Indigenousness in American Museums: Confronting our Colonial Past
Pamela J Peters, February 21, 2019, Tachiinii Photography, February 21, 2019, https://pamelajpeters.com/tag/tachiiniiphotogr
Indigenousness in American Museums: Confronting our Colonial Past
By Erin Harper
Museums have long served as institutions presenting seemingly ‘unbiased’ education, portraying a world of perfect objective information for general consumption. The Public enter these facilities, observe magnificently constructed exhibits, and leave with a new knowledge or appreciation for the subject. This idealistic notion, however, is far from actual exhibition presentation.
The stories presented in museums, like most historical narratives, are subject to modern hierarchies of power. Exhibitions often represent a history that is perceived rather than accurate as a result of conscious and subconscious human biases present during exhibit creation. Furthermore, museum displays are limited by personal factors, such as historians’ choice of documents or socially-accepted historical perceptions; this is in addition to physical issues like their choice of presented objects and how these objects are grouped. These limitations are most apparent when studying the representation of Indigenous history, identity, and culture.
AMERICAN HISTORY: FORGOTTEN STORIES
Indigenous history remains contentious in educational institutions of many countries. Difficulties in the representation of indigenousness are best expressed by Brenda Trofanenko (2006) at the University of Chicago, who defines indigenous identities in museums as “essentialized, rendered ahistorical,” and notes public museums ignore “the centuries of social, domestic, and economic challenges facing indigenous groups,” (309).
These vast histories are often reduced or outright eliminated in the museum atmosphere, leaving Indigenous people and their artifacts outside of a historical context (Trofanenko, 2006). Decontextualization persists in American historical retellings as a direct result of European colonial narratives (Carpio, 2006). The absence of Indigenous stories, or use of them solely to promote ‘superior’ European occupation movements, reinforced European narratives of the ‘backwards, unmodern Indian’ and provided a moral righteousness for incoming colonists (Carpio, 2006). Though these retold histories originally served as propaganda for new colonies, they persist alongside European power structures to the present day and diminish the voices of modern Indigenous communities.
Myla Carpio (2006), in her journal article “(Un)Disturbing Exhibitions,” encapsulates the effects of historical retelling in the following: “the processes of colonization have created this "absence" in the American historical memory, which shapes how Indigenous history, space, or place have been and continue to be renamed, redefined, and destroyed,” (620). The unchanging, unmodern, and savage characteristics of the colonial ‘Indian’ delegitimize modern Indigenous issues and shift active Indigenous cultures into a ‘static’ historic stereotype (Carpio, 2006).
MISUSED ARTIFACTS AND THE ISSUE OF ‘AESTHETIC’
American ethnology museums, specifically those focused on particular cultural histories of the United States, can also diminish Indigenous autonomy in historical creation. Ethnology museums primarily portray American Indigenous cultures through the display of curated objects. Though these displays can be beneficial in understanding cultural values or artistic practices, many exhibitions only provide a surface-level depiction of Indigenous history (Trofanenko, 2006). Objects are often removed from their historical contexts, frequently presented through exhibitions that contain simplified and often colonial versions of Indigenous history. Furthermore, curators repeatedly value aesthetics or natural science analyses over the objects’ cultural significance (Trofanenko, 2006).
Library of Congress, Native American History Timeline (Inside History, November 27, 2018), https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/native-american-timeline#&gid=ci0236e6c1d0002658&pid=1_native-american_assimilation-school_carlisle-indian_3a51829u.
These museums are established by American historians as primary authorities in Indigenous culture and history, however they lack the Indigenous presence necessary for ensuring accurate representation (Trofanenko, 2006). The portrayal of objects for aesthetic values and near-complete removal from historical contexts only encourages further misunderstandings of Indigenous history and Indigenous culture.
THE SPECTACLE OF AMERICAN INDIGENOUSNESS
Indigeneity is often placed in the context of Western academic discourses as a spectacle for comparison, employed to show human progress (Western development) against ‘backwardness’ (Indigenous societies); it is used to show the superiority of Western military accomplishments, racial difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Americans, and the cultural supremacy of a now Westernized nation (Deloria, 2018). The oversimplification of Indigenous history is also used as a means for alienating modern Indigenous communities (Deloria, 2018). Museum limitations of Indigenous portrayals to early American history separates the modern Indigenous American from the modern non-Indigenous American and categorizes them only in the context of America’s development (Deloria, 2018). This miseducation causes many non-Indigenous Americans to be disturbed upon meeting native peoples in the modern world and prevents the development of equity between these communities (Cultural Survival, 2021).
