Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The German colonization of regions such as Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific started in the 19th century. It was characterized by oppression, violence, and exploitation. During this period, the administrators of German colonial territories used force to maintain their control over their territories. The colonial context of ethnographic museum collections has frequently been overlooked in museum historical and critical studies. This is partly due to museum studies Eurocentric, anthropocentric nature, which frequently privileges Euro-American perspectives and histories. However, it is important to emphasize that museums are never objective or value-free places. Rather they are socially constructed institutions that reflect the interests and worldviews of their creators and users. This paper explores Indigenous peoples representation in German ethnographic museum collections from a postcolonial theoretical framework.
German Ethnographic Museums
In the case of German ethnographic museums, this means a long history of colonialism and racism has shaped these collections. Since the 19th century, German ethnographic museums have collected and exhibited cultural artifacts worldwide, including from German colonies (Chavez Lamar, 2019, p.154; Lainey, 2022, p.300; Feld, 2022, p.74 and Brulon Soares, 2021, p.440). However, the representation of Indigenous peoples in these collections has been controversial, with many postcolonial critics arguing that the museums have perpetuated harmful stereotypes and misrepresentations of Indigenous cultures.
Research Questions
-
How have German ethnographic museums represented Indigenous peoples in their collections?
-
What are the implications of these representations from a postcolonial perspective?
Literature Review
Theoretical Framework
The postcolonial theory provides a framework for analyzing the effects of colonialism on colonized societies and the ongoing power imbalances between colonizers and the colonized. According to Bartiza and Zrizi (2022), through this lens, one can critically examine the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museum collections (p.70). These were largely collected during the height of German colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Raja et al. (2022), Ashby and Machin (2021), and Janes and Sandell (2019) concluded that by examining how, Indigenous cultures were represented in these collections. People can better understand the legacies of colonialism and the ongoing power imbalances between colonizers and the colonized.
Relevant Literature
The study of ethnographic museum collections from a postcolonial perspective has gained momentum in recent years. Specifically, with scholars focus on how museums have constructed racialized and stereotypical images of Indigenous peoples (Förster, 2022, p. 57; von Oswald, 2022, p. 320; Thiemeyer, 2019, p. 980). Several studies have examined the representation of Indigenous peoples in ethnographic museums, including German collections. For instance, Rboul (2022) analyzed the role of colonialism in producing and circulating knowledge about others, arguing that museums served as sites for collecting and displaying exotic objects that reinforced colonial power. Domínguez et al. (2020) discussed how museums constructed and maintained colonial hierarchies through their exhibitions of Indigenous cultures. Other scholars, such as Challis et al. (2022) and Dobroski (2022), have examined how the materiality of artifacts in ethnographic collections has served as a tool for concealing the hidden power relations between colonizers and the colonized.
Similarly, Gupta et al. (2022) and Kowal (2019) analyzed the representation of Indigenous peoples in museum collections from a postcolonial perspective, examining how museums have constructed cultural identities of Native peoples through the display of images and objects. Geismar and Müller (2022) and Brulon Soares (2021) argued that ethnographic museums reflect colonial ideologies regarding indigenous cultures. Horjan (2019) and van Huis et al. (2019) claimed that ethnographic museums aimed to emphasize their physical and cultural differences from European societies. Additionally, Coombes (2019) and Bright and Bakewell (2022) deduced that Indigenous cultures were essentialized and depicted as static entities that lacked individual identity through this process.
Critiques and Debates
Meanwhile, European settlers were portrayed as individuals capable of moving between cultures due to their presumed shared humanity. Colonial ideologies justified the exploitation of Indigenous peoples by portraying them as savages and primitive creatures (Norton, 2021, p. 61; PBonka, 2021, p. 95; Jonuks, 2021, p. 106). Norton, 2021; PBonka, 2021; Jonuks, 2021). Lana (2022) and Martínez (2021) also noted that museum power structures perpetuated these stereotypes through the hierarchical relationship between museum curators, who curated the displays, and indigenous informants, who provided material. For example, Vamanu (2020) asserted that museum curators often relied on Native informants to provide objects of exchange (toothbrushes or arrowheads), which they would then display in the museum or incorporate into their collections.
