Decentralizing the Gaze: Indigenous museums in Japan and Brazil

By Mirella del Mazza

The end of May 2023 in Brazil was marked by tension surrounding the vote on the temporal landmark, a legal concept based on the idea that indigenous peoples have rights only to the lands they were occupying or in dispute over until October 5, 1988, the day of the promulgation of the Federal Constitution. This environment of disputes, which attempts to portray the indigenous populations of Brazil as antagonists to a certain idea of progress (while also threatening the continuity of their customs and beliefs), demonstrates how the debate on colonization and its effects on culture is based on an idea of hierarchy that privileges the white European man over black and indigenous individuals.

This context seems conducive to a deeper examination of a discussion that still has much progress to make not only in Brazil but worldwide: what is the role of cultural institutions in the debate surrounding a knowledge production that encompasses a decentralized and decolonial perspective?

This context seems conducive to a deeper examination of a discussion that still has much progress to make not only in Brazil but worldwide: what is the role of cultural institutions in the debate surrounding a knowledge production that encompasses a decentralized and decolonial perspective?

It is essential that cultural organizations and their agents not only reflect but also take action to make these issues central and overcome the colonial framework. Seeking to propose paths to address all these problems, the Institute of Advanced Studies of USP (University of São Paulo) held the seminar "Between Diversity and Decolonization: Museums as Media and the Representation of Ainu in Museums in Japan," organized by the Permanent Forum Research Group on May 29, 2023.

The opening speech by the presenter Mariko Murata, a professor from the Department of Sociology at Kansai University in Japan, provided more information about the Ainu culture, an indigenous population located in Hokkaido the northern island of Japan that currently consists of no more than 13,000 inhabitants. According to Murata, there are records of the Ainu in the region since the 12th century, but in the 17th century, a process of erasure of their culture began, starting with the Ainu being prevented from trading with neighboring populations by the Japanese government. After two centuries of political persecution, in the 19th century, various assimilation actions were implemented by the Japanese government, which even renamed the region. Similarities can be observed between the Ainu population and other indigenous cultures in Brazil, which were also silenced by local authorities in the name of national hegemony. Furthermore, Murata reports that the Ainu people were even exhibited as attractions in world exhibitions throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Japanese example addressed by Murata draws attention to two types of museums dedicated to Ainu culture in the country: there are museums developed by the remaining Ainu themselves, who have preserved their memory and culture and also promoted tourism in the region, helping to affirm a history that was almost erased. Another type of Ainu museum is the official one, in the case presented at the seminar, the Ainu National Museum Upopoy, inaugurated in 2020 as part of Japan's attempt to create national symbols that would denote a progressive and more diverse narrative, especially in light of the Tokyo Olympics. Since its inauguration, Upopoy has been criticized for reproducing colonial practices. Some examples mentioned by Murata were the removal of objects for exhibition that ended up decontextualizing the bloody past that attempted to erase the Ainu population, the use of written language to represent an oral culture, and an exhibition filled with electronic devices that have nothing to do with the cosmogony of this people. It becomes apparent that the Upopoy museum failed to provide the necessary critique of the process of erasing diverse cultures in the name of an artificially created narrative of a singular and homogeneous Japan.

Here it is important to initiate a reflection on what a museum is and its contribution to society. Historically, throughout the 19th century, museums played an extremely important role in the formation of national identities. During a period when nation-states were consolidating, museums served as significant symbols of cultures that asserted themselves in opposition to others. In other words, there was no space for multiplicity and dialogue; it was the ultimate expression of the colonial plan that exterminates anything that appears different. In an article on indigenous land demarcation in Brazil, authors Andréa Rosendo da Silva and Paloma Gerzeli Pitre cite the sociologist Ramon Grosfoguel to outline the concept of coloniality, which emphasizes that racism is an organizing component of domination relationships based on hierarchy. According to Grosfoguel, racism is organized within all hierarchical social relationships of modern domination. Museums, as cultural institutions, have reproduced this logic throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. This is evident when we observe museological practices that privilege European production and the constant appropriation of the cultural expressions of conquered peoples, which were often expropriated from their places of origin to serve as symbols of conquest miles away from their production sites.

In opposition to this idea of the museum, the decolonization movement should not be limited to criticism but should instead take action, as the importance of the debate is undeniable. However, it is also essential to consider how to decolonize the museum environment. After centuries of Eurocentric dominance, action towards decolonization in the museum field has gained momentum since the beginning of the 21st century. Author Brenda Caro Cocotle, in an article reflecting on the start of this debate and its blind spots, highlights one misconception: the mistaken belief that mere representation will be sufficient to address such a paradigm shift. The author points out that "indigenous people, women, Afro-descendants, and Chicanos have 'gained a voice' through others and rarely by themselves; they have been transformed into subjects or, in the worst cases, objects and museum fetishes." The museum environment must rethink its practices to ensure the agency of those who have systematically been erased from official history. This move towards action can be observed in the speeches of Brazilian participants in the seminar, such as Susilene Elias de Melo, an assistant to a Kaingang shaman and active member of the Worikg Museum, located in the Vanuíre Indigenous Land in the municipality of Arco-Íris, São Paulo; and Suzenalson da Silva Santos, a Ph.D. student in social history at Federal University of Ceará and coordinator of the Cultural Center: Kanindé Indigenous Museum, located in the Sitio Fernandes Village in Aratuba, Ceará. They brought rich examples of indigenous museums that are retelling the history of their people from an inspiring perspective.

