Does the prime minister wield too much power? Is our skilled immigration policy in need of major reform? What role do museums play in Canadian society? Could Healthy Living Vouchers help in the battle against obesity? These are the questions posed by the four finalists competing for the $50,000 2011/2012 Donner Prize, the award for best public policy book by a Canadian. The winner will be announced on Tuesday, May 1. We will post excerpts from each of the finalists in advance of the prize, exclusively for Huffpost readers. Today's excerpt is from Ruth Phillips' Museum Pieces: Toward the Indigenization of Canadian Museums.
CANADA'S COLLABORATIVE MODELS of museum practice has arisen as organically from its history as the canoe or the snowmobile. In recent decades these innovative practices have become a major export, carried abroad by Canadian consultants, lecturers and expatriate Canadian-trained curators and studied on site by visitors from other countries. Yet the impact of Canadian museology is more widely recognized abroad than at home. Most Canadians have become more accustomed to hearing about the activities of their museums when the latest protest or demonstration hits the national media. The furor of the moment might surround a demand to remove a familiar piece of art whose colonial content has come to seem offensive, an exhibition accused of misrepresenting a particular constituency, or the spending of public funds on a new museum or work of art that, some feel, does not adequately serve the nation as a whole.
Not surprisingly, given Canada's long struggle to define its own image, what such controversies have in common is that they revolve around issues of identity, diversity and public representation. Should we boycott an exhibition sponsored by a company that is drilling for oil on land claimed by a First Nation (1988)?
Is an exhibition that explores Canadian involvement in the colonization of Africa demeaning to African Canadians (1989)?
Why did the National Gallery spend a large sum of Canadian taxpayers' money on a painting by an American artist (1990)?
Would the inclusion of a Holocaust gallery in the new Canadian War Museum overshadow the history of Canada's military and the genocidal experiences of other diasporic communities (1997-98)?
Should the Indian scout kneeling at the feet of Samuel de Champlain on an early 20-century Ottawa monument be removed because it suggests Aboriginal complicity in colonial conquest (1997)?
Was the Canadian Museum of Civilization wrong to have tried to postpone an exhibition of art by Arab Canadians scheduled to open right after the bombing of the World Trade Center (2001)?
Does the National Gallery of Canada's definition of artistic excellence unfairly exclude artists from diasporic communities (2010)?
Whose injustices should be represented in the new Canadian Museum of Human Rights (2011)?
Where, if at all, should the government build a new national portrait gallery (ongoing)?
Although I cannot support the statement with statistics, I would be willing to wager that Canada has seen a disproportionately large number of such museum-based contestations and that they receive an exceptional amount of coverage in the national media. Museums and public monuments, it seems, have come to serve as primary barometers of the manner in which public institutions -- and, by association, their governmental sponsors -- interpret laws and policies related to cultural diversity.
Since the 1980s, the development of new ways to work with both the Indigenous and diasporic "originating communities" from whom museums have acquired their collections has been a positive result of the volatile atmosphere in which Canadian museums have been operating. This book exploreS this history of contestation, innovation and change, as well as the structural relationships that link processes of decolonization, inclusivity and reform at the micro-level of the museum with those that have been unfolding at the macro-level of Canadian society and politics.
In light of these goals it will be important, especially for the non-Canadian reader, to provide a summary, however brief, of key late 20-century trends and events that define these larger patterns of change. Because I have been a participant in a number of the episodes of museum change I discuss, it will also be helpful for me to position myself in the story. In this prefatory chapter I thus find myself deviating from the advice I give to students writing theses.
"Tell your readers how you came to the project in the preface," I suggest, "and put the intellectual framing into the introduction." Instead, I offer here a preface by way of an introduction -- or perhaps an introduction by way of a preface. My excuse for the inconsistency is that the trajectory of my professional career has been so closely interwoven with the story of change in Canadian museums that an account which combines analysis with a personal documentation of events as I experienced them seems both more honest and more useful.
