To me, preservation as museum object is valid.  But if people don't feel
personally connected to a place -- be it museum, neighborhood, or nation
-- preservation is meaningless.  More important, I think, to cultivate a
sense of ownership and pride than to create a shrine -- too risky, too
empty, too removed.  (Oops, too cynical, too shrill.)

 On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, John Callan wrote:

> In a message dated 10/4/98 8:27:33 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> <<In fact, I think when HP ceases to be
> environmental, political and profitable it will cease to be a growing
> movement and revert to the realm of elitism and museum-like places that are
> islands within the larger, and sadly crummier, world around them.>>
>
> I will concede the merits of the environmental, political and profitatble.
> Not every historic site needs to be preserved to the same nat's posterior
> detailing, but some do.  If museums are elitist, it is a museum problem.
> Would you do away with preservation as museum object?
>
> -jc
>

Maura Johnson, Field Services Coordinator
Ohio Historic Preservation Office
BGSU, Jerome Library, 5th Floor
Bowling Green, OH  43403
Phone:  419-372-6935   Fax:  419-372-0155