Analysis Paper #10 — King, “African Americans, American Indians, and Heritage Education,”

Eleanor M. King’s essay, “African Americans, American Indians, and Heritage Education,” assumption on past cultural heritage biases mirroring future approaches misses the present evidence in America. The transgressions from historical actors weigh heavily within any progressive society. An admission of past crimes sets the stage for a culture prioritizing goals on reconciliation and change. The diversification of American society from white males leading the charge on all societal issues to the rise of non-white males (e.g., women, non-white people) offers evidence of those goals’ existence and accomplishments. Reaching these goals does not move as fast or evenly as those feeling the past effects of inequality. Learning from the business community, any organization or society with a diversified set of ideas, approaches, and backgrounds can reach those goals on reconciliation and change. Part of America’s reconciliation goals centers on protecting and promoting our diverse cultural heritage. King argues that a misalignment issue exists within those in charge of growing, maintaining, protecting, and challenging our cultural heritage. Per King, the future result for an ethnically diverse America — an inability to uniformly and fairly see itself (e.g., American’s past, present, future cultural heritage self) — exists because of this misalignment. America’s imperfect and imbalanced society continues to learn from its past transgressions and grows with an inclusionary mindset around cultural heritage issues.

King’s essay on how cultural heritage should be addressed comes in two parts. The first part briefly reviews America’s success in diversifying the display, celebration, and discussion of its cultural heritage. King notates the success of the National Park Service (NPS). Frohne provides an example of the NPS’s successful commemoration efforts at an African burial ground. Even with “locational conflict” affecting the positive reconciliation outcomes, cultural heritage progress still occurs even if a nudge of public shaming makes the difference. Improvement does not always have a neat linear upward sloping line. Each generation moves the needle forward. Had King explored how this needle continues to move forward with the “echo of the archaeologist’s creed” around the country, a framework would have been established for others to emulate. The second part castigates the American Anthropological Association, the NPS, U.S. Forest Service, Society for American Archaeology, Howard University, and American colleges and universities for having a population imbalance of white to non-white persons involved in cultural heritage efforts and/or studies. King infers the imbalance will affect the value of American’s cultural heritage growth and celebration as white people are “unlikely to care deeply about saving the past for the future.” The possibility exists that this reviewer misconstrued King’s quote. King’s approach with the facts and examples within the second part of the essay makes this misinterpretation unlikely. Hope does spring eternal with this reviewer. King’s article does raise essential questions on cultural heritage, though it misses the opportunity to build on successes showing American’s celebration of its diverse cultural heritage — past, present, and future.

In a progressive society, empathy for others reaches all corners. The results, in America, over the last few decades, speak for themselves. Change and reconciliation do not come evenly or fast enough. The introduction and the first part of King’s essay raise fundamental issues on America’s approach to its cultural heritage (e.g., tangible and intangible). The evidence found within the majority and progressive elements of America’s society belies King’s assertion in the second part of her essay that only non-whites can celebrate and promote the past of non-whites. It takes a village. This reviewer wished King’s essay, specifically the second part, took a less binary approach to the solution of cultural heritage, where she implied that the past cultural heritage biases extending as a mirror to the future. America’s growing and diverse population will cement a celebration of all cultural heritages building on its present successes.