Nancy and her mother were the core of this well-known group of "Eskimos," and while they were the best-known and longest-lived such group, they were far from the only ones. Carl Hagenbeck had displayed several other groups of Inuit at his Zoo, starting with Abraham Ulrikab and his family in 1880. Like many such Inuit, Abraham became ill with a European disease -- smallpox -- and he, his wife, his teenage daughter, nephew, and infant daughter all succumbed with a few weeks of one another. Remarkably, he left a diary, which was recently translated and published. They were not the first, nor would they be the last, to be quite literally displayed to death.
A full listing of Inuit, along with Inupiat, Yupik, Greenland, and Siberian Eskimos who were put on display in Europe and the U.S., would be a long one, and their life stories would fill many books. Unfortunately, little is known about most of them. Nancy Columbia, surely the most famous of them all, retired from shows around 1920, and lived quietly with her mother in Santa Monica, California. She married a motion-picture projectionist, and they had a daughter named Sue who still lives in the area. Nancy Columbia died in 1959, forgotten by the world, but not by those of us who study Arctic history; you can read the essay Kenn Harper and I wrote on her career here. You can also see selected clips of these and other very early Arctic films here.
So what do we make of Nancy's story? We also must consider the far less fortunate fates of other Inuit such as Abraham Ulrikab, "Joe"and "Hannah," "Prince" Pomiuk, and Rosie Midway Spoon -- were displays featuring them intrinsically exploitative, or can we understand them in the context of the times? And how much, really, have those times changed? Your thoughts below.
So what do we make of Nancy's story? We also must consider the far less fortunate fates of other Inuit such as Abraham Ulrikab, "Joe"and "Hannah," "Prince" Pomiuk, and Rosie Midway Spoon -- were displays featuring them intrinsically exploitative, or can we understand them in the context of the times? And how much, really, have those times changed? Your thoughts below.
Alex Logan
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about Nancy Columbia, I immediately picked up on some stereotypes that were mentioned. For instance, it is mentioned that she was promoted under the name Nancilinek, to emphasize her Inuit lineage. Also, speculation has it that the origin of her name “Columbia” was given to her in honor of Christopher Columbus, for whom the expedition was named. This concept was also illustrated in the account of Rosie Midway Spoon, where it is mentioned that her middle name “Midway” was somehow connected to her mother Maryanne’s adventure. I am unsure that this implies any negative portrayal of the Inuit population, but one thing that I gleaned from this was that the emphasis on their Inuit culture may have overshadowed their gifts and talents. This quote from her account addresses that precept: “Columbia isn’t anything if she isn’t attractive, and she knows it. She is as she flashes her sunny smile at you. It takes only one glance from those dark eyes, and you will call her pretty names. She will enjoy them too, for she is wholly feminine, and her Eskimo trappings add novelty to her other charms.” In my opinion, it would have been sufficient to mention beauty and other physical characteristics that made Nancy special and unique without inserting the comment about her Eskimo trappings. I feel that this statement might have been a microaggression. Even though it was said in a positive context, it was unnecessary to mention and therefore, might make a person feel slighted or uncomfortable.
The fact that she was photographed in seal skin pants, mukluk boots, and a caribou parka to emphasize Alaskan history was another aspect that was notable to me. While I believe that it could have been harmless, I do feel like the emphasis again was more on her culture than on Nancy herself. The Inuit population have been an object of curiosity to many people, which may have reached unsettling heights. One thing I found disturbing was the description of the Inuit people in the Boston Globe from Chicago’s World’s Fair, which contained the title of “Strange People.” They were also described as having “queer looking natives who crowded to the ship’s rail with their eyes protruding from their flat, flabby faces and their capacious mouths opened to the fullest extent.” I felt that this was a derogatory statement directed at the Inuit population, making fun of their features. In the essay, it was written that Nancy Columbia was born into a world of “ethnic stereotypes” and “gawking visitors in search of the “other.”
One question came to mind as I was reading these accounts. Is the word “Eskimo” considered a derogatory or slang term, and is “Inuit” a more respectful way of referring to this population? I am unsure how the term “Eskimo” is any different than the terms used back in the day to describe certain ethnic populations. I was raised in a culture that was taught to say “Caucasian” instead of “white,” “African American” instead of “black,” and “Asian” instead of “Chinese.”
