In this
module we’ve been covering the repatriation of materials on Native languages
like dictionaries as well as the rights of a language community to restrict who
has access to such materials or even an entire language in general. But what
about John Peabody Harrington’s notes? We all know that Harrington collected
almost a million pages of notes on over 130 native languages here in North
America. Should his notes be repatriated as well? The Hopi aren’t the only
indigenous culture with a strong tradition of secrecy, and it shouldn’t be a surprise
to anybody if another native community didn’t want outsiders knowing the
specifics of their language, especially considering some of the ways Harrington
went about collecting his field notes. Furthermore, according to the John
Peabody Harrington Collection’s home page, “Recognizing language as a key to
understanding a culture, J. P. Harrington assembled information on a wide array
of cultural practices”. There are many communities out there that would prefer
to have the details of their languages not made public, but imagine how they
must feel when some of their cultural practices are also available for anybody
to see. All it takes is access to the internet and someone can see almost
everything Harrington ever recorded on dozens of languages regardless of whether
the people who identify with that language or culture approve. Should that still
be the case when in the past language communities have been able to copyright
their own languages and completely put a stop to the publication of language
materials? But if not, then what can be done? Harrington’s notes are already in
the hands of the Smithsonian, and if someone really wanted to, they could
easily copy them for him or herself. In addition, it’s quite possible that a
culture with a strong tradition of secrecy that Harrington may have collected
notes on wouldn’t even know about the collection or know that anybody can see
his notes. So, these are all things to consider when addressing the repatriation
of his field notes, but should a language community ever decide that it want
his notes for itself, it may have a hard time getting its way.
Reference: http://anthropology.si.edu/naa/harrington/index.html
I think you hit on a very complex and incredibly controversial topic. Repatriation in and of itself is something that is relatively hard to argue with. After all, if some nation owns something that has been taken from them, it makes sense that it should be returned. The topic becomes, at least in my mind, more challenging once it is related to a language. A language is not some physical entity, but it can hold incredible cultural significance. Anyone CAN learn any language, but what if the "owners" of a language do not want other people learning it?
ReplyDeleteThis brings me back to your main point, which to me seems fundamentally a question of ownership. Should the ownership of notes change as a function of what the topic is on? If J.P. Harrington took notes on Spanish or French, are they "more" his property than if he took notes on Hopi? What if he got permission from a member of that "secretive" society? Are the wishes of the individual and then knowledge they gave overwhelmed by the larger societal pressures?
I don't know if there is a good answer or not. There definitely is not an easy one.