Aboriginal Mask Returned to BC from UK

Posted by Tad McIlwraith on November 5th, 2005 filed in Class Discussions, First Nations, In the News

A frontpage story in the Vancouver Sun today reports that the British Museum has returned a mask to the Kwakwaka’wakw (Kwakiutl) community at Alert Bay, BC. It’s another event in the long story of the seizure of cultural items from Alert Bay in the 1920s under the Canadian law which banned ceremonies and celebrations like the potlatch — and the repatriation of many of those objects in the 1970s and 80s.

It’s a story that goes back to 1921, when 45 natives were arrested for taking part in a then-illegal potlatch ceremony on remote Village Island. Half of them were jailed, but the rest were freed on the condition that their tribes give up their potlatch paraphernalia. Almost 200 masks, rattles and other items were surrendered, ending up in museums and private collections across Canada, the U.S. and Europe.

My Native Peoples of BC students became familiar with this story through the film ‘Potlatch … A Strict Law Bids Us Dance.’

Share This

Sphere: Related Content


6 Responses to “Aboriginal Mask Returned to BC from UK”

  1. thBadMonKEy Says:
    November 6th, 2005 at 6:26 am

    Isnt this part of the problem with native peoples, is that they ‘retain’ thier own native identity, and therefore, do not assimilate into the dominant culture, and therefore, have higher poverty rates, and other negative problems associated with non-assimilation? The reason these cultures were ‘outlawed’ in the past is to prevent dual nationhood, that could result in continuing war, ethnic, racial tensions, that we see happening in places like France, with a similar disasterous “multi-cultural” system. Encouraging differing cultures within a culture is a form of “racism, of racial empowerment, which has always in the long run been disasterous for any ‘nation’. Are these pre-historic native peoples allowed to go to war with other tribes? What contingencies have they signed off on in order to get pre-historic” native rights?

    Thanks.

  2. Tad McIlwraith Says:
    November 6th, 2005 at 8:53 am

    I sense, Bad Monkey, that you are trying to goad me into some kind of racial debate. I decline, except to say that your comment does not seem to consider the legal or moral foundations of Canada where native rights exist within the Constitution and other legal judgments and multiculturalism has long been a foundation of Canadian society. You might look at Hamar Foster’s piece in BC Studies, Winter 1998-99 for further discussion and rebuttal of precisely what you are saying. Or, take a look at Dara Culhane’s book “The Pleasure of the Crown.” And, frankly, I have no idea what your last two questions are asking.

  3. thBadMonKEy Says:
    November 7th, 2005 at 2:31 am

    Well, I was questioning if they retain thier “native american” behavior also (as in “stone age- native americans”, all canadians born on canadian soil are “native”.)

    Will they also be allowed to engage in canabalism, tribal warfare, or any other indulgences that come with stone age-”native” rights?

    In other words, Im pointing out that treating people as a seperate group instead of just ‘canadian’ can lead to other issues…

    These people fought a war with the West, and lost, and they “demand” cultural artifacts, when infact, they are not allowed to practice their stone age culture in all its prehistoric glory? Its a bit obscene from an intellectual and historical veiwpoint, thats all…

  4. Tad McIlwraith Says:
    November 7th, 2005 at 7:57 am

    I understand your point about separate groups … it’s a feeling many do have and you are welcome to it. Canadian courts have ruled that aboriginal people do have certain rights that others don’t … I can’t recall, however, aboriginal people petitioning for canabalism or warfare as a right, but the case and arguments would be interesting. The courts, at a mimumu, demand proof of prior practice. (Frankly, I’m not sure what aboriginal groups you are referring to … their are hundreds of cultures that fall under your label of ‘Native American’ in Canada alone.)

    Tne courts have also ruled that aboriginal people are ‘allowed’ to modernize without compromising their rights by doing so. This notion of ’stone-agedness’ is inflamatory and unnecessary. Aboriginal people do not live in the stone age. The obscentities you point simply don’t exist.

  5. Jamie Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 11:51 am

    For anyone who is interested… here is a link to the rest of the repatriated potlatch collection that is housed at the U’mista cultural centre in Alert Bay, BC.

    http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/umista2/index-e.html

  6. Mary Watson Says:
    March 8th, 2006 at 12:02 am

    Many thanks Jamie, for the link to Umista. I am certainly very interested in learning more, and in supporting repatriation of cultural materials back to First Nations peoples, where they belong - and should never have been taken from in the first place.

Leave a Comment

Close
E-mail It