Module 4, Post 3

I came across a very poignant statement by Vicki Goldberg from a New York Times Article about Edward S. Curtis:

“In this year of Columbus, white Americans have not yet figured out how they should think about Indians, nor are Indians united on how they wish to be regarded. While curators debate whether ancient skeletons dug up by zealous anthropologists should be returned to sacred burial grounds, while collectors drive up the prices of baskets and blankets made by cultures that had no “fine art” category, some Indians are demanding that the Atlanta Braves change their name and make their fans stop doing the “tomahawk” chop in the stands.

This is the difficulty in re-presentation. Do you tear down what the dominant society has built up or do you offer a different view of what it means to be a particular nation? Or do you do both? If so what is the strategy to accomplish this and what is the ultimate goal? You can tear something down, but what is it replaced with? None of the research I have read really answers this. The best I have seen is Vicki’s encapsulating paragraph.