Pardon my tangent: this post will mostly be about the readings relation to the field of Archives. I realize the authors were writing about museums, but I saw many connections to my field of work and I hope someone would appreciate how these topics are utilized in other fields.
First, I very much enjoyed the first article about repatration. I’m all for museums giving back the collections they acquired immorally – even if they were acquired over century ago. I’m shocked to hear that some museums resisted the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act – I imagine it couldn’t have been many. There are few ways the United States Government can work to right the wrongs committed to the Native American Tribes through the history of this country, the repatriation act was clearly one way to do so.
The second article about deaccessioning hit very close to home for me. Archives throughout the country face the same problem of what to do with materials that you don’t feel belong with the collection. I would like to point out that the author mentions museums wanting to deaccession items to sell them on the market and gain revenue. I don’t think that is allowed by any state institution in Idaho. I remember hearing something about our university library discontinuing its book sale for that reason. Then again- the university sells land on occasion… I’m not sure what the law says there.
The article also mentions some other outside elements affecting collection development. This can be true for many repositories of cultural goods. Museums, Libraries, Archives, Cultural Centers; these places tend to be the attic of communities. The leaders responsible for public donations and community relations may, from time-to-time, accept material that doesn’t quite fit the collection development plan, but accepting the gift is the right thing to do for community relations. Too much of this, however, can lead to shelves filled with objects or documents that do not fit any scope of vision for the collection as a whole. It takes skill to navigate those waters.
Marilyn Phealen’s article on the legality of international trade also brings up important questions. While there are some gray areas that force each case to be examined thoroughly, I agree whole heartedly with Phealan’s quote from the U.S. Code of Uniform Commerce: “one who purchases property from a thief, no matter how innocently, acquires no title to the property.” (page 421) This should be the ethical backing for any decision of ownership.