Repatriation Within A Canadian Context

The class presentation by Stephanie Calce was quite interesting for the material she presented in regards to Canadian Repatriation methods. I recall in Anth 100 that we discussed NAGPRA and the effects felt by other countries however, this was done in a very broad sense. So it was not until this class (Anth 392) that I had an opportunity to learn more about repatriation within a  Canadian context. I appreciated the case examples that Stephanie highlighted that while some stereotypes hold true, such as native groups unable to come together and solve their conflicts in order to repatriate their ancestors, in stark contrast we have the profound example of Haida Gwaii , a group that has put repatriation on the top of their 'to-do list'.

While there is an assortment of issues that may hinder repatriation (legal, economic, social) attempts by Native communities I do feel that we should be putting more emphasis on the Universities to do more. As Stephanie mentioned U of T did, for over three decades, maintain the ancestral remains with care and caution however I can not help but analyze that while this does cost the University a person's salary-these remains are still studied to this day inferring that students, through their tuition, are assisting in the financial maintenance of these remains. Furthermore, someone is making perhaps a decent paycheck off of what they learned from these remains therefore, I am inclined to think that the University is continuing to benefit from these remains. Perhaps an equation where the University pays 60% and the community in question pays the remaining amount in order to secure the process of repatriation could be agreed upon in order to foster repatriation.

While our class is only 50 minutes in length and after business and any questions, we really only have from 40-45 minutes of learning opportunities. Perhaps it would make for an interesting learning experience to have a panel of speakers to discuss the repatriation process. For example, Stephanie could introduce the topic with background information, a U of T representative could present a break down of costs that they have incurred through housing and paying the salary of a person to maintain these remains. An economist could project how much the University has made from the remains being at their institution and finally, we could have a First Nations community member discuss their communities expenses and the implications of an ancestor being off traditional lands (spiritual implications). This discussion would allow for an interesting 3-dimensional view of all parties that are concerned so that a better understanding can be achieved by all present including presenters, students and spectators.

Along the lines of repatriation comes the question, Why Anthropologists study human remains, while this paper does a good job in illustrating what be can achieved from the study of skeletals, it is done so in a very ethnocentric manner For example question VII: "How does the study of human remains, particularly the study of Native American remains, benefit living people?" (Landau 1996).This question tries to insinuate that because we are all humans we have the same desire to know how we came about and that the means to do so are similar (refer to page 222 ). In my impression some cultures already know where they 'came from' and do not feel the inclination to disturb and destroy their ancestors in order to answer this question and others. Furthermore this paper briefly acknowledges the possibility of diverging worldviews however only incorporates one viewpoint in their discussion to justify their actions regarding the study of human remains.


References;

Landau, Patricia (1996). Why Anthropologists study human remains. American Indian Quarterly 20(2): 209-228. Available through: JSTOR. Accessed 29 March 2012.