ReportWire

Tag: Indigenous people in Michigan

  • The day Detroit fell without firing a shot

    The day Detroit fell without firing a shot

    [ad_1]

    Excerpted from Raw Deal: The Indians of the Midwest and the Theft of Native Lands by Robert Downes.

    A little background: Detroit has a long history with the Indians of Michigan. It was established by the French in 1701 as a fortified trading post in the wake of 60 years of warfare between the Iroquois and the tribes of the Midwest. Dubbed “the straits” (détroit) by the French, early Fort Pontchartrain was intended as a friendly meeting ground to establish trade between various tribes who were no longer enemies. Acquired by the British during the French and Indian War, it was passed on to the United States after the American Revolution.

    By the early 1800s, Detroit was still a dismal frontier outpost surrounded by swamps and far from the military power of the newborn United States. In 1812 a powerful confederation of tribes under Shawnee war chief Tecumseh gathered to reclaim their land with the help of British troops. Little did American authorities realize that the fall of Detroit was imminent…

    The carving of the Michigan Territory began in earnest with the Treaty of Detroit, signed in November, 1807 by 30 chieftains of the Odawa, Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Wyandot along with Revolutionary War hero General William Hull, who was governor of the newly-created territory and its superintendent of Indian Affairs.

    The treaty ceded a pie-slice of southeastern Michigan extending from present-day Toledo north to the state’s “thumb” and then west to what is now the city of Jackson. For this massive purchase of eight million acres, the U.S. Government paid just .0012 dollars per acre — a little over one-tenth of a cent — possibly the equivalent of about two-and-a-half cents per acre today. As was the case with other treaties signed with the Indians, the United States government paid pennies per acre — or less — to Indian tribes for their land and then sold the acreage at a huge profit to white settlers.

    Written out in elegant script on two pages of parchment and approved by President Thomas Jefferson, the 1807 Treaty of Detroit guaranteed the Indians small parcels of land to live on within the ceded territory and provided them with “ten thousand dollars, in money, goods, implements of husbandry, or domestic animals…” The tribes were promised the services of two blacksmiths for a ten-year period. They were also guaranteed hunting and fishing rights on the ceded land, “as long as they remain the property of the United States.”

    The treaty became a template for many treaties to come throughout the Midwest. It also became a template for broken promises, since Congress often fell far short of delivering the cash, supplies and services that had been agreed upon.

    click to enlarge

    Robert Downes

    Map shows the dates and territory taken from the Indians during the treaties starting with the 1807 Treaty of Detroit.

    What could it hurt?

    One might wonder why Native peoples opted to cede their ancestral lands when the threat of removal to west of the Mississippi was still more of a rumor than a reality. Simple economics forced the issue in 1807. Egged on by traders, the Indians had scoured southeastern Michigan clean of fur-bearing animals and there was nothing left to trade for muskets, kettles, blankets, tools, and other necessities except for their land. Then too, they had little understanding as to how many white settlers were waiting in the wings, or what ceding their land would actually mean. To some it may have seemed as nonsensical as the idea of ceding the sun or the wind; what could it hurt? In time, Native emissaries would travel to New York, Philadelphia, and Washington to learn to their dismay that the whites were as numerous as the leaves of the forest, but the ramifications of this onslaught may not have been anticipated by the Indians in 1807.

    Not all of the Indians were happy with the treaty, however. Some of the Native signatories sided with the British soon thereafter as part of Tecumseh’s alliance in the War of 1812, while others stayed neutral, taking a wait-and-see approach as to which side would come out on top, the Brits or the Yanks.

    Rebuilding Detroit

    Sealing the deal in 1807 was one of the high points of Hull’s career. He had arrived in Detroit only two years earlier just after the whole town burned down as the result of sparks flying out of a baker’s pipe and igniting a pile of hay. Together with newly-arrived judge Augustus Elias Brevoort Woodward, the two masterminded the rebuilding of Detroit, with Woodward designing the streets arranged like spokes from the waterfront. From this pinnacle of achievement Hull’s career and reputation plummeted to the bottom five years later when he was duped into surrendering Detroit to a lesser force of the British and their Indian allies during the War of 1812.

