bring the membership up to date with the question of the WG’s possible Name change. In last summer’s survey (First Consultation), members proposed over twenty potential names worth exploring, and rated them as ‘Good, Acceptable, Poor, Not Acceptable, and as well ranked them as First to Fifth preferred choices. Almost 40% of the membership replied to the survey, an excellent turn-out. The full survey results, including an in-depth analysis complete with pie charts and tables, were published in last September’s Newsletter #33, available here: http://www.icom-cc.org/54/document/ethn ... 1/?id=1007 (or, contact me). A clear result was that a majority of members (70%) agreed to change the WG’s name. Not yet clear though, was which name to choose, although a few common themes and a few names appeared as front-runners: (1) a name that includes the term 'Indigenous' (or similar qualifier), such as WG on Indigenous Collections or WG on Indigenous and Local Cultural Materials; or (2) a name that refers to a objects from a diversity of cultures, such as WG on Objects from World Cultures.
I presented the full results of the First Consultation at our WG’s Business Meeting during the Lisbon Triennial Conference last fall, and gathered feedback and comments from all. The meeting’s Minutes are provided further below. Lisbon also gave me and several of the Name Committee members present an opportunity to informally ‘gauge’ how people felt on this issue. From what I gathered, people were happy with the democratic way that this discussion is taking place. The consensus seemed to be that no straightforward or perfect solution exists due to the complexity of the issues, and that rather than extending the discussions on and on, members felt inclined to move forward towards focussing the discussion more narrowly and achieving a decision. Several asked for a narrower, more focussed set of choices (recall that in the last newsletter #33 article, as in my Lisbon presentation, there were about a dozen names that remained within top contenders).
The follow-up tasks for the Name Committee has been to develop a shorter selection of names with rationale and justification, building on discussions with the membership and the results of the First Consultation – and in particular, the two main themes identified (above) in the Consultation. I shall be sending you shortly, more information on the Committee’s findings and next steps. We will also be defining at our WG’s aims and vision, and Criteria in selecting a WG Name, in view of assisting us in articulating a possible alternative WG Name that best reflects our work and approach.
Minutes, Name Change Discussion, WG on Ethnographic Collections’ Business Meeting
Sept. 22, 2011, 17:20 – 18:00; ICOM-CC Triennial Conference, Lisbon, Portugal
Attendees: Carole Dignard (CO), and Name Committee Members Farideh Fekrsanati (also ACO), Monika Harter (also ACO), Catherine Smith, Ellen Pearlstein (new committee member); approximately 30 conference delegates (WG members and non-members).
Preamble: The following represents the minutes, with edits, of the Business Meeting’s discussion on the Name Change Proposal, which took place during the ICOM-CC Triennial Conference, in Lisbon, Portugal, as compiled by Monika Harter, Farideh Fekrsanati and myself. Rather than being an exact transcript, these minutes provide a short, paraphrased summary of the discussions and include some post-meeting clarifications. Apologies to attendees if there are any mistakes, simplifications or omissions in our attempts to summarize the core views that were expressed. We would like to invite all to send comments, additions, clarifications, etc, via our WG’s communication tools, to continue the discussions onward with the full membership.
Carole Dignard (CD) discussed the survey results (as published to the membership in the last newsletter); a hard copy of the Powerpoint was available to attendees. CD confirmed that she will continue to chair the Name Committee for another 6 months, by which time we hope that there will be a conclusion. CD asked for comments and suggestions, and opened the discussion to the floor.
Andrew Thorn: How will the decision on the name change be made, through what kind of vote?
Response CD: The ultimate decision resides with the ICOM-CC Board of Directors, who will base their decision on a report and recommendation from the WG Coordinator. The WG Coordinator will write up this recommendation in consultation with the membership and the Name Committee. Currently we are at a stage where the membership has expressed their views that the name should be changed (2 to 1 in favor) but we have not yet identified the best replacement name. Two likely name clusters have been identified: ‘indigenous’ and ‘culture’ (e.g. ‘world cultures’). That is, there is the option to have a name that specificly includes the term ‘indigenous’, such as ‘WG on Indigenous Collections’; or a name that includes all cultures, such as ‘WG on Objects from World Cultures’. Our next steps will examine these issues further. Our next steps propose that we would discuss names based on their meanings with advantages and disadvantages, and how they reflect our WG aims and vision.
