Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:55:05 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 7/11/2006 12:19:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<<"another minor ethical dilemna; i sometimes look at archaeology as being a
means for providing concrete evidence of "facts" that might otherwise
disappear down the "memory hole"
so: if you rename streets that were originally named in honour of
slave-traders, are you covering up an uncomfortable truth? and should "penny lane" be
an exception?
i think there's already a problem in the british heritage industry, with
showing off all those palatial homes without talking enuf about just how they
were paid for; as in, the slave-trade has already been whitewashed enuf">>
I agree there is an ethical issue to be debated when it comes to attempts to
expunge the historical record of something we abhor today. A similar ethical
dilemma surfaced at the City of San Diego, Historical Resources Board hearing
on June 22, 2006. In this instance, Legacy 106, Inc. nominated a house for
local landmarking as a contributor to understanding the community history.
The architects and builders lavished the house with fine tile work, artistic
woodworking, and other features to show the house as a model home for the
subdivision. Under their rules, it takes 8 votes to landmark a house (8 out of 15
board members), but on that day only eight board members were present. One
man seized that opportunity to grandstand his pledge never to vote in favor of
landmarking on community history because the subdivision originally issued
racial exclusionary housing restrictions. Some people would like to expunge
those Codes, Covenants & Restrictions from the government records and make like
segregation never happened. I felt we should identify and discuss historical
unfairness doctrines, but that since the house qualified as the second house
to be built in the community and was a model home, that it qualified and
should be landmarked. I was furious when we fell one vote shy of landmarking on
those grounds. Should disgraceful history disqualify all properties from
landmarking? I think not.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
|
|