I honestly think that stereotypes were typical during that time mainly because people were not as educated as we are today, and therefore certain terms and behaviors were all they knew. I am not justifying them because I believe that it is important to focus more on who Nancy was as a person along with her gifts and talents, instead of on her race and ethnicity. Stereotypes are still used today, whether the intention is to educate people of different cultures or to make a mockery of them. Some examples are using the term “Baked Alaska” to describe a frozen dessert composed of ice cream and establishing “Eskimo Day,” which was held on a day where the temperatures took an unexpected drop and people participated in many Alaskan themed activities. People also make comments today, such as “It’s so cold, it feels like Alaska in this room.” All of these stereotypes and microaggressions still occur today, whether we wish to admit it or not.
To your question: "Inuit" -- their own name for themselves, is now standard everywhere (the singular is "Inuk"). "Eskimo," which was earlier spelt "Esquimaux," was the name given them by more southerly Indigenous peoples, and is now considered prejudicial in most areas, though in parts of Alaska and Greenland it's still accepted and used, particularly by older folks.
DeleteAnd, as to the other stereotypes -- these were part of a larger structure of racial hierarchies of that day, not only for the public but in scientific circles, sad to say. We have to acknowledge their historical existence, even as we now know to reject them. And finally, yes, the prejudice against cold itself, with all these words such as "harsh" and "unforgiving" applied to northern climes. There's a great book about that which I highly recommend, The Right to be Cold by Sheila Watt-Cloutier.
DeleteDo you know which areas the name "Eskimo" is considered prejudicial?
DeleteStrongly so in Inuit Nunangat (the parts of Canada that are the historic home of the Inuit people). In general, I would use "Inuit" universally, as it will always be welcome.
DeleteThis is very interesting!
DeleteAfter reading the stores of Nancy, Abraham Ulrikab, Rosie Midway Spoon, Joe & Hannah, and Prince Pomiuk, I do believe that it was exploitative, and it left me feeling upset. These people were taken from the homes under false pretenses and carried far away from home just to be displayed (just as animals would be) in a zoo, at freak shows, and the circus. Their lives cut short because they were now being exposed to diseases that they otherwise, would never have been exposed to. They did not deserve to be treated this way. In the reading about Hanna & Joe it was stated that “Hall had “loaned” Hannah & Joe to P.T. Barnum’s American Museum in New York”. He made these people his personal property to make money off.
ReplyDeleteReading stories of the Inuit people, reminded me of Coney Island, where other populations besides the Inuit people were also exploited, such as the Somalis and Irish farmers. I’m reminded of the story of 50 members of the Bontoc Igorrote tribe from north of the Philippines that were taken to Coney Island and were made to dress up and put on a show. These people were even given dogs to eat as people watched because they discovered the people from those parts ate dogs at wedding rituals.
The story of Saartjie Sarah Baartman also comes to mind, and I feel for her the most. Unlike taking a group (where they at least had each other in the terrible experience), she was taken alone from her homeland of South Africa and paraded around and put on display and exhibited in European Freak Shows because of the shape of her body. She was dissected by male comparative anatomists. Imagine how she felt when people were allowed to touch her and view her private parts. After she died her brain, skeleton, genitals, and a cast of her body was on display in Paris until 1974. Her remains were later returned to South Africa under the request of Nelson Mandela.
The idea of human zoo’s, the circus, or freak shows, were very popular around 1840 to 1940 and I for one am very happy that it was abolished because no one cared about how these people felt. Not only were they exploited for their differences, way of life, culture, and traditions they were exploited for financial gain. They were also, in my opinion, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and portrayed as savages and freaks. If there was interest in the Inuit people (and other populations as such) and their ways, there are better ways to do so such as properly learning from them and not exploiting them.
~Jaycee Johnson~
This is so true, Jaycee. It was evident in Minik's story, when the museum refused to return his father's body and they would not allow him to return to Greenland. Consequently, his health suffered tremendously and he became depressed and suicidal. They were treated with absolutely no dignity. Thank you for sharing.
