Conclusion

Conclusion

by | Nov 18, 2022 | Conclusion

 This image of what are likely four knobkerries greatly influenced my direction for this project. The inaccurate description of these knobkerries in the Huron Missionary Museum collection records as “Club used for infanticide” epitomizes the damaging influence of colonial collections. Photograph by Remi Alie.

The goal for this series of blog posts was to illustrate that many institutions like museums and universities exhibit colonial influence in their Indigenous collections. I conclude that these institutions can begin to heal the harm caused by their involvement in colonialism by researching their collections and engaging in the repatriation process. Huron University’s remaining Missionary Museum collection stands as an example of the colonial legacies of early archaeologists as actors of empire. I use this collection as a backdrop to analyze colonial collections at public institutions. In aiming to repair their colonial legacies, institutions should begin the process of repatriation. I stress that repatriation is about more than just returning objects to the people they came from. It takes many forms like researching the collection, providing wider access to information about the collection, extending partnership and agency in the collection, and loaning collections to communities.

Repatriating incorporates more opportunities for repairing the damages caused by colonialism than solely the return of artifacts to source communities. Additional means of repatriation lessen the barriers institutions face when considering decolonization. In “Repatriation in university museum collections: Case studies,” Jordan Jacobs, the Policy & Strategy Advisor, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research at Cambridge University, and Benjamin W. Porter, associate Professor of Archaeology at California University, argue that repatriation should be a common occurrence rather than an extraordinary circumstance for museums to undertake. Furthermore, they argue that, in addition to the physical return of objects, successful repatriation can be the “sharing of actionable information with potential recipients.” [1] Viewing repatriation as a normal operation for an institution with a colonial legacy is an important aspect of increasing willingness to begin repatriation. Further increasing the potential for repatriation is an awareness of repatriation as more than solely the return of objects to their communities. Returning objects is, of course, an immensely important part of repatriation. But research increases knowledge about the artifacts and can thus lead to more opportunities for the proper repatriation of objects. With institutions like Huron University where the remaining database lacks proper information about the collection, researching the objects could help identify aspects such as potential source communities, the meanings of the objects for a source community, or historical uses of the objects. For example, in researching the supposed “Club used for infanticide,” I found that many East African communities used clubs called knobkerries as weapons for hunting and occasional warfare. Thus, the clubs were not designed for infanticide and their proper name is knobkerrie. With this completed research, the database now provides more accurate information about the artifact.

To wrap up this series, I want to push colonial institutions to begin the process of repatriation. This is possible through a variety of methods, but researching collections is a significant first step. There are many ways they can go about this process. For example, have students or employees respectfully interact with the objects and research their histories, fund research grants to hire students or professionals to research the collection, and reach out to Indigenous communities for their object knowledge. It is through research that museums and universities can better understand the meanings of their colonial collections and thereby enact proper repatriation if source communities choose to explore the return of their objects.

 

[1] Jordan Jacobs and Benjamin W. Porter, “Repatriation in University Museum Collections: Case Studies from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,” International Journal of Cultural Property 28, no. 4 (2021): pp. 531-550, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739121000400, 533.

 

Indigenous Erasure and T. B. R. Westgate

Indigenous Erasure and T. B. R. Westgate

by | Nov 11, 2022 | Indigenous Erasure and T. B. R. Westgate

T. B. R. Westgate and his family at Watford, Ontario. Photograph from Lambton Heritage Museum. Westgate – Lambton County Museums (lambtonmuseums.ca)

This post is a follow-up to week 4’s post, titled “Huron’s Colonial Purpose in Africa. Since writing that post, I’ve conducted further research on T. B. R. Westgate, who I identified as a missionary in German East Africa and South America. Another significant part of Westgate’s life that I did not mention is his role as Chief Administrator of the Anglican Church’s “Indian and Eskimo Commission” for residential schools. [1] In this role, Westgate oversaw eighteen residential schools and opened many new ones across Canada under the Anglican Church. [2] Throughout his work as a missionary in East Africa and Field Secretary of the Anglican residential school system, Westgate aimed to assimilate Indigenous peoples and erase their history in favour of a Christianized culture. This post will discuss more of Westgate’s views of the people he interacted with as a missionary in East Africa and Field Secretary in the Anglican residential school system of Canada.

