Podcast Summary
Acknowledging Native American expertise and returning cultural items: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act leads museums to return Native American objects and ancestral remains, recognizing Native American communities as experts of their own history and culture.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in the late 1980s, is leading to a significant change in how American museums handle Native American objects and ancestral remains. For decades, many of these items were obtained in violent and genocidal ways, and Native American tribes have been advocating for their return. Recently, museums have been issuing apologies, filing federal notices to repatriate ancestors, and even forensic experts are getting involved to help identify and return previously unreported remains. New federal regulations now require consent from lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or native Hawaiian organizations for the display of cultural items. This shift acknowledges that Native American communities are the experts of their own history and culture. The process of returning these items is complex and ongoing, but it represents an important step towards rectifying past wrongs and promoting respect and collaboration between museums and Native American communities.
New NAGPRA regulations require museums to respect Native American wishes: Museums must now obtain informed consent for research, remove culturally sensitive objects, and respond to tribal claims under new NAGPRA regulations, leading to exhibit closures and increased awareness of repatriation significance.
The US federal government, under the Biden administration and Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, has recently implemented new regulations to NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) that require museums to reassess their collections, obtain informed consent from tribes for scientific research, and remove culturally sensitive objects. These regulations have led to the closure or concealment of exhibits in major museums, such as the American Museum of Natural History and the Field Museum, as they work to understand and respect the wishes of Native American tribes. The process involves tribes making claims to their ancestral remains and objects, with the institutions responding within a given timeframe. The public's surprise at these changes highlights the need for increased awareness and education about the significance of repatriation and NAGPRA.
New NAGPRA regulations give more power to tribes in returning ancestral remains: New NAGPRA rules require museums to consider tribes' histories and claims, leading to more repatriations. Harvard University, with thousands of ancestral remains, is under criticism for slow response and resistance to repatriation.
The new regulations regarding Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are leading to more deference being given to tribes in the identification and return of ancestral remains from museums. Previously, museums could claim that items were culturally unidentifiable, making it difficult to determine rightful ownership. However, the new regulations require museums to give more consideration to tribes' histories and claims. Ten institutions were found to hold half of the unreturned ancestral remains, with Harvard University having the third highest number. Harvard's extensive collecting practices in the late 1800s, particularly in the United States, led to the accumulation of thousands of ancestral remains. While Harvard is making progress in repatriation, some tribes feel that more needs to be done to mend relationships and atone for past aggressive collecting practices. Harvard's record under NAGPRA has been criticized for being resistant or slow in responding to tribes' claims, which set a precedent for other institutions. For example, the Wabanaki tribes in Maine spent 30 years trying to repatriate their ancestors from Harvard. The lengthy and sometimes painful process highlights the challenges and delays in the NAGPRA process.
The repatriation process under NAGPRA is complex and lengthy: Despite evidence and public pressure, the return of Native American remains under NAGPRA can take decades due to institutions' internal beliefs and attitudes.
The repatriation process under NAGPRA, as seen in the case of Harvard and the Wabanaki tribes, can be lengthy and complex. It's not just about providing evidence or making a strong case, but also involves the institutions' internal beliefs and attitudes towards the significance and affiliation of the remains. In this instance, Harvard held onto the remains for 30 years, citing their importance to science or antiquity as reasons for denial. However, public pressure following the murder of George Floyd and Harvard's own reckoning with its past finally led to the return of the remains. As an indigenous person reporting on these stories, it's both difficult and emotional to witness the slow progress towards respecting the rights and dignity of indigenous communities in relation to their ancestors' remains. But seeing the federal government and institutions taking NAGPRA more seriously is a step in the right direction.
Acknowledging progress while continuing advocacy for change in repatriation: Progress in repatriation is important to acknowledge, but the work is not yet done. Continue advocacy, stay informed, and make conscious choices to support cultural heritage and its people.
While there have been recent advancements in the repatriation of cultural artifacts from museums, there is still a long way to go. Reporter Mary Huditz emphasizes the importance of continuing scrutiny on this issue, as there are nearly 100,000 ancestors in museums yet to be returned to their rightful communities. It's a complex issue that requires thought and respect, especially when discussing people who have passed on. It's gratifying to see progress, but it's essential to remember that the work is not yet done. Additionally, there are various ways the public and media can contribute to the conversation. Museums are addressing these new repatriation regulations, and it's worth exploring how they're handling these changes. As consumers, we can support companies like Mint Mobile that offer affordable wireless plans without hidden fees, allowing us to save money and focus on more pressing issues. And as individuals, we can make conscious choices, such as purchasing ethical and sustainable clothing from companies like Quince, which offers high-quality organic cotton and linen pieces. In summary, it's crucial to acknowledge the progress made in repatriation while continuing to advocate for change and stay informed on ongoing developments. Whether through media, consumer choices, or personal actions, we all have a role to play in ensuring respect and care for cultural heritage and the people it represents.
McClung Museum evolves exhibits to respect Native American history and culture: The McClung Museum removed over 300 belongings from display and replaced them with text and empty cases to raise awareness about NAGPRA and the importance of repatriation.
Museums, like the McClung Museum at the University of Tennessee, are evolving their exhibits to better represent and respect Native American history and culture. In 2019, museums might have focused on archaeological practices and displayed funerary objects. However, after a NAGPRA assessment in 2019 and consultations with associated tribes in 2021, the McClung Museum removed over 300 belongings from display and replaced them with text and empty cases to raise awareness about the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the importance of repatriation. The average public may not be familiar with this law, and the museum's display of emptiness served as a powerful statement about the significance of returning Native American remains and funerary objects to their rightful communities.
Centering Native Perspectives in Museums: Museums are adopting new approaches to respectfully display historical context and absences, influenced by scholars, and aiming to share native histories from native perspectives, while respecting NAGPRA law.
The approach of displaying blank space and extensive text in museums to explain historical context and absences, while it may feel radical, is an essential part of centering native perspectives and being transparent about the reasons behind such changes. This methodology, influenced by scholars like Steven Lubar and Heather Autone, aims to respect, reciprocate, build relationships, and assume responsibility in the museum context. Although some may argue that removing objects from display robs visitors of education, the ultimate goal is to share native histories from native perspectives. The NAGPRA law, which requires museums to return certain cultural items to their original communities, has been in place for over 30 years, and it's crucial to respect this legislation. While this conversation may still be frustrating for some, it's essential to keep the focus on centering native voices and perspectives in museums.
Recognizing and Protecting Indigenous Rights: Years of protests and advocacy led to consultation with Indigenous community about flooding of ancestral lands, recognizing it as a human rights issue.
The recognition and protection of Indigenous rights is a complex issue with deep historical roots. It requires ongoing dialogue, activism, and legal action. In the specific case discussed on Today Explained, it took years of protests and advocacy before the Tennessee Valley Authority was required to consult with the Tellico Dam-affected Cherokee community about the flooding of their ancestral lands. This is not only an environmental issue, but a human rights one. The conversation around Indigenous rights is an ongoing one that requires understanding, respect, and action. It's important to recognize and honor the histories and cultures of Indigenous communities, and to work towards finding solutions that respect their rights and sovereignty.