Critiques of ethnographic museums have been ongoing, particularly concerning their role in the colonial enterprise. The repatriation movement, for instance, has called for the return of cultural objects taken from Indigenous communities without their consent (McKeown, 2020, p. 34; Milicia, 2023, p.57; Clements, 2022). This movement is based on the argument that acquiring these objects was often violent and that their display in museums perpetuates the harm inflicted on Indigenous peoples (Rossi Rognoni, 2019, p. 410; McCarthy, 2019, p.789; Hill et al., 2020). Hunt (2019), Colwell (2019), and Campfens (2020), as proponents of the repatriation movement, argue that Indigenous peoples should have control over their cultural heritage and that the return of objects can help to address historical injustices.
Despite these critiques, there has been some progress in recent years, with some museums working towards decolonizing their collections and exhibitions. Western museums and Indigenous communities work collaboratively with these communities to reinterpret and recontextualize objects (Deiterding, 2022; McAuliffe, 2021; Schorch, 2020). Overall, the literature suggests that the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museums is a complex and contested issue, with implications for ongoing power imbalances and the legacies of colonialism (Gibbings, 2020, p.410; Eccarius-Kelly, 2020, p. 65; Russi & Kieffer-Døssing, 2019, p.505). Through a postcolonial lens, an individual can better understand these issues and work towards more equitable and collaborative approaches to interpreting and displaying cultural heritage.
Methodology
The research for this study involved a descriptive quantitative research method. Various sources were used such as sources including archival research and museum visits. Archival research investigated the historical context of the acquisition and display of Indigenous cultural objects in German ethnographic museums. This included a review of colonial archives, museum records, and other primary sources to gain insight into the motivations and practices of those involved in collecting and displaying Indigenous cultural objects. Through archival research, such as the archives of The German Ministry for Colonial Affairs, I gained a deeper understanding of the German colonial era and the establishment of museums. This process can also help me contextualize the colonial administrations policies and practices.
Museum visits were also carried out in collaboration with museum professionals. These visits were conducted to examine the representations of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museums. Through museum visits, was gained a deeper understanding of the representations of Indigenous peoples in various forms of art and culture. Additionally, was examined how these people are depicted through imagery, language, and interpretive resources and how these institutions have used their resources and perspectives to promote the representation of Indigenous cultures. Nonetheless, a collaboration with Indigenous communities, museums can foster a more respectful and accurate display of their cultures. It can also help promote social justice and challenge stereotypes.
The Limitations
The limitations of this study include the potential for bias in the selection of sources and the difficulty of accessing certain archival materials. The study also raises important ethical considerations, particularly concerning the representation of Indigenous peoples and the ownership of cultural heritage. These issues were addressed through a commitment to collaborative and ethical research practices, which involved seeking input and feedback from Indigenous community members and adhering to ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects.
Overall, the combination of archival research and museum visits provided a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museums. These visits allowed participants to develop a more nuanced understanding of the issues surrounding the representation of Indigenous peoples in ethnographic collections. This approach was intended to allow participants to understand the historical context of these representations and challenge them through critical dialogue and dialogue involving Indigenous community members.
Findings
The examination of the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museum collections revealed a complex and troubling history. This studys research employed a descriptive quantitative research methodology. Many ethnographic objects exhibited in German museums were acquired during the colonial period. During this time, the powers involved in other countries colonization actively acquired cultural artifacts from their colonized territories (MacKenzie, 2020; Stahn, 2022; Aly, 2023; Chavez Lamar, 2019). These objects were then placed in a museum context that stripped them of their original meanings and contexts, reducing them to mere curiosities for the entertainment of European audiences. The interpretations of these objects often reinforced colonial power dynamics, perpetuating racist and Orientalist stereotypes of Indigenous peoples as primitive and exotic (Collett, 2022, p. 13; Roussillon, 2021; Gram & Schoofs, 2022). These representations were often devoid of Indigenous voices and perspectives, erasing the agency and autonomy of Indigenous peoples and reinforcing their subjugation under colonial rule.
However, native people and groups will continue to request access to stored items at museums in greater numbers. Native Americans who use museum resources, whether for study or loans that support cultural revitalization initiatives, are part of an ongoing trend (Chavez Lamar, 2019). A collaborative movements cornerstone is the participation of experts representing the materials source. Making connections between Native Americans and museum collections improves the documentation and understanding of these objects; it has no effect on the objects themselves or the museums prior documentation. Yet new associations will form, new meanings will be discovered, and, hopefully, Native communities will experience revival.
