The Anthropology Of Genocide - WNLibrary

coming to our senses 363
with great patience, good humor, and grace. He was exceptionally learned in
the art of waiting.
ISHI’S ASHES
The final chapter in the sad history of Ishi and Berkeley anthropology opened in
the spring of 1999 with the “rediscovery” of Ishi’s brain, which had languished for
three-quarters of a century in a vat of formaldehyde at a Smithsonian warehouse,
and the demands of native Californians for its immediate repatriation. Members
of the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley differed in their opinions of what,
if anything, should be said or done with respect to these developments. A special
departmental meeting was held and a compromise statement was ultimately voted
and agreed upon. Although falling short of the apology to Northern California Indians
that a large number of the faculty had signed after an earlier draft, the final
statement concluded: 3
We acknowledge our department’s role in what happened to Ishi, a man who had already
lost all that was dear to him. We strongly urge that the process of returning Ishi’s
brain to appropriate Native American representatives be speedily accomplished....
We invite the peoples of Native California to instruct us in how we may better serve
the needs of their communities through our research related activities. Perhaps, working
together, we can ensure that the next millennium will represent a new era in the
relationship between indigenous peoples, anthropologists and the public. (March 29,
1999, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley)
The following words and phrases were deleted from the earlier draft: “What
happened to Ishi’s body, in the name of science, was a perversion of our core anthropological
values. Science proceeds by correcting past error and through a gradual
process of critical self-reflection. . . . We are sorry for our department’s role,
however unintentional, in the final betrayal of Ishi, a man who had already lost all
that was dear to him at the hands of Western colonizers. We recognize that the
exploitation and betrayal of Native Americans is still commonplace in American
society. The anthropology that emerged in the early 20th century—so-called ‘salvage
anthropology’—was a human science devoted to ‘salvaging’ what was left of
indigenous peoples and cultures following a national genocide.” This longer statement
was, however, read by me into the record at a state legislature hearing on the
repatriazation of Ishi’s remains in Sacramento in April 1999.
Some representatives of the Native Californian communities, such as Art Angle
of the Butte County American Indian Cultural Committee, appreciated and
accepted the apology, which he recognized as a “big step” for anthropology and
for the University of California. Other Indian spokespeople, such as Gerald
Vizenor, professor of Native American studies at Berkeley, dismissed the “pained
rhetoric” and the apology, which he characterized as “too little and too late.” Obviously,
the century of mistrust between Indians and anthropologists (see Deloria