Contingencies of biography enter, of course, into every scholarly and critical project, and personal experience always determines the angles of reflection that both open up and limit the resulting narratives. Yet the four decades of change in Canadian museums since the mid-1960s that are discussed in these chapters seem to me to have a particularly tight connection to the events that shaped the political and social consciousness of my generation. I came of age in the United States during the 1960s, and my academic formation was inevitably influenced by the upheavals and activist movements that marked that decade -- the civil-rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war protests, and the women's movement.
The Vietnam war was the cause of my husband's and my immigration to Canada in 1968. Once arrived in Toronto to resume graduate studies, we encountered a new and unfamiliar set of social and political dynamics. The atmosphere of nationalist pride and the exhilaration generated by the previous year's centennial celebrations still lingered, but the residual euphoria mingled uneasily with the growing momentum of Quebec nationalism.
Indigenous resistance to colonial policies and territorial infringements had been renewed following World War ii and intensified during the 1960s. A further factor that complicated national and local politics was the increased pace of demographic diversification brought about by postwar immigration.
I vividly remember my first months in Canada, when the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communication gave me a temporary job dispensing information about programs for new Canadians at its booth at the Canadian National Exhibition. Each day for nearly three weeks, in the space adjacent to our booth, a different group of young people came to demonstrate the music and dance of the ethnic group to which they belonged.
Accustomed to thinking of "immigrants" as largely elderly people who had arrived in North America in the early 20th century and whose children had long fled the inner-city neighbourhoods where their parents still resided for the assimilated life of the suburbs, I found the energy of these demonstrations amazing. Both their vitality and the official government sponsorship impressed me as evidence of a much more celebratory attitude toward cultural diversity.
As I argue in my book, the challenge posed to the traditional construct of Canada as a settler nation rooted in French and British colonial histories by increasingly effective Aboriginal activism and the growth of diasporic communities provided not just the backdrop to a history of museum change but, rather, its enabling conditions.
It is a concept that has developed out of a predominantly western legal tradition, and has most recently been promoted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation, as part of a more general United Nations push
to see the diverse wealth of this world's indigenous, intangible cultural heritage better valued and better protected against probable, ongoing misappropriation and misuse.
FYI: see Greg Young Ing (a friend)
greg.younging@ubc.ca
The Haisla Totem Pole of Kitimat, British Columbia was originally prepared for chief hövding G'psgoalux in 1872. This aboriginal artifact was donated to a Swedish museum in 1929. According to the donor, he had purchased the pole from the Haisla people while he lived on the Canadian west coast and served as Swedish consul. After being approached by the Haisla people, the Swedish government decided in 1994 to return the pole, as the exact circumstances around the acquisition were unclear. The pole was returned to Kitimat in 2006 after a building had been constructed in order to preserve the pole.
RCAP report/ Vol.3 /Chapter 6 /Appendix 6A: Excerpts from Turning the Page:Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and
First Peoples*
* Report of the Task Force on Museums and First Peoples (Ottawa:
AFN & CMA,1992)
As AFN staff, I worked this conference, it was held at Carleton University in Ottawa. It was also cited in the RCAP reports & my friend Greg Young Ing was given the task & has followed through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Issues_in_Cultural_Heritage_project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Issues_in_Cultural_Heritage_project
more info?
http://web.ubc.ca/okanagan/ccgs/faculty/younging.html
http://cgi.sfu.ca/~ipinch/cgi-bin/
http://blog.aaanet.org/2009/08/12/intellectual-property-issues-in-cultural-heritage-project/
http://www.discovercalgary.com/Calgary/Departments/FirstImpressions/
The disputed cultural property items are physical artifacts of a group or society that were taken from another group usually in an act of looting, whether in the context of colonialism, imperialism or war.
The contested objects range widely from sculptures and paintings to monuments and human remains..
so happy the Rule of Law has changed from "FINDERS KEEPERS LOSERS WEEPERS or in western legal terms: "to the victors go the spoils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_repatriation
1.2 Sacred and Secular Artifacts
Aboriginal people are seeking the return of artifacts held by museums and
collectors as one way of reasserting control over how their cultures are
depicted. These objects are the physical records of history and the physical
manifestations of culture. They help define Aboriginal identity:
Traditionally, Aboriginal cultural knowledge is transmitted and documented
primarily through the oral tradition, but also through such things as dramatic
productions, dance performances, and they are documented on such
artifacts as wampum belts, birch bark scrolls, totem poles, petroglyphs and
masks. This is the Aboriginal way of transmitting knowledge and of
recording information and history.