The contributions of Susilene and Suzenalson in the seminar show the difference of a cultural point that is made of the experiences of the community in which it is inserted.¹ The Worikg Museum was founded based on the ideas of Susilene's grandmother, Jandira Umbelino. After Jandira's passing in 2016, the community came together to continue her legacy. The museum raises a question posed by Susilene's mother: why do non-indigenous people talk so much about indigenous peoples?

The museum raises a question posed by Susilene's mother: why do non-indigenous people talk so much about indigenous peoples?

This seemingly simple question encompasses the larger issue of the colonial narrative: who owns the voice? Who is responsible for the narrative? In this sense, the Worikg Museum offers visitors the opportunity to immerse themselves in Kaingang culture and change their perspective. The Kaingang's material and immaterial culture is present through songs, dances, walks, and rituals, including a fire that is lit inside the museum itself. In other words, it is a museum that goes beyond the narrative conveyed through objects. Suzenalson's speech also highlights how processes of memory are intimately linked to the idea of territory, as recognition of oneself also comes through belonging to that place.

The indigenous museums presented raise an important question: How does the museum decolonize its discourse? In 2022, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) approved a new definition for museums. The new text emerged after intense discussions and seeks to address contemporary demands such as sustainability, diversity, community, and inclusion. The translated text states:

“A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing.”²

The above definition demonstrates that the museum of the 19th century seeks to overcome a modern bias that no longer seems capable of translating the aspirations of our time. The 20th century, marked by two world wars, concentration camps, and the constant threat of an atomic bomb, highlighted what Walter Benjamin referred to as the close connection between modernity and barbarism. In a debate that brought up the question of the legacy of an almost annihilated indigenous people in Japan, the same country that was attacked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is evident how the idea of modernity is being questioned in the 19th century, and a modern ideology can no longer encompass the complexity of the quest for human emancipation.

From this perspective, the speech by guest Michiko Okano, associate professor in the undergraduate and graduate programs of the Department of Arts at the School of Philosophy, Literature, and Human Sciences at the Federal University of São Paulo, about Japanese-Brazilian art, brought important reflections on possible paths towards a decolonial gaze in art. In an article published in 2022, Okano comments on transculturality based on the work of German philosopher Wolfgang Welsch, a concept that helps us encompass the work of artists whose work refers to many ways of life and cultures simultaneously, as is the case with Japanese-Brazilians. In the same way, the works exhibited in a museum such as the Emanoel Araújo Museu Afro Brasil are diverse. The museum was also represented at the seminar by its director, Sandra Mara Salles, who made an important contribution to the discussion by presenting the concept of the collection.

It is interesting to relate this museum, which emerged from the private collection of its founder, artist and curator Emanoel Araújo, consisting of works addressing themes of blackness through African and Afro-Brazilian cultural universes, with Michiko Okano's research topic focused on the search for a Nikkei-Brazilian identity. The intervention by writer IEA's chair holder, writer and professor Conceição Evaristo, who was present as a guest at the seminar, was inspiring when she reflected on how to assume an identification when there is a given identity, as our society is organized through racial identities, which means that a white person does not need to identify themselves as "white-Brazilian," unlike other peoples. Evaristo reminded us that the discourse of art is one that speaks the most about the identity of a group, leading us to question: which identity groups are included in the decolonial museum?

Mariko Murata's work argues that the museum is a medium and as such, it is a means of expressing messages to the community in which it is located.

Mariko Murata's work argues that the museum is a medium and as such, it is a means of expressing messages to the community in which it is located. This concept raises the question of what kind of message a museum that claims to be decolonial is able to convey to the people who visit it. If the past conflicts are brought to the forefront without a profound discussion, they can try to rewrite history apart from factual truth; likewise, they can erase an entire culture. Mariko Murata also warns that while large projects to decolonize museums focus on issues of slavery and the persecution of indigenous peoples, decolonization should not be limited to colonialism alone. There is a broader sense here, whose object is to decentralize the Eurocentric view and deconstruct issues of gender, ethnicity, and otherness. During the debate, guest Conceição Evaristo recalled Beatriz Nascimento's concept of Brazilian quilombola praxis by arguing that from a decolonial perspective, metaphors should incorporate decolonial sentiment, replacing the idea of a ghetto with the idea of a quilombo. In this light, it is interesting to consider the concept of counter-colonization advocated by Nego Bispo, which unites quilombolas and indigenous people in a perspective he calls "Afro-Pindoramic,"³ understanding these cultures as a focus of resistance to colonization. In this sense, it is clear that the exchanges that took place during the seminar, with the presence of representatives from both indigenous museums and the Afro Brazil Museum, were essential in pointing out paths for decolonial action in museums not only in Brazil but also worldwide.