Dan, I wasn't
calling you an elitist... I know folks who DO know you, and I think they would
support that. I was just making a general stupid comment. Nothing new for me. My
apologies.
We historic
archies always are encountering problems with those early "man" folks, who
literally shovel off the Russian stuff and throw it out. After all, its just
"historic crap." And that's a quote someone actually said in my
presence.
Margan
Wow, I've never in my life been called an
elitist! Quite the opposite in fact. Those that know me know that there
is little that does not interest me. As for being a snob of the early
human world, 20th century material culture (besides Federal) is one of my
loves, and my wife and I have a spent a considerable part of our income
acquiring books and studies on innumerable facets of modern life.
My
primary point, and to respond to Bob's comment that the public does not know
what CRM is, is that the public does know about $$$$ and if they found out
what CRM was doing with it they would have a coniption fit beyond
comprehension and ALL OF US would be sunk.
106 is about determining
significance, not reporting as if everything over 50 years is
significant. CRM folks should know best of all how to most effectively
and efficiently use their resources, financial and otherwise. If we cut
off our head in the process, is that worth
it?
Dan
W.
At 10/17/02 07:35 PM, you wrote:
hoo
raa!
always been part of the
challenge of working in Alaska has been elitist attitudes. Partly because
the historic "stuff" is only a 200 years old - at best. Mostly WWII.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ron May [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
- Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:23 PM
- To: [log in to unmask]
- Subject: Re: 55 gallon drums et al.
- This diatribe against research on 20th century archaeology is an
eletist challenge that will certainly sour relations among practitioners.
I feel this to be an unhealthy thread that most certainly will lead to
hurt feelings. Thesis and dissertation research develop raw data into
bodies of knowledge, regardless of the century of creation. I feel too
much emphasis is placed on the archaeology of the wealthy in this
discussion and not on the other class and ethnic strata that were engaged
in the great themes of American history. In parts of America where
European Americans arrived in the 19th century or developed industries in
the 20th century, comparison with 17th and 18th century colonial sites and
plantations is not appropriate. I recommend we work towad open mindedness
and see what our new practitioners can develop.
- Ron May
- Legacy 106, Inc.