    The war had a number of causes. For years the British Navy had been kidnapping sailors off American merchant ships on the slimmest of pretenses, and then even from a U.S. warship, impressing them into lives of virtual slavery aboard their own ships. American trade with Europe was also suppressed amid the Napoleonic Wars, causing economic turmoil at home. Add to this, the Brits were rabble-rousing the Indians, who raided American settlements from the safety of British Canada. The administration of James Madison declared war after Britain refused to end its practice of plundering American ships. Unfortunately, news that Britain intended to end the impressment of American sailors arrived weeks after the war got underway.

    click to enlarge General William Hull’s army arrived in Detroit on July 5, 1812. - Shutterstock

    Shutterstock

    General William Hull’s army arrived in Detroit on July 5, 1812.

    Surrender at Mackinac Island

    The capture of Detroit was preceded by the bloodless surrender of Mackinac Island on July 17, 1812.

    In mid-July, fort commander Lieutenant Porter Hanks noticed that the normally-friendly Odawa had developed a certain “coolness.” A friendly Odawa also told him that large numbers of Indians from many tribes were gathering at the British fort on St. Joseph Island lying thirty miles to the north. Hanks dispatched Michael Dousman, the captain of the local militia company, as a “confidential person” to find out what was going on.

    Dousman had paddled his canoe about 12 miles across the gray-green waters of Lake Huron when he spotted an armada of 70 war canoes flying pennants of eagle feathers and streamers of cloth and willow fronds, filled with 600 warriors painted for war. Accompanying them were 50 British soldiers aboard the schooner Caledonia and ten bateaux bearing 150 Canadian militiamen. Taken captive, he was pumped for information by British Captain Charles Roberts, whose force landed on the north end of the island at 3 a.m.

    Wishing to avoid bloodshed, Captain Roberts sent Dousman to warn the residents of the town below the fort to take shelter, making him promise not to spill the beans to the American troops. Roused at 6 a.m. by Dousman knocking on their doors, the townspeople fled to a stout distillery for safety. Their flight was reported to Lt. Hanks by the post’s surgeon, who lived in town. Lt. Hanks mustered his troops and prepared to make a stand.

    Meanwhile British Captain Roberts and his force made their way along a rough track across the island to the heights above the fort, setting up a 6-pounder cannon, which was capable of firing an iron ball about the size of a softball. Easily maneuvered and capable of knocking down walls, firing shrapnel or canisters full of slugs like a giant shotgun, or skipping a ball across a field of troops, the 6-pounder was the artillery of choice in battles ranging from the Revolution to the Civil War. Even so, its 870-lb. barrel and carriage of several hundred pounds hauled without the aid of horses or oxen made for a tough slog up the rough trail to the heights above the fort.

    Down below, Lt. Hanks and his 61 men had seven cannon, but all of them were trained on the harbor, and in any event, their cannon could not fire uphill even if they’d been wheeled around. Nor was withstanding a siege possible, since the fort’s only well was located outside its walls. Later that day, three townspeople arrived and talked Hanks into surrendering — an easy decision, considering the odds. He and his men didn’t even know that war had been declared. As was a common practice at the time, Hanks and his men were set free by Captain Roberts after swearing a gentleman’s agreement that they would not take up arms against the British.

    click to enlarge A depiction of the 1763 Siege of Fort Detroit by Frederic Remington. - Frederic Remington, public domain

    Frederic Remington, public domain

    A depiction of the 1763 Siege of Fort Detroit by Frederic Remington.

    Siege of Detroit

    Weeks later in August, British Major General Isaac Brock laid siege to Detroit with a force of 1,300 soldiers, 600 warriors, and two gunships, bombarding the town from across the river in Canada. For his part, American General Hull had 2,500-3,000 troops and militia and 700 civilians sequestered behind Detroit’s palisaded walls. Alas, their supply lines were cut off and they were far from any hope of rescue.

