[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Description Dilemma



I'll second Karen's reponse; an archivist's responsibility is curating
historical documentation, not judging it.  A responsible researcher will do
interpretation but cannot do it fairly without completeness of documentation.
 Description along the previously suggested lines is reasonable, but trying
to describe it with phrases of strong reaction will likely get picked up by
those whose sole interest is the sexual explicity instead of the whole
context.

My thoughts wandered to the secret diary of Wm. Byrd, which contained
references of a fairly graphic nature, but also contained other valuable
cultural information.  There may be more info in the letters than what meets
the eye, a sort of reading between the lines. What Byrd wrote in code eluded
historians and archivists for years, and when the code was broken, the
scholarly world was past judgment and searching for the rare but honest
cultural documentation.

For that matter, maybe the language is a code and years from now it will
provide a valuable description of something else altogether!

Okay, apologies for the wandering thoughts; it's Friday (I hope it is, at
least) and the week's been out of kilter for me.

Holly Hodges


<< [Karen]
 Perhaps a careful reading of the Code of Ethics endorsed by the
 International Council on Archives would assist you:

 http://www.ica.org/cgi-bin/ica.pl?04_e

 In my view, it is inappropriate for an archivist to act as a censor.



 Date sent:              Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:32:51 EDT
 Send reply to:          Archives & Archivists <ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
 From:                   Elayne Goyette <YEGoyette@AOL.COM>
 Subject:                A Description Dilemma
 To:                     ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU

 > Dear Colleagues,
 >
 > I've been processing a large and, at times, quite personal family
 > collection at The National Civil War Museum, made up of 26 binders
 > containing between 75-99 documents each.  The date range is 1826-1891
 > and covers the letters and documents written by three generations.
 > Family members have been, for lack of a better term, housewives,
 > elected officials, lawyers and merchants.
 >
 > Until now the documents contained in the first 18 binders have given
 > me, and will give our researchers, a fairly complete picture of life
 > in rural Virginia before, during and after the Civil War.  Describing
 > them has been pretty straight forward...until now.
 >
 > Binder 19 contains three documents that I would describe as filthy,
 > and none of them are signed.  I'm not just talking about the kind of
 > filth that can be removed by dry cleaning.  Portions of the letters
 > are sexually explicit and not too kindly phrased.  I don't know why
 > the family has kept them for well over 100 years!
 >
 > I've never come across stuff like this before and wonder whether any
 > of you have, and if you have, I'd really like to know how you've
 > described them, for describe them I must.
 >
 > All replies and advice would be gratefully accepted.
 >
 > Thank you.
 >
 > Elayne Goyette >>

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>