19711
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
30(4), 430-431
BY
JACK D. FORBES
(NOTE: THIS
MAY HELP TO EXPLAIN WHY I DID NOT RECEIVE A MERIT
INCREASE FOR MANY YEARS.
BUT THOUGHT THAT WE
WE WERE ALL SEARCHING FOR
TRUTH!)
I find
Professor Smith's article both valuable and stimulating and when I disagree it
is more with what is not said than with what is said. Neither Vine Deloria Jr.
(Custer Died for Your Sins) nor Professor Smith have in any way come close
to expressing the negative manner in which many Native Americans perceive
anthropologists nor have they probed, in any depth, ways in which anthropology
has, and still does, serve as a part of EuropeanAmerican imperialism and
exploitation. One can, of course,, cite the many individual anthropologists who
have become deeply involved in real friendships with Indians and a smaller
number who have consciously utilized their expertise to help Native Americans
realize native-determined goals. On the other hand, an equally strong, if not
stronger, trend runs in the direction of colonialism. I would like to briefly
cite some examples which are pertinent today:
1. The archaeologist, even when dealing
with sites related to a living native people, generally does not believe that
the people in question have any moral or legal right to protect the graves of
their ancestors or buried artifacts, nor does he believe that the recovered
materials belong to the Indian people. The archaeologist* or some
white-controlled institution# assumes the right
(subject to state or federal law) to
excavate when he pleases and to appropriate the artifacts without regard to
Indian considerations. Archaeologists argue, correctly, that U.S. laws have not
been interpreted so as to recognize any Indian ownership rights over most Indian
cemeteries, village
sites,, religious shrines et cetera* What we must consider, in an
ethical sense however is that Indians can. not legally and physically protect
their cemeteries, etc. because they are a conquered people, usually
deprived unwillingly, of control over their former homelands. It is significant
that archaeologists in the U.S. do not choose to excavate white cemeteries (in
spite of a 300+ year timedepth in which to study physical and cultural change),
except under rigidly controlled conditions, with terms usually being set by the
owner of the site (whether a private or public owner) .
2. Neither archaeologists, ethnographers,
nor linguists have ordinarily seen fit to prepare their synthesis in such a
manner as to be useful to the concerned Indian people. The material is "written
up" in such a way as to fit European cultural categories and# specifically, the
value sys. tems of white anthropologists. For example, a linguist may prepare an
entire volume of textual material in a native language, after having imposed
many hours of burdon upon informants. This textual material would often be very
useful in native education or individual reading, except that the alphabet used
is unreadable to the layman and (usually) no key is provided. Finally..
the linguist may never provide copies of the material to the people in question or concern himself with its dissemination to
Indians.
3.
Ethnologists have made films of native culture without ever providing a copy of
the film to the people or even arranging for a
showing of the film in a local school or meeting-house.
4. Products (such as a film or book) which
may have a decided, even crucial, impact upon the future status
of
a people (such as a film which may be
shown in public schools# or a book which may be widely read by teachers) are all
too frequently released without proper screening by an appropriate native panel.
Of courses the scholar may plead "academic freedom", "professionalism", et
cetera,, but# in my opinion, it makes good scholarly sense to have material
reviewed by "experts". More significantly still, when the scholar produces an
item which, by its nature, is going to have a public impact, he has removed
himself from the "ivory tower" and entered the arena of public affairs. He may
be legally free to do as he pleases, but ethical questions can be raised,
especially since Indian people, as a relatively "power-less" people., generally
lack the access to the media to defend themselves from denigration* subtle or
otherwise.
A
recent case in point is the Smithsonian Institution's current preparation of a
new handbook on Native Americans without the creation of any formal mechanisms
for Indian policy review of the projects either at the national, regional or
tribal level.
5.
Anthropologists in the applied and educational subareas have frequently cornered
research funds which would have best gone to Indian-controlled projects and,
more seriously, have established elitist-colonialists agencies for "social
engineering" purposes. For example,, anthropologists have been heavily involved
in the management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs since 1935, as well as the
U.S. Public Health Service, state Indian Affairs agencies, private "Rand D"
organizations, university research. action centers., et cetera, involved in the
making of decisions for Indians by non-Indians.
Anthropology is thoroughly pervaded by an
unthinking
ethnocentrism which is all the more shocking because of professed
"objectivity". Many will, of course, object to such a strong statement but one
final example should suffice to illustrate the use of Indians as "objects": the
re-naming of Indian groups by anthropologists (or the perpetuation of offensive,
foreign names) as well as the invention of new names (at will) for villages
sites, language families, er ceterap without ever consulting the concerned
people or, at least, using a name logically derived from the languages in
question (e.g. the use of Athapaskan instead of Tinne or
Dineh-an).
Jack
D. Forbes, Ph.D.
Trustee, Deganawidah-Quetzalcoatl University
Davis,
California