T. B. R. Westgate’s goal as a missionary and Field Secretary of the residential school system was to Christianize Indigenous peoples. He saw Indigenous peoples of both East Africa and Canada as inferior and insisted that they needed to assimilate into Christian beliefs and thereby erase any prior cultural affiliations. Demonstrating his dedication to the goal of Europeanizing, Westgate stated “I have but one object to live for, and that is to carry the knowledge of Jesus Christ to those who are perishing for lack of that knowledge. This is and shall be my sole and simple object.” [3] During his time in Africa, Westgate became annoyed that the local people he taught English to did not immediately use the language to read Christian works. He stated, “The vanity and impudence of the educated n[*****] passes comprehension. There is no more contemptible or despicable production under the sun.” Westgate expected that these people educated by the Anglican missionaries would immediately embrace Christianity. [4] If they chose simply to share their skill with the community, Westgate angered quickly. In a quote from his time in East Africa, Westgate stated that the Wagogo peoples were an unevolved race. [5] These are the same people who supposedly greeted him with gifts of produce when he arrived at their region. [6] While the Wagogo people offered him welcoming gifts, Westgate fostered beliefs of their inferiority and need to convert to Christianity.

Westgate’s goal of Christianizing other peoples continued with his work for the Canadian Anglican residential schools. Regarding the Indigenous people under the Anglican residential school system in Canada, Westgate felt that Christianity would take away their “great wilderness of dense moral darkness.” [7] Westgate believed that the cultures of Indigenous peoples in Canada were morally inferior to Christian values. He hoped that the residential schools he organized would reverse the primitive cultures. In 1937, Westgate stated that if taken away early enough from their families and placed “with the best in our modern civilization,” they would overwrite a “thousand years or more of tedious evolution.” [8] Thus, Westgate insisted upon the early removal of Indigenous children so that they could replace the teachings and culture of their Indigenous families in favour of Christian values. To his credit, Westgate cared for those within his system. While at one of his schools in Saskatchewan, an Indigenous man travelled 13 days to find treatment for an infected gunshot wound. With the assistance of some locals, Westgate amputated the arm because travelling to the nearest hospital would take too long.  Westgate then wrote about the need for a hospital in that region as the nearest was still two hundred and fifty miles away. [9] While he did care for Indigenous peoples, Westgate insisted upon the erasure of their culture in favour of Christianity.

This demonstrates the problematic collection of artifacts in missionary museums. Some missionaries like Westgate believed that the Indigenous peoples they interacted with were inferior. Westgate demonstrates that the supposed help offered to Indigenous peoples of East Africa and Canada came with the expectation that they convert to Christianity. We do not know why Westgate collected artifacts from his time in East Africa. However, we do know he viewed the Indigenous people he associated with as inferior, and he worked toward their cultural erasure in favour of assimilation into Christianity. 

Notes

[1] Alan L. Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate: Organizing Indigenous Erasure for the Anglican Church, 1920–1943,” Toronto Journal of Theology 36, no. 1 (2020): pp. 54-74, https://doi.org/10.3138/tjt-2020-0035, 54.

[2] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 65.

[3] R. I. Wilfred Westgate, Maureen Carter, and Dorothy Leach, T.B.R. Westgate: A Canadian Missionary on Three Continents (Boston, MA: Education and Resources Group, 1987), 9.

[4] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 56.

[5] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 68.

[6] Westgate, Carter, and Leach, T.B.R. Westgate, 107.

[7] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 68.

[8] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 68.

[9] Hayes, “T.B.R. Westgate, 68.