DeleteThat is an excellent point, Madison. It is true that Alaskan and Indian cultures can be shared for their beauty and uniqueness, but in the readings they were exploited in a negative way. They were treated like animals instead of people. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteMadison Kite
ReplyDeleteAssignment #5: Prince Pomiuk
While all the readings today shared an underlying theme of exploitation, Pomiuk’s story was heartbreaking. Pomiuk was too young to have any control over his situation and could not choose to stay in his village. He was exploited and abused for profit and received no compensation at the end of the tour. In the end, Pomiuk died from his injuries from his abuse. When I read how Alice Walsh wrote a book “based on true events,” I couldn’t help but feel gross. The story deviated so much from the truth. Walsh took the sufferings of a boy and made it into a fun children’s book. The book distorts the truth and disrespects Pomiuk's memory. At that point, she might as well have created a fictional character that starred in her fictional story. The article notes that the book has a “soap opera” ending that I personally think mocks his life and disguises his real suffering. I believe the book perpetuates the exploitation that Pomiuk endured. Neither Pomiuk nor his family benefits from this false narrative; instead, it only continues the cycle of misrepresenting his life. By manipulating his story, the book ignores the pain and trauma he experienced. If Alice Walsh wanted to write a children’s book about Inuit people, she should have either created a fictional character or learned about a real Inuit story (real or mythological) that had a happy ending. It sort of reminds me of the Disney movie “Pocahontas.” The real Pocahontas was 18 and married 29-year-old John Rolfe, and she eventually died when she was 21 in England. I loved “Pocahontas” growing up, and I still love it now, but when I think about it too much, it gives me a weird feeling. Her story was completely changed for profit, similar to Pomiuk. I’m not saying every story needs to be super accurate, especially children’s stories, and I think if you want to use a real story as an inspiration, that’s totally fine. Still, I think the names should be changed so there is no attachment to the real person and their life.
After reading the stories of Nancy Columbia, Abraham Ulrikab, Joe and Hannah, Prince Pomiuk, and Rosie Midway Spoon, and the fact of these and more indigenous people displayed in the zoos, I feel a mix of sadness and anger. I think the Inuit and indigenous cultures in general is very interesting and unique. However, I understand their curiosity at the time to get to know their culture, but there would have had to be another way so they to get to know about the Inuit’s culture, such creating book about them not to expose and display them like if they were animals. These practices were really degrading and exploitative, driven by a colonial mindset that saw non-Western people as curiosities rather than as individuals with rich cultures and inherent dignity.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, Nancy Columbia’s story and those of other exhibited Inuit force us to confront a dark chapter in history. They remind us of the importance of seeing all people as individuals with dignity and rights, not as objects of curiosity. By understanding and learning from these histories, we can help ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated and that we move towards a more respectful and equitable world.
Yeison De La Rosa
After completing reflecting on the readings, I find myself with mixed feelings about bringing the Inuit people back to England or the United States to be displayed. It is apparent that many of the people were taken advantage of, had been given promises of never being hungry and being able to make money to bring back to their homeland, it is extremely sad and infuriating that explorers could and would do that to an otherwise naïve culture.
ReplyDeleteThe example of “Hannah” and “Joe” did show that this culture of people was useful to the explorers, being paid to be guides and assist in the search for Franklin in the north. At the same time, they were being exploited to make money to fund the expedition, having been used as attractions in fairs and shows. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that some of the Inuit did not gain anything by coming back with the explorers.
The more emotionally torn aspect of all these stories is the injuries, sickness, and death that inevitable became of many who traveled to Europe and the United States. Succumbing to smallpox (for those who were supposed to have been vaccinated beforehand) shows the carelessness and greed of the explorers who brough them back. Simply stating “I forgot” is not even close to an adequate excuse. In all honesty, these people should have been charged with some form of murder/involuntary manslaughter, etc. Similarly to those who are promised an amazing and better life coming to the United States by the coyotes who traffic people from Central and South America, false promises are not that obvious until it is too late.
