Follow14 responses to “a visit to the MOA”
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
about this course
Focused principally on the 20th and 21st centuries, this course will study the legacies and implications of the massive migration, forced and otherwise, from the African continent to the Caribbean, Latin America, and North America. Topics will range from the creation of racial categories in the contexts of slavery and colonialism to the making of transnational and transracial families to the recent cultural politics of “blackness” with emphasis on the ways that different kinds of archives produce multiple and often conflicting narratives. Students will produce as well as consume history. In addition to scholarly monographs and articles, course material will include film, sound, and fiction.
I’m very excited to be teaching this course, and looking forward to working with you all semester. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the website and read the syllabus. We will use this site extensively for announcements, postings, and virtual conversations. You should feel free to treat it as your own, and post links, images, videos, or anything else of interest to the class.
MOA Amazonia Exhibition Tour
Respecting Distance
The guided tour around the MOA Amazonia Exhibition was a really insightful and fulfilling way to spend the early hours of a gloomy Tuesday morning. The exhibition was effectively laid out, displaying staggering statistics upon entry to give the (in my case) under-educated observer some basic facts about the vastness and significance of the Amazon rainforest. The forest is 7.8 million km2, spanning over nine countries in South America. It is the home of 385 Indigenous groups of peoples, some of whom have inhabited the forest for 11,200 years. The curator Nuno Porto, presented the case that the Amazon is more than just a rainforest, it is a political space. This idea was echoed in the hangings on the right-hand wall, that identified each of the nine countries with an outline of their shape, and quotations from the constitutions in areas relating to Indigenous peoples and environmental rights. The notions of this perceived ‘political space’ could be clouded by methodological complications. Porto spoke about some difficulties he had in obtaining data for the exhibition, because, for example, British Guiana does not recognise its Indigenous population. Thus, gathering numbers relating to Indigenous tribes, or overall statistics relating to the Amazon as a whole, for example, the number of assassinated Indigenous people, can be incredibly difficult.
Porto also drew attention to a number of objects involved in the exhibition whose histories remain unknown, they were simply transferred from other museums/departments with notes attached that stated, ‘Amazonia ?’. When asked about this, he responded that, ‘we should respect distance’. I found comfort in that fact that some objects remain beyond our ‘modernised’ or western understanding. While cultivating knowledge about Indigenous communities is insightful, highly educational and beneficial to the western society, one should respect that there is a limit to our understanding. Historians should not force their interpretation of what they believe something is, on items that we simply cannot find information on. Respect and appreciation for these items as they are, as examples of innovative human thought, and as illustrations of the utility of nature, is worth more than attaching insufficient histories or inaccurate uses to the objects.
The sounds of human voices as we walked around the exhibition were intentional. As Porto described, it was to reinforce the often forgotten truth that the Amazon rainforest is home to many people. This balanced the lack of human images throughout the exhibition. In this way, one could look at the objects as examples of human craftsmanship, using the object alone to interrogate truths about those who made it and those who use it. Thus, the exhibition succeeded in allowing the predominate focus to be on nature, while at the same time, the careful curating ensured that those who lived alongside this nature were not overlooked.
Museum of Anthropology (MOA)
Thinking through the layout and the exhibition, I was really interested in the intentional decisions that were made to display the objects, but also how the layout was used to create a narrative.
At the beginning of the tour it was really interesting to hear what Dr. Porto had to say about the agency of the rainforest as a site that expands state boarders but also as an active site of politics concerning Indigenous self-determination. I found it incredibly interesting to learn about the rights of nature, and the legislation created by different countries and states to protect to rainforest, which by extension gives Indigenous communities more rights to govern their land and preserve their cultural practices. Dr. Porto also mentioned how within state boarders, there were different nations in South America that have complex and long histories concerning their relationship with the rainforest. The tour was informative in the sense that, it complicates the relationship between the nation state, Indigeneity, and the agency of the rainforest as a contact zone for political inquiry and conflict. This is all to say that the exhibition was actively trying to create a dialogue of how the rainforest is an important political site that is more complicated than devising state boarders.