    Hull had accepted the order to secure Detroit with great reluctance, and then only because no other general was available. His orders included attacking the British Fort Malden at Amherstburg across the river in Canada. The American strategy called for conquering Canada in order to end Indian attacks on U.S. soil from their sanctuary beyond the border.

    But Hull was the wrong man for the job. Nearly 60, he had suffered a stroke and was debilitated by additional health problems and personal tragedies. With supplies from Ohio cut off by Tecumseh’s warriors and British troops, Hull began to crack, speaking in a trembling voice and dribbling tobacco juice down his beard and clothes. Worse, 400 hand-picked men, the cream of his troops, had gone off to try re-opening the supply lines to Ohio and had elected not to return to Detroit’s defense.

    Psychological warfare played a major role in the siege of Detroit. General Brock had arranged for a British courier to be captured along with a bogus document, which claimed that 5,000 Indians were preparing to attack the fort. Learning that the fort at Mackinac Island had been taken, Hull said its defeat “opened the Northern hive of Indians, and they were swarming down in every direction.” In a panic over the Indians and his blocked supply lines, he abruptly canceled the attack on Fort Malden, outraging his officers and crushing troop morale. “He is a coward and will not risque his person,” said one of his soldiers.

    A good laugh

    Huddled behind the log palisade of Detroit, Hull and his men watched as long lines of Shawnee war chief Tecumseh’s warriors paraded past the fort, uttering hideous war cries and gesturing with their weapons before sneaking around unseen behind a low bank of earth to repeat the charade. One can imagine the warriors had a good laugh back in their camp as the subterfuge went on.

    Prior experience with Indian warfare had shown that native warriors might be content to simply plunder their foes and knock them about a bit if they surrendered, but a bloodbath was almost certain if they took losses in battle. Native war chiefs were far less cavalier about the loss of a single man compared to commanders in the Napoleonic and American Civil wars, who sent tens of thousands to their deaths in mass attacks and then slept well at night. The loss of a single warrior was devastating to his family and his band; for who then would care for his wife and children? A war chief was judged by how many men he brought home safely, perhaps even more than the victories he scored.

    Of course, the slaughter of innocent non-combatants was hardly confined to that of Native warriors. Across the ocean amid the war with Napoleon, hundreds, if not thousands of unarmed Spanish citizens who refused to surrender to the British were killed by Lord Wellington’s troops at the towns of Badajoz and San Sebastian in an orgy of mass rape, murder, and arson that went on for days even while the war in America was being waged. An appalled British officer wrote that, “Men, women and children were shot in the streets for no other apparent reason than pastime; every species of outrage was publicly committed in the houses, churches and streets, and in a manner so brutal that a faithful recital would be too indecent and too shocking to humanity.”

    Surrendering to the Indians in the hope of being spared was a reasonable option, and Hull would have learned that not a soul was harmed by the warriors at Fort Mackinac. Gen. Brock played on well-known fears of a massacre, advising Hull that he had little control over his Indian allies, whose blood was up. “It is far from my inclination to join in a war of extermination,” he wrote to Hull, “but you must be aware, that the numerous body of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops, will be beyond control the moment the contest commences.”

    Horrified

    My God! What shall I do with these women and children!” Hull exclaimed on receiving Brock’s message. Horrified at the thought of a bloodbath, he was bamboozled into surrendering Detroit on August 16, 1812 without firing a shot or even consulting his officers.

    Outnumbered two-to-one, British General Brock had nonetheless crossed the river with 330 British regulars, 400 militia, and 600 Indians. His force captured 2,500 American troops, thirty-three cannon, and the Adams brig of war, including the entire Michigan Territory. An admiring Tecumseh exclaimed, “Now this is a man!” But a man for only a short time; Brock was killed in battle at Niagara two months later.

    Hull later claimed that Detroit had been running low on ammunition and cannon balls, but Brock’s troops were astonished to find more than five thousand pounds of powder and huge quantities of shot at the fort. Hull was court-martialed in 1814, convicted of cowardice and dereliction of duty, and sentenced to die by firing squad. He dodged those bullets, however, after President James Madison pardoned him in lieu of his age and service in the American Revolution.