Bella Zurcher: Proposed to include ‘rural’ in a new WG name, based on a conference recently attended on wooden furniture where one of the subject matters was rural furniture.
Gael de Guichen (GdG): The question of a better name was first raised in Madrid in 1972. George-Henri Rivière insisted not to use neither the word ‘object’ nor ‘materials’ but rather, ‘collections’, as we are part of ICOM (International Council of Museums) which deals mainly with museums, and museums are collecting institutions, i.e. repositories of objects that have been collected, that are selected to be preserved because of their value or meaning. A collection is more than the sum of individual objects.The term ‘collection’ would thus refer to the role and value or meaning of the objects we work with, within a collecting institution framework. Proposed to go for a name that is (1) first and foremost, simple, and (2) that uses the term ‘collections’ . Generally speaking if the name of an institution, a working group, an association contains more then 3 or 4 words people tends to drop it and use a nickname (and no one knows what it means, i.e. ICCROM).
Andrew Thorn: Stated that (as a private practitioner) he works with indigenous people, not with collections, but agrees with Gael de Guichen that the ‘collection’ aspect is important, not the ‘material’ aspect. Proposes to consult with indigenous people to get feedback regarding a name that includes ‘indigenous collections’.
Ellen Pearlstein: Emphasized the importance to get the ‘descriptive’ adjective in the new WG name right. The name needs to clearly distinguish the WG from the other WGs, and maybe describe a form or way of practise rather than a material speciality. (Additional notes from EP: I am torn between having the WG name describe the materials or collections encompassed by the WG, and describing a consultative way of working. In the end I think that many conservators—at least those who have access to living cultures, i.e. conservators of contemporary art in all media—and conservators who have access to cultural descendants, are working consultatively. It then remains important for the WG to have a title distinguishable from other WG’s, which means we need to describe the materials or collections. Given that local communities have different preferences for this language, no one term is a panacea. I think ‘indigenous’ has good precedent as it is self-identified term used within UNESCO to reference knowledge, language, intangible and tangible culture, etc. While UNESCO is not exempt from political decision making, the years of consideration applied to formulate The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People referenced many of the issues of colonization included in our WG’s discussion. The materials that are the focus of our WG are typically those that were collected by individuals and museums because they are manifestations of foreign or different cultural traditions and customs, which are specifically referred to as ‘indigenous’ within the UNESCO declaration. Further, members of our WG work to document, research, preserve, conserve and make accessible these materials. It seems to me that, while these activities may take place under the control of museums, if access is promoted then these activities align with one of the declaration’s fundamental goal to: “… maintain, protect and develop past, present and future manifestations of such cultures.”(http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61 ... 1-295.html)
John Scott (JS): A name that uses the term ‘indigenous’ is no improvement to using the term ‘ethnographic’. ‘Indigenous’ is very abstract and will not achieve any clarification. (Additional notes from JS: The term "indigenous" is very like "ethnographic" in that the terms allude either to conspicuous location (indigenous), or conspicuous representation and description (ethnographic), when modifying the collections we study and conserve. For this reason either term in our Working Group's name, could elicit the objection raised in Delhi. The objection to "ethnographic" was that the term deprecates the cultures and peoples from which collections are derived, especially with respect or in implied comparisons using values from cultures and peoples which colonize, collect from and examine other cultures. Inherent in this objection are preferences that one's own culture be neither depreciated with respect to other world cultures, nor judged by other cultures' value systems. Of course these are very understandable feelings, so of course those seem very reasonable requests. On the other hand, cultures indeed differ in important ways, ways that are important to the peoples of each culture. Culture-specific materials are important resources not only for identification, study and understanding of cultures by outsiders, but also very definitely for peoples' self-distinction, self-examination and self-understanding. Clearly we must carefully choose our cultural heritage distinctions. While the Delhi objection is legitimate and important, it is complex and perhaps not amenable to broadly satisfactory resolution.)
