By Julia Zhu
The history of the NMAI begins with George Gustav Heye and his Museum of the American Indian-Heye Foundation (MAI) in New York. Heye was an obsessive collector of Native American artifacts, an obsession which began in 1897 while he was supervising a railroad construction project in Arizona. Heye had hired local Navajo Indians as laborers on the railroad and while walking about their camp grounds one evening, he noticed the foreman’s wife chewing the seams on her husband’s deerskin shirt. He became fascinated with the shirt, and it subsequently became the first item in his collection. Heye recounts the beginnings of his obsession, stating: “…naturally when I had a shirt, I wanted a rattle and moccasins and then the collecting bug seized me and I was lost.”[ii]
When his apartment became overcrowded with his collections, Heye decided to seek out a new place to house and display them. With the inheritance he received after the passing of his mother, and contributions from a friend, he was able to gather enough funds to build his own museum which he named the Museum of the American Indian – Heye Foundation (MAI). However, at the time, he was urged by the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) to house his collections in their museum since the AMNH didn’t want competition from another anthropological museum in New York.[iii] This idea was strongly advocated by Franz Boas who was a former staff member of the AMNH. In a letter to Heye, Boas urged him to reconsider the AMNH’s offer, stating that the “foundation of a museum is a matter of public interest.” [iv],[v] Due to Heye’s objections to displaying his collections within the AMNH building, Boas suggested an alternative which would allow Heye to house his collections in a separate building on the campus of Columbia University (which also happened to be where Boas was teaching at the time). However, Heye resisted an affiliation with the AMNH because he wanted to retain the autonomy to make decisions regarding how his collections were to be handled.[vi] It should be noted that the motivations of Heye, the AMNH, and supporters of the AMNH (such as Boas) did not stem from any benevolent intentions to support Native American cultures or advocate for their interests, but rather from the standpoint of personal and institutional interests.
The history behind MAI’s transition to NMAI is described by Roland Force, former director of the MAI (and also an anthropologist) in what he refers to as his ethnography about the museum, titled “Politics and the Museum of the American Indian: The Heye and the mighty.” According to him, the transition took place during a thirteen year period which lasted from 1977-1990. Heye had built the MAI in Washington Heights in New York City. By 1977, Washington Heights had become a poor, crime-ridden inner-city neighborhood. Force, who was the Director of the Task Force of MAI and the board of trustees at the time, felt it was necessary to relocate the museum in order to increase visitorship, and also because they felt they needed more space to house the collections. However, Force and the trustees faced strong opposition when the mayor (Ed Koch) and city council members found out they were planning to relocate. Koch and the council members opposed the relocation of the museum because they felt that it would not only have adverse consequences for the neighborhood of Washington Heights, but were also afraid that the city might have to provide funds for the relocation. Force and the trustees wanted to move the museum to the U.S. Custom House in New York, but were prevented from doing so by Koch and city council members, a struggle that lasted for almost a decade. To prevent the MAI from obtaining the Custom House, Koch put forth a proposal to establish a Holocaust Memorial at the Custom House. Although he succeeded in securing the building for that purpose, his plan was later rejected by the city due to lack of progress on his part to move the project forward, and also on the grounds that the design of the building was inappropriate for the subject matter. Force and the trustees later considered affiliating the museum with the AMNH. Although Force mentions that it would have been inappropriate to house Native American artifacts alongside Natural History artifacts, his and the trustees objections over an affiliation with the AMNH largely appear to be the result of disagreements over “governance, autonomy, space, and funding.” [vii] Force and the trustees later entered into negotiations with Ross Perot who expressed interest in moving the museum to Texas, but they were prevented from moving the MAI out of the state by the New York Federal Court. [viii]
In public discourse, the NMAI is presented as “a site that indigenous people fought for, helped raised money to build, and collaborated in all phases of its development.” [i] However, although this may hold true to an extent for the NMAI in DC which opened just seven years ago, there is another history that goes all the way back to the late 1800’s that has been given little attention. This history indicates that the founding of the current NMAI on the National Mall came about largely due to chance, and by political motivations that, for the most part, had little to do with concern for the interests of Native Americans. So although the public discourse is characterized by the “look at how far we’ve come” attitude in regards to the recognition of Native Americans in our present society, the history behind the NMAI does not support this view.