    One of the ironies of the fall of Detroit was that three days later, Hull’s nephew, Captain Isaac Hull, would capture the British warship, Guerriere while commanding the U.S.S. Constitution, sending shock waves through the mighty British Empire. Isaac Hull was hailed as a national hero, while his uncle’s reputation went “hull down.”

    More information on the author can be found at robertdownes.com.

    [ad_2]

    Robert Downes

    Source link

  • DOJ thinks Enbridge Line 5 pipeline is trespassing on tribal lands

    DOJ thinks Enbridge Line 5 pipeline is trespassing on tribal lands

    [ad_1]

    This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

    Those involved in the Line 5 pipeline controversy have been waiting for the United States Department of Justice — and the Biden administration — to come forward with its opinion on a case that involves tribal sovereignty and foreign relations.

    But when the legal brief came down on Wednesday, no one was satisfied.

    The Justice Department amicus brief backed claims from a Wisconsin tribe that Enbridge, a Canadian company, was trespassing on its lands by continuing to operate the Line 5 pipeline there. The 71-year-old pipeline carries up to 540,000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids daily from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario.

    The DOJ also agreed that Enbridge has been trespassing on the band’s lands for over a decade, and specified the company should pay more than the court-ordered $5.15 million to the band, since the company has made over $1 billion in that time.

    “We are grateful the U.S. urged the court not to let Enbridge profit from its unlawful trespass,” said Robert Blanchard, chairman of the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in northern Wisconsin.

    But, Blanchard added in a statement, they’re disappointed the U.S. didn’t call for the company to stop trespassing immediately: “Enbridge should be required to promptly leave our Reservation, just like other companies that have trespassed on tribal land.”

    The legal trail began in 2019, when the band sued Enbridge for trespassing. The district ruling came out last June. Both Enbridge and the band appealed.

    In their appeal, Enbridge and the Canadian government pointed to the 1977 Transit Pipeline Treaty between the United States and Canada, which promised an uninterrupted flow of oil and gas products between the nations.

    Both Enbridge and Canada argue that shutting down the pipeline before relocating it would violate the pipeline treaty, and would impact energy supplies across the northern U.S. and Canada.

    The court waiting for the DOJ brief, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, was looking for guidance on that question.

    But the department stopped short of saying how the court should interpret the 1977 treaty, only recommending that the case be sent back to the district court to more fully consider public interests, including diplomatic relations with Canada, energy concerns around Line 5, and protecting the band’s sovereign rights.

    “The brief does not provide an interpretation of the transit treaty’s provisions, and that was pretty stunning, given that the court asked specifically for that interpretation,” said the band’s attorney, Riyaz Kanji.

    The Bad River Band disagrees with Enbridge and Canada’s interpretation of the pipeline treaty. The band refers to its 1854 treaty with the U.S., which recognizes its sovereign authority over those lands.

    Even if the pipeline treaty applies, according to the band, it still allows for pipelines to be regulated, including for pipeline safety and environmental protection.

    That has worried the band’s supporters. Some say the U.S. is failing to meaningfully support tribal sovereignty, instead protecting its interests with Canada.

    “From the point of view of the tribe and its allies, this is incredibly concerning that the United States is not advocating for the shutdown or removal of that pipeline” said Matthew Fletcher, a citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and a law professor at the University of Michigan.

    Other Great Lakes tribes have argued that accepting Canada and Enbridge’s interpretation of the pipeline treaty would undermine foundational principles of tribal sovereignty and would have major implications for property rights.

    In a letter to the Biden administration in late February, representatives from 30 tribal nations across the region said the U.S. should fulfill its trust responsibility by rejecting that interpretation of the pipeline treaty.

    Enbridge declined Grist’s request for an interview. In an emailed statement, company spokesperson Ryan Duffy said, “The Government of Canada has made its position clear. Such a shutdown is not in the public interest as it would negatively impact businesses, communities and millions of individuals who depend on Line 5 for energy in both the U.S. and Canada.”

