16518: Displaying Respect—By Regulation—For Native American Culture.

 

The New York Times reported major US museums—including the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the Field Museum in Chicago, and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University—are removing and/or rethinking displays of Native American artifacts and objects.

 

The museums are responding to updated federal regulations that require obtaining tribal consent before exhibiting or conducting research on cultural items. The updated policies went into effect this month.

 

How convenient for the museums that the measures became official well after National Native American Heritage Month and Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

 

Leading Museums Remove Native Displays Amid New Federal Rules

 

The American Museum of Natural History is closing two major halls as museums around the nation respond to updated policies from the Biden administration.

 

By Julia Jacobs and Zachary Small

 

The American Museum of Natural History will close two major halls exhibiting Native American objects, its leaders said on Friday, in a dramatic response to new federal regulations that require museums to obtain consent from tribes before displaying or performing research on cultural items.

 

“The halls we are closing are artifacts of an era when museums such as ours did not respect the values, perspectives and indeed shared humanity of Indigenous peoples,” Sean Decatur, the museum’s president, wrote in a letter to the museum’s staff on Friday morning. “Actions that may feel sudden to some may seem long overdue to others.”

 

The museum is closing galleries dedicated to the Eastern Woodlands and the Great Plains this weekend, and covering a number of other display cases featuring Native American cultural items as it goes through its enormous collection to make sure it is in compliance with the new federal rules, which took effect this month.

 

Museums around the country have been covering up displays as curators scramble to determine whether they can be shown under the new regulations. The Field Museum in Chicago covered some display cases, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University said it would remove all funerary belongings from exhibition and the Cleveland Museum of Art has covered up some cases.

 

But the action by the American Museum of Natural History in New York, which draws 4.5 million visitors a year, making it one of the most visited museums in the world, sends a powerful message to the field. The museum’s anthropology department is one of the oldest and most prestigious in the United States, known for doing pioneering work under a long line of curators including Franz Boas and Margaret Mead. The closures will leave nearly 10,000 square feet of exhibition space off-limits to visitors; the museum said it could not provide an exact timeline for when the reconsidered exhibits would reopen.

 

“Some objects may never come back on display as a result of the consultation process,” Decatur said in an interview. “But we are looking to create smaller-scale programs throughout the museum that can explain what kind of process is underway.”

 

The changes are the result of a concerted effort by the Biden administration to speed up the repatriation of Native American remains, funerary objects and other sacred items. The process started in 1990 with the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, which established protocols for museums and other institutions to return human remains, funerary objects and other holdings to tribes. But as those efforts have dragged on for decades, the law was criticized by tribal representatives as being too slow and too susceptible to institutional resistance.

 

This month, new federal regulations went into effect that were designed to hasten returns, giving institutions five years to prepare all human remains and related funerary objects for repatriation and giving more authority to tribes throughout the process.

 

“We’re finally being heard — and it’s not a fight, it’s a conversation,” said Myra Masiel-Zamora, an archaeologist and curator with the Pechanga Band of Indians.

 

Even in the two weeks since the new regulations took effect, she said, she has felt the tenor of talks shift. In the past, institutions often viewed Native oral histories as less persuasive than academic studies when determining which modern-day tribes to repatriate objects to, she said. But the new regulations require institutions to “defer to the Native American traditional knowledge of lineal descendants, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.”

 

“We can say, ‘This needs to come home,’ and I’m hoping there will not be pushback,” Masiel-Zamora said.

 

Museum leaders have been preparing for the new regulations for months, consulting lawyers and curators and holding lengthy meetings to discuss what might need to be covered up or removed. Many institutions are planning to hire staff to comply with the new rules, which can involve extensive consultations with tribal representatives.

 

The result has been a major shift in practices when it comes to Native American exhibitions at some of the country’s leading museums — one that will be noticeable to visitors.

 

At the American Museum of Natural History, segments of the collection once used to teach students about the Iroquois, Mohegans, Cheyenne, Arapaho and other groups will be temporarily inaccessible. That includes large objects, like the birchbark canoe of Menominee origin in the Hall of Eastern Woodlands, and smaller ones, including darts that date as far back as 10,000 B.C. and a Hopi Katsina doll from what is now Arizona. Field trips for students to the Hall of Eastern Woodlands are being rethought now that they will not have access to those galleries.

 

“What might seem out of alignment for some people is because of a notion that museums affix in amber descriptions of the world,” Decatur said. “But museums are at their best when they reflect changing ideas.”Exhibiting Native American human remains is generally prohibited at museums, so the collections being reassessed include sacred objects, burial belongings and other items of cultural patrimony. As the new regulations have been discussed and debated over the past year or so, some professional organizations, such as the Society for American Archaeology, have expressed concern that the rules were reaching too far into museums’ collection management practices. But since the regulations went into effect on Jan. 12, there has been little public pushback from museums.

