Artifact not a new term

as published in The Guardian - March 17, 2007
by Richelle Hume-MacDonald

Editor:

I find it funny that some Islanders feel that an issue is being overblown when they don't care about the topic themselves; yet if the provincial government was making unilateral decisions without community input on an area of concern to them, it would not be regarded so lightly.

As fellow citizens we should treat an issue with respect, regardless if it is important to us personally. I am not personally affected by any proposed cell towers but I respect my fellow citizens' right to voice their opposition and for their concerns to be sincerely listened to.

As far as that goodly number of 60-70 Charlottetonians that Mr. Holman references ('The victor gets to write - and house - history', The Guardian, March 10, 2007), I alone know of at least 20 more people that share their views, myself included, who were not at the meeting.

I was quite shocked that Mr. Holman would write such a sarcastic and misinformed article. First, let me point out that the term 'artifactory' is not some recent addition to the English language dreamed up by some highfalutin member of the heritage community solely to bolster the supposed importance of this lowly warehouse; the term was first coined years ago.

Secondly, there seems to be little appreciation of what actually happens at the warehouse. Other than merely warehousing pot-bellied stoves, the site is also where all research, cataloguing, restoration, and conservation takes place by archivists and other professionals. Mr. Holman feels that it is not illogical to locate the artifactory, or for that matter a new core museum, outside the capital area. Let's be realistic here: most major museums are located where 'they will have the most economic and cultural impact for locals and visitors alike. The government is often criticized, rightly or wrongly, for making inefficient decisions; instead, long-term strategic planning backed up, by the agreed-upon benchmark fesibility studies are Hie agreed-upon benchmark, but when confronted with a prime example of an inefficient decision on the part of government, I can't understand why people are urging them to git' er done.

Richelle Hume-MacDonald,
Charlottetown