Representations through Postcolonial Lens
Analyzing these representations through a postcolonial lens revealed the extent to which they reflected and reinforced colonial power dynamics. The museum context legitimized colonialism, reinforcing that European culture and knowledge were superior to Indigenous cultures and knowledge (Macdonald, 2022, p. 14; Vawda, 2019, p. 75). This was achieved through taxonomies, labels, and interpretive materials that considered Indigenous peoples and their cultures primitive and inferior. Nonetheless, indigenous responses to these representations have taken various forms, including resistance and reappropriation of cultural heritage (Hellier-Tinoco, 2021, p. 170; van Engelenhoven, 2021, p.562). This has included demands for the repatriation of cultural objects and efforts to reclaim and recontextualize Indigenous knowledge and practices. These efforts have challenged the hegemony of colonial power structures and provided a means for Indigenous peoples to assert their agency and autonomy.
Inclusive, the findings of this study demonstrate the importance of examining the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museum collections through a postcolonial lens. This involves a critical analysis of the historical and social contexts in which these representations were created, as well as an acknowledgment of the agency and autonomy of Indigenous peoples in shaping their cultural heritage.
Discussions
The findings of this study have significant implications from a postcolonial perspective. They illustrate how colonial power dynamics continue to be perpetuated and reinforced through the representation of Indigenous peoples in ethnographic museum collections. There are complex ways illustrated that Indigenous peoples have engaged with these representations, often in efforts to challenge colonial power structures and reclaim their agency and autonomy (Das & Semaan, 2022, p. 15; Tsai et al., 2022, p. 2140; Grimwood et al., 2019, p. 237; Pierre, 2019). This analysis, therefore, supports the assertion that ethnographic museum collections are not neutral or objective but rather represent a particular social order. This order is marked by hierarchical and hierarchical constructs, privileging European knowledge, culture, and values over those of Indigenous peoples. Establishing links between Native Americans and museum collections enhances the documentation and comprehension of these items; it has no bearing on the artifacts or any earlier documentation the museum may have.
Ethnographic Museums
The findings also illustrate the problematic relationship between ethnographic museums and Indigenous communities. The ethnographic museum context has frequently been used to legitimize colonial rule, erasing the role of museums in reinforcing occupation regimes through their representations of Indigenous peoples (Miller et al., 2022; de Jong, 2022; Kreps, 2019). As a result, many Indigenous communities have viewed museums as institutions that support colonialism rather than facilitating decolonization (Leischner, 2022, p.45; Popescu & Alb, 2022, p. 110). These representations have broader implications for contemporary Indigenous communities in Germany and beyond (Lähdesmäki et al., 2019; Cury, 2019, p.101). They reinforce harmful stereotypes and erode the agency and autonomy of Indigenous peoples, perpetuating a legacy of colonialism that continues to have profound impacts on their lives and well-being (Gonzálezet al., 2022, p. 435; Stevenson, 2020; Sanders, 2022; Tennent, 2021). This is especially true for Indigenous communities in Germany, which have been linked to the rise of right-wing nationalism and extremism (Leidig, 2020, p. 221; Jones et al., 2020; Zimmermann & Saalfeld, 2019, p. 65). Beebeejaun (2022) and Nel and Bieber (2022) claimed that there is also evidence that German society remains deeply racist and prejudiced against Indigenous peoples, despite multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity claims.
Strategies to Address Challenges Facing Ethnographic Museums
Promoting more inclusive and respectful representations of Indigenous peoples in ethnographic museum collections is crucial to address these issues. This requires a process of decolonization, which involves acknowledging the histories and contexts of colonial acquisition and examining how these histories have shaped current museum practices (Cury & Bombonato, 2022, p. 140; Juanena, 2022; Kevin & Salmon, 2020, p. 65). One strategy for decolonizing ethnographic museum collections is to involve Indigenous communities in curating and interpreting exhibits (Lonetree, 2021, p. 22; Black & Barringer, 2022, p. 13; DeBlock, 2019, p. 276; Rivet, 2020, p. 208). This can ensure that Indigenous perspectives and voices are represented and that Indigenous knowledge is treated with the respect they deserve. Germany urgently needs more inclusive, respectful, and culturally appropriate representations of Indigenous peoples in ethnographic museums (Watchman et al., 2019, p. 320; Balachandran & McHugh, 2019, p. 20; Eichler, 2020). German museums and Indigenous communities have already done much work to address this issue. In Berlin alone, several organizations are working towards a more inclusive representation of Indigenous peoples. These include the Native Art Gallery Berlin and the Bundesrat der Indian Snowshoe People (BISP).
