Abstract: In the first half of the nineteenth century the writings of the great naturalist Alexander von Humboldt began to propel European artists to travel to all corners of the globe. Humboldt would also inspire another young traveller, Charles Darwin, whose revolutionary theory of evolution would come to overturn the concept of a divine universal order devised by his mentor. This essay focuses on a group of mid-nineteenth-century paintings poised between the Humboldtian and Darwinian world views which allegorised the extinction of indigenous peoples, those by the itinerant Germanic artists Eugene von Guérard in Australia, and Albert Bierstadt in North America. Elegiac and melancholic, the paintings represented their indigenous subjects in deep shadow, set against the dying light of sunset: their foreboding message was one of inexorable decline. As such they actively participated in the pervasive—and profoundly flawed—extinction discourse which throughout the nineteenth century held that all ‘savage’ races were doomed ineluctably to perish. I argue that the paintings engaged in what James Clifford has termed ‘salvage ethnography’, yet ultimately—if unwittingly—their message contributed to the unparalleled global decimation of indigenous peoples which scarred the imperial age.





Abstract: Background. In recent decades many indigenous communities, policy makers and researchers worldwide have criticized the academic community for not being aware of the specific challenges these communities have faced and still are facing with regard to research. One result of the decades of discourse in indigenous communities is the development in many Western countries of indigenously sensitive ethical research guidelines. In 1997 the Sami Parliament (SP) in Norway reached a unanimous decision that ethical guidelines for Sami research had to be drawn up. Such guidelines are however still to be created.

Objectives. The objectives of this article are to enquire into what happened to the Norwegian SP’s decision of 1997 and to reflect on why the issue seems to have disappeared from the SP’s agenda. Finally, we consider whether research ethics is to be a subject for the research community only.

Methods. A review of parliamentary white papers on research and SP documents relating to research ethics.

Findings. The response to the SP’s decision in 1997 took place in two different channels, both of them national, namely the research ethics channel and the political channel. Thus, there were actually two parallel processes taking place. In spite of nearly two decades of reports, the concept of the participation of indigenous communities in research is still not an integral part of Norwegian ethical guidelines.

Conclusions. The issue of indigenously sensitive research ethics seems to have disappeared from the SP’s agenda and the research ethics review system with regard to Sami research is with minor adjustments the same as when the SP asked for a revision.



wolfe_forthcomingbooks