theguardian.com
Malê Revolt Skull's Repatriation to Brazil
In January 1835, approximately 600 Malê Muslims revolted in Salvador, Brazil; 70 were killed. A rebel's skull, taken to the US for eugenics studies, may return to Brazil 190 years later, following efforts by the Arakunrin group and Brazil's foreign ministry.
- How did the skull of a Malê revolt leader end up in Harvard's Peabody Museum, and what role did eugenics play in its acquisition?
- The skull's journey highlights the lasting impact of slavery and the exploitation of African peoples. Its use in eugenics research underscores the historical context of racist scientific theories. The repatriation efforts represent a push for justice and recognition of the Malê revolt's historical significance.
- What are the broader implications of repatriating the Malê skull, considering its historical context and the ongoing efforts to recover other remains?
- The return of the skull, after nearly two centuries, signifies a symbolic victory for descendants and a step toward addressing historical injustices. Future research using DNA analysis may provide further insights into the identity and lineage of the individual. The ongoing negotiations for the return of a second skull from Rio de Janeiro highlight the broader issue of repatriation of remains from this era.
- What were the immediate consequences of the 1835 Malê revolt in Salvador, Brazil, and what is the significance of the current efforts to repatriate a rebel's skull?
- In January 1835, a significant slave revolt in Salvador, Brazil, was led by approximately 600 Malê Muslims. The revolt was suppressed, resulting in the death of 70 rebels. One rebel's skull, believed to be that of a leader, was subsequently taken to the US and used in racist eugenics studies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative framing is largely sympathetic to the repatriation effort. The headline (if one were to be created) would likely emphasize the return of the skull, highlighting the injustice and the ongoing efforts of the Arakunrin group. The inclusion of quotes from Sheikh Ahmad and other members of the group reinforces this positive framing.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but some descriptive phrases could be considered subtly biased. For example, describing Snow's text as "heavily eugenicist" is a value judgment; a more neutral phrasing could be "containing eugenicist viewpoints". Similarly, 'genuine African' could be replaced with 'African' or 'person of Yoruba origin'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the repatriation effort and the historical context of the Malê revolt and the skull's acquisition, but it omits discussion of potential legal challenges or complexities involved in international repatriation of human remains. It also doesn't detail the specific eugenics studies the skull was used in, beyond mentioning their racist nature. While acknowledging space constraints is reasonable, expanding on these points would provide a more complete picture.
Gender Bias
The article focuses on the actions and statements of male figures prominently (Sheikh Ahmad, João José Reis, Gideon T Snow), while female researchers are mentioned but with less detail about their contributions. While not overtly biased, a more balanced presentation of both male and female researchers would enhance gender equity.
Sustainable Development Goals
The repatriation of the skull addresses historical injustices related to slavery and colonialism. It acknowledges the suffering of enslaved people and promotes reconciliation and restorative justice. The efforts of the Arakunrin group and the involvement of Brazilian and US authorities demonstrate a commitment to ethical practices in the handling of human remains and cultural heritage. The act of returning the skull can be seen as a step towards healing and fostering respect for human dignity.