I find myself with an off putting feeling mostly because of all these stories is the sickness, injuries, and even death that happen to many who traveled to Europe and the United States. Bringing the Inuit people back to England or the United States to be displayed just makes me feel like they are being taken advantage of and to be promised food, money and other things to bring back to their homeland is just sad that the explorers would do that to an native culture. They were being exploited to make money to fund the expedition, having been used as attractions in a fair like animals in a zoo cage. Some of the Inuit didn't even gain anything by coming back with the explorers. Just the greed of the explorers who brought them back.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFrom the very beginning the story of Nancy is a sad one. To be born in the Eskimo display at the World's Columbian Exposition is, in my opinion, a dehumanizing act. This would set the stage for the years to come for her as she was moved around the world for people to gawk at. While this was written off to be “educational” for the rest of the world, the way that Nancy and her people were paraded around makes them no different that animals at the zoo. However, the path of Nancy’s life seems to be the best route possible for the Inuit people put on display. Abraham Ulrikab and his family would have been blessed to live as Nancy did, instead they all fell victim to smallpox as they were forced to travel with no regard for their safety. Displays such as these were absolutely exploitative even in the context of time, with slavery being abolished by the 13th amendment in 1865 (15 years prior to the death of the Ulrikab family) this is an act that people knew was wrong.
-Jonathan Lozinski
It is inherently humiliating to be displayed in a zoo or anywhere else for people to gawk at your mere existence and culture. The Inuit were definitely exploited and taken advantage of with false promises. It is very upsetting that many of them died due to injury and illness that would have been so easily prevented.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know if I'm feeling more sad or angry right now after reading the stories of the Innut people. I am glad that I now know about the Innut People and how poorly they were treated and used by the colonists. I wonder what would have happened if the Innut people refused to board those ships?
ReplyDeleteI feel really bad for how their life ended, especially Abraham Ulrikab and his family. They could have buried the bodies instead of displaying their remains like ancient animals. Are there any Innut people who currently live in Alaska or anywhere in the world?
Kamar Gure
While all the readings today shared an underlying theme of exploitation, Pomiuk’s story was heartbreaking. Pomiuk was too young to have any control over his situation and could not choose to stay in his village. He was exploited and abused for profit and received no compensation at the end of the tour. In the end, Pomiuk died from his injuries from his abuse. When I read how Alice Walsh wrote a book “based on true events,” I couldn’t help but feel gross. The story deviated so much from the truth. Walsh took the sufferings of a boy and made it into a fun children’s book. The book distorts the truth and disrespects Pomiuk's memory. At that point, she might as well have created a fictional character that starred in her fictional story. The article notes that the book has a “soap opera” ending that I personally think mocks his life and disguises his real suffering. I believe the book perpetuates the exploitation that Pomiuk endured. Neither Pomiuk nor his family benefits from this false narrative; instead, it only continues the cycle of misrepresenting his life. By manipulating his story, the book ignores the pain and trauma he experienced. If Alice Walsh wanted to write a children’s book about Inuit people, she should have either created a fictional character or learned about a real Inuit story (real or mythological) that had a happy ending. It sort of reminds me of the Disney movie “Pocahontas.” The real Pocahontas was 18 and married 29-year-old John Rolfe, and she eventually died when she was 21 in England. I loved “Pocahontas” growing up, and I still love it now, but when I think about it too much, it gives me a weird feeling. Her story was completely changed for profit, similar to Pomiuk. I’m not saying every story needs to be super accurate, especially children’s stories, and I think if you want to use a real story as an inspiration, that’s totally fine. Still, I think the names should be changed so there is no attachment to the real person and their life.
ReplyDeleteMadison Kite
Nancy Columbia’s story is captivating, ultimately because it reveals a narrative of exploitation and cultural commodification. While born into a family of Inuit performers, Columbia was presented into the spotlight during the beginning of infancy as an entertainment for non-Inuit audiences. Her life was relentless, having to move from one exhibition to another performing stereotypical roles. Columbia's life serves as a poignant example of a larger issue: the exploitation of her culture by dominant Western forces solely for financial gain. However, reading from the text I realize that Columbia likes the spotlight and attention. Unlike the other biographies, Columbia was the only one who used the exhibition to her advantage and follow the life of a film star. When examining Columbia’s life, I am still upset about how indigenous people have been historically treated as animals instead as equals. Her narrative emphasizes the critical importance of showing respect, acknowledgment, and making amends for indigenous communities globally.
