Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Can Repatriation Heal the Wounds of History?

Colwell, Chip·2019·The Public Historian

Abstract

In 1990, the US Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which in part established a legal procedure for Native Americans to reclaim cultural items and ancestral remains from museums and federal agencies. Many advocates have framed NAGPRA as a kind of restorative justice in which “healing” is fundamentally integrated into the repatriation process. This article engages with a growing literature that ensures questions of healing are not just casually asserted but closely examined, by critically analyzing why and how NAGPRA has led to the kinds of conflict resolution and peace-building envisioned by some of its proponents. A survey of tribal repatriation workers reveals that “healing” for Native American communities is not uniform in practice or merely the end point of conflict. Rather, it is expressed in five different themes, illustrating that healing is one component of a complex socio-political process that circles around the law’s implementation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/tph.2019.41.1.90

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The struggle for repatriation has engendered creativity and ingenuity that yielded strong examples of meaningful repatriations.

    “Yet, this struggle has also engendered a creativity and ingenuity that has yielded strong examples of meaningful repatriations (Colwell, 2017(Colwell, , 2019)).”

    From Heritage as liberation (2023) · cites this paper as Colwell, 2019

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Colwell, C.
Venue
The Public Historian
Published
2019-02-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
90-110
ISSN
  • 0272-3433
  • 1533-8576
Cited by
24
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review