March 23, 2007

Gila River opposes dead bodies

Tribal council against exhibitThe Gila River Indian Community Council has unanimously adopted a resolution instructing its reservation schools to not take students to see the Body Worlds 3 exhibit at the Arizona Science Center.

The council considers the show disrespectful to human bodies. Native Americans have been among the strongest opponents of the show..

The Gila River resolution, adopted in February on a 14-0 vote, said visitation by the community's children "will cause spiritual harm in many untold ways."

6 comments:

Carole said...

Interesting article, Rob. My daughter's bio class was encouraged to see the same exhibit here in Michigan. Personally, I was squeamish since displaying these very real bodies does seem disrespectful. I'm surprised their hasn't been more push-back against this exhibit.

voyageur said...

I very briefly discussed seeing this during a visit to yet another state where it is on display.

For one thing, count me among the squeamish. For another, I've heard that the bodies are from Chinese political prisoners. I do not know if it is true. For another, it is expensive: more than $20.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Why is this so differing from the hundreds and thousands of Native American skeletons and burial artifacts that are on display in museums throughout the United States, which Native people are trying to recover so that they may be returned to the earth? NAGPRA exists for a reason. But who speaks against the profiteering that continues concerning the corpses that EuroMan displays from other races? Such disrespect for the dead only means that EuroMan believes all else besides himself in this world are dead, and therefore are his to use in whatever capacity he may choose. It may even mean that EuroMan believs that everything else in this world dies, except for himself...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

We're more squeamish about in-the-flesh bodies, which seem new, than skeletons, which seem old. But the distinction is an arbitrary one.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Rather, it is the usage of the word 'arbitrary' (meaning preference, notion, or whim) that is arbitrary, akin to Marie Antoinette who, when hearing the people had no bread, said, "Let them eat cake!"
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

By "arbitrary," I meant there's no clearcut line between a body covered with flesh, a body with some flesh and some bones, and a skeleton. There's no physical line and there's definitely no moral line. Our society has arbitrarily decided that bones are okay but flesh isn't.

If you still don't understand what "arbitrary" means, look it up. As with "decimate" and "semantics," I've used the word correctly whether you get it or not.