The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (N.A.G.P.R.A.) was passed in 1990 to return custody of Native U.S. American remains and artifacts to Native peoples. Now in 2024, not many of these belongings have been returned to their respective owners. As someone interested in history, anthropology, and social sciences; I appreciate that they are theoretically safe in museums and universities across the country–contributing to our understanding of our history and our place in this vast Existence. However, science should strive to study its subjects with responsibility. The scientific process is an exercise meant to help humanity; it ideally should not come at its expense. This is especially important considering inequalities and inequities–both those historical and current–in which some groups have more power than others. Indigenous peoples of U.S. American land are among these groups who have been cast aside over the past half millennium. While we as a country cannot do much about past offenses, we can at least make the society of today more equitable, respectful, and democratic.
Members of Congress, the Department of the Interior, and other government officials are demanding that NAGPRA be fulfilled in a far more reasonable timeframe than the process’s current rate. (Brewer & Hudetz 2023) In response, universities like UC Berkeley and Indiana University apologized for holding the articles for so long, and signaled they were fully on board with NAGPRA’s mission. However, they also exclaimed that significant time, money, and resources would be needed, not only to identify the individuals or groups each item belongs to, but also get into contact with each one to ask them what they want done with them (and how fulfilling that would work). (Brewer & Hudetz 2023) While I don’t doubt it is a lot of work, given just how many human remains and significant objects there are in academic institutions, researching the peoples these objects belong to–their culture, values, history, lives and livelihoods–is their whole job. Academics today must resolve the legacy of their 19th and 20th Century predecessors, many of whom (especially earlier on) observed cultural groups from afar, and sought to answer the questions Western science had, regardless of the cultural group’s perspective or wishes. More recent anthropologists are treating their craft with more humanity–living with different groups (not merely amongst them), interviewing them, focusing on their emotions and perspective, acknowledging the anthropologist’s own perspective.
In
terms of practical solutions, I do not want to pretend like I have all
the answers, or any real authority or expertise. Native peoples ought to
have the final say in what happens with these objects, for sure.
However, they are in no feasible position to do it alone; academic
institutions are the ones holding these objects, and so they are the
ones both with the bargaining power, while also being the ones in the
precarious position. The Federal, state, or local governments can play a
part in this–whether as arbitrator, source of funding, initial
catalyst, or more serious enforcer of NAGPRA. Perhaps, governments’
power can be helpful. Or they cannot, as governments might have enough
to worry about and have their own tarnished history with Native peoples.
Ultimately, it would have to be Native peoples themselves or an
overwhelmingly supportive U.S. American public to call on governments to
get involved. Maybe governments can set up special subcommittees or
departments dedicated to taking inventory of objects of Native
significance and serving to mediate between Native communities and
academic institutions. Alternatively, a non-profit NGO could serve this
purpose as well, and maybe more efficiently, depending on how much
government funding and influence would be helpful in this endeavor.
Whatever
the case, more communication should be made between Native communities
and academic institutions. At this point, both parties are stuck in this
situation, so it can be nothing except a team effort. How many Native
peoples work for these universities and museums–and could understand the
academic process, their institution’s inventory system, along with
their people’s culture–I am not sure, and I do not know where to start
to find that information. However, I would take an educated guess that
it is relatively low compared to the percentage and population of Native
Americans, Alaska Natives, Native Hawi’ians, and other indigenous
groups living in the U.S. Whether a cultural shift needs to happen or
not, I am also not sure. The repatriation of culturally significant
objects is already a pretty substantial movement throughout the world,
first coming to mind for me being African countries and ethnic nations
demanding artifacts found in the British Museum procured during the
1800’s Scramble for Africa, or spats between Italy and France over Monna Lisa.
The
key to fulfilling NAGPRA, along with many other inequities of Native
U.S. Americans, is to give these people the power–economic, educational,
occupational, and cultural–to have more secure control of what is
there’s, whether a tangible object or abstract idea. Only then, with
Native peoples’ perspective, can the scientific process and
democracy–two undertakings held sacred in this country–come closer to
being realized.
No comments:
Post a Comment