Another strategy is to prioritize repatriating cultural objects to their communities of origin. This can help to restore a sense of agency and autonomy to Indigenous peoples and support efforts to reclaim and recontextualize their cultural heritage (Jaderojananont, 2022; Schuetze, 2019: Churchill, 2022 and Rossi Rognoni, 2019). In addition, Crawford and Jackson (2020) asserted that repatriation could help to dismantle the colonial power structures that have shaped the creation and display of ethnographic museum collections (p. 82). For example, in Germany, the Indigenous communities of Berlin continue to pursue repatriation efforts for some of the objects housed in ethnographic museums (Howes, 2020, p. 88; Machiridza & Thondhlana, 2022, p. 465; Penny, 2021). Though progress has been slow, there is hope that a more inclusive and respectful representation of Indigenous peoples will emerge from this process (Brown, 2021, p. 216; Johnston et al., 2021; Morphy, 2019; Hoffmann, 2022). In 2016, a decade-long struggle to repatriate two culturally significant objects was finally rewarded when Berlins Ethnological Museum returned the two mukluks to their communities in Northwestern Ontario.
Decolonizing ethnographic museum collections requires a commitment to addressing the ongoing legacies of colonialism and promoting social justice and equity for Indigenous peoples. By doing so, one can work towards a more just and inclusive society that acknowledges the agency and autonomy of all peoples and respects the diversity of cultural knowledge and practices (Giblin et al., 2019, p. 478; Möntmann, 2021, p. 26; Nelson, 2021; Spears, L., & Thompson, 2022, p. 37; Lilje & Clark, 2019, p. 44). The findings of this study highlight the need for further research on this topic. This study primarily focused on the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museums, with a particular emphasis on museums in Berlin. Additional research could involve examining other regions or contexts to understand better how colonialism has manifested through Indigenous peoples representation in ethnographic museum collections. This could include exploring how colonial power dynamics have been perpetuated and reinforced through various media, such as print or film.
Conclusion
Overall, this research paper has demonstrated the need for a postcolonial critique of the representation of Indigenous peoples in German ethnographic museum collections. These findings have significant implications for contemporary Indigenous communities in Germany and beyond and call for urgent action to decolonize ethnographic museum collections and promote more inclusive and respectful representations of Indigenous peoples. This requires acknowledging the histories and contexts of colonial acquisition, involving Indigenous communities in curating and interpreting exhibits, and prioritizing the repatriation of cultural objects to their communities of origin. There are limitations to this research, including the challenges of accessing and interpreting archival and museum data and the need for greater engagement with Indigenous perspectives and knowledge. Future research should address these limitations and deepen our understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonialism on Indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage.
In conclusion, this research paper calls for a commitment to decolonizing ethnographic museums and promoting more just and equitable representations of Indigenous peoples. By working towards these goals, we can build a more just and inclusive society that respects the diversity of cultural knowledge and practices, acknowledges the agency and autonomy of all peoples, and fosters a more just future for all.
References
Aly, G. (2023). The Magnificent Boat: The Colonial Theft of a South Seas Cultural Treasure. Harvard University Press.
Ashby, J., & Machin, R. (2021). Legacies of colonial violence in natural history collections. Journal of Natural Science Collections, 8, 44-54. Web.
Balachandran, S., & McHugh, K. (2019). Respectful and responsible stewardship: maintaining and renewing the cultural relevance of museum collections. Preventative Conservation: Collection Storage. Edited by Lisa Elkin and Christopher A. Norris. Society for the Preservation of Natural History: American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works: Smithsonian Institution: New York: The George Washington University Museum Studies Program, 3-25. Web.
Bartiza, S., & Zrizi, H. (2022). Postcolonialism: Literary Applications of a Decolonizing Tool. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 5(12), 69-75. Web.
Beebeejaun, Y. (2022). Whose diversity? Race, space and the European city. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-16. Web.
Black, C. V., & Barringer, T. (2022). Decolonizing Art and Empire. The Art Bulletin, 104(1), 6-20. Web.
Bright, B. J., & Bakewell, L. (2022). Looking high and low: art and cultural identity. University of Arizona Press.
Brown, C. W. (2021). Admire the Plunder, but Abhor the Thief: How the Development of International Law Perpetuates Colonial Inequities as Modern Nations Battle for the Repatriation of Looted Art and Artifacts. Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 14, 219. Web.
Brulon Soares, B. (2021). Decolonising the museum? Community experiences in the periphery of the ICOM museum definition. Curator: The Museum Journal, 64(3), 439-455. Web.
