From conference brochure Ongwehoweka: "Our Indian Way of Life" Peter Jemison, artist 1992 38/50'' Mixed media on paper
Last week the “Repatriation at Twenty” conference at the Arizona State University Law School brought together Native leaders in American Indian rights law, scholars, and activists. Many of the panelists had worked for decades to lobby for the passage of the National Museum of the American Indian Act (1989) and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA] (1990).
Organizers hoped the gathering would establish counter-narratives on repatriation. Said Suzan Shown Harjo, scholar, president of the Morning Star Institute, and an activist in repatriation since 1967, “This conference is an establishment of the oral history of what happened because what is written is only the stipulated truth.”
Here is a snapshot of panelist statements from the day-long gathering:
“The facts we have been taught about Native people are wrong.”—Kevin Gover, Director Smithsonian National Museum of American Indian, during his lecture “Will the White Man’s Indian Ever Die?”
“Never once do you see an image of an Indian that is smart, funny, and clumsy. Trust me. Some of us are.”—Kevin Gover, Director Smithsonian National Museum of American Indian, during his lecture “Will the White Man’s Indian Ever Die?”
“Where we are right now is O’odham country, O’odham territory. This is true not only because oral tradition says so. Archeology tells us. I have no doubt about that because out of NAGPRA, tribes know.”—Diane Enos, President of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
“As we reached the twentieth anniversary of repatriation, we saw that across the nation people were touting new partnerships between Native people and museums. And it struck us as a very odd narrative that didn’t match up with what the people working with these thing were telling us.”—Rebecca Tsosie, Executive Director, Arizona State University Indian Legal Program
“One thing that is so important with repatriation is the fact that people still do the ceremonial events. People know what [objects in museum collections] look like, they know what they do. When they are returned, they go back into their place in ceremonies.”—Suzan Shown Harjo, President, The Morning Star Institute
“We should have a definition of history because we need to define ourselves rather than other people defining us. But a problem with history is that it gives the written word power over oral tradition.” –W. Roger Buffalohead, on the history behind the NMAI Act and NAGPRA
“They say Indian discourse is unbelievable. But why should we believe them?” –Robert Cruz, Tohono O’odham Nation, on the history behind the NMAI Act and NAGPRA
“The battle is still on-going to protect our rights [against people] who have a money interest in collecting dead Indians.”—Alan Parker, Director, Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute
“Even though we can get discouraged by the abuses still taking place, it’s important to step back and see where we have made progress.”—Alan Parker, Director, Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute
“One of the biggest discussions [in repatriation] is ‘how do we do it?’ For a lot of tribes, there isn’t a way to rebury people.”—Dr. Manley Begay, Jr., Native Nations Institute, Board of Trustees of the National Museum of the American Indian
“It was hoped that NAGPRA would bring about a new era between museums and Indian Country. With NAGPRA, the hope was that teaching would happen together—for [Indigenous] students and museums. It was hoped it would usher in a new era of mutual respect. But it didn’t happen that way. It was hoped that NAGPRA would be a way for restitution for museums. Many items were taken under duress—or outright stolen—in the early twentieth century.”—Dr. Manley Begay, Jr., Native Nations Institute, Board of Trustees of the National Museum of the American Indian
“To this day, there is not a single federal agency that is in compliance with the law. There is no oversight.”—Permina Yellow Bird, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, founder North Dakota Intertribal Reinternment Committee
“NAGPRA is the correction of a vast moral wrong.”—W. Richard West, Jr., Founding Director, National Museum of the American Indian
“Even if still a work in progress, the NMAI is a very good place in terms of repatriation. Following the trustees mandate, the importance of repatriation is Native-generated knowledge.”—W. Richard West, Jr., Founding Director, National Museum of the American Indian
“I think we have to understand that physical anthropologists and some museums are playing an insiders game to block regulations.” –Walter R. Echo-Hawk, Counsel, Crow & Dunlevy
“What are we supposed to do? Those prayers were already made. We’re forced to change our traditions. But I’ve been told ‘don’t be afraid of the unknown.’”—Mervin Wright Jr., Chairman for the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
“We’re hearing from the Indian community that things are getting worse, and we’re hearing from the scientific community that it’s getting better.”—Allison Binney, Staff Director/Chief Counsel, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
“NAGPRA diminishes the inherent nature of sovereignty by giving museums the right to determine cultural affiliation. I believe it should be the tribes that determine this.” Dr. James Riding In, Professor, American Indian Studies Program, Arizona State University,
“Self-determination suggests to me that Native people are at the center and should drive the repatriation process. I don’t know that that’s the way it has been done for the last twenty years.” –Christine Zuni Cruz, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law
“I hope that ‘Repatriation at 40′ will really be celebratory.”—Dr. Manley Begay, Jr., Native Nations Institute, Board of Trustees of the National Museum of the American Indian
