User:Lfz319/sandbox/bibliography

Links
1. Title of the article you are editing: Repatriation and reburial of human remains

2. Link to the article you are editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_and_reburial_of_human_remains

3. Link to the sandbox in which you are creating your annotated bibliography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lfz319/sandbox/bibliography

Plan and Justification
I plan to improve what I consider to be the “Ethical Considerations/Perspectives” and “Case Studies” sections of my article. I would also like to improve the introduction and photo content.

Currently, the Wikipedia article’s “Ethical Considerations” portion consists of an underdeveloped definition of “historical trauma.” It provides a vague explanation that repatriation assists in combatting the objectification of Indigenous people. I feel that this portion could be improved by more specific and inclusive examples. I would like to add the complex perspectives of both the Descendant and Proprietor communities*. For example, as seen in the bibliography, many people in the descendant community are pro-repatriation. However, I will also include at least one case in which the descendant community is against or indifferent to repatriation. Additionally, the current article fails to address the anthropologist/scientist’s perspective on repatriation. I plan to include both pro and anti-repatriation perspectives.

I find that it is difficult to address these complex perspectives without also addressing the context of their specific case studies. Therefore, these repatriation examples need to be better organized. Currently, the case studies are organized with their geographic region as a main header. I would each of these regions to be smaller sections under a larger “Case Studies” section and header. Additionally, the article overexplains certain case studies and neglects others. This section needs improvement on organization, balance, and equity gaps. I plan to improve the equity gaps by addressing repatriation examples among a greater variety of populations. Specifically, Black Americans and Africans have both been wronged by the unethical theft and display of their ancestors. These case studies also need to be included in an article on repatriation.

Finally, I would like to improve the photo content and introduction of the article. First, the number of photos is lacking. I would also like to remove the photo of a Tasmanian man’s head from the images. I don’t see the necessity or value that this photo adds to the article. Rather, its presence perpetuates the tradition of turning non-consenting corpses into spectacles, which ironically opposes the goals of repatriation.

In terms of the introduction, this section needs to be more concisely worded and representative of what’s actually covered in the article. I imagine and hope that this would be a quick fix after improving the other sections of the article.

*Note
In the following bibliography, I repeatedly mention a “Descendant/Affected community” and “Proprietor community.”

“Descendant” and/or “Affected community” refers to the people who are somehow related to the remains. This commonly refers to people who are biological descendants of the remains. However, this relation is often more complicated than presented. As discussed later, the Affected community might be descendants whose ancestors traded the shrunken heads but weren’t necessarily related to the shrunken heads. The Affected community might be one of many populations that could be descended from the remains. Debates on exact lineage are messy and difficult to pinpoint when dealing with old remains. In fact, the argument of direct lineage is sometimes used as a barrier against oppressed communities. The Affected community might not be direct descendants but people whose ancestors shared geographic or cultural similarities to the remains.

Meanwhile, for lack of better words, the “Proprietor community” is those who have possession of the remains. This may refer to a museum, government organization, anthropologists/researchers, or even townspeople. For example, the townsfolk of Banyoles viewed “El Negro” as their property and beloved display. They are included in the Proprietor community.

These terms are used for my personal understanding and efforts for communication. I would love to know if there are better or already-established terms to describe the two broad and complex perspectives.

Evaluation of Sources
Each of my sources is peer-reviewed and found through the university database. Additionally, each of my journal articles is connected to an accredited journal or university publishing press. My two edited volumes are published by Routledge, a well-known publisher of academic books. My book is reliable as a university-published work. Due to the above qualifications, I believe these sources are reliable by both university and Wikipedia standards.

Challenges
There are numerous issues within this article that I would love to tweak and edit. However, my greatest challenge will be to avoid overloading myself and taking on more than I can handle.

Already, I find my proposed improvement sections to be a little daunting. I feel that addressing perspectives is an incredibly important topic that is neglected in the article. Additionally, I don’t think one can wholistically explain the perspectives without also giving context of the specific case studies or situations. The article also has numerous equity gaps that I would like to improve. Due to my personal values, I feel that these sections are both interesting and necessary for the improvement of the article.

Of course, I also feel that the history and laws surrounding repatriation are important. Unfortunately, I don’t think I would have time this semester to address a legal section on top of the other two sections, photos, organization, introduction and writing improvement.

=
1. Gladstone, M., & Berlo, J. C. (2011). The body in the (white) box: Corporeal ethics and museum representation. In J. Marstine (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics: Redefining Ethics for the Twenty-First Century Museum (pp. 353–378). Routledge Member of the Taylor and Francis Group [chapter of edited volume] ===== This chapter addresses the display of human bodies within an edited volume on museum ethics. It is peer reviewed and published by Routledge, a well-known publishing company within academia. The chapter will further enhance the Ethical Considerations portion of the Wikipedia article. Currently, Wikipedia only has a vague description of historical trauma. This chapter provides a more in-depth understanding on how displaying human remains affects both the Affected community and the museum audience.