 |
| George Gustav Heye |
 |
| MAI in Washington Heights, NY |
The history behind MAI’s transition to NMAI is described by Roland Force, former director of the MAI (and also an anthropologist) in what he refers to as his ethnography about the museum, titled “Politics and the Museum of the American Indian: The Heye and the mighty.” According to him, the transition took place during a thirteen year period which lasted from 1977-1990. Heye had built the MAI in Washington Heights in New York City. By 1977, Washington Heights had become a poor, crime-ridden inner-city neighborhood. Force, who was the Director of the Task Force of MAI and the board of trustees at the time, felt it was necessary to relocate the museum in order to increase visitorship, and also because they felt they needed more space to house the collections. However, Force and the trustees faced strong opposition when the mayor (Ed Koch) and city council members found out they were planning to relocate. Koch and the council members opposed the relocation of the museum because they felt that it would not only have adverse consequences for the neighborhood of Washington Heights, but were also afraid that the city might have to provide funds for the relocation. Force and the trustees wanted to move the museum to the U.S. Custom House in New York, but were prevented from doing so by Koch and city council members, a struggle that lasted for almost a decade. To prevent the MAI from obtaining the Custom House, Koch put forth a proposal to establish a Holocaust Memorial at the Custom House. Although he succeeded in securing the building for that purpose, his plan was later rejected by the city due to lack of progress on his part to move the project forward, and also on the grounds that the design of the building was inappropriate for the subject matter. Force and the trustees later considered affiliating the museum with the AMNH. Although Force mentions that it would have been inappropriate to house Native American artifacts alongside Natural History artifacts, his and the trustees objections over an affiliation with the AMNH largely appear to be the result of disagreements over “governance, autonomy, space, and funding.” [vii] Force and the trustees later entered into negotiations with Ross Perot who expressed interest in moving the museum to Texas, but they were prevented from moving the MAI out of the state by the New York Federal Court. [viii]
 |
U.S. Custom House in NY – now the location of the George Gustav Heye Center |
Although Force expressed a great deal of frustration over the political opposition he and the MAI trustees faced while trying to find a more suitable facility for the MAI, it is apparent that without the strong opposition of New York politicians who wanted to keep the MAI in Washington Heights, the establishment of the NMAI in DC would most likely not have come about. And although Force did express reluctance to affiliate the MAI with the AMNH due to the inherent connotations associated with displaying Native American artifacts in a museum of Natural History (a practice which has caused mistrust and resentment towards museums by Native American communities), his and the trustees decision to reject the affiliation was largely a matter of politics. Their decision, however, has had a significant impact in terms of changing the way in which Native Americans are portrayed in museums.
The establishment of the NMAI, says Force is largely due to the efforts of the MAI board of trustees, Senator Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii) and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (New York). Inouye helped push legislation for a National Museum of the American Indian to be located on the National Mall while Moynihan pushed for court approval for the MAI to be relocated to the U.S. Custom House in New York. Inouye made the decision with the approval of Force and the MAI trustees to propose an affiliation with the Smithsonian since the only place on the Mall that was left that would be appropriate for such a museum was reserved for the Smithsonian Institution. [ix] Eventually, a compromise was made to establish the NMAI in DC with a sister museum located in New York. Federal legislation to establish the NMAI was signed by President H.W. Bush on November 28, 1989.