    The band, Enbridge, and Canada have until April 24 to respond to the DOJ’s brief. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will then decide how to move forward.

    Editor’s note: Enbridge is an advertiser with Interlochen Public Radio. Advertisers have no role in IPR’s editorial decisions.

    [ad_2]

    Izzy Ross, Interlochen Public Radio

    Source link

  • Detroit Institute of Arts works to return Indigenous remains and sacred objects amid federal law updates

    Detroit Institute of Arts works to return Indigenous remains and sacred objects amid federal law updates

    [ad_1]

    During a visit to the Detroit Institute of Arts in February, I noticed a section of the Native American Art exhibit was missing with signs that read, “Gallery work in progress. We are preparing something new for you. Come see in March!”

    A new exhibit of contemporary Native American art had been unveiled in the DIA’s Cosmos Gallery upon a second visit in March. Next to it, a sign says the museum removed items that had been displayed without consent.

    “Why Are There Empty Spaces in the Native American Galleries?” the sign reads. It continues, “The DIA has removed some items from display in an effort to return cultural items in the collection that likely were taken from Native American communities or individual makers without consent. The DIA is in discussion with Native American Tribes and is following the process outlined in the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).”

    The DIA tells Metro Times the NAGPRA notices were installed in the Native American Art galleries in early 2023.

    Across the nation, museums have been removing items from Native American exhibits or dismantling them entirely in response to updated federal regulations that require institutions to obtain informed consent from Indigenous tribes, lineal descendants, or Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) before displaying, possessing, or conducting research on culturally significant items.

    A revised version of NAGPRA went into effect on January 12, 2024 with stricter guidelines for institutions to return human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to the tribes they originated from. Museums have five years to consult with tribes, update their inventories, and return the remains of ancestors and funerary objects.

    click to enlarge

    Randiah Camille Green

    A sign notes that the “DIA is in discussion with Native American Tribes and is following the process outlined in the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).”

    NAGPRA isn’t a new law that suddenly appeared in 2024, however. It has been the federal law since 1990 and regulations requiring institutions to consult with Native American tribes went into effect in 1995. Unfortunately, as Chief Executive and Attorney for the Association on American Indian Affairs Shannon O’Loughlin explains, several loopholes in the previous iteration of NAGPRA allowed museums to get away with non-compliance.

    “There was no definition of what consultation meant,” O’Loughlin says about the faults of NAGPRA as it was previously written. “So what we saw is, institutions who didn’t want to comply would simply send a letter or an email, and that’s all they would ever do to communicate with tribes. Then they would make their own determinations without true consultation.”

    She adds, “The law has been in place for more than 30 years saying, you don’t have a right to these items. You’re supposed to be repatriating these items, but institutions haven’t done that… If you want to do an exhibit or you want to do extractive research and pull DNA out of my ancestors, you need to ask permission first because it’s native nations who are the primary experts of their cultural heritage and the rightful holders of these materials.”

    In 2021, DIA Assistant Curator for Native American Art Denene De Quintal “encountered” the remains of 13 Indigenous ancestors and six funerary objects in a storeroom for the museum’s Indigenous Americas collection during a “comprehensive inventory,” according to transcripts from a NAGPRA Review Committee meeting on June 7-8, 2023. De Quintal joined the museum in 2019 after the position was vacant for nearly a decade.

    click to enlarge Empty display cases visible in the DIA’s Native American Galleries in February, 2024. - Randiah Camille Green

    Randiah Camille Green

    Empty display cases visible in the DIA’s Native American Galleries in February, 2024.

    The American Museum of Natural History removed two of its Native American exhibits completely following the updated regulations. The Cleveland Museum of Art and Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History covered display cases with Native American items in response, and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University vowed to remove all funerary items.

    The DIA has a history of consulting with tribes and has worked to return the remains of at least 21 ancestors and several cultural objects in its possession over the past several decades, including the ancestors discovered in 2021.

