accident

In this case, at least (for anyone tuning in late, the article is about a young child accidentally breaking a vase that was thousands of years old in a museum), the museum is apparently being quite reasonable, saying, Ok, it was a child not acting maliciously, such things happen when we don't surround the exhibits with protective glass or whatever, but we want the visitors to be able to view the exhibits without all the protections in the way. Children (and adults) are sometimes clumsy. It's kind of a little sad and a little funny.
Not being a parent, and with my nephews and nieces all being adult, I can't really identify. But I do remember how my late mother would bring my brothers and me to all sorts of places, and now, thinking of her shepherding 3 boys, 6 years from oldest to youngest, around museums and the like, I appreciate the efforts she took for us. I also know, at least from what friends tell me, and from being with friends with young children when I was younger, how it's almost impossible to be aware of the children every second.
 
As a sort of happy ending to the story, the museum invited the child back, with parent, to watch them reconstruct the broken vase. And SirDice, I remember my brothers and I arguing, all of us (3 kids) arguing that our birth order made us the best. We were probably all in our teens, or maybe I was 12, as I vaguely remember getting angry at them--as the youngest, I was the usual butt of the jokes.
 
Sometimes I think people on a leash should be the default.
It was these things you attach to a backpack, not a collar. So, not like this:

30dd8f32e2dfcaa21597a13c39680ecd-1323402617.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
I think that the muesum is at least partially responsible for not placing the jar in a more secure location. Maybe under plexiglass, or at least a velvet rope. It could have just as easily been broken by an earthquake, a careless janitor, or something else. Everything that can be learned from the jar as probably already been learned from it, so why traumatize the kid and his family? A little epoxy, good as new.
 
I think that the muesum is at least partially responsible for not placing the jar in a more secure location. Maybe under plexiglass, or at least a velvet rope. It could have just as easily been broken by an earthquake, a careless janitor, or something else. Everything that can be learned from the jar as probably already been learned from it, so why traumatize the kid and his family? A little epoxy, good as new.
100% responsibility of the museum. The client/user is never on the wrong side. We need to assume that the client/user it is stupid ignorant and we need to think plan for them, until they prove otherwise in a case by case basis.
 
Cedric62 Clearly you have not read single article about this incident. Museum stated why it was done the way it was. And why they invited young boy back.
 
In fairness, when I was growing up, a typical family was having the mother at home while the father worked. It was feasible for the middle class to live that way. These days, usually both parents have to work to survive. Although, I suspect one reason my mother was so good about taking us to do stuff was that she was bored. In the mid sixties, she went back to school, and became a teacher. By then, I (I was the youngest) could be trusted to not set the house on fire or whatever.
I'm sure many parents do manage to teach their children, it's the ones who don't that we notice. We don't remember the quiet child, we remember the out of control one.
 
All the time are "war" between generations
We have ancient Greek texts lamenting the youth, nothing new there. On the contrary, when the next generation is exactly like the one before, that is where the problems start.
In fairness, when I was growing up, a typical family was having the mother at home while the father worked.
Me too. Then some things changed that, and I think not for the better. But let's not fall into that rabbit hole, I have been going down there a looong way, and it ain't pretty.
 
Back
Top