Greg Young-Ing
Vancouver, British Columbia, 4 June 1993
Items taken from Aboriginal people and communities over the years may be
secular or sacred. Secular objects might include tools, hunting equipment
and clothing — articles of everyday use. Some objects have sacred
significance, such as medicine bundles, which contain objects associated
with visions and are opened only on ceremonial occasions.
RCAP report/ Vol.3 /Chapter 6 /Appendix 6A: Excerpts from Turning the Page:Forging New Partnerships Between Museums and
First Peoples*
This report considers the disposition of Aboriginal cultural patrimony,
including human remains, burial objects, sacred and ceremonial objectsand other cultural objects that have ongoing historical, traditional or cultural import to an Aboriginal community or culture. The Canadian MuseumsAssociation and the Assembly of First Nations should endorse andencourage the adoption of the following guidelines relating to the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural patrimony:
a. Human Remains
b. Objects of Cultural Patrimony
The treatment, use, presentation and disposition of sacred and ceremonial objects and any other objects of cultural patrimony should be decided on moral and ethical grounds with the full involvement of the appropriate First Nations as equal partners. In the event of disputes between individuals, between an individual and the community or between communities, the onus should be on the First Peoples to resolve the dispute according to customary practice.
Recommended options for this process include:
(i) Restitution or Reversion.
(ii) Transfer of Title.
(iii) Loan of Materials
(iv) Replication of Materials
(iv) Replica
c. Repatriation of Foreign Holdings
The CMA and the AFN are urged to promote repatriation of human remains and objects of cultural patrimony held outside the country, subject to the same criteria outlined above under 1 & 2, through lobbying efforts in association with national governments, UNESCO, the International Council of Museums and other professional organizations.
* Report of the Task Force on Museums and First Peoples (Ottawa:
AFN
&
I was working in Indian gov't when the Lubicon Lake Cree people asked for help..
I remember the Boycott of the "Spirit Sings" exhibition during the 1986 Olympics & worked the conference that AFN had with the museums after the boycott.
Backgrounder:
In 1988, the Lubicon Lake Cree organized a boycott of The Spirit Sings, the cultural showcase of the Winter Olympics in Calgary. Museums were asked not to lend objects for the display, and many people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, refused to attend.
The boycott did a great deal to raiseawareness of the issues, and as a result of the conflict, the Assembly ofFirst Nations (AFN) and the Canadian Museums Association (CMA) formed a task force with a mandate to “develop an ethical framework and strategies for Aboriginal Nations to represent their history and culture in concert with cultural institutions”.
As AFN staff, I worked this conference, it was held at Carleton University in Ottawa. It was also cited in the RCAP reports & my friend Greg Young Ing was given the task & has followed through.
Perhaps the references I add to every comment burns some people's *** but that is on of the cornerstones of activism...ducks in a row......grin
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/humanr.htm
more backgrounders:
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/negp/ho85_84.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/negp/ls930330.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/wcc.htm
http://www.lubicon.ca/pa/neg.htm
(from 2002-2009)
Little Buffalo community members, including school children, continue to experience nausea, burning eyes and headaches after one of the largest pipeline spills in Alberta history last Friday by Plains All American leaked nearly 30,000 barrels of oil into Lubicon traditional territory in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta.
The spill, April 29 at 7:30 a.m., occurred only 300 metres from local waterways.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Pipeline+leak+dark+community+First+Nation+chief+Lubicon+leader+concerned+people+health+after/4726152/story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation
&
http://www.lubicon.org/
( newer)
&
http://www.lubicon.ca/
(older)
http://skemman.is/is/stream/get/1946/5646/16604/1/Final_Thesis_1.pdf
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003983
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
http://www.bayefsky.com/docs.php/area/jurisprudence/treaty/ccpr/opt/0/node/4/filename/128_canada167_1984
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/128_canada167_1984.php
Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Communication No. 167/1984 (26 March 1990), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40) at 1 (1990).