    Despite a month of back and forth with the museum via email prior to the unveiling of the new exhibit, the DIA would not provide Metro Times with additional information on what items were previously displayed in the Cosmos Gallery “out of respect for the tribes.”

    A representative for the museum wrote about the new exhibit, “This gallery has been planned for more than a year. The galleries have been installed since 2007, [and] the new gallery is a chance to highlight contemporary art and contemporary voices before a full reinstallation of all the galleries can be planned.”

    The DIA told Metro Times it was consulting with local tribes and “[deferred] to them to share that information.”

    “In our commitment to adhering to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), we have and continue to welcome consultations with Native American tribes,” a statement from the museum reads. “Consultation has been used in the recent past and will continue to be used by the DIA to determine what items are and will be on display. The museum will make every effort to ensure its compliance with the new NAGPRA regulations.”

    I also observed in February that an item described as a “model of a Shaman’s guardian figure” from the Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska had been removed from a display case at the DIA. A placard in its place notes “this item has been temporarily removed” and is dated August 1, 2022.

    O’Loughlin says museums covering up and removing collections is a red flag that shows which institutions haven’t been compliant with NAGPRA all this time. O’Loughlin sat on the NAGPRA Review Committee from 2013 to 2015 and is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

    click to enlarge The DIA’s Native American Gallery in late January, 2024. - Steve Neavling

    Steve Neavling

    The DIA’s Native American Gallery in late January, 2024.

    The DIA’s history of repatriation

    At the June 2023 NAGPRA Review Committee meeting, De Quintal and other DIA staff received the committee’s approval to repatriate the remains of 11 ancestors and six funerary objects to Michigan’s Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

    The museum needed approval because the 11 ancestors had been deemed “culturally unidentifiable,” an egregious term O’Loughlin says museums have used to claim they couldn’t trace the ancestors’ origin and, therefore, didn’t know what tribe to return them to. The other two ancestors out of the 13 that were discovered were determined to be affiliated with Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

    One of the updates to NAGPRA was removing the “culturally unidentifiable human remains” category.

    “It’s a lie under the law,” O’Loughlin says about Native American ancestors being culturally unidentifiable. “Most of these institutions, the inventories that they’ve produced have plenty of information, including geography, to affiliate those ancestors with their nations. But, they determined that — because they didn’t consult [and] they just sent a letter — ‘I guess they’re not identified with anyone, so we’ll keep them.’”

    She continues, “Harvard is a great example of this because, unless an ancestor was deemed affiliated, they would continue to do extractive DNA research and other types of research on human remains and cultural items even though they had no legal right to do so… So the new regulations are really important, not just because they’ve now defined clearly what consultation means, but they’ve also eliminated this concept of ‘unidentifiable.’”

    De Quintal said at the June 2023 meeting that the DIA invited “43 Indian tribes, as well as the two Michigan State Historic Tribes whose aboriginal land includes Michigan” to the museum for consultation and “no one objected to a culturally unidentifiable determination based on a lack of evidence.”

    According to De Quintal, after monthly meetings with NAGPRA representatives of Michigan’s Anishinaabe tribes and the Michigan Anishinaabek Cultural Preservation and Repatriation Alliance (MACPRA), the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe requested the remains be returned to them.

    The DIA confirmed to Metro Times that the ancestors had been returned.

    Marie Richards, who was the Repatriation and Historic Preservation Specialist for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe at the time, was responsible for removing those ancestors from the DIA and bringing them to the Upper Peninsula. She now works for the federal government as a Tribal Relations Specialist.

    “I made a trip from Sault Ste. Marie to [the] Detroit Institute of Arts that Wednesday before Thanksgiving,” Richards recalls to Metro Times. “I met with staff and was able to, under the language of the law, take possession [and] have stewardship, and [I] escorted those ancestors up to Sault Ste. Marie… It’s a culturally sensitive thing but we try to help them continue their journey back to the spirit world after having that disturbance the best that we can, and part of that is reburial.”