Pamela J. Peters (2021), an Indigenous photographer and poet, described this phenomenon in an interview with Cultural Survival magazine. She stated,
“I remember as a kid living on the reservation, we would sell fruits and vegetables on the side of the road where my grandparents lived, and we had visitors needing to pass our home in order to go over the mountain. A lot of white tourists would come, and they always wanted to take photos of us. They were like, “Oh, look at the cute little Indian kids! Can we take photos of you?” I’m very thankful to my cousin, who was very protective and aggressive, and he would tell them no. But then he would say, well, you guys are going to use our photos, you’re gonna have to pay us. Some of them paid, but we were always seen as a spectacle to people, and I don’t ever want my images to be seen that way,” (Cultural Survival, 2021).
Peters (2021) additionally emphasized the role inaccurate education had in promoting these ideals amongst non-Indigenous Americans, noting “One question we’re always asked is, ‘what are you?’ We’re even questioned when we say who we are, after that: ‘I’m Diné.’ ‘What is that?’ ‘I’m Navajo.’ ‘What is that?’ ‘I’m Native American.’ ‘Oh! You are? How much, are you sure?’ There’s always that question, like they can’t believe it,” (Cultural Survival, 2021). The portrayal of Indigenous peoples, histories, and cultures as a spectacle for Western audiences inhibits true cultural acceptance and encourages a colonial narrative of supremacy to the Indigenous being.
Andrea Mohin, Diorama at the American Museum of Natural History, What's Wrong With This Diorama? You Can Read All About It (New York Times, March 20, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/arts/design/natural-history-museum-diorama.html
CHALLENGES OF PROGRESS
Substantial efforts to diminish racism and historical retelling in American museums have arisen in the last thirty years, but these efforts are often limited by the details of their implementation.
The 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) initially aimed to provide a channel for Indigenous artifact recovery and limit the wrongful use of Indigenous remains (Deloria, 2018). Although this act created opportunities for artifact retrieval, Indigenous communities struggled with the burden of proof during hearings (the requirement that Indigenuos communities themselves must prove their repatriation claims meet criteria) and debates concerning repatriation’s definition (Deloria, 2018). The vagueness in NAGPRA’s language has also caused significant conflicts between Native groups and museums during the lengthy consultation processes required for repatriation (Deloria, 2018). These factors discourage Native communities from pursuing repatriation and thus leave many culturally significant artifacts in the ownership of Western museums.
Indigenous-led museums have also arisen as an attempt to reject colonial narratives and reinforce Native autonomy in their histories. These institutions serve as protection for Native artifacts, art, remains, and culturally significant items that have been historically stolen by colonizing forces (McNeel, 2018). The museums, however, are limited to small-scale centers and are increasingly threatened by a lack of government funding (McNeel, 2018). In an article by Indian Country Today, author Jack McNeel (2018) described the impacts of a 2006 decision by the Department of the Interior to decrease funding for the Museum of the Plains Indian in Browning, Montana. Ruthann Knudson (2018), the director of the organization “Friends of the Museum of the Plains Indians,” states the effects of this decision in the following:
“At this point I don’t have any doubt that Congress will see that the current level of funding is maintained, but that level is starving these museums to death. Interior needs to take a serious look at these museums. As long as they’re subjected to the whims of the commissioners on IACB (Indian Arts and Craft Board) I think they’ll always be vulnerable,” (McNeel, 2018).
Difficulties in operating Indigenous-led museums have been rampant as a result of their position under federal control (McNeel, 2018). These museums are required to follow all federal policies regarding their budget, exhibition limitations, and artifact acquisition as well as seek federal approval before making any decisions in these sectors (McNeel, 2018). Federal oversight has left many of these institutions underfunded and their exhibitions underdeveloped, increasingly constricting Indigenous autonomy in museum operations. Indigenous-led museums thus struggle to escape colonial power structures and/or establish their autonomy in historical storytelling, reinforced by looming federal control.
MODERN RESOLUTIONS FOR THE OUTDATED AMERICAN MUSEUM
Efforts to ensure inclusion and recognition of Indigenous cultural heritages, importance, and histories have been made recently as attempts to ‘decolonize’ American institutions, but merely making room for Indigenous existence in museum spaces does not solve centuries of historic misremembrance. These efforts at recognition struggle to be separated from a colonial hierarchy of power, have issues including Indigenous communities in museum operations, and are limited by ambiguous or unpragmatic legislation as discussed above (Milby and Phillips, 2017).
Resolving these issues may seem complex but can be done first through recognizing the downfalls of past and modern museums. This recognition provides an opportunity to openly discuss racism and ignorance in the historical narratives presented about Indigenous communities as well as allow transparency regarding colonialism, exploitation, genocide, and violence against native people. It also facilitates the improvement of current exhibitions to include valuable historical contexts and diminish the continuation of racist stereotypes. An understanding of how modern museums can unknowingly uphold colonial structures of power is vital to ensure the reconciliation process is appropriate, open, and accurate.
Aerial of Smithsonian Museums, Visiting the Smithsonian (Smithsonian, 2021), https://www.si.edu/visit.
