If this nation is ever to emerge from the polarization that has eroded the art of respectful conversation, it’s a good bet that Ohio will lead the way. That’s my deduction from emails you sent over the past week in response to last week’s column about whether we should have published images of Native American relics that have been shrouded by the Cleveland Museum of Art. You can read it at tinyurl.com/pdrelics Responses were quite varied, including some that disagreed with what we did. In the past that might have meant some condescending, angry notes, but nary a drop of bile came our way. I asked readers to accept the topic as a source of friendly conversation, and they did exactly that. Reading your emails as they flowed in all week made me witness to a delightful conversation, with points, counterpoints and counter-counterpoints. My goal today is to bring you into the conversation with a sampling of what more than 100 people sent. To recap: An amended law now requires museums to get permission from descendants or tribes before displaying relics or remains. We have photos of objects the Cleveland museum shrouded but did not to publish them with our story. Nor did we link to the images that the museum has kept on its website while cloaking them in its exhibits. More people agreed with our decision than didn’t, but for many reasons. About the only point of consensus was agreement with my calling the museum hypocritical for keeping online images of the relics visible while cloaking them in the exhibit hall. Here’s what people had to say: I also understand why native people want the grave goods reburied with their original owners. There is religious significance to them that we may not get. However, there is also the idea that by showing these artifacts to the public, they can lead to a greater understanding and respect for our indigenous neighbors. Perhaps replicas could serve the same purpose, but I'm not sure. I would want to ask for tribal permission to show the photos as a sign of respect, but I would also want to try to negotiate if the first response is no. I would aIso keep trying for permission to display the actual thing. I imagine many of the artifacts have been in the museum for long enough for there to be no record of the specific individuals they were buried with. Could we please display those? The artistry and workmanship in many of these items is spectacular. They could go a long way toward fostering respect for the people we stole the land from. It’s not so much about insensitivity as it is about power and agency. The (law) was a first step towards giving the authority back to family members to decide if their deceased loved ones and their belongings should be on public display. Whether that display is virtual or in person is immaterial. The choice to decide is what (the law) should be providing to the descendants. Publishing the content on a wider scale - digitally- is further removing agency from the family on a grander scale. Until a Native American descendant chooses to celebrate their ancestor in this way, we should remove them from all view. While there is always a gray area, I agree with not displaying, or linking to, the images that should remain hidden until permission is received. No, it would not be against the law. However, as Leila stated, the museum’s insensitivity should not be echoed even though the law missed this critical area of coverage. In today’s world, online access is more prevalent than viewing in person; therefore, if the museum is truly respectful, they should block that online access, law or no law. My gut reaction was not another Woke admonishment. However, when thinking about other instances of possible museum displays of human remains such as that of Holocaust survivors, my gut exploded with abhorrence. I’m at the age of my life where I would also be highly annoyed with the legal loophole that it’s OK to show these online. I think you’re right to call BS on that. Whether I support your decision or not (and I do in this case) I remain appreciative of the thoughtfulness behind the decision. As a society we need more conversation and thought, especially on complex issues. Thanks again for the columns and your transparency. Will images from slavery time, Haiti, Gaza, Ukraine, Israel, Africa and mass shootings be next to require permission from relatives and descendants to be viewed. I personally find some of them very sad and disturbing and quite often I have chosen to change the channel. I also understand that history cannot be erased and banned. This is truly a new world of massive confusion. So, does this mean any book in a public library that contains images must now be pulled from the shelves until approval is given? This is a great topic for discussion, and I appreciate you reporting the process you guys went through to make your decision.
Had I been part of it, I would have weighed in strongly on the side of publishing the images, for the reasons you initially made and, more broadly, because I am generally opposed to the fairly recent wave of efforts to "repatriate" art — of which this issue is a part.
There are exceptions. Art stolen during WWII is a good example. If there are living heirs to the families from which work was stolen, works should be returned.
In cases such as this, however, I don't believe any single person, government or tribe has a claim that morally eclipses the museum's ownership of the objects and its mission to educate. Laws in this arena should govern how such materials are bought and sold (or not) going forward. Public harm is done by removing these objects from places like museums, through which they can tell the ongoing stories of humanity. The world is on fire, our country is decaying before our eyes and we are drowning in debt promulgated by greedy, self-serving politicians. The truth is very difficult to find and understand these days. We rely on our news sources like the "Plain Dealer" for accurate and timely reporting of current events. Yet you worry about minutia like this? As Joe Biden would say, "Come on Man!" Get your head out of the woke world you live in and serve the readers with news and truth of things that really matter. I’m not someone who gets offended easily. More often than not I shake my head in disbelief over some of the things that people are offended by. But I realize that everyone is not like me, so I generally take the position that if something matters to the other person, I can appreciate their feelings even if I don’t care in the same way… If not for your email message on this topic, I would never have considered that this was an issue for you and your team (remember, I don’t get offended!). This falls into the head-shaking category I mentioned above. But your email caused me to think about it for a few minutes and consider that this DOES matter to others, if not to me. Mission accomplished, right? Why is covering the artifacts showing respect? It seems the purpose of these artifacts in a museum is education and cultural understanding. The native groups should be involved in that process. Perhaps enlarging the educational component is what is needed. I would like to see a whole museum devoted to native Americans in Ohio. They have a lot to teach us especially about taking care of the earth. I do agree with Steve and Leila that the act by The Cleveland Museum
of Art is totally hypocritical. I am surprised they would be so insensitive. Good job by Cleveland.com. I am not sure the reason for the original 1990 law but wouldn't all artifacts in a museum be under a similar law if the artifacts had to do with a peoples race, religion, sexual orientation....being potentially insensitive. Would this restrict how we teach accurate history? A definition I googled: The purpose of modern museums is to collect, preserve, interpret, and display objects of artistic, cultural, or scientific significance for the study and education of the public. This issue struck a chord with me. I think as a society we have become enamored with the law -- words on paper that exist because a group of people in Washington or state capitols have decided there is a problem that needs to be addressed and their tool for doing so is THE LAW. But laws are imperfect and seldom address all the nuances of any issue. By their nature laws cannot address the gray areas very well and even though as a society we've adopted a very dualistic approach to issues--it's either bad or good, black or white--few things are really that simple… I also believe that as a society we need to place less reliance on the law and all that goes with it and look a bit deeper at the ethics of something. Just because you can (it's legal) doesn't mean you should. Just because you should doesn't mean you will. Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you won't. Take time to explore the " why" of an action, not always just whether it's legal or not. Finally, I should note that some people wrote what they intended as humorous responses to the column, but these days, one person’s humor is another’s offense. One did make me laugh out loud, so I’m sharing it. I hope you accept it in the good humor it was offered. Good morning, Chris. As a Medina native that moved to Lexington, Ky in ‘77, I enjoy keeping up with hometown news and issues via the internet, and I look forward to your Saturday morning emails. This week’s re: how to handle the display of Native American artifacts made me wonder if the issue couldn’t be resolved by simply changing the museum placards to read “Guardian Artifacts”…
Keep up the good work! I’m at cquinn@cleveland.com. Thanks for reading | 