 

Much of the holdings of human remains and Native cultural items were collected through practices that are now considered antiquated and even odious, including through donations by grave robbers and archaeological digs that cleared out Indigenous burial grounds.

 

“This is human rights work, and we need to think about it as that and not as science,” said Candace Sall, the director of the museum of anthropology at the University of Missouri, which is still working to repatriate the remains of more than 2,400 Native American individuals. Sall said she added five staff members to work on repatriation in anticipation of the regulations and hopes to add more.

 

Criticism of the pace of repatriation had put institutions such as the American Museum of Natural History under public pressure. In more than 30 years, the museum has repatriated the remains of approximately 1,000 individuals to tribal groups; it still holds the remains of about 2,200 Native Americans and thousands of funerary objects. (Last year, the museum said it would overhaul practices that extended to its larger collection of some 12,000 skeletons by removing human bones from public display and improving the storage facilities where they are kept.)

 

A top priority of the new regulations, which are administered by the Interior Department, is to finish the work of repatriating the Native human remains in institutional holdings, which amount to more than 96,000 individuals, according to federal data published in the fall.

 

The government has given institutions a deadline, giving them until 2029 to prepare human remains and their burial belongings for repatriation.

 

In many cases, human remains and cultural objects have little information attached to them, which has slowed repatriation in the past, especially for institutions that have sought exacting anthropological and ethnographic evidence of links to a modern Native group.

 

Now the government is urging institutions to push forward with the information they have, in some cases relying solely on geographical information — such as what county the remains were discovered in.

 

There have been concerns among some tribal officials that the new rules will result in a deluge of requests from museums that may be beyond their capacities and could create a financial burden.

 

Speaking in June to a committee that reviews the implementation of the law, Scott Willard, who works on repatriation issues for the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, expressed concern that the rhetoric regarding the new regulations sometimes made it sound as if Native ancestors were “throwaway items.”

 

“This garage sale mentality of ‘give it all away right now’ is very offensive to us,” Willard said.

 

The officials who drew up the new regulations have said that institutions can get extensions to their deadlines as long as the tribes that they are consulting with agree, emphasizing the need to hold institutions accountable without overburdening tribes. If museums are found to have violated the regulations, they could be subject to fines.

 

Bryan Newland, the assistant secretary for Indian Affairs and a former tribal president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said the rules were drawn up in consultation with tribal representatives, who wanted their ancestors to recover dignity in death.

 

“Repatriation isn’t just a rule on paper,” Newland said, “but it brings real meaningful healing and closure to people.”

15751: WPPulling A Fast One Out Of Russia.

 

Adweek reported that WPP is pulling out of its Russian operations following the invasion of Ukraine—a move that will affect nearly 1,400 employees in Russia. While the Adweek story didn’t provide any corporate rationale behind the withdrawal decision, an official statement from WPP presented a clear declaration:

 

“WPP stands with Ukraine and the international community in condemning the Russian invasion, which has created a humanitarian crisis in the heart of Europe. The Board of WPP has concluded that WPP’s ongoing presence in Russia would be inconsistent with our values as a company, and we are therefore discontinuing our operations in the country.” The statement goes on to praise and support WPP workers in both Russia and Ukraine.

 

Adweek also reported that McDonald’s is ceasing operations in Russia—but pledging to continue paying its affected employees. WPP does not appear to be offering a similar severance package to its soon-to-be ex-workers.

 

Although the scenario involving Russia and Ukraine is deadly serious and inspires activism and advocacy, what is WPP really communicating with its Russian withdrawal? Have clients like Bayer, Mazda and Nestlé—which are serviced by Russian agencies formerly operated by WPP—taken similar actions? If not, will WPP abandon the accounts for being inconsistent with their values?

 

WPP seems to be joining D&AD in making magnanimous—albeit meaningless—gestures for performative purposes. Russia has not cornered the market on human rights violations. And if DE&I failings indicate systemic racism and human rights issues, WPP is hardly in a position to condemn anyone.

 

Sorry, there is little dignity in decolonization.

 

WPP Will Cease Operations in Russia Following Invasion of Ukraine

 

The network runs agencies such as Wunderman Thompson and VMLY&R in the country

 

By Stephen Lepitak

 

WPP, the world’s largest agency network, said it will discontinue working in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, affecting nearly 1,400 employees.

