The crux of our difference lies in Mr. Wettstaed's assertion that
"significance" is simply "based on National Register criteria, which are
pretty straightforward."  This view contrasts which mine where I see
significance as ambiguous, evolving, and based upon the interplay of a
number of factors pertaining to sites and cultural materials themselves,
perspectives of various communities, institutions, and laws and
regulations, along with the individual person who may play a role in
determining whether or not certain properties are considered to be
significant.
 
The National Register criteria, although clearly important, are not even
foundational for a consideration of significance that were in existence
prior to 1966.  The criteria are not exactly "straightforward" either.
In and of themselves they are so general that a good sophist could
nominate almost anything to the National Register.  For example,
Criterion D informs us that sites "that have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history" are eligible for
the National Register.  Considering that information can be found in
anything, matter or energy, (recalling of course that information is only
information in relation to relevant questions) it would not be too hard
for someone to argue that any site is significant through its being
"likely to yield" information pertinent to vague and general questions on
the basis of a broad interpretation of D.  Fortunately the National Park
Service has issued guidelines that refine and narrow the meaning of the
criteria.
 
Regarding the balance of the post, I do not see in Mississippi any
destruction of any class of sites, 20th century or otherwise, within the
next few decades.  And until there is some intellectually stimulating
demonstration that these sites are of some concern (i.e. likely to yield
valuable infromation), I won't be worrying about them.  If in a worst
case scenario, a flying saucer came down and sprayed Mississippi with a
ray that disintegrated twentieth century archaeological sites, I daresay
that the information lost would drastically change our understanding of
life in this century.  Meanwhile I'll continue recording rural fold
architecture in my spare time, which is disappearing far more rapidly
than sites are, and for which you can obtain information far more cost
efficiently than by excavating.
 
Jack D. Elliott, Jr.