    Richards explains that the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe is often the designated caretaker for “unidentifiable” ancestors in cases like these, as decided by the Michigan Anishinaabek Cultural Preservation and Repatriation Alliance.

    “Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is based out of Sault Ste. Marie, [Michigan]. It’s the gathering place, where on different occasions, bands of Anishinaabe from all over the Great Lakes would meet,” she says. “Because of that historical role that we played in our culture as the host to people from many nations, we continue doing that… Those ancestors do have a right to something, so it’s just a matter of figuring out how we can do that in a good way.”

    Richards says the Sault Ste. Marie tribe has also received the remains of ancestors repatriated from Michigan State University in a similar situation where they were deemed “culturally unidentifiable.”

    click to enlarge The Native American Gallery at the DIA spans thousands of years. - Steve Neavling

    Steve Neavling

    The Native American Gallery at the DIA spans thousands of years.

    According to ProPublica’s Repatriation Database, the DIA has made all of the 23 Native American remains that it reported having to the federal government available for return to tribes. The same database reports that Michigan State University has made 100% of 544 ancestors and over 84,900 associated funerary objects it reported possessing available for return to tribes.

    However, making the remains and funerary objects “available for repatriation” doesn’t always mean those ancestors and sacred items make it back home.

    “That’s one of the problems that we tried to correct with the new regulations [is] that you don’t really know what actually happened or not,” O’Loughlin says.

    After an institution submits a “notice of intent to repatriate” on the federal register, the affiliated nations then have to submit a request for repatriation, O’Loughlin explains.

    “So there has to be that formal, ‘yes, please give these back,’” she says. “This signifies kind of an administrative return… but there’s no notice that will tell you if something’s actually been physically returned.”

    On January 16, 2024, days after the NAGPRA updates went into effect, the DIA filed a notice with the National Park Service’s federal register to repatriate seven objects of cultural patrimony and four funerary items. These were reportedly removed from “unknown locations in Alaska” and have been traced back to the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes. Some of the objects include a Gooch Shádaa (wolf headdress), a Weix’ S’eek Daakeit (sculpin tobacco pipe), a Xixch’ S’eek Daakeit (frog tobacco pipe), a Kaashishxaaw S’eek Daakeit (dragonfly pipe), and a bear tooth amulet.

    The DIA confirmed that the Shaman guardian figure removed from display in 2022 (and whose space was still empty during our visit) is one of the items it intends to repatriate

    “The museum’s work on this gallery continues,” a DIA representative told Metro Times. “In addition to tribal consultations on the collection, items are often removed from display or rotated as is common in museums. As that continues more items may be removed from the galleries and may through the process established by NAGPRA. Out of respect for the tribes and their preference on how this process should be handled, the museum will not make an announcement every time this happens, but the work is ongoing.”

    Four of these items are believed to have been placed “with or near individual human remains” as part of a burial rite or ceremony, and all were determined to have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance to the Tlingit and Haida Tribes.

    click to enlarge The DIA’s Native American Gallery includes art from as far south as Peru and as far north as Alaska. - Steve Neavling

    Steve Neavling

    The DIA’s Native American Gallery includes art from as far south as Peru and as far north as Alaska.

    “The documents were published in January but the decision was made before that,” a representative for the museum said about the notice of intent to repatriate. “The process can take years from the initial consultation to the formal request from the tribe.”

    Back in 2001, the DIA filed a notice of intent to repatriate a bear claw necklace of cultural patrimony from its collection. The necklace — made of 30 grizzly bear claws, glass beads, and otter fur — belonged to James White Cloud (1841-1940), a chief of the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska. According to the federal register, the DIA purchased this necklace in 1981 from a man named Richard Pohrt of Flint. Documents and oral testimony show the necklace had passed through an Oklahoma pawn shop, Oklahoma’s Southern Plains Indian Museum and Crafts Center, and another man named Mildford Chandler of Detroit before landing in the DIA’s possession.

    Judith Dolkart, DIA Deputy Director of Art, Education & Programs, told the NAGPRA Review Committee the necklace had since been repatriated to the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska.