Campfens, E. (2020). Whose cultural objects? Introducing heritage title for cross-border cultural property claims. Netherlands International Law Review, 67(2), 257-295. Web.
Challis, S., & Sinclair-Thomson, B. (2022). The Impact of Contact and Colonization on Indigenous Worldviews, Rock Art, and the History of Southern Africa: The Disconnect . Current Anthropology, 63(S25), S000-S000. Web.
Chavez Lamar, C. (2019). A pathway home: connecting museum collections with native communities. In Arts (Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 154). MDPI. Web.
Churchill, R. P. (2022). The British Museum Had Lost Its Charm : The Repatriation of the Benin Bronzes and Nazi-Looted Jewish Art. Web.
Clements, B. A. (2022). Book Review: Museums, Infinity and the Culture of Protocols: Ethnographic Collections and Source Communities. Web.
Collett, E. (2022). Decolonizing costume: Unpicking ballets racist and colonialist stereotypes through Sidney Nolans costumes for The Rite of Spring (1962). Studies in Costume & Performance, 7(1), 9-26. Web.
Colwell, C. (2019). Can Repatriation Heal the Wounds of History?. The Public Historian, 41(1), 90-110. Web.
Coombes, A. E. (2019). Museums and the formation of national and cultural identities. In Grasping the World (pp. 278-297). Routledge. Web.
Crawford, N., & Jackson, D. (2020). Stealing Culture: Digital Repatriation (A Case Study). University Museums and Collections Journal, 12(2), 77-83. Web.
Cury, M. X. (2019). The sacred in museums, the museology of the sacredindigenous peoples spirituality. ICOFOM Study Series, (47 (1-2)), 89-104. Web.
Cury, M. X., & Bombonato, R. R. (2022). Representation and Self-representation: Archaeology and Ethnology Museums and Indigenous Peoples in Brazil. Museum Worlds, 10(1), 132-144. Web.
Das, D., & Semaan, B. (2022, April). Collaborative identity decolonization as reclaiming narrative agency: Identity work of Bengali communities on Quora. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-23). Web.
de Jong, C. (2022). The case of Sámi identity representation in museums in Northern Norway. People, Places, and Practices in the Arctic: Anthropological Perspectives on Representation. Web.
DeBlock, H. (2019). The Africa Museum of Tervuren, Belgium: the reopening of the last colonial museum in the world: issues on decolonization and repatriation. Museum & Society, 17(2), 272-281. Web.
Deiterding, R. (2022). Decolonizing or Changemaking: Professional Perspectives on Decolonizing Museum Practice in Small-and Medium-Sized Public Art Institutions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)). Web.
Dobroski, S. (2022). This stuff speaks to me: Settler materiality, identity and nationalism among collectors of Native American material culture. History and Anthropology, 1-21. Web.
Domínguez, S., Weffer, S. E., & Embrick, D. G. (2020). White sanctuaries: white supremacy, racism, space, and fine arts in two metropolitan museums. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(14), 2028-2043. Web.
Eccarius-Kelly, V. (2020). Cleansing the galleries: A museum in the imagination of Kurdish diaspora artists and activists. Kurdish art and identity, 64-81. Web.
Eichler, J. (2020). Intangible Cultural Heritage under Pressure? Examining Vulnerabilities in ICH Regimes-Minorities, Indigenous Peoples and Refugees (p. 140). DEU.
Feld, L. (2022). Buried Truths: Reconciliation through the Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains and Sacred Objects. International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 15(2). Web.
Förster, L. (2022). Talking and Going about Things Differently. Doing Diversity in Museums and Heritage: A Berlin Ethnography, 1, 57. Web.
Geismar, H., & Müller, K. (2022). Postcolonial digital collections: Instruments, mirrors, agents. In The Routledge Companion to Media Anthropology (pp. 258-271). Routledge. Web.
Gibbings, J. (2020). Their debts follow them into the afterlife : German settlers, ethnographic knowledge, and the forging of coffee capitalism in nineteenth-century Guatemala. Comparative studies in society and history, 62(2), 389-420. Web.
Giblin, J., Ramos, I., & Grout, N. (2019). Dismantling the masters house: thoughts on representing empire and decolonising museums and public spaces in practice an introduction. Third Text, 33(4-5), 471-486. Web.
González, R., Carvacho, H., & Jiménez-Moya, G. (2022). Need help with assignments?
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.