is revamping the sites keep them authentic?
Answers
Answer:
PLEASE MARK MY ANSWER AS BRAINLEST!!!!!!!!
Explanation:
I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to by “revamping cultural sites”. But it sounds suspicious to me. It sounds like something “politically correct” people might be doing.
I once worked in an art museum. I honored the conservators above the curators, who, even in 1969, could value chic above substance, etc. But the conservators were honorable craftspersons (the Chief conservator had little formal education, had trained from Keck, and made at least one “red neck” comment about a woman to me at a fancy Museum Opening event….}. Anyway, the conservators tried to patch stuff in $$$ paintings in such a way that the patch would both look good/like the original to lay museum goers, but also be easily spotted and/or removed by future curators. Are your “revampers” living up to this hish standard?
I was childreared in Richmond, Virginia in the 1950s, before they fully accepted that the South had lost the Civil War. In elementary school we sang songs lauding slavery or at least bemoaning what was no longer.
Today I hear of “Robert E. Lee, traitor”. I could easily accept that Lee was not so great a general as reputed. But there was a statue of him and Stonewall Jackson across the street from The Baltimore Museum of Art with the inscription: ”So great is my trust in General Lee that I would follow him anywhere.” I did not interpret this as 19th century Adolf Eichman, but as a gifted general giving what he felt was earned respect and affection to his commanding officer. Lee was a traitor? I don’t think Ulysses S Grant treated him as one. Technically, it is no doubt true. But was he a !traitor! like Benedict Arnold (or, perhaps, Donald J. Trump?)? I think not. I do not recall that Lee sold out the Union, but rather that his heart was with his native state and so he resigned his commission. I think he is an *ambivalent* figure and if folks want revampingly to cal him a traitor we should *also* remember his conscience was better than a shyster. I think authenticity demands keeping Lee in context, not just calling him a traitor.
I think authenticity in historiography demands better than just throwing stones at the less-than-politically-correct dead who, of course, cannot defend themselves back, and who, were they with us today, might just see things a little differently than they did in their own time. Gorege Wallace, it seems, changed his mind about segregation before he died.