No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
BIBLIOGRAPHY WHO OWNS NATIVE CULTURE? by Michael F. Brown Harvard University Press, 2003 (Author's note: This list of references encompasses only books and articles in academic journals; citations to online resources and articles in newspapers and popular magazines are presented in the book but not here. Because the notes were significantly pared during the final stage of manuscript editing, the list may include a few background sources that were cut before the book went to press.)
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Anthropologists employ concepts of cultural persistence, indigenous resistance, and primitivist imagery which mystify their own roles in the construction of Chumash Indian identity and tradition in California. We attempt to demystify scholars’ remembering, forgetting, and imagining of the Chumash past that has helped to construct an influential Chumash Traditionalism since the 1960s, and we discuss how scholarly advances in understanding the fluidity of cultural identities now contests Chumash Traditionalism. We examine the variety of roles played by anthropologists in this process of identity negotiation, and especially that of applied anthropology in traditional cultural properties evaluation and contract archaeology. The origin of the current sacredness of Point Conception, California provides an issue to frame this examination. We find that anthropological practice and Chumash identity and tradition are so deeply entangled that there is little hope that anthropologists can completely disengage from participating in the self-determination of Chumash people. We conclude that this creates a great need to historicize anthropology’s role in shaping and constraining identity and tradition until further progress can be made to resolve the ethical dilemmas of the anthropological study of cultural creativity.
This Article considers a dilemma faced by tribes in a post-inherent sovereignty world. Tribes have increasingly come to be defined through the use of blood quanta as racial entities. This practice raises the legal question whether and to what extent Congress can confer benefits on tribes pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause without violating the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. Professor Gould explores the current dilemma from legal, historical, and demographic perspectives. He concludes that a recent Supreme Court decision involving Native Hawaiians portends growing judicial hostility to groups that base their memberships on common ancestry. Based on recent demographic trends, the Article observes that tribes are already multiracially diverse. In conclusion, Professor Gould urges tribes to redefine their membership criteria, risking change in order to regain sovereignty and ultimately preserve tribal cultures.
Of about 210 indigenous languages still extant in the USA and Canada, 34 are spoken by speakers of all generations, 35 are spoken by the parental generation and up, 84 are spoken by the grandparental generation and up, and 57 are spoken by only a few aged speakers. This general profile is compared with a survey of the circumpolar North and with that of indigenous languages in New Mexico and Arizona. Of these, the latter exhibit the greatest retention, but even these languages, at the rate things are going, will face the threat of extinction. The major issue of denial is addressed, along with the effects of bilingual education programs, which, it is argued, may tend to remove responsibility for language transmission from the home to the school. There is an urgent need for facing the facts and psychology of denial, and for realistic programs that include a commitment to intensive oral immersion. The article concludes with a consideration of the role of linguists in working in the interest of Native American languages and communities.
Abstracts
Over the past decade in Brazil, the convergence between international environmentalism and indigenous cultural survival concerns led to an unprecedented internationalization of local A native struggles. The Indian‐environmentalist alliance has benefited both parties, but recent events suggest that it may be unstable and may pose political risks for native people. The limitations of transnational symbolic politics as a vehicle for indigenous activism reflect tensions and contradictions in outsiders' symbolic constructions of Indian identity.
Private property has long been associated with gloomy images—the rapaciousness of various Robber Barons on the one hand, the musty casuistry of future interests and the Rule Against Perpetuities on the other. But in the late twentieth century, property seems blessed with a bright, perhaps even glamorous future. This article is an essay to predict that future—that is, to predict at least some of the directions that the institution of property is likely to take over the next generation.
Property has always been one of the chief ways through which human beings have avoided what is alleged to be the "tragedy of the commons." That is the situation in which unowned and unmanaged common resources are available to all, with the consequence that entrants crowd onto these resources, overusing them and underinvesting in their maintenance and improvement. One chief rival to property in allaying the "tragedy" has been a system of directives from above: command and control governmental regimes avoid the tragedy through the application of central planning and administration. But today, in the era following the general disillusionment with Marxist economics, property and its close companion, contract, at least in theory have all but swept away command and control as a device for managing resources. From the demise of the authoritarian socialist regimes, we have taken the lesson that modern economies need not the centralization of direct governmental control, but rather the decentralization associated with property and contract.
Anthropology is today in search of a public voice for communicating its knowledge, insights, and understanding to a broad public audience. One of the key historical voices of anthropology, the museum, has grown increasingly silent as it struggles with issues of power in the representation of Native peoples and the burden of large, dated collections of material culture. The potential remains for the museum to regain its role as a voice for anthropology by ceding power and easing its overwhelming dependence on the material objects of culture. Museums with a focus on public learning can serve as forums for bringing the full range of anthropological endeavor to a wide and diverse audience, Reintegrating museums into anthropology will require changes in both sides of the relationship: academic anthropology will have to accept museums as a critical vehicle for public communication; and museums will have to commit to significant changes in curatorial responsibilities, exhibits, and collection practices.
This article calls for a reappraisal of the tribal sovereignty doctrine, one which looks within - to the "cultural sovereignty" of Indian Nations - for the core of its meaning rather than to an externally defined notion of tribal "political sovereignty." Part I of the article examines the limitations of the political sovereignty doctrine as it has been applied to Indian nations. In Part II, the article attempts to construct a doctrine of cultural sovereignty, premised on the central components of sovereignty as it is exercised and understood within tribal communities. Part III of the article suggests that cultural sovereignty is a process of reclaiming culture and of building nations. Using the metaphor of "repatriation," we discuss the key features of that process. Part IV concludes the article by offering a vision of what the future of Indian nations might be under a reconceptualized and integrated notion of political and cultural sovereignty.
This article probes the unarticulated significance of Kennewick Man, which has come to be much more than a case about ancient human remains. To the extent that we privilege claims to the past by according rights to either scientists or to Native Americans, we are making fundamental choices to recognize certain values of a pluralistic society and suppress other values. There is a political and moral significance to the controversy over Kennewick Man that goes to the heart of intercultural relations between Native American and non-Native American people in the United States. The ultimate disposition of Kennewick Man will say a great deal about the status of Native American peoples in this country. In Part II, this article offers an overview of the case, including its factual setting and the current status of the litigation, and then describes four fundamental sets of issues implicated by the case. Part III examines the central legal issues that apply to the case. Part IV discusses the conflict between science and culture that lies at the heart of the controversy, and probes related constitutional and normative issues. In Part V, the article addresses the use of NAGPRA by Native American peoples as a way to assist their cultural claims. Finally, Part VI of the article examines the political context of indigenous peoples' repatriation claims, within both the international and domestic arenas, and the importance of the Kennewick Man case to the question of value pluralism.
Thesis (Ph. D.)--Northern Arizona University, 1997. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 243-275).
The "tragedy of the commons" metaphor helps explain why people overuse shared resources. However, the recent proliferation of intellectual property rights in biomedical research suggests a different tragedy, an "anticommons" in which people underuse scarce resources because too many owners can block each other. Privatization of biomedical research must be more carefully deployed to sustain both upstream research and downstream product development. Otherwise, more intellectual property rights may lead paradoxically to fewer useful products for improving human health.