The chapter addresses numerous case studies including Saartje (Sarah) Baartman, Tambo, and Ishi. It also addresses how many Indigenous people died and – instead of being buried – were immediately dissected and displayed. The authors mention a shift in perspective in which people of the dominant culture have become more wary of the display of others’ ancestors. They are empathizing and rejecting the display in the same way they would reject the display of their own ancestors (Gladstone and Berlo 2011: 359). The authors note that it is the responsibility of museum staff to deaccession Indigenous bodies and reaffirm their status as human bodies, not artifacts or objects.

Finally, the chapter mentions the perspective of a museum director and Indigenous artist. The director of the British Museum questioned the role of museums in appealing to previously colonized communities. He asked about whether or not museums should sacrifice the truth for religious beliefs (Gladstone and Berlo 2011: 362). Another perspective, the artist James Luna, presented a different manner of displaying his truth. Luna is a Luiseno man who laid down in an exhibition case, presenting himself like an artifact. This presented three important statements. First, the startling image of a man in a box was a statement against the display of Indigenous bodies in boxes. This was an installation to spark self-awareness in the audience that they are observing real humans. Second, it showed that Indigenous people are still a living culture and not just objects of the past. Finally, Luna’s exhibit was a statement for Indigenous people to be able to choose how they are displayed and presented. Rather than lie as an object, Luna considered himself to be living art. He interacted with the audience on his terms and not at the demands of the institution (Gladstone and Berlo: 354-355; 364-365).

This article offers important information on the ethics of displaying human remains. It also addresses the perspectives of both the Affected/Descendant community and the Proprietor community, which in this case is museums.

=
2. Halcrow, S., Aranui, A., Halmhofer, S., Heppner, A., Johnson, N., Killgrove, K., & Schug, G. R. (2021). Moving beyond Weiss and Springer’s Repatriation and Erasing the Past: Indigenous values, relationships, and research. International Journal of Cultural Property, 28(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739121000229 [journal article] ===== This article is peer-reviewed and published by Cambridge University Press, which is considered reliable by both Wikipedia and university standards. Halcrow et al. present an anthropologist’s perspective that responds to Weiss and Springer’s Repatriation and Erasing the Past (which is discussed in a later entry). It will be used in the Ethical considerations/perspectives portion of the Wikipedia article. Currently, the Wikipedia article is completely lacking in presenting the anthropologist/scientist’s perspective on repatriation. I think it is important to include both the pro and anti-repatriation perspective. This article presents the pro-repatriation perspective.

Halcrow et al. primarily explain that repatriation is important because non-White ancestors are not granted the same respect as White remains. Particularly, White remains within archaeological and disaster cases are reburied. Meanwhile, Indigenous remains are infamously boxed and studied (Halcrow et al. 2021: 212). The request to repatriate remains is not a religious, ethnic privilege that Indigenous people exploit. Rather, it’s a bare minimum request to have their remains treated like the remains of other people. To unethically source and study remains without permission is considered a civil rights violation and often illegal. Unfortunately, the remains of people of color are often sourced in this manner through grave robbing and skinning people. An example of this is the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia. Unknown to the public or deceased’s loved ones, a professor of a forensic program took and allowed his students to study the blown up remains of Black Americans (Halcrow et al. 2021: 216).

The authors explain that the repatriation of remains is not a privilege but a human right that has been refused to people of color. This article presents a pro-repatriation academic perspective that is not sufficiently recognized in the Wikipedia article.

=
3. Parsons, N., & Segobye, A. K. (2002). Missing persons and stolen bodies: the repatriation of “El Negro” to Botswana. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert, & P. Turnbull (Eds.), The Dead and their Possessions: Repatriation in principle, policy and practice (pp. 245–255). Routledge Member of the Taylor and Francis Group [chapter of edited volume] ===== Parsons and Segobye explain the story of “El Negro” in a chapter within the edited volume, The Dead and Their Possessions. Each of the chapters was peer reviewed, and the volume was published by Routledge, a well-known publishing company within academia. The article will provide the perspectives of both the Affected/descendant community and the Proprietor community. When addressing the repatriation of human bodies, the Wikipedia article is lacking in addressing those who are pro and against repatriation. Parsons and Segobye’s article addresses both. Additionally, this is a case study that shows the relevancy and recency of repatriation issues. It will also improve the equity gap, as the current Wikipedia article has no mention of Black American or African repatriation issues.

This chapter explains the story of “El Negro,” a dead African man who was dug up from his grave, taxidermized, and later displayed in a small museum in Banyoles, Spain. It wasn’t until 1992 when Banyoles was hosting the summer Olympics that people began to notice. Critics complained about the inhumanity of “El Negro” being taxidermized and displayed like that of animals (Parsons and Segobye: 245-246). A long legal battle ensued between the Banyoles Proprietor community and the Botswana Affected community. The Proprietor community claimed “El Negro” was their property and human rights do not apply to the dead (Parsons and Segobye: 247). The Spanish government intervened, ordering “El Negro” to be sent to Botswana. However, he was not sent as a whole. Rather, only a stripped skull was delivered, and the Spanish claimed his skin and artifacts to be their property. According to Parsons and Segobye, numerous Botswanans felt severely disrespected and offended. (250-251). Botswanans felt that the Spanish purely objectified “El Negro” and wouldn’t treat their own like this. They wouldn’t taxidermize, display, skin, and castrate their own dead ancestors. The authors also tell a Botswanan nurse’s perspective. She mentioned that she has family in the area that “El Negro” is from, and that he has physical characteristics that resemble her. She saw him as a human and felt that Spain only saw him as an object.

