A carefully written piece about a touchy political subject. The amount of hedging makes it a bit difficult to find the main point? I think it might be this: For people who haven't been following...
A carefully written piece about a touchy political subject. The amount of hedging makes it a bit difficult to find the main point? I think it might be this:
[...] Native American and BIPOC representation in museum leadership positions has grown significantly in recent years and is still growing. Foregrounding this shift makes it even more distressing that law enforcement, activists, journalists, and media platforms have chosen this specific moment to target and “make examples of” museums at an unprecedented rate, using extreme “repatriation” tactics. While some may cheer the dramatic seizures and awkwardly rushed returns, I do not agree with this approach. Rather, I believe we can learn from established Native American repatriation processes about the importance of building relationships and practicing collaboration with source communities, both at home and internationally. Also necessary is providing time and space for culturally specific deaccession and return ceremonies, and the inclusion of international communities, who, through museum access, also have connections with collection items representing their nations of origin and connections to homelands. How an item is returned to its community of origin is of great importance.
For people who haven't been following this kind of news, it would have been helpful to give examples, both good and bad. But I guess the specifics would be too controversial?
A carefully written piece about a touchy political subject. The amount of hedging makes it a bit difficult to find the main point? I think it might be this:
For people who haven't been following this kind of news, it would have been helpful to give examples, both good and bad. But I guess the specifics would be too controversial?
https://archive.is/B2wya