Branch thread from here
Authentic ethnicity displays
Thu, 2009-08-20 10:28
#1
remind
Authentic ethnicity displays
Thu, 2009-08-20 10:44
#2
This is one in Saint John:
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:03
#3
remind
I don't hold FN communities to any higher standard and you know it, remind. Interesting that you would take that tack, remind. Twice.My point upthread (the drift part that I started) was about colonialism and the Candian context re. museums. Who else would I refer to in the Canadian context except for Aboriginal peoples?
Was not really singling out your posts, indeed it was mainly directed at FM, in respect to his use of "quaint" and in respect to boxman's post.
Nor did I say higher standard, I said different standard.
Personally, I see cultural displays, of all types, as a significant medium for the education of people, who otherwise know nothing about it. And as a celebration of uniqueness.
I do not want to live a world where everyone wears the same grey uniform.
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:07
#4
Maysie
From the other thread
.... a crabby Maysie-like critique of all things multi-culti. About how "whiteness" is the only "ethnicity" to be allowed complexity, modernity and normalcy. All other ethnicities, especially those of non-white folks, are frozen in time, to be seen, observed, and yes, remarked upon for quaintness (as well as many other comments, none of them positive)."Authentic ethnicity" is a social construction. And a big business, apparently.
From Racialicious:
In the opening essay to the book Shared Visions: Native American Painters and Sculptors in the Twentieth Century, Rennard Strickland and Margaret Archuleta [discuss] .... the pressure American Indian artists have often faced to create a certain type of art. This pressure may come from other Indians or from non-Indians. Non-Indians have often had significant power over Indian artists because of their role as benefactors (providing money for artists to attend The Studio at the Santa Fe Indian School, for instance) and because non-Indians are the majority of buyers of art created by American Indian artists. And benefactors and art collectors often have a certain idea of what "Indian art" is, which includes assumptions about both themes and styles. Specifically, they want "traditional" images that depict Native Americans in a pre-modern world, often including images of animals.
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:11
#5
Maysie
remind, we cross-posted.
I do not want to live a world where everyone wears the same grey uniform.
Real differences are not the same as how those differences are portrayed. Traditional multi-culturalism presents "differentness-from-WASP" in very particular ways: no power analysis, no anti-oppression analysis and scripts real traditions, cultures, languages and customs into mockeries of themselves.
Sadly the only education I see from traditional multi-culti dogma is both sides learning who is "normal" and who is "other".
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:20
#6
This is one in Saint John:
I dont see the link between this thread and this post. You are really stretching the point as well as being insulting.
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:28
#7
I don't really see the different standard. If you're not familiar with the fairly extensive discourse criticizing notions of "cultural authenticity" in other contexts, it doesn't mean they don't exist. And they are fairly extensive. I'm most familiar with the Japanese case myself, where not only are those things that are often taken to be representative of authenticity more often than not recent inventions that are commodified for transnational consumption (the world fairs of the 19th century were a paradigmatic case), but moreover, things are further complicated by how the appeal to an authentic native culture moreover served as an alibi for Japanese fascism.
To echo Maysie, the point of the critique of authenticity is that it reifies cultures of the so-called "non-west" into what is premodern, that is, that what is essentially native, or essentially, Japanese, or Chinese, etc. is what is "not modern." The corollary of course is the conflation that what is fundamentally modern is fundamentally Western, and I think we know how that plays into the ideologies that buttress and rationalize imperialist practice.
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:30
#8
Maysie
[drift]Canada's colonialism is not limited to the exploitation and oppression of the Aboriginal peoples. We see it in "free-trade" agreements with Colombia, Panama, etc., and in the practice of saving "failed states," "peacekeeping," and "building civil society" - all covers for corporate expropriation of resources and opening up markets to the penetration of Canadian capital.And our museums are full of colonial plunder from countries and cultures colonized by others.[/drift]
Dude, what is this "Go After Maysie for Not Writing a 1000 word essay on Everything" Day?
Yes, I agree with you.