This is how it worked:
the lower courts could have held that those who would assert unextinguished aboriginal rights must be able to show that they con't to pursue as was their inherent right since no treaty had ever been made with them, - the gov't liked to say they were included in Treaty 8 signed in 1899, although they never signed it, nor took scrip for it nor sold it, nor ceded it to anybody nor lost it in battle. Actually DIAND never even showed up until 1939 & promised them a reserve in 1940 which never materialized although they were magicaly added to other band membership lists over the years and in 1942 a DIAND official decided they didn't exist!! Two judicial commissions of inquiry denounced that tactic but alas said Diand official ensured no action was taken to undo that tactic. In 1952 when the Lubicon remarked to the feds that they were still waiting for the reserve - it was remarked that both levels of gov't wanted the Lubicon to move the reserve to a more convenient place.
A Diand memo revealed " There were so many inquires from oil companies to explore the area that it was becoming an embarrassment to state that it could not be entered."
Other people now want the mineral rights , which both levels of gov'ts admitted were included in the original reserve proposed in 1940."
.In DRUMBEAT:Anger & Renewal in Indian Country ISBN#0-929091-03-5 in the section entitled: The Lubicon of Northern Alberta... page 239 Between 1979 & 1982 more than 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of the Lubicon community. Hunting & trapping trails were taken over & turned into private oil-co. roads with signs/guards/gates. Traplines were systemically bulldozed on orders from the province & oil companies.Game was deliberately chased out of the area by firing rifles into the air, a sport entered into with such enthusiasm that some workers described it as being "almost like a competition". On October 15,1988, the Cree people of Lubicon Lake in northern Alberta, after 14 years of fruitless negotiation about their landclaims, established a blockade on roads leading into their traditional lands. On October 20, 1988 the RCMP arrived witha force of fifity officers, smashing the barricades & arresting 27 people. Between 1979 & 1983 the # of moose taken by Lubicon Lake people for food dropped from an average of more than 200 to under 20 per year.Trapping income dropped from $5,000 to $400.00. Local hide & handicraft buyers were told not to buy from Lubicon lake. Dependence of welfare soared from under 10% in 1981 to 95% by 1983.
Destruction of the Lubicon traditional economy & way of life wasn't simply the "unfortunate result of contact."
A compilation of key issues, resolutions and legal activities
Aboriginal communities have been raising concerns about the impacts of oilsands development on their communities and their legal rights for a number of years. Increasingly, these concerns are manifesting themselves as formal resolutions and legal challenges. This briefing note outlines their key concerns, shares their commentary and provides an overview of resolutions and legal issues.
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/briefingnoteosfntoursep10.pdf
Much of Western Society just doesn't seem to understand the responsibilities of traditonal territory & the idea of a "sacred place" to Native people. Perhaps it is due to the fact that they were colonialized & haven't dealt with the disporia of their own people..instead choosing to " displace all indigenous peoples" through every means possible.
They are not aware of the reciprocal relationship Indigenous people have with their homeland geography. When people try to explain this relationship to the non-Native population, they are interpreted as whiners, complainers, and obstructions to "advancement."
"The exclusive land bases held by Aboriginal peoples are, in most cases, only a small fraction of the much larger areas that constituted their original homelands. These traditional lands are now shared with other groups, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. While Aboriginal people generally do not dispute the need to share these territories with others, they emphasize that they have strong ties to their original homelands that involve special rights and responsibilities. Aboriginal jurisdiction over traditional territories is inherent and exists independently of any recognition by the governments of Canada and the provinces. From this perspective, agreements regarding shared lands and resources should be based on the principle of co-jurisdiction. The co-jurisdiction model differs from certain co-management approaches currently proposed by provincial governments. The latter enable Aboriginal people to participate in the management of resources, but under legislative and policy regimes developed without the participation of Aboriginal people. In the eyes of many Aboriginal people, such arrangements are unsatisfactory because they do not acknowledge the autonomous authority of Aboriginal governments regarding their traditional lands and resources. By contrast, the type of regime favoured by many Aboriginal people would involve Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal governments exercising jurisdiction in a co-operative manner as equal parties."