I enjoyed looking for an object to research, and I don’t think I really ran into any challenges. I think the opportunity to research an everyday object that connects to the larger ideas and events that we’ve talked about in class was a nice way to personalize history.
There are a lot of differences between a physical object and its digital representation, at least in my opinion. Physical objects take up space, which is a very obvious observation, but that makes a huge difference in how I experience objects. I don’t really understand technology, so nothing digital feels completely real to me, plus representations of something are not that thing. By definition, they are representations of something else that already exists. Ceci n’est pas une pipe and all of that. Real objects have scent, texture, and details that cannot translate digitally. In a way, physical objects carry history, both metaphorically and literally. There’s the metaphorical carrying of the stories that are attached to them and what they mean for different people, but also the literal mark of history that might come from a stain or chip or the smell of the last place the object was. To me, that’s part of why repatriation is so important. There are obviously other reasons to repatriate, like returning something to its rightful owner and protecting cultural knowledge and practices, which are hugely important, but I think the physicality of objects makes repatriation more powerful.
For example, we read about a robe and a headdress repatriated to the Siksika nation last week. The physicality of these objects seemed really important to me, as objects that were meant to be worn. They had a purpose in the physical world, and being told about that purpose is not the same as actually wearing, seeing, or feeling the objects. Their physicality is made even more powerful by the fact that they were returned to relatives of the people who originally made and wore them. For the Siksika nation, the headdress and robe offer a direct, physical link to their community’s past. That is meaningful to everybody, and I can’t imagine the added feelings (both positive and negative) that repatriation evokes in someone who has had their links to the past and their community systematically destroyed, as happened to many Native people.
Hi Sage! Thank you so much for sharing these thoughts. It is interesting to think about the difference between physical and digital items, as well as how our experience changes when interacting with these sources. Although search engines can make our research infinitely easier, there are critical limitations with such technology. Especially when grappling with Native history, we need to be aware of how these platforms might replicate colonial systems of preserving and presenting knowledge. As we increasingly “do history” in a digital age, we can work to make these platforms/collections more representative, collaborative, and equitable for all.