Student member: Stated that ‘world culture’ and ‘collections’ are concepts and that the term ‘objects’ represents a compromise between material and collections.
Response CD: Good point. As presented earlier, both ‘Objects’ and ‘Collections’ were terms discussed with the membership in emails, in the Discussion Paper and in the First Consultation. The outcome was that the membership opted in a general way for the term ‘collection’ rather than ‘object’. That said, I think that it is reasonable that ultimately the whole name (all the terms together) must be assessed as fitting.
John Scott: Will the discussion continue? Couldn’t a decision be made now?
Response CD: Making a decision now would not be fair to all those who are not here in Lisbon today.
Regien Geerke, freelance conservator: Stated that she does not always work on collections, but also on single objects.
Response CD: yes that is true for many. Thank you.
Stefan Michalski: An ethnographic collection in a museum context is not an indigenous collection, but a stolen collection. From a linguistic point of view the use of the term ‘indigenous’ for the WG is illogical, a collection is not ‘indigenous’. The objects themselves may be of Polish, Cree, etc origin; but the collection itself is not .
Response Regien Geerke: What do you suggest instead?
Response Stefan Michalski: It is not possible to address a large cultural issue through a name change.
Carole Dignard: Regarding the name change it has earlier been decided to consult with, but remain independent from, other groups that are using the term ‘ethnography’, such as e.g. ICOM’s International Committee for Museums of Ethnography (ICME) - ICME has in their name, the word ‘Ethnography and the ICME chair was invited to write up a text about this issue in one of our newsletters. There are many, many publications discussing this issue and this term, there was a list of useful references published in the First Discussion Paper, and myself as well as others no doubt, consulted many of them when forging thoughts on the issue. From what I see, there is no universally accepted consensus. A few museums have changed their names, omitting the term ‘ethnographic’, while many others have kept their the term that is part of their history. It is rare though that a recently-founded museum would use that term, I have not seen this. I think that we should continue to seek thoughts and advice on what others in the museum field, and stakeholders or community representatives, think on this issue, and that we as conservators should resolve our WG name change ourselves, coming up with a name that reflects who we are and what we do in this WG, based on our ethics and experience when working in the museum and dealing with communities.
Andrew Thorn: Is there a clear distribution of votes – of good names and bad names? The ‘best’ name will only be the least ‘bad’ name. The worst name will be the least ‘good’ name.
Response CD: The votes were distinct: people were asked to identify ‘good’ names, or ‘bad’ names, etc. A ‘good’ name did not mean ‘least bad’. People did not have to choose ‘good’ names if they did not think any were good. What I wanted to show in the survey results was that, among the names that got the most ‘good’ votes, these names also did not get a large number of dissenting, or ‘bad’ votes; to me this suggests that we are close and that there is a good possibility to rally a majority opinion over one of these names, or over a similar name variation. Please consult the survey results in the last Newsletter for the full details.
Response Farideh Fekrsanati: We are aware that it will not be possible to find a name that satisfies everyone. There was an extensive discussion within the name committee that is available to everyone who is interested (contact us, or CD, for a copy). The question regarding ‘indigenous’ is, what does it mean within the context of an international organization for conservators, who is ‘indigenous’. We need to discuss further what we want to achieve with a name change and to encourage everyone to participate in the discussion.
Gael de Guichen: You went through a democratic process and established the name that is the best and least ‘bad’. I would suggest to take a vote now as a first orientation of what people want. Otherwise the process will take much longer than 6 months.
Response CD: No, with all due respect, I would prefer not to, as this may give too much weight to the outcome of this vote which would be of only a small number of members. It would risk distorting the online discussions that will be carried out with the full membership after this conference. The survey results are at this point the most valid, representative, results.
Andrew Thorn: I would suggest: either remove the worst names and vote on those that remain, or vote on the two best names and include the option to keep the current name. At the end of this exercize, we need a final, clear vote: Do you want …such and such new name… or not -- the default being the old name?