What I found really interesting in the deliberate layout of the exhibition was first, the choice to use a map without state boarders and instead focus on the geography of the rainforest, and secondly, the use of sonic qualities within the space. For the former, I thought the simple and intentional use to map out South America through the geography of the rainforest was an attempt to legitimize the rainforest as a geographic and political site, giving the space more agency as an active site of political discourse rather than a passive and isolated space. In the exhibition, it felt as if the rainforest acted as its own political space rather than an environment dictated by the nation states it fell into. The conceptualization of rainforest within the exhibition made a point of saying that there is a contention between nation states and their respective relationship with the rainforest and by extension, Indigenous communities.
The second part of the exhibition that I really appreciated was acknowledging the diverse languages used by different indigenous communities. I think this is really present in Canada as well, but preserving oral language is so important because language has, historically, been used as a way to delegitimize Indigenous culture and identity. Oral communication and language systems have always been compare to a lack of literacy and therefore a lack of culture. This colonial attitude towards oral language and culture has been used against Indigenous knowledge systems, politics, and practices (which also reminds me of how Dr. Porto said that Indigenous knowledge is integral to solving contemporary political issues). Having the sonic qualities within the exhibition space was crucial in understanding that the Amazon rainforest is an active space, and again, not passive. To hear the voices and languages preserved through audio recording gives another layer to the exhibition space, and to make the point that political issues concerning the rainforest is not just environmental, but also about how state powers interact with Indigenous communities within the site of the rainforest.
The MOA Amazonia Exhibition that we had the opportunity to see on Tuesday was very fascinating. The exhibition features many objects that represent the Amazonian peoples. And the stories that each of these individual objects hold range over 100 years about the Amazonian people, in particular about the struggles they endured. I thought the choice of how the objects were displayed and their placement within was very strategic in allowing the visitors of the exhibit to really see the individuality behind each piece. Every piece chosen has a unique story. I was very intrigued by the traditional masks hanging behind the black mesh curtain. The Indigenous peoples wore these masks during the Makuna Peach Palm Festival, which celebrates the peach palm harvest. It was an annual ritual where Makuna men wore costumes for the Dance of the Spirits; the mask was a key component. Extreme work goes into the creation of these costumes. You can tell by the details in the mask how sacred the masks were to the ritual. What I also thought was very interesting is that the masks represented different spirits of animals, in which the Makuna men act of different characters during the the ritual. It was very interesting learning about the different rituals and practices of the Indigenous peoples. Overall, I really enjoyed the exhibit and I am happy I got a chance to see it and learn more about the Amazonian peoples, who before this trip to MOA exhibition, I did not know anything about.
What strikes me the most during the tour of this exhibition was how closely nature is associated with the different tribes of indigenous people in the Amazon Rain Forest Region. The entrance to this exhibition is being introduced by article 71 from chapter seven of the Constitution of The Plurinational State of Ecuador, which represented one of the basis for the rights of the nature. “ Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and unfolds, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. All persons, communities, peoples and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature.” In other words, people in Ecuador has valued the significance of respecting the nature to such a degree, that they felt it was crucial to incorporate it into their state constitution. This exhibit also stresses the significance of the unification with nature is to the knowledge of the Amazonian indigenous people, where they work hard to keep a balance relationship with the nature by constantly trying to shape their living styles and cultural practices around the diversity of the geographic and ecological system of the rain forest. Indigenous people were also subjected to slavery in South America during the turn of the nineteenth century to the twentieth century. The new world was built on the knowledge of the enslaved and the indigenous people. Dr. Nuno Purto also mentioned how this region is not exclusive to the occupation of indigenous population, but also had runaway black slaves who established their own community. The seasonality of the rivers in the Amazon somehow helped them during the dry season, an area of the riverbank would change from 12km to 47 km during the rainy season. The runaway slaves from the plantations would wait until the end of the rainy season, and escape by canoes to the interior of the forest, and then the water would come down again, but this time they would gain a leeway from their persecutors for a few weeks. From this example, we could see how unique the natural characteristics are , to be able to connect the political and cultural diversities of the region to the ecological cycles and history of the Amazon, where people learn to utilize that connection to their advantages. During WWII, the Brazilian government also sent poor peasants to the region, who were later called the river soldiers, to help in the war effort and were being forgotten by the government afterwards, where they turned to the production of local handicrafts. I’m very impressed by how each artifact within the exhibition is connect to a rich background of both the cultural and natural history of the Amazon Rain Forest, and how much the indigenous population valued the rights of the nature.