ReplyDeleteFrom all I gathered from the readings is that greed plays a role in disrupting the Inuit culture and families. Because explorers like Robert Peary and Carl Hagenbeck, renowned Arctic explorers of their time, harbored ambitions not solely rooted in scientific inquiry or cultural understanding, but rather in the pursuit of personal gain and accolades. Peary's relentless quest for fame and Hagenbeck's pursuit of exotic specimens for commercial exploitation impaired their relationships with the indigenous communities, leading to exploitation and cultural erosion.
wow, great stuff here Pheng! i love how you related this to Robert Perry's journey as well
DeleteNancy Columbia's story and other people in zoos have such a painful history that kind of forces us to see uncomfortable truths about the past and present attitudes towards indigenous peoples. Nancy's story was unique but also reflected a pattern of exploitation. Even though she was relatively successful, her public image was focused on the demeaning practice of promoting her identity and culture. The awful end of Abraham Ulrikab and his family serves as a reminder of the real consequences of these displays. Their smallpox deaths serve as a stark reminder of the dangers taken by those who were on display. This calls for continuous effort to address historical wrongs to make sure the practices never happen again.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Brodeur
Nancy Columbia's story serves as a poignant example of the nuanced realities faced by Indigenous people displayed in early 20th-century exhibitions. Despite her relative fame and agency, including writing and starring in films, Nancy's career was embedded in a system that fundamentally exploited Indigenous cultures for entertainment. These exhibitions commodified human beings, turning them into spectacles for public consumption. The tragic outcomes for other Inuit, such as Abraham Ulrikab and his family, who succumbed to European diseases, highlight the severe physical and emotional toll of such displays. These exhibitions were intrinsically exploitative, reflecting and perpetuating the imperialist and ethnocentric attitudes of the time, which viewed Indigenous peoples as curiosities rather than as individuals with their own dignity and cultures.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding these practices within their historical context does not excuse their exploitative nature but rather emphasizes the need to critically examine how such attitudes have evolved—or persisted—over time. While society no longer condones overt human exhibitions, contemporary issues of cultural appropriation and exploitation in media and public representations suggest that the underlying dynamics have not entirely disappeared. It is essential to reflect on how we engage with and represent Indigenous cultures today, striving to respect and honor their histories and identities without reducing them to mere objects of curiosity or entertainment. This reflection helps ensure that the progress made since Nancy Columbia's time continues to move towards genuine respect and equity for Indigenous peoples.
by Tariq adio
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Tentoco
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this story it's so sad with how everything happened especially after reading Abraham Ulirkab and his family. Knowing that instead of a burial their bodies were showcased like a zoo on display for people to just walk by and see. I get wanting to spread history but this is all wrong. the way that these people died through illness and injury is so sad. you get the feeling of sadness and anger when reading these things because you know this is wrong. I wonder what it would be like if things were different. If people were more open and accepting. Being used and mistreated is horrible and not to mention after dying your body can't rest because it's being displayed.
I couldn’t help but feel heartbroken and angry after reading these stories. The way the Inuit people were wrongfully treated like animals or slaves. The empty promises that were made to get them to come to America. Prince Pomiuk’s story in particular bothered me. He was only a boy and was essentially dragged along on this journey with his family only to be exploited, abused, and defrauded. It was unfortunate that he died due to complications with his hip/leg and couldn’t live to really tell his side of the story. Alice Walsh should have written a short biography and presented the truth of the boy’s life rather than a children’s book. Not all stories have a happy ending. Sadly, it wasn’t always a happy ending for the Inuit people. Giving Pomiuk a happy ending almost lets children who read it believe that it’s okay for people to get treated and disrespected in such a way all because he lived and had a heartfelt ending.
ReplyDeleteMariah D.
Before reading about the different experiences of the Inuit people, just hearing that they were displayed in a zoo for the locals to exhibit truly disturbed me. I think it's derogative to have people of certain ethnicities displayed as if they're something other than human as well. I understand the curiosity of how others might live around the world but there are more appropriate ways to learn.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the different Inuit people and digesting their stories, I was left feeling sad. I think some were more fortunate than others in terms of recognition like Nancy Columbia, but not by much. After learning the Ulrikab family died due to someone forgetting the importance of getting vaccinated I felt so dissatisfied. How they made the trip to Europe with a group of eight and not one of them survived. Tragic, while Jacobson admits he simply forgot…how incompetent and shows how they were just products to him.