 

The company, which employs 200 people in Ukraine, has released a statement thanking its Russian staff while informing them of the withdrawal.

 

“We deeply regret the impact of this decision on our Russian colleagues. We will provide support to them and work closely with our clients and partners as we discontinue our activities in the country,” the statement added.

 

WPP agencies such as GroupM, Wunderman Thompson and VMLY&R have offices operating in Russia, which accounted for 0.6% of global net sales last year. Each based in Moscow, WPP’s agencies in Russia worked with clients such as Bayer, Mazda, Nestlé, Froneri and Home Credit Bank.

 

WPP added that the company has been in constant contact with its leadership in Ukraine, aiming to provide financial and practical assistance for them, and said it has partnered with UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, to help run an emergency fundraising appeal for those forced to flee their homes to neighboring countries. It will also match donations made by WPP employees, the statement said.

 

In 2014, WPP took a majority stake of 80% in the WVI Group of companies to create a joint venture to allow its GroupM agencies to operate in the country as well as Wunderman Thompson (then JWT), which opened in the country in 1994. It was then followed by Actis Wunderman three years later before the two agency brands merged globally in 2019.

 

The move comes within 24 hours of Accenture announcing that it too would pull out of Russia following the invasion. The company employs 2,300 staff members there, including within its marketing services arm, Accenture Interactive.

 

Writing on LinkedIn on Feb. 29 prior to the announcement, Accenture chair and chief executive Julie Sweet commented: “The images and voices from Ukraine are tragic. Accenture is committed to supporting humanitarian aid to address the crisis and we stand with all in the global community who are calling for peace.”

15750: D&AD Writes Edict In Pencil For Easier Revisions…?

 

Little Black Book reported D&AD announced a full ban on Russian participation in its award contests—rethinking the initial decision to accept submissions from Russia and redirect the entry fees toward donations benefiting Ukraine.

 

Sorry, but this decision feels like bullshit coming from the exclusive ‘educational’ organization. After all, the increasing protests within Russia show that the country’s citizens are not fully supporting the invasion. The Russians vying for design trophies are likely more interested in RGB than KGB.

 

Will D&AD impose similar sanctions on other places with questionable respect for human rights? That would eliminate Egypt, China, Venezuela and more. And if systemic racism is categorized as a human rights issue, well, add the U.S. and U.K. to the detention list.

 

D&AD people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stone pencils.

 

D&AD Announces Ban on Russian Participation in the Awards

 

Show will impose a full ban on Russian entries into both the professional and New Blood awards

 

Following the escalating situation in Ukraine, D&AD has announced that it can no longer proceed with its original plan and are now imposing a full ban on Russian entries into both the professional and New Blood awards. 

 

D&AD has stated: “It is with heavy hearts that we announce D&AD is no longer able to accept participation from Russia in the 2022 D&AD Awards and New Blood Awards.

 

“On Monday 28 February we released a statement that we would continue to allow entries from the Russian creative community in this year’s D&AD Awards and that we would in turn be making a donation of that amount to support the Ukrainian creative community.

 

“As the conflict has continued to escalate at an alarming rate over the past week, we have reconsidered our position and have made the decision to remove all Russian entries from both of our awards shows this year and will not be able to allow participation from Russian companies or individuals.

 

“We intend to keep our lines of communication open with our Russian colleagues who oppose the war on Ukraine. We will refund their entry fees, including to students and tutors of the New Blood Awards, when it is possible to do so.

 

“We remain categorically opposed to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the horrifying violence inflicted on the Ukrainian people.

 

“We will uphold our promise to make a donation to the Art Directors Club of Europe Ukraine if and when they are able to accept it, or alternatively to initiatives supporting displaced Ukrainian creatives.

 

“We are deeply saddened and distressed by the ongoing conflict. For those who can help, we take this opportunity to draw your attention to resources and initiatives that are already in place:

 

https://www.designersunitedforukraine.org/resources

 

https://how-to-help-ukraine-now.super.site/

15427: China Shows Compassionate Concern For Animal Rights…?

 This PETA campaign from China is explained as follows:

 

Every year, countless animals are injured or killed due to online animal shopping in China. Being aware of this problem, PETA would like to call on actions, hoping people could stop shopping for animals online to protect animals.

 

We chose 3 types of animals that was frequently bought online, and created a surreal rescue scene of unboxing. The moment the package is opened, it seems to be at the scene of a terrible disaster. After a long transit of tortures, the animal is full of blood and wounds, unconscious and desperate. The buyer has to become a rescue team, rushing to save the dying animal. As for the disaster settings, we used the same dramatic way by putting a real catastrophe setting inside different shipping box, and turning the buyer into a rescue team, which largely strengthened the tense atmosphere of rescue.