The politics behind the establishment of monuments and memorials are generally not well known or questioned. In the NMAI’s history, it is apparent that politics between individuals, institutions, and states have been the driving forces that have led to the establishment of this museum. This stands in contrast to the meta-narrative presented in the media that the museum is the result of the persistence and perseverance of dedicated Native-Americans who fought for their sub-narratives to be told in the nation’s capital. This meta-narrative is incomplete. Although it does present some aspects of the NMAI in D.C., this meta-narrative does not account for the museum’s history prior to 1990 (when construction of the museum began on the Mall). It seems that when monuments and memorials are dedicated to minority groups which have had a troubled history with the United States government (e.g. Native-Americans, African-Americans), these monuments and memorials are either hidden and brushed aside or celebrated and turned into an example of national progress. These conflicting responses can be explained by the relationship between memory and national identity. Monuments that represent difficult histories regarding the nation’s past conflict with the nation’s instinct to promote a positive self-image. However, when these types of monuments cannot be hidden, the nation turns them into a symbol that celebrates the nation’s progress and achievements. The national meta-narrative is deeply imbedded in the consciousness of its citizens and actively influences how monuments are received and interpreted.
 |
September 23, 2004 – President George W. Bush signs Executive Memorandum on Tribal Sovereignty and Consultation in honor of the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian |
The politics behind the establishment of monuments and memorials are generally not well known or questioned. In the NMAI’s history, it is apparent that politics between individuals, institutions, and states have been the driving forces that have led to the establishment of this museum. This stands in contrast to the meta-narrative presented in the media that the museum is the result of the persistence and perseverance of dedicated Native-Americans who fought for their sub-narratives to be told in the nation’s capital. This meta-narrative is incomplete. Although it does present some aspects of the NMAI in D.C., this meta-narrative does not account for the museum’s history prior to 1990 (when construction of the museum began on the Mall). It seems that when monuments and memorials are dedicated to minority groups which have had a troubled history with the United States government (e.g. Native-Americans, African-Americans), these monuments and memorials are either hidden and brushed aside or celebrated and turned into an example of national progress. These conflicting responses can be explained by the relationship between memory and national identity. Monuments that represent difficult histories regarding the nation’s past conflict with the nation’s instinct to promote a positive self-image. However, when these types of monuments cannot be hidden, the nation turns them into a symbol that celebrates the nation’s progress and achievements. The national meta-narrative is deeply imbedded in the consciousness of its citizens and actively influences how monuments are received and interpreted.
 |
| National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. |
Link to the paper:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2Nhv8CwA7XFMTA2ZDNiNTctYjdiNC00Y2RlLWI0YzgtM2FkN2E1ZWYxYmNh&authkey=CO6NhaED&hl=en
[i] Amy Lonetree, “Continuing Dialogues: Evolving Views of the National Museum of the American Indian.” The Public Historian 28 (Spring 2006): 57-61.
[ii] J. Alden Mason, Biography of George Gustav Heye, [n.d.], Box 3, folder B3.4, Leaflets of the Museum of the American Indian – Heye Foundation #61958, Cultural Resource Center, National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Suitland, Maryland.
[iii] Ibid
[iv] Franz Boas to George Gustav Heye, Letter, January 7, 1916. Box 1, folder B1.9, Director’s Correspondence, Cultural Resource Center, National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Suitland, Maryland.
[v] George Gustav Heye to Franz Boas, Letter, January 10, 1916. Box 1, folder B1.9, Director’s Correspondence, Cultural Resource Center, National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Suitland, Maryland.
[vi] J. Alden Mason, Biography of George Gustav Heye, [n.d.], Box 3, folder B3.4, Leaflets of the Museum of the American Indian – Heye Foundation #61958.
[vii] Roland W. Force, Politics and the Museum of the American Indian: The Heye and the Mighty (Honolulu, Hawaii: Mechas Press, 1999), 225-375.
[viii] Force, Heye and the Mighty, 400-470.
[ix] Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Memorandum to Oren Snyder of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison from Patricia Zell, Chief Counsel, May 1, 1987