This exhibition of AMAZONIA: THE RIGHTS OF NATURE was vigilant, thoughtful, and educational to everyone who are invited or visit in this small gallery during the short tour. There is a long picture that uses striking word and clear geographical picture on the wall. It is striking when I first get into the gallery. The topic of Amazonia Exhibition Tour was started from this long picture which shows how significant of the Amazon rainforest is. The Amazon rainforest covers 7.8 million km2 which includes 390,000,000,000 individual trees. There are 40,000 plant species and 16,000 tree pieces in the Amazonia. Besides, there are 10% of the world’s known species, 20% of the world’s known birds, and 2.5 million insect species. However, indigenous people and their culture were threaten because of the political violence, mining, oil and gas exploration, industrial agriturure, forest firs, and hydroelectric plants. Now, we know the reason Porto collected and displayed these Amazonian basketry, textiles, carvings, feather works and ceramic in this galley. And Porto introduced the article 7, “ Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. All persons, communities, peoples and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature”, which cited from Constitution of the Plurinational State of Ecuador before we enter the gallery.
I once heard someone call museums graveyards.
Glass cases acting as plots carved out for dead cultures.
That analogy has always stuck with me. However, Dr. Porto effectively communicated the activeness and vitality of these Indigenous Amazonian communities today in contemporary life and politics. They exist in defiance of imposed state borders or legal recognition. To borrow from the #IndigenousRising movement, “existing is resisting”. Indigenous peoples along with their concerns are often left out of public discourse, or in the case of communities in Brazil: hardly recognized and even suppressed using legal and extralegal methods.
The exhibit was informative, beautiful, visually, sonically, and physically engaging. However, I’d like to share with you something that sort of struck me while we were there.
Just the day before our MOA tour, I came across a CBC article (linked below) about an Ojibwe woman, Summer Peters, and her beaded lingerie called the “OJIbra” (images can be found in link). Her OJIbra received loads of online criticism of people taking offence to her piece. I bring up Miss Peters, aka Mama LongLegz, because in one of the displays laid beaded loincloths. Granted, loincloths are slightly (but let’s be honest – not really) different from lingerie but what struck me was that no one would take offence to loincloths laying in display in an anthropology museum. We sort of expect it.
My question was: why are people taking offence to a set of lingerie crafted by a contemporary Ojibwe artist in spaces like social media but not to various loincloths in a museum? Was it the method of distribution? Was it the artist’s intersectionality of being a woman and Ojibwe – an identity that is often susceptible to violence and mistreatment? Does her piece not have historical significance while in the present? Or does someone else have to pick it up decades from now for others to appreciate her work?
Perhaps it’s a combination of those things. There’s no way for me to substantiate an answer but I can’t get it out of my mind. Museums have been, and can still be: colonial spaces. And depending on how stories about minority communities are told, the decolonization process (a process of which I’d argue is still in progress) will continue to be hindered. That’s why I think the world needs more people and curators like Dr. Porto to continue their work. There needs to be more public representation of contemporary Indigenous knowledge, vitality and concerns in public discourse and spaces such as museums are a fine way to achieve it.