It leaves me to wonder how many other families were told lies to come to take part in human displays with the thought of bettering their lives. "Prince" Pomiuk story was largely fictionalized while neglecting to tell the true tragic events of his life. I'm sure countless Inuit people are forgotten in history with similar life events.
I also wonder after moving their lives how many kept their traditions and culture. That must also be sad transitioning your life and not only losing your home but much of what you know.
K'lynn Pena
The reading made me reflect on the exploitative and dehumanizing practice of displaying Indigenous peoples in zoos and exhibitions. They highlight the complex and painful histories of individuals like Nancy Columbia and Abraham Ulrikab, underscoring the need to confront past injustices and work towards a more equitable future. Nancy's story, along with those of others like Abraham Ulrikab, "Joe" and "Hannah," "Prince" Pomiuk, and Rosie Midway Spoon, highlights the troubling history of human exhibitions. These displays were exploitative, treating individuals as mere spectacles for entertainment rather than respecting their humanity. While we might try to understand these exhibitions in the context of their time, it's crucial to recognize that this doesn't excuse the harm inflicted. Even if such displays were common back then, it doesn't make them right. They perpetuated racial stereotypes and dehumanized Indigenous peoples. Reflecting on these events should make us consider how similar forms of exploitation persist today. While human zoos might be a thing of the past, systemic inequalities and biases continue to harm marginalized communities. Nancy's story reminds us of the ongoing legacy of colonialism and racism. It urges us to confront past injustices and work towards a fairer future where all voices are heard and respected. Only by acknowledging and addressing historical injustices can we hope to build a more inclusive and compassionate world. I think this offers valuable insights into a dark chapter of history, urging us to learn from the past and strive for a more respectful and inclusive society.
ReplyDelete"Inuit on Display" is a great tittle for this discussion. When we think about something being on "display", we think about something being showcased, exhibited for others to see; whether that is for admiration, educational purposes, or pure observation. It is troubling to think about humans being the center of said displays, whether this is at a zoo or a museum. This is a sad part of history that shows some people were treated as objects of curiosity-- as things-- rather than actual human beings.
ReplyDeleteIt is also troubling how the Inuit people were taken advantage of. It has been a common theme throughout history for those in positions of power (whether that power be monetary, political, medical, or color) to take advantage of the desperation and needs of others. In the case of the Inuit people, they wanted supplies, resources, help to bring back to their people; but what they found was lack of freedom, humiliation, disease, and death. In the nature of my medical field, I am reminded of the Tuskegee Experiment, where African American men were recruited with the false promise of free health care for them and their families. Not only were they lied to about the free health care, but they were simply used as lab rats. It saddens me that this is something that has continuously happened throughout history, and I don't think that I will ever not* happen.
In the case of Nancy Columbia, It appears as if she had a better going than the other Inuit people we've learned about. She seemed to have had a bit more autonomy and independence (but I say those terms very lightly!). She pursued a career she liked, she married, she had a family. Although a different fate than many others, her background and the way it came to be is still troubling. At least to us. I was unable to find anything about her personal feelings about the matter, and I don't know if she was happy with the choices that were made for her before she was born. It seems that she took control of the situation that she was given (luckily she was illness free it appears), and was able to make a life for herself. It would be nice if we had more information about her thoughts and her feelings about how she ended up here.
Veronica Leonardo
DeleteI believe that the practice of displaying Inuit people in zoos and exhibitions is a shameful and dehumanizing practice that has caused immense harm and suffering to indigenous people. It is unacceptable to treat human beings as exotic attractions or objects of curiosity, and to profit from their exploitation. The fact that Nancy Columbia, an Inuit woman, was displayed in zoos and exhibitions for over 20 years, and was treated as a spectacle, is a stark reminder of the objectification and commodification of indigenous people. The fact that she was featured in early silent films and wrote the scenario for one of them is also a testament to the level of exploitation and control that she was subjected to. This practice was not just a product of individual curiosity or ignorance, but was also deeply rooted in systemic power imbalances, racism, and colonialism. This practice has caused lasting harm and trauma to indigenous peoples, and continues to have an impact on their communities today. It is important to recognize the historical trauma and ongoing marginalization that indigenous peoples have experienced, and to work towards reconciliation and justice. The display of Inuit people in zoos and exhibitions is a reprehensible practice that has caused immense harm and suffering to indigenous people. It is important to recognize the historical context of this practice, and to work towards reconciliation and justice.
