| HAYDEN F. BURGESS 86-649 Puuhulu Road WaiÂanae, Hawaii 96792-2723 Tel: 808 696-5157 Fax: 808 696-7774 19 October 1993 A Presentation to the Western Conference of Museums How should museums present indigenous cultures and respond to indigenous peoples? For an answer, perhaps we should first ask, "What is museums' role in the society?" Apparently, museums must fulfill the role of supporting the society in whatever direction the society is heading for (or should be heading for). But this response leads only to further questions: "What is the direction of human progression? What is the goal of human existence? Where are we heading for?" Unless these questions are first considered and resolved, and we are given definiteness in social direction, we are left without a sound formulation to guide us in addressing the initial question, we will remain adrift without direction, continuing in pointing out the cute clothing styles and hair designs, peeking at indigenous courtship methods, or an outright condemnation of indigenous religious practices. Therefore, I ask, "What is the supreme end of human existence?" I submit that spiritual development is the supreme end. The endeavors of mankind in economic, political and material accumulation, in the fields of science, medicine, astronomy, astrology, and technology all began as a progression in spiritual development. How closely those engaged in these endeavors have stayed on this initial path is subject to great controversy which I shall not entertain here. What of the languages, dances, ceremonies, art, "magic" and all these other practices of indigenous peoples which we collect loosely under the term "culture"? I submit that "culture" is the highest social and historical expression of a people of their spiritual development. In the languages, dances and ceremonies of indigenous peoples, we can often find at their very surface, the spirituality of the people. These cultural expressions are capsules of spiritual concepts developed by a people over thousands of years. What should be the responsibility of museums to moving the society they serve closer to society's supreme goal of spiritual development? Museums are responsible to maximize the opportunities in which people are able to understand and to continue developing their spirituality. Thus, in dealing with cultures of indigenous peoples, museums should present to their societies the cultural practices of others so that their societies will be enriched by the wealth of social and historical experiences of many other cultures. Thereby, museums will be providing their audiences the opportunity to appreciate the many avenues to spiritual development and thus be able to develop their own spirituality with a broader view of the already existing cultures. If this can be said to be the mission of museums, or at least cultural museums, then how best do museums achieve this goal in dealing with indigenous peoples? And in attempting to fulfill this mission, what are museums` responsibilities to accord indigenous peoples and their cultural practices the proper dignity and respect? In presenting indigenous cultures, museums must present not the museums' view of indigenous cultures for too often that view is shrouded with judgmental values based on the museum's particular approach to spirituality. When that is done, the cultural practices presented are done so by a value standard foreign to the indigenous culture. Such a practice accomplishes only the enforcement of the museum's society culture and does nothing to the service of the society in presenting other expressions of spirituality. Let me illustrate with an example. In Hawaii, the Bishop Museum presented an exhibition on the Hawaiian people. As I entered the first display hallway, I was immediately confronted by a brightly colored painting of an artist's rendition of the death of Captain James Cook at Kealakekua on the Island of Hawaii. Cook was centered in that picture with his men around him, warding off the attacks of the natives. That was the introductory statement for the po`e Hawaii, the native people of Hawaii, a people whose ancestors come from the creational god Po; whose forefathers were directly traceable to the life forms of the oceans and the lands, whose genealogical line was traceable from the time when the giant lizards roamed the earth a people who had no "dark ages" but whose genealogy is traceable, every step of the way, to the beginning of creation; whose creational chant, the Kumulipo, has been called the greatest piece of literature ever produced by mankind. Cook's appearance may have been the birth of our people in the minds of the Europeans, but for us, our beginnings is far different. I am sure we can find many more examples to illustrate the point of how a foreign view and value standard can produce a tremendously inaccurate presentation of indigenous cultures; yet serve only to reinforce the foreigner's concepts of indigenous cultures. How then can museums reform? Is it possible to bring about a new partnership between museums and indigenous peoples so that the cultures of the indigenous peoples may be presented accurately and respectfully, with greater tolerance for different forms of spiritual expressions? I will not be so bold as to suggest the method of reformation of museums. Rather, I would share some questions for consideration by those who are the experts in museums hoping that these questions may aid in the consideration of such reforms. QUESTIONS: 1. How can museums look beyond the form and outer appearance of a cultural display item and present for societies' appreciation the substance of spirituality contained within or illustrated by the item? 2. Can non-indigenous museum experts properly deal with the spiritual substance of indigenous cultures when these experts come from and abide by a belief system foreign to that of indigenous peoples? Should museums include indigenous peoples themselves into museum institutions so that the accurate transfer of information takes place in an exhibit? At what levels should museums incorporate indigenous peoples? How do museums include indigenous peoples? Should these indigenous people be "qualified" in terms of possessing diplomas, degrees or certificates (often proof of having been subjected to a minimum of social or cultural brainwashing) or should they be qualified in terms of possessing first hand experience, understanding, and perhaps even belief in the spiritual expression for which his or her culture stands. Should elders be considered the experts and museum trained people serve as their technical assistants to aid in presenting the elders' beliefs in the most accurate manner? 3) How should museums treat those aspects of indigenous cultures which, according to that culture, should not be exposed to others, or to women, or children; to those practices or display items reserved for disclosure only to a particular family or group? Who makes the final decision on whether or not to display such sensitive properties or practices? 4) In displaying indigenous objects sacred to the people, what are the proper methods of display which will not detract or appear disrespectful to indigenous concepts? How can modern technology be used to present these displays? Can indigenous methods such as songs, story telling or chants be used as a medium of communication? 5) What is the responsibility of museums to return sensitive cultural properties (eg. representational forms of gods or goddesses or spiritual elements, human remains, etc.)? Does it depend on whether or not such properties were freely given by the indigenous peoples? What constitutes "freely" given? Are bribes, trade in trinkets, barter with alcohol considered to be fair trading or "freely" given? Are a people under colonization ever able to "freely" give anything? How should museums treat the situation where such sensitive cultural properties are "found" by museum experts or others who turned these properties over (for a fee, favor, or otherwise) to museums? Do those circumstances make the possession of such properties by museums legitimate? Were such properties ever "lost" by indigenous peoples in order to be "found"? Is it a sufficient reason not to return cultural properties, the claim that indigenous peoples do not have the appropriate technology or facility to preserve such properties as well as museums? Is there any value to the indigenous claim that their properties are often never intended to be preserved but should be laid to rest or destroyed, or used in their ceremonies rather than enclosed in a display panel or left in the bottom of some drawer of a museum's basement? Is the "mentality" of preservation merely an imposition of foreign values applied to indigenous peoples? As we consider these issues and the sensitivity of indigenous peoples to museums, we should also consider the image which museums often represent to indigenous peoples. In some societies, museums seem to carry an aura of separateness from indigenous peoples an elite institution, the territory of scholars, scientists and tourists. Is it time for museums to take down the "walls" which separate them from the marginalized sectors of the society, either by virtue of that sector's geographical, cultural or economic situation? Especially with respect to those indigenous peoples who are now undergoing cultural extinction, including the loss of language, lack of creative crafts, weakening of individual identity in the cultures, do museums have a responsibility to give back to those people the product of museums' research and investigation of these people? If museums do indeed have an affirmative responsibility to act as a catalyst for the renaissance of a people's culture, how should this responsibility be met? Each museum will have to apply its role to the specific indigenous and non-indigenous situation it has before it. But these questions may be a beginning point to answer the question, ~How should museums present indigenous cultures and respond to indigenous peoples?" | |
|
