The museum suicide and cultural destruction has gone national (link). I am personally in mourning; the Museum of Natural History is closing to exhibits I grew up with, the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains exhibit. Can whatever brainchild came up with these regulations fine me a significant number of offended Native Americans? Excerpts: Why would actual Native Americans, including leaders, want to discourage education of the population about America's past? Unless the plan is to remove everyone post-colonization as well, leaving the museums an empty shell. I know that Americans are now being made to mourn not only their history, but their lives as well. Message: We are bad people for being here.
Are the cultural ancestors of those attributed to the origin of these artifacts requesting the artifacts no longer be displayed? Or is this just another case of disconnected white elitist bureaucrats taking up causes on behalf of groups of people who neither asked for, nor desired, their 'help'? Serious question, it could easily be either one.
DETROW: Probably the most important question here - how are Native American groups feeling about this decision? VANASCO: They're really happy about it. They've actually been working to get these regulations updated for a decade. I spoke with Shannon O'Loughlin. She's the chief executive of the Association of American Indian Affairs, and she's Choctaw. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227...ake effect,of certain Native American objects. At the link there is the full explanation of the new regulations.
My analysis is it's a holdup play to get payments for "consent." The tribe members will get nothing once the "leaders" squander the money.
I would suggest that says a great deal about your ability to understand/empathize with the indigenous experience of colonization and absolutely nothing about what is actually happening. This is not just an American phenomenon. Indigneous people are finally getting enough of a voice that they are reclaiming artefacts, remains etc. often taken without permission and rarely if ever displayed with any consultation of the people they were taken from. Some of those artefacts, and especially any remains, may never be displayed again but returned to their rightful place. Others will go back on display with the consent of the cultures they were taken from and with participation from those cultures in how they are displayed. I doubt anyone will be making much money out of this, but good luck to them if they get a little back pay for stuff that has been used for generations. If you are more upset by the temporary closure of an exhibit than the fact that the items in it are likely on display without permission and without the involvement of the culture they come from then you are an example of why this process is so important.
Why don't we just ignorantly give an opinion without knowing any facts? Isn't that the American way? "A law known as NAGPRA first passed in 1990 that established processes and procedures for museums and other institutions to return human remains, funerary objects and other items to “Indian tribes” and “Native Hawaiian organizations”. However, the law has been criticized by tribal representatives for being too slow and susceptible to resistance by institutions, resulting in efforts sometimes dragging on for decades. The new regulations that went into effect on January 12 were designed to speed up returns, give institutions five years to prepare all human remains and related funerary objects for repatriation, as well as grant more authority to tribes throughout the process."
IDK but I wish they would make the Holocaust Museum bury the crap made from human bones, skin, etc. while they are at it.
These links may help answer that. Federal Rules Aim to Speed Up Returns of Native Remains and Objects (artnews.com) Federal Register : Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The regulations apply to dead bodies of Native Americans, artifacts that were buried with the bodies in graves, and "sacred objects" that have "cultural patrimony". "cultural patrimony" refers to an object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American, and which, therefore cannot be appropriated or conveyed to any individual. There are fines on museums that do not comply. Museums are complaining this is going to add a lot of trouble and inconvenience and add expense dealing with these regulations.
How about an ancestor that is so distant you don't know exactly how they are related to you? This would be like the equivalent of saying mummies cannot be on display in the U.S. unless the museum has permission from the Egyptian government. The most controversial part of this law is not the part that deals with dead bodies. Rather it's the "sacred objects" and "artifacts that have cultural patrimony". When you think about the traditional museum exhibits of native peoples, these objects typically make up a third of the displays and are usually the most impressive looking artifacts. Objects with a lot of intricate detailed art that are the type of things used in rituals.
Well, Western civilization is supposed to be in mourning for climate change, abuse of natives, racism, genderism, ableism, sexism and doing well, so we lock down for Covid, adopt cashless bail, open our borders, grant migrants goodies and empty our museum. What is coming next? Maybe stopping music and theater performances since those have their patrimony in ancient forms of music and we don't have permission from long-gone tribes.
That has already begun to happen. And set to actually potentially be put into place by law in Scotland. Free Speech gone in Scotland (posted in Western Europe section) While the Bill was making its way through the Scottish Parliament, the then Justice minister, one Humza Yousaf, amended the draft legislation to remove the risk that directors or promoters of performances could be charged with an offence. Despite this, leaked training material produced from Police Scotland suggests the force will specifically target performers, with officers advised that offending material could be communicated “through public performance of a play”. Actors face prosecution for ‘abusive’ speech in SNP hate crime crackdown Training materials from Police Scotland say plays fall within the scope of legislation, despite claims freedom of speech would be protected by Daniel Sanderson, The Telegraph, 19 March 2024