Nonetheless, if I were to be essentialist, which I am so very rarely, so pay attention (
), no "free trade" agreements nor building failed states or the lie of Canada as peacekeeper could have developed if not for the historic colonization and genocide that occurred in Canada, before it was called Canada.
As for benefiting from the plunder done by others, that's one of the ways that colonization legitimizes itself isn't it?
Thu, 2009-08-20 11:41
#9
remind
We will have to agree to disagree, maysie, and IMV, using that racilicious commentary in application to BC FN's and their art works cannot be done.
Thu, 2009-08-20 12:37
#10
Maysie, I would love to take a walk through the ROM with you. I'm a member, but I'll even pay for your admission. As far as the previous thread goes, I'm inclined to take the point of the protesters with specific regard to the Dead Sea scrolls. I doubt if I'll be using my free ticket.
Regarding a lot of the other stuff on display there, it's a bit of a mixed bag. I'm assuming all the natural history / earth science stuff is not controversial unless you're a creationist. As far as other things go, these debates happen within curatorial circles as well as on babble, and I'd say there is a trend to try to take these issues into account. The new FN gallery was put together by FN people, contains a mixture of reproductions and some older items, but were made or donated for the purpose.
A lot of items you see in a typical museum were originally made for commercial trade, and were made to be sent out the artisans door and into the world, be it recently or 5000 years ago. I can't help but think that the maker of a 3000 year old olive oil pot would be other than pleased to know his product was still on a shelf somewhere being looked at. I'm guessing that this sort of thing accounts for the majority of the ROM's inventory, things of practical use or art originally meant to be sold, and possibly sold outside of the community of origin.
Still, there is a lot of stuff that would have been associated with ritual or death rites. I'm not sure if displaying that stuff is under every circumstance wrong, but it can be done in a way that's both disrepectful and/or innacurate.
I would be interested to know people's thoughts on a museum in Alberta called Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump. I've been a tourist there. It's FN concieved built and operated, and is a pretty impresive place.
Somewhere on the ceiling of the rotunda at the ROM it says "that all man may know his works" gender exclusionary language aside, that is not an un-noble goal. I think it's a matter of really understanding the things you're dealing with and getting it right.
ETA: I've always wondered about those huge totem poles near what used to be the front entrance. One would think the people who made them would want them back. They're pretty high profile items, but I'm not aware that this has ever been raised as an issue by west coast First Nations.
Thu, 2009-08-20 13:37
#11
remind
The ROM bought their totem poles they are not stolen.
Thu, 2009-08-20 14:11
#12
M. Spector
Dude, what is this "Go After Maysie for Not Writing a 1000 word essay on Everything" Day?
No, it isn't. I was not suggesting that what you posted was [b]incomplete[/b], but that it was [b]wrong[/b]. You quite clearly implied in the words that I quoted that the very mention of Canadian "colonialism" could refer to nothing other than the Aboriginal question. My point was that Canadian colonialism is much broader than that.
Nonetheless, if I were to be essentialist, which I am so very rarely, so pay attention (
Wrong again. There are many other countries in the world that are colonialist, have free trade agreements with the global South, and participate in the "rescuing" of "failed states" without first having committed genocide against aboriginals in their own country. The latter is in no way a precondition of the former.
Even if it were, it would not negate the validity of my point, which was that Canadian colonialism was not limited to the treatment of Aboriginal populations. This is not a trivial point, as far too many progressive people believe, naively, that Canada is a force for good and enlightenment in the whole world, with the one exception being our treatment of the aboriginal population. I'm not saying that's what you believe, but there are other people reading these threads, one presumes.
As for benefiting from the plunder done by others, that's one of the ways that colonization legitimizes itself isn't it?
Inded it is; but the point I was making was that Canadian museums have plenty of colonialist plunder that [b]doesn't[/b] come from the Aboriginals of this country. This was added to my post as another reason why it was wrong to suggest that the only evidence of colonialism in Canadian museums is related to the Aboriginals.
Thu, 2009-08-20 16:52
#13
Maysie
I'm assuming all the natural history / earth science stuff is not controversial unless you're a creationist.
Any excuse to post this.
[IMG]http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r137/maysiewaysie/silly%20pics/Doones...