While institutional failures are the largest barriers to mending American museums, it is important to discuss the value of objects in accurate portrayals of native people. Museums must understand the greater meaning and cultural significance of their artifacts to ensure these items are not merely valued for their aesthetics. The acknowledgement of cultural significance often occurs in the modern museum, but museums (particularly those focused on art) have instead prioritized the objects’ adherences to Western beauty standards (Deloria, 2018).
Though modern and historical art museums focus information on the artistic elements of their pieces, ignoring the cultural importance of Indigenous artifacts oversimplifies their meanings and removes the crucial element of purpose in the art’s creation.
Artifact ownership and appropriation must also be a major component in museum acquisition discussions to avoid repeating past thefts of Indigenous items. Institutions such as the American Museum of Natural History have notably used the remains of Indigenous people without consultation/permission of living relatives and displayed many unlawfully acquired collections of Indigenous art (Small, 2019). The value, means of ownership, and appropriate respect for Indigenous artifacts must be dominant points in museums’ exhibit creation and artifact acquisition.
Including Indigenous populations and their history directly in exhibit creation constitutes another major resolution to issues of the modern museum. This inclusion ensures museum portrayals are not ill-informed or ‘stuck’ in Indigenous pasts while also supporting the authority of Indigenous communities on the subject matter. Artist Pamela J. Peters (2021) discussed her incorporation of indigenous subjects as an effort to capture indigeneity without commodification, defining the concept as “visual sovereignty,” (Cultural Survival, 2021). Visual sovereignty can be applied to the museum sphere in a similar manner by including specific indigenous communities, organizations, or advocacy groups in exhibition creation.
This inclusion should be relevant to the exhibition itself, i.e. tribes referenced should be connected to the history being studied, and direct to avoid miscommunications or an uneven power dynamic between museum officials and indigenous communities. An effective example of visual sovereignty and Indigenous inclusion is the Maya Weaving initiative “House of Design Pixan” conducted by the Highland Support Project (2021) and Asociación de Mujeres del Altiplano (2021).
WEAVING EQUALITY INTO INDIGENOUS-MUSEUM RELATIONSHIPS
Though Mayans are not indigenous to the land known as the United States, American museums can incorporate the Maya weaving project to construct new exhibitions focused upon Indigenous autonomy, inclusivity, and equity. Mayan weaving has had significant importance throughout Central American history and increasingly as a means of preserving Mayan cultural heritage into the modern day (Blevins, 2021). In the Guatemalan civil war, woven textiles were primary political tools for Mayan resistance. Acts of weaving as well as the final woven products reasserted Mayan culture in a period of cultural and physical genocides against Indigenous communities. After this war, Mayan textiles blossomed into symbols of endurance against oppression and the process of weaving itself was reemphasized as a celebration of Mayan heritage.
Highland Support Project, Mayan Weaving in Guatemala, Pixan House (Instagram, April 21, 2021), https://www.instagram.com/p/CN5UMUoFlQn/.
Each component of the Maya weaving process is intentional and focuses on the religious, political, and social significance of the act, from the creation of the yarn to the finished woven piece (Blevins, 2021).
The entirety of weaving is symbolic of birth and emphasizes the femininity of the women who create these artworks in a focus on reproduction. Religious aspects are also evident in the weaving patterns, in which depictions of the human individual are avoided and patterns take a purposeful rhythmic design to represent language (Blevins, 2021).
Weaving has further represented important distinctions within Maya society, such as class or social status, and more broad trends throughout Mayan history, like economic shifts or conflicts with Spanish colonists (Blevins, 2021). In the modern day, Mayan weaving has shifted to be more representative of a shared ethnicity rather than societal divisions within Mayan communities (Blevins, 2021).
The support of cultural artifacts and the meaningful process of weaving is a way to protect Indigenous history without minimizing modern day communities, rewriting the history, excluding Indigenous populations, or excluding the necessary info for understanding these artifacts.
The “House of Design Pixan” initiative by the Highland Support Project (2021) and the Asociación de Mujeres del Altiplano (2021) aims to preserve the weaving tradition while providing artisan weavers with liveable wages and ethical working conditions. It supplies a fair trade textile workshop for weavers skilled in historic methods of artistry to directly sell their pieces all over the world (Highland Support Project, 2021). Initiatives such as these that support Indigenous artists and cultural traditions are crucial to preserving Indigenous history ethically, accurately, and in a manner that recognizes modern communities.
This blog post and research was compiled by our spring and summer intern, Erin Harper. She’s a soon to be VCU graduate studying History and Political Science with a particular interest in Latin American histories/cultures. After graduation, she hopes to be involved in nonprofit and museum work to ensure our present community as well as communities of the past are represented equitably. When she’s not writing research papers or reading lengthy dissertations, you can find her making music, exploring nature with friends, and playing with her obese cat Stormy.She can be reached at harpere2@mymail.vcu.edu