ReplyDeleteHow do you all think we can balance our desire to learn about and appreciate different cultures with the need to respect and protect the dignity and autonomy of the people being represented?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading the information provided, I was reminded of how prominent racism has always been. These Inuit people were nothing more than exhibits on display for the white people. White Europeans did not see people of color as functioning humans, especially when they observed that the Inuit culture was vastly different from their own. I wonder how many Europeans actually thought of this group of 8 as actual people and believed that they were being inhumanely treated. On top of this, what struck me was the fact that the group was dying off from smallpox, yet they kept traveling and remained on display to pay off their debt. It is really hard for me to imagine what they were feeling as they continued to meet their obligations while they were losing members forever. The smallpox diagnosis did not come as a surprise to me because anyone who went to Europe who was not from Europe would get smallpox. I am fairly confident that if these Inuits were white and literate, there would have been more motivation to get to the bottom of their illness and give them the smallpox vaccine.
ReplyDeleteNow that it is recognized as inhumane and insensitive, the talk about studying tribes with respect has been much more. There are still bodies and pieces of culture displayed in museums that are not at their respective homes. Although we are grateful to be able to experience primary sources in our museums, there has got to be a more respectful way to teach us, unless museums are willing to recognize that the reasons why they have these pieces aren't to educate but to store potential money-making pieces. Because it has been so long since these pieces have been stolen, is it possible that they are no longer stolen? What are ways that these pieces can be returned to their rightful owners, or still be viewed but in respect to the tribes?
After going over the readings, it truly displays how grotesque their behavior was towards the Inuit people. The exploitation and dehumanization they endured was horrible, to say the least. They were only used for profit and for the entertainment of the Europeans. It was saddening to hear that most of the Inuit people had gotten sick and passed away from the European diseases they were exposed to. Not to mention hearing of the false promises of food, money, and getting to go back home.
ReplyDeleteThe blatant exploitation of Inuit and other native peoples during this era was atrocious and held little to no concern for the wellbeing of the "stars" or the ethics of presenting other cultures as an attraction. Unfortunately the human desire to gawk at people unfamiliar to them is still present today, although in a modern context it has taken the form of social media. The people involved in these "shows" must have felt a sense of dehumanization and certainly a plethora of stereotyping, as their entire lives were dedicated to parading as the "exotic native" for spectacle to people all over the country. Unlike examples of people celebrating their culture due to pride or celebration, these performances were not a true reflection of the lives that many of these actors had led. To my understanding, Nancy was born in America and had never lived a traditional inuit lifestyle. This information is not being used to undercut her heritage or claim she is some kind of impostor, but it is a shame that her on-stage presence was limited to that of a stereotypical traditional inuit woman, rather than an opportunity to showcase the "true" Nancy, and celebrate her inuit culture and heritage in a way that doesn't revise or simplify her story and allows her to be herself, rather than fill the shoes of a hollow stereotype.
ReplyDelete-Eli Tamburino
DeleteIt’s extremely insulting and degrading to display people like animals in a zoo. It is this very blatant form of exploration and objectification that deprives individuals, such as Nancy Columbia and her family, of their dignity and fundamental human rights. Such rich cultures as the Inuit cannot be summarized through barbaric means like these and should be taught through the people who live them not encased in some exhibition and forgotten.
ReplyDeleteThe American Museum of Natural History must change its ways and learn that these actions cannot continue. Promoting awareness of the Inuit’s treatment in the past and advocacy for the true history of the Arctic people would be critical to expressing how harmful these exhibits are. So that other scientists can learn from their mistakes and realize the harm of abuse and objectification of races and their cultures for amusement or profit. I believe that in the past, more people should have campaigned for policies that protected the individuals subjected to these exhibits.
-Luis Perez