A “Native Fiddle” and the Dangers of Collection Ignorance

A “Native Fiddle” and the Dangers of Collection Ignorance

by | Nov 4, 2022 | A “Native Fiddle” and the Dangers of Collection Ignorance

“Native fiddle” located in the bottom left of the image. Photograph taken by Remi Alie

The administrators of Huron University’s Missionary Museum often put forth generic information about the artifacts in their collection. These generic records still form much of the information tied to the Huron Missionary Museum. The presence of an artifact described only as a “six string Native Fiddle,” represents the potential danger of repatriating artifacts without conducting proper research. The third post in this blog series discusses Naamiwan’s Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts by Maureen Matthews, the Curator of Cultural Anthropology at the Manitoba Museum. In this work, Matthews brings forth the case of Naamiwan’s Drum to demonstrate the potential harm of repatriation while neglecting to conduct proper research on the meaning of objects to their source communities. To the Pauingassi Ojibwe community from which Naamiwan’s Drum originates, the instrument carries special significance because of its connection to Naamiwan, who was its first owner. The Pauingassi believe objects like Naamiwan’s Drum are animate and encapsulate a spiritual presence from their owner. [1] Conducting proper research is therefore an essential aspect of the repatriation process to ensure the return of objects to the proper communities. The collection inventory used in this post comes from the Principal of Huron College during the Huron Missionary Museum’s Operation. From 1911-1941, Principal C.C. Waller created an inventory of the Huron Missionary Museum Collection. Remi Alie, a student at Huron College, transcribed this inventory as part of a project in the class “HIST 3801: The Historian’s Craft” at Huron University College. According to Principal Waller’s collection inventory, the artifact located in the bottom left corner of Figure 1 is a six-string “Native Fiddle” from German East Africa, donated by T. B. R. Westgate. However, the inventory mentions nothing of the source community and the potential meanings associated with this object. This lack of specificity means that Huron University knows very little about objects like the “Native fiddle” because it has few other collection resources to consult. We learned in the third post of this blog series that different cultures can attach different meanings to objects. For example, the Pauingassi Ojibwe people from which Naamiwan’s Drum descended, view the object as animate and they thereby have much personal connection it. Administrators at the University of Winnipeg assumed that the Pauingassi Ojibwe no longer practiced traditional Ojibwe beliefs and thereby incorrectly interpreted the Pauingassi’s adaptation of Christian values as a form of distancing from the traditional aspects of their culture. In University’s view, this supposed transition away from traditional values justified the repatriation of the drum and other objects to another Ojibwe community. This decision upset the Pauingassi Ojibwe people who had no idea that these objects (of massive significance to them) would transfer to another community. [2] The University of Winnipeg caused great harm to the Pauingassi Ojibwe by repatriating the objects to another community. If Huron University chooses to explore repatriation without attributing proper research, the college risks repeating the mistakes of the University of Winnipeg. Expansive research plays an important role in improving knowledge of collections. The Waller inventory provides little information about the fiddle found in this image. In this case, it is important that we further explore this fiddle’s history. T. B. R. Westgate (who featured more extensively in the fourth post of this blog series) was a Huron alumnus who partnered with the German East African regime during his time as a missionary in East Africa. This regime killed hundreds of thousands of Indigenous East African people during its rule. [3] It is from this period that Westgate collected objects like this fiddle. This knowledge of Westgate’s colonial influence and collaboration with German East Africa changes the nature of owning or repatriating such objects. Huron now has significant reason to question the ethical collection of objects in its collection. We must ask ourselves: under what conditions did Westgate procure this fiddle? If Huron were to repatriate this object, this question needs to be front and centre. Answering it will help the college respond more appropriately if the source community accepts repatriation. With the knowledge that objects carry different meanings to different cultures, the lack of information known about the “Native fiddle” means Huron could commit grave injustices toward the source community of this object. Committing further time and resources through the practice of practical relativism to researching objects in the collection, like what has begun with this project, will give far more context to the objects. This will allow for more proper coordination and communication with potential source communities as Huron will be better informed of the community’s history and relationship with the object.

Notes

[1] James Leonard Giblin and Jamie Monson, Maji Maji: Lifting the Fog of War (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2010), 1. [2] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 177-178. [3] Maureen Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2016), 66.