Carole Dignard: I think that it is clear from you all, what I am gathering, is that you favour a shorter list of names to consider, based on the results of the First Consultation. I propose that the Name Committee focus on this and brings back to the membership a clearer set of Names, but also with rationale and justification. We need to make sure that the meaning of a Name fits our WG aims, approach and activities, and is well understood by everyone – we don’t want ambiguity. Yes your suggestion of a final ‘yes or no’ vote would be a clear way to finish, I agree.
Emily Kaplan: Whatever will be chosen will be informed by the political moment, so we may as well just go with something.
***
- caroledignard
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:02 pm
Consulting stakeholders / Appropriateness of alternative nam
by caroledignard on Wed May 16, 2012 2:23 pm
Consulting stakeholders / Appropriateness of alternative names
Dear ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections members and interested parties:
During the Name Change discussion at the WG's Business Meeting in Lisbon, in Sept. 2011, it was proposed that we consider consulting Indigenous/Native/Aboriginal peoples for feedback regarding the appropriateness of the names being proposed as possible new alternative WG's names.
The Name Committee recommends that the focus for the time remaining to our WG should continue to be on consultations with our own extended membership to find a name that best fits our organisation, membership and interested colleagues. There are overwhelming practical difficulties in attempting to carry out a fair and representative world-wide consultation of indigenous groups (or other groups) who are stakeholders in relation to the objects/collections included in our WG field, and there are difficulties in deciding on who to consult, and how to do this on a global scale. After weighing the question, the Name Committee concluded that it is legitimate to rely on authoritative sources who have already consulted widely and at length on the issue, such as the United Nations, who use the term 'indigenous' in charters and conventions when referring to indigenous peoples and to their tangible and intangible heritage (e.g. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).
The Name Committee consists of 15 members (see below), 2 of which being of indigenous origin (John Moses and Tharron Bloomfield). We welcome the views of all WG members, participants and interested parties, from all backgrounds, including indigenous backgrounds.
Carole Dignard, Chair, Name Committee
Name Committee members:
Tharron Bloomfield, Ellen Carrlee, Sherry Doyal, Farideh Fekrsanati, Monika Harter, Ann Howatt, Marian Kaminitz, Emily Kaplan, Janet Mason, John Moses, Luba Nurse, Ellen Pearlstein, Renata Peters and Catherine Smith
Dear ICOM-CC Working Group on Ethnographic Collections members and interested parties:
During the Name Change discussion at the WG's Business Meeting in Lisbon, in Sept. 2011, it was proposed that we consider consulting Indigenous/Native/Aboriginal peoples for feedback regarding the appropriateness of the names being proposed as possible new alternative WG's names.
The Name Committee recommends that the focus for the time remaining to our WG should continue to be on consultations with our own extended membership to find a name that best fits our organisation, membership and interested colleagues. There are overwhelming practical difficulties in attempting to carry out a fair and representative world-wide consultation of indigenous groups (or other groups) who are stakeholders in relation to the objects/collections included in our WG field, and there are difficulties in deciding on who to consult, and how to do this on a global scale. After weighing the question, the Name Committee concluded that it is legitimate to rely on authoritative sources who have already consulted widely and at length on the issue, such as the United Nations, who use the term 'indigenous' in charters and conventions when referring to indigenous peoples and to their tangible and intangible heritage (e.g. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).
The Name Committee consists of 15 members (see below), 2 of which being of indigenous origin (John Moses and Tharron Bloomfield). We welcome the views of all WG members, participants and interested parties, from all backgrounds, including indigenous backgrounds.
Carole Dignard, Chair, Name Committee
Name Committee members:
Tharron Bloomfield, Ellen Carrlee, Sherry Doyal, Farideh Fekrsanati, Monika Harter, Ann Howatt, Marian Kaminitz, Emily Kaplan, Janet Mason, John Moses, Luba Nurse, Ellen Pearlstein, Renata Peters and Catherine Smith
- caroledignard
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:02 pm