CBC Article – http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/indigenous/decolonize-your-gitch-contemporary-feminism-1.4020421
Mama Longlegz public post/response to online critism – https://www.facebook.com/mamalonglegz/posts/1281429731924657
?Amazonia: The Rights of Nature? carries several messages in different levels. What the visitor first encounters are walls with relevant data on geographical characteristics of the Amazon rainforest such as its vast extension, vivid wildlife and its human populations. At a deeper level the struggles faced by these communities plus the human-driven forces that threaten to extinguish the rainforest are exposed: violence as a consequence of mining exploration and extraction; the threat of desertification propelled by deforestation and the expansion of the cattle industry; the devastating effect of massive fires. At a different level, an invitation to observe closely and recognize the magnitude of the problem is also taking place. At this point, it is possible to distinguish not only a struggle of groups of people or of the rainforest to survive, but that there is also an ideological battle taking place. What is at stake in the potential disappearance of the Amazon rainforest has to be taken not only from a practical point of view in the loss of what is deemed the ?lung? of our planet, but also in the deliberate effort to force extinction on a different mindset and philosophical approach in terms of man and its position or role inhabiting the world.
One term that particularly caught my attention was contained in the opening paragraph of the Ecuadorian constitution which reads as follows: ?[We] hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay?. It is this sort of understanding of the relationship between man and earth, the sumak kawsay, that is also under serious threat of disappearing. Naturally, a conflict would sooner or later appear between sumak kawsay and an always expansionist capitalist mindset. In the shrinking of the Amazon rainforest we are losing human treasures as well. At the very least, a different voice capable of challenging Western ideology is dying, one of many voices capable of preventing the possibility of, one day, arriving to a complete consensus: a shared mindset in front of the absence of alternatives. The danger that scenario poses to the development of mankind is tremendous.
I thought that the Amazonia exhibit was interesting. I enjoyed having the curator there to guide the tour, however I’m wondering how different my experience would have been without him. I thought that his explanations for his creative decisions were important. I thought that the wall of statistics and maps was a good juxtaposition, and was glad when the curator mentioned that the figures that were used were from independent, non-government sources. I had a few questions about the exhibit, mostly concerning ownership over the objects. The curator had mentioned much of the objects had been donated by Canadian collectors and that some Indigenous peoples were amused to find out that a cultural object had made it as far as Canada. This didn’t really sit quite right with me. The specific object the curator had mentioned was a beaded sash (?) in one of the vertical cases. He mentioned that the Canadian collector had purchased it, and I’m left wondering the circumstances under which an Indigenous person would sell an object as important as that (the curator had mentioned the birds on the sash held spiritual significance).
It would have also been nice to have seen a map that helped position the different Indigenous groups. The exhibit did provide information (when they could) in the form of the little write ups by each object, but I still felt lost trying to locate the Indigenous groups and considering they had included a map of all the nations that claimed parts of the Amazon, I thought they should have done a better job positioning the various Indigenous peoples of the Amazon. I really liked that the curator had included computers where people could watch documentaries and interviews with Indigenous people, considering he had divorced people from the objects intentionally to let the objects speak for themselves. I also thought it was nice to include relevant and continuously updated material about the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon and the ongoing legal issues. The exhibit is founded in the interaction between nature and law, but I thought it would have been interesting to see a bit more commentary on this. I thought that the statistics did a nice job, but I’m wondering whether they should have also included Indigenous activist movements with these statistics rather than having this material off to the side, especially if people are viewing the exhibit unguided, I question how many visitors sit and read through the provided material/view the documentaries and interviews. Overall I thought the exhibit was very interesting and plan on visiting again some time this month.
I really enjoyed our guided tour of the Amazonian exhibit at the MOA. I, myself, am not incredibly knowledgeable about the Amazon so I greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear from an expert in the field. The fact that our tour guide was also the curator of the exhibit was even more exciting, as we were able to hear all the important details surrounding the creation of the exhibit, details that not everyone is privy to.
Aside from the tour, the actual exhibit itself was beautiful. It was amazing to see the detail in which every different artifact was displayed, all with different meanings. In particular I thought it was very interesting how the ceremonial masks were displayed behind a black curtain. This gave the masks a sort of mysterious and ‘untouchable’ feel, which I believe the curator had intended for. Another aspect of the tour that I really enjoyed was all the readable material they presented each artifact with. I find it quite rare to walk away from an exhibit having learned such in-depth historical information surrounding a region and its population. Not only was this information historical but it also touched on many current issues that are facing the amazon such as climate change.