    “[NAGPRA] is only 34 years old, and if everyone had followed it as they should have, the only issue would be new acquisitions. But unfortunately, that’s not the case,” Richards says. “With objects of cultural patrimony, that is the one where we’re seeing more changes in the federal law and that’s why many institutions immediately pulled objects they did not have consent for, or covered them. [The] DIA had already had such items not on display.”

    Richards says the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe was invited to the DIA along with several other tribes to consult with the museum about patrimony objects in 2023.

    “I’m very vocal about why consultation has to happen, why these conversations with tribes have to happen collectively,” she says. “There were several tribes present so we could talk with each other as well as interact with the items. It’s important for the institution to talk with the tribe and also for us to be able to interact with our colleagues who also want what’s best for the ancestors and those objects of cultural patrimony.”

    According to transcripts from the June 2023 NAGPRA Review Committee meeting, the DIA submitted notice of having 10 “culturally unidentifiable” Native American ancestors in its inventory in the early 1990s that had been “removed from Detroit or the surrounding area.” After consulting with several of Michigan’s Anishinaabe tribes, Dolkart told the committee, those ancestors were returned in or after 2009.

    She also noted that the DIA held monthly virtual meetings with Michigan tribes between October 2022 and April of 2023, who advised the museum on what items should be removed from display.

    “Throughout those seven months, the tribes determined which images should be removed from the DIA’s website, which items should be removed from display, and which items the DIA collection staff should make available for examination during an in-person consultation,” she said.

    At that same meeting, Veronica Pasfield, a NAGPRA Officer for Bay Mills Indian Community in Brimley, Michigan, commended the DIA for its efforts.

    “I was involved in the Detroit Institute of Arts consultation and I just wanted to publicly state that I give a lot of credit to the Detroit Institute of Arts,” she said. “They and we were surprised to realize that the museum had some outstanding NAGPRA obligations, and the Detroit Institute of Arts really seemed to take seriously its federal legal compliance responsibilities, as well as the human rights imperative that Congress set forth when creating NAGPRA in 1990. And for any museum that’s listening or any tribe that’s listening, if you want an example of what is possible when you have the institutional will, the Detroit Institute of Arts, with the support of Jan Bernstein [of Bernstein & Associates NAGPRA Consultants] and her team, really stepped up in a way that was very admirable and, in my experience, quite rare.”

    According to the Oakland Press, a ceremony to thank the DIA for its work returning Native American ancestors was held in February. At the ceremony, De Quintal was presented with a Healing Blanket and DIA Director and President Salvador Salort-Pons was given a plaque from South Eastern Michigan Indians, Inc., American Indian Health and Family Services Inc., and the Northern American Indian Association of Detroit, the Oakland Press reported.

    click to enlarge A new exhibit of contemporary Native American art had been unveiled in the DIA’s Cosmos Gallery. - Randiah Camille Green

    Randiah Camille Green

    A new exhibit of contemporary Native American art had been unveiled in the DIA’s Cosmos Gallery.

    In O’Loughlin’s eyes, closing entire Native American exhibits is taking the easy way out of a nuanced issue. Instead, she says, museums should do the work to consult with tribes so they can learn exactly what they have in their collections and display them accurately and respectfully.

    “As we were all going into NAGPRA and institutions were often fighting against NAGPRA, the complaint was that all their shelves would be empty,” she says. “And what we found was that when true consultation actually happens between tribes and those institutions… they learn about the values of various and diverse native nations so that they can properly educate the public because that’s the mission of a museum anyway…They’ve only had information provided by an archaeologist or an anthropologist and it often does not include the primary experts, the original peoples where the items came from.”

    She adds, “Native nations do want to educate the public about who they are, but they want to have control of it. They want to be able to be a part of that education, and they just haven’t ever been at the table until NAGPRA was passed… Also, there’s about 150 tribal museums that are owned by native nations and they are likely better places to go if you want to learn about them.”

    [ad_2]

    Randiah Camille Green

    Source link