What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on one's own property and cultural sensitivity? This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not be if we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a resident of Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what is not if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other religious faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of political correctness? GMF On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:51:53 -0500 "Pamela Berger" <berger@netstream.net> writes: > Attitudes and laws about Indian relics have changed over the years. > Museums > are returning bones and sacred items to the tribes. Depending on > what you > have, perhaps it would be wise to discuss your collection with an > expert in > such artifacts at a university or large museum before dispersing it > to > assure that there is nothing culturally sensitive. > --Pam B.

I don't know why the topic should be "incendiary." What do you mean "is it a part of 'political correctness?'" My comments were not political at all. Respecting other cultures and religions would be just the decent thing, wouldn't it? What is the alternative? I would think the meaning of "culturally sensitive" would be obvious, and of course it would apply to any culture or religion--Iroquois, Hungarian, Chinese, African, Moslem, Druid, Roman, Viking, whatever. The original person did not state what the exact relics were, and I think it might be important for them to look into it and take a broad view in case there is something the importance of which they may be unaware. If the items are enough to be in need of an appraisal, there may be things of significance, culturally, religiously, historically, or scientifically. If someone found a Torah that was hidden from the Nazis in WWII, that would be a sacred object to Jewish people and should be offered for return no matter where it was found because it would be an important religious object. If someone found objects in the ruins of an ancient Christian church the Catholics might have strong feelings about them, depending on what they were--bone fragments of saints of whatever. Various Indian tribes also had their sacred objects, though most of us are not knowledgeable enough to say what those might be for any of the hundreds American Indian tribes, many of whose cultural and religious heritage has been completely lost. I have read articles and seen documentaries concerning pipes and medicine bags, certain stones, staffs, and other objects of some tribes that have in the past been taken as collectibles by modern people or inappropriately displayed in museums in a manner hurtful and blasphemous to the people for whom they have religious meaning. Of course some things can go too far or become overly militant without all the facts. I agree that the situation regarding the Kennebec Man as mentioned by someone else was probably wrongly handled. As I understand, the bones were returned to the tribe that claimed them and buried. That relic is now lost to further historical study, which is too bad. It would be added to our knowledge of the ancient world to find out how an apparent Caucasian that ancient came to be on the Pacific coast of the USA. The fact that artifacts may have been found on "one's own property" has little meaning--in the long view such artifacts are part of the cultural heritage of all of us. Indian history is American history. Millions of artifacts were taken from Egypt by collectors for example--robbing them of huge parts of their own cultural heritage and eventually laws were passed against removing antiquities. You may also recall when the Taliban, blew up the giant ancient Buddahs that had been carved into the mountains of Afghanistan and what a loss that was to the cultural heritage of the world. No one is speaking of destroying artifacts here of course, but if even small puzzle pieces are lost to history in a couple of generations they might as well be. Apart from religious and cultural sensitivities of cultural or religious groups, some artifacts are important for scientific study and analysis, and amateurs may not realize what they have. Even how arrowheads are chipped has been important in gathering information on some ancient sites such as Clovis. Not only are some artifacts important themselves, but where they were found, how deep, and how they were oriented in the ground and to each other can impart important clues about cultures that came before us. That is another reason that people can't go digging up Indian mounds, etc. any more, as was accepted years ago. Certainly no one intended any harm and sometimes there may be nothing important lost. However, to be able to study objects that have been dug in the past, while something of their provenance is still known could possibly add a fragment to our historical knowledge. Many artifacts do belong in museums, because of museums' educational mission even if a particular museum has other artifacts like them. Museums may trade or sell artifacts that are needed by other museums or universities elsewhere for their educational missions. Additionally, museums are set up to correctly identify and preserve artifacts with proper storage methods that will insure that the items do not deteriorate and are available for study or display. All museums have much more in storage than on display--that is not a argument against them. While an individual or a generation of people in a family may responsibly preserve artifacts in which they feel a sense of ownership, those items are in danger of being lost and their provenance entirely forgotten eventually when those people pass on. One has only to think of all the family photo albums, portraits, and embroidered linens that have wound up in the dump or unidentified in antique stores to understand that succeeding generations do not always value things as we might hope or expect. I think the other person's comment that "over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda" is not only inaccurate but gratuitous and off the point. The political stance of American Indian Movement organization (AIM), whatever that might be, is also irrelevant to this discussion. Let's not inject the acid right-wing political agenda here either on a matter on which we should be able to find friendly common ground on as genealogists and/or historians. Pam B. > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political > correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as > well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on > one's own property and cultural sensitivity? > > This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not be if > we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a resident of > Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what is not > if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other religious > faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like > manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of political > correctness? > GMF