This was my first time visiting the MOA and after experiencing this exhibit I would most definitely like to return.
Hi Ngoc,
Great post! I agree that Dr. Porto’s exhibit worked effectively and consciously to frame Indigenous Amazonian communities in the present. I also wanted to explore how the exhibit functioned in dispersing information and knowledge.
The exhibit made it clear of the plurality of the Amazon. In particular, I found that Dr. Porto did this in a few different ways. For instance, on one of the entrances, Dr. Porto had a quote from Article 7 of the Rights of Nature, which emphasized this idea, as well as brought forth the idea that Indigenous knowledges were important to understanding contemporary issues. He also noted that he regularly updated the computer database in the exhibit with current information and news regarding Indigenous communities in the Amazon, which I found helped to ensure that this knowledge was not viewed as the past, but as ongoing. Through these means, I found that the exhibit worked to dismantle the notion of the Amazon as an empty, singular place, and instead infused it with multiplicity and full of life.
Upon entering the exhibit, I was struck by the contrast between the graphic information on the one wall, and then the objects lining the centre of the room. This juxtaposition immediately reminded me of our first class in History 456, in which Dr. Bronfman had us question how statistics convey information, as opposed to stories. To take this a step further, I wanted to pose the question: how do we formulate these stories at all? What do images, videos sounds, and objects factor into this narrative building? How do they convey their messages differently? Perhaps most importantly, how do we begin to unpack these messages? I found that these were these questions of knowledge production were particularly present as I made my way through the exhibit. I found that Dr. Porto worked, for the most part, the separate these mediums.
While there were some textual plates that helped to explain some of the objects, but for the most part, we were to view the objects themselves. The video feature, as well, as cordoned off to the side, separate from other aspects of the exhibit. How would bringing together these mediums worked to have changed our experience and understandings of the exhibit? What do you folks think?
Hi Missy (and everyone else),
Great question! I also noticed that Dr. Porto deliberately chose to section off different mediums, which created an interesting environment which I hadn’t experienced before in another museum.
Firstly, I was a big fan of the graphics and statistics on one side of the walls. I thought that it was informative, attention grabbing, and really emphasized the importance of the information being presented. Also, I thought that presenting the dolls in the glass cases at the front of each entrance was super effective as well, although I believe that the point would’ve been missed by viewers who hadn’t been on a guided tour.
Something that I questioned was the choice of sectioning off the videos section to a small corner of the room. The videos and documentaries were a great way to link the meanings of the exhibit to our present day. It would’ve provided an answer to some questions like:
What is the meaning of this experience to us?
Who were/are the indigenous people that made all the objects in this exhibit, and what are they doing today?
By only allocating an incredibly small space in which these questions could be answered, I found that a lot of potential meaning to the exhibit would have been lost to viewers without guides like Dr. Porto.
I appreciated Dr. Porto’s thoughtfulness in including the sounds of people in the Amazon forest. That being said, I found it strange that there were no pictures of these same people in the exhibit. Although I understand his reasoning for it, the sounds of the people I heard from the soundtrack began to sound almost eery to me, like they were the ghosts of people who no longer lived in the Amazon. This was further emphasized through the display of the objects and garments, where they were presented without any photos of the people who made them. I thought that if Dr. Porto had combined videos, images of people, and the soundtrack, it would’ve made the (re-creation of the) Amazon feel much more alive and real.
That being said, I did enjoy the exhibit very much. I appreciated all the different sorts of mediums, and I really respect Dr. Porto and the amount of time he put into forming the exhibit. It is definitely a different space when compared to the rest of MOA, and so I love that there is a diverse range of communication used in this exhibit to convey a unique story found only in the Amazon.