This article touches on the history and unethical sourcing that leads to human remains on display. It also gives the perspective of the Proprietor community and the Affected community. Specifically, it touches on how the Affected community feels that their ancestors are treated as objects, whilst other ancestors are treated as human.

=
4. Rapoo, C. (2011). ‘Just give us the bones!’: theatres of African diasporic returns. Critical Arts, 25(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2011.569057 [journal article] ===== This article is reliable as peer-reviewed source that was published by a university. Rapoo, a lecturer at the University of Botswana, reviews the events and perspectives surrounding African repatriation – specifically the cases of Sarah Baartman and “El Negro.” This source will be important in elaborating on the Affected community’s perspective. It gives further information on two incredibly significant case studies. The article also contributes to improving the Equity gap as the Wikipedia article was lacking in inclusive case studies.

Rapoo offers the emic perspective of Botswana surrounding the meaning of home and “El Negro.” She explains that the people of Botswana value the return of people – both living and dead – to their “true home” (Rapoo 2011: 134). They value remembering bodies and believe in ceremonies to cleanse the body and prevent the soul from wandering and becoming evil. Rapoo explains that the repatriation of the body is important in decolonization and representing African agency and healing (2011: 137). She explains how Spain’s returning of “El Negro” objectified him and othered Botswana. Additionally, she addressed the debate on whether or not “El Negro” and Sarah Baartman could be considered a “return” when time, social structure, and geographic distinctions have drastically changed the home that these individuals would have known (Rapoo 2011: 144).

The article portrays the perspective of the Affected community in a deeper manner. It touches on the difficulties of how repatriation is viewed within the law and within the Affected community.

=
5. Rubenstein, S. L. (2004). Shuar migrants and shrunken heads face to face in a New York museum. Anthropology Today, 20(3), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-540x.2004.00268.x [journal article] ===== Rubenstein, an associate professor, presents a peer-reviewed article that discusses descendant opinions on the display of shrunken heads in the American Museum of Natural History. The article provides the perspective of the Affected/descendant community: Shuar migrants who are living in New York. I plan to use this article to improve the Ethical Considerations/Perspectives section of my Wikipedia article. Currently, the Wikipedia page does not sufficiently elaborate on the complex perspectives of descendant communities, anthropologists, and other involved parties. This article provides the Descendant community’s perspective and also seeks to lessen the Equity Gap.

Within the article, Rubenstein explains how shrunken heads were produced, traded, and eventually displayed in museums. He visited the New York museum with Shuar migrants who were unaffected by the display of shrunken heads in the museum. This a stark contrast to the nurse who saw “El Negro.” Rather, the Shuar migrants recognized the shrunken heads as a part of their history but not a part of who they are today. They viewed the heads as a sort of artifact, the remnants of a story told by their grandparents (Rubenstein 2004: 18).

This article will provide a greater range of Descendant communities’ perspectives on repatriation. It will improve the Ethical Considerations portion and could be a case study example.

=
6. Weiss, E., & Springer, J. W. (2020). Repatriation and the End of Scientific Freedom. In Repatriation and Erasing the Past (pp. 194–210). University Press of Florida [book chapter] ===== This chapter is within Weiss and Springer’s book Repatriation and Erasing the Past. It is peer-reviewed and published by the University of Florida. This book offers a perspective that is contrary to the majority mentioned above. Specifically, it is the perspective of the infamous Proprietor community: anthropologists. Weiss and Springer feel that repatriation significantly hinders biological anthropologists in research and publication. This source will provide more perspectives to the Wikipedia article, which has no mention of the scientists’ perspective.

In this chapter, Weiss and Springer explain that repatriation is the loss of collections, and thereby the “loss of data” (2020: 194). Collections of Indigenous remains are often plentiful and a tremendous resource to the field. Biological anthropologists test new methods and retest old methods on the collection to improve the study. However, the reburial of collections will prohibit anthropologists from testing methods and reproducing results (Weiss and Springer 2020: 196-198). This in turn, hinders the advancement of medical and forensic training (Weiss and Springer 2020: 202-205)

Additionally, the authors express their frustration that Indigenous religions have more legal power to make demands than non-Indigenous religions. They feel that anthropologists must now jump through hoops to appease Indigenous leaders and gain permission to study collections. Additionally, they feel that anthropologists are now severely censored. Both research questions and dissemination of results must be approved by Indigenous leaders. Weiss and Springer feel that this is a barrier to finding the truth (Weiss and Springer 2020: 198-202).

This book chapter aims to broaden the perspectives on the Wikipedia page. As seen throughout this bibliography, there are varying opinions on repatriation. Many Affected/descendant communities are in support of repatriation, while some, such as the Shuar migrants, are indifferent. Most of the above sources are written by researchers who support repatriation efforts. That is why it’s important to include this perspective of authors who are against repatriation.