In the MOA exhibit, what I found most interesting is the display of the boe (bororo)’s hand craft accessories. It was very delicate and simple, much more like what modern westerners would consider to be “exotic” fashion item. According to the description, the boe (bororo) have had market exchange with white settlers so much that the objects they exchange with white settlers are specifically made for the exchange alone and are entirely different from the objects they use for themselves. It struck out to me because with my (very) limited knowledge, and also as the reading for this week first suggested, I assumed that the Amazonian indigenous people would not have made such distinction and if anything, somewhere in my mind I thought that the interaction with western culture would have some sort of an negative impact on the local culture. So the ways these accessories and objects worked as a resilience by the locals, made me realize that there are a great agency and independence in those tribes and village of indigenous people in Amazon and how I have had the western mindset that eliminates any resistance from the local community and society, or whatever the form of civilization there would be. Because by stripping off of their agency, the western cultures have undermined its possibility and its dignity, which then leads to the marginalization of the locals.
It then hit me that such cultural products and how it is received by the western culture, is much like how we talk about afrofuturism and self-representation of indigenous people. Common topic is the idea of assimilation and how each individual culture can thrive. It is interesting to think if the ways in which the people of boe (bororo) established different cultural category for exchanges with westerners could also be the form of assimilation in a way. Is it giving in to the commodification of their culture? If so, is the process of assimilation already done?
Due to my mid-term exam, it was a rush to visit MOA on Tuesday. However, when I came into the gallery, I was attracted by beautiful layout of the exhibition. Therefore, decided to set a second tour and to look its in detail. I went there again on Sunday. Firstly, I really like the layout: the combination of various forms of exhibition: the individual objects, the vivid sound effect, the films, archive files and maps. Those forms together make the audience a better understand of Amazonia’s rainforest, its indigenous groups and extension of natural rights. The exhibitions of individual objects such as hunting tools, its decorations, and bowls provides us a direct and first impression of Amazonia and its indigenous people. The maps and archive files on the right wall gives us a basic geography knowledge of this area and deeper understanding of cultural rights. on Sunday’s tour, I saw many visitors watching the exhibitions and took photos of those objects. I also read the articles and listened recorders on the computer. There was a report called Violence against the indigenous people in in Brazil. It told about the threats indigenous people faced and followed with various cases. This is the link which I found could understand the minority people and racism around them. The rights of nature not only were an rights of environmental care but also an extension of indigenous rights. It signifies the process of how indigenous people lived under racism and how they made change to get their rights. I also found some lovely design in the gallery. One is the hammock, which offers a place for rest. Many people lied on the hammock, listened the sonic qualities of Amazonia. This experiences helped them felt closer to the nature. The other is a feed notes, which people share their experience of tour. I found one indigenous person left a note, “it is good to see indigenous groups sharing knowledge around the world. It gives us a hope.”
One of the things that struck me as soon as we entered the exhibit was the recordings of voices being played as we walked through. Prior to our visit, I had no idea that indigenous peoples lived in the rainforest, and I was incredibly surprised to hear this fact. As I looked at all of the various items on exhibit, their connection to the indigenous people became all the more real for me. It reminded me that one of the major impacts of colonialism is that it politicizes the spaces that once belonged to the indigenous groups living there. When Dr. Porto told us that 893 people from indigenous communities had been killed in targeted murders over the last number of years, I became acutely aware of just how dangerous it is for the indigenous communities of the Amazon to defend their right to and relationship with nature. As the space becomes politicized, so too do the people within it.
At the beginning of our visit, Dr. Porto mentioned that most of the items on display had been acquired from Canadian donors, and I noticed many distinctly Anglo-sounding names on each of the cards accompanying the objects. At first, I was uncomfortable with the fact that these items had most likely been stolen from the communities to which they had once belonged. However, as we moved further through the exhibit, I began to see these donations less of a reminder of a colonial past, and more as a reclaiming of the history, culture and identities of the indigenous people of the Amazon. The ceremonial masks on display were partly concealed behind a black mesh curtain and this further emphasized that this exhibit was not for our careless consumption, to visit and then throw away our newly acquired knowledge, but to truly see and experience the lives of the people of the Amazon and to understand their relationship with the land they inhabit.