 

Hmmm. Comparing animal abuse to disasters and catastrophes seems a little harsh even by PETA standards. But coming from China…?

 

13931: Human Rights In Adland.

Today is Human Rights Day, which presents an opportunity to consider human rights as applied to the advertising industry—specifically, pertaining to the concept of diversity. Despite the industry’s efforts to politely position diversity as a business imperative—i.e., diversity is good for business, embrace diversity of thought for better ideas, gain relevance by reflecting the diversity of the marketplace, blah, blah, blah—diversity is a human rights issue. After all, when Madison Avenue came under fire for its dismal dearth of diversity over a decade ago, the charge was led by the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

To commemorate the special day, Human Rights Watch coordinated with 24 landmarks around the world to shine bright blue in a show of solidarity. One participating building is the John Hancock Center, home of FCB Chicago, a member of the IPG empire. In regards to diversity, a peek at FCB Chicago leadership hardly displays a reflection of the marketplace (the 2010 United States Census—advertised by Draftfcb, incidentally—recorded city demographics at 32% Black and 28% Hispanic). Plus, the scenes of the White advertising agency’s office are typically exclusive, with the most prominent Black staffers appearing to be serving in the mount room. Meanwhile, IPG boasts to be recognized for leadership in diversity and inclusion, yet the White holding company also owns a list of offenses to counter the clichéd claims of commitment—including the latest sexual harassment scandal via The Martin Agency.

So take a moment to meditate on human rights and diversity in the advertising industry. It’s well beyond being time to do the right thing—and the human rights thing.

13879: Do The Human Rights Thing.

From Adweek…

I Survived a Nightmare, Yet I Remain Confident in the Power of Compassion

At 83, an agency owner says marketers must champion human rights

By Shelley Stewart

If the advertising industry wants to carve out a new role in our society, there is a way.

Now more than ever, our world needs a beacon that can guide us to greater peace, justice and equality for all people.

After more than 50 years in the agency business, overlapped with my 83 years of experiencing life from a broad spectrum of tragedy and success, I feel there appears to be no other single industry powerful enough to collectively change hearts and minds.

And this is the change we need—human rights. The advertising industry’s new role should be that of advocacy for human rights. We should guide our clients, our employees and communities into the unrelenting devotion of valuing all people based on the single cherished fact that we all share a common humanity.

Let me explain.

I was only 5 years old when I watched my father murder my mother with an axe. Here was an uneducated, angry man ending the life of an innocent, loving mother.

We lived in a black neighborhood near Birmingham, Alabama. The police wouldn’t even look for my mother’s killer. The life of a black woman at that time just wasn’t worth much.

After another two years of torturous abuse from family members, with my brothers and me sleeping on a mattress on an outdoor back porch and being fed rats, I found myself homeless.

As a 7-year-old wandering across Red Mountain into Birmingham, I miraculously found myself in the same horse stable with my older brother who had “escaped” our abusive father months before.

Then came the unlikely embrace from a white family. A local businessman named Clyde Smith, along with his wife and daughter, took me into their home, where by day I walked to the Irondale Colored School and at night I ate and slept as an accepted family member.

At an early age, I knew firsthand the power of human relationships, how the respect of another human being is critical to our survival on all levels.

Later, in the 1960s, as a society, we made a grave mistake. The media led us to believe that the blacks of that era wanted “civil rights.” So, it was then and since labeled the “Civil Rights Movement.” I have documents that disprove that the movement was only about “civil” rights. The organizers of our day said that “we will commit civil disobedience in order to secure human rights for all people.”

It wasn’t just about having the right to vote, ride on a bus or sit at a lunch counter. It was about being understood and respected as human beings, period.

When I co-founded my agency (what is now o2ideas) in 1967, my business partner was the late Cy Steiner, a man who happened to be Jewish. Together, he and I built an agency that worked across what we felt were superficial racial and cultural lines. It was unheard of at the time. I believe o2’s success over five decades has been due to this fundamental human rights viewpoint. Every day here in Birmingham, o2ideas practices human rights in the birthplace of what has been branded the “civil” rights movement.

Why and how should the advertising industry commit to human rights?

First, it’s the right thing to do—for our industry, our country and our planet. We collectively have a powerful role in what people see and think about the brands we represent.

Our brand storytelling should be predicated on the value of all people. That means guarding against the temptation to paint other people in a negative light compared to what we are advertising or promoting. Throughout history, our craft has succeeded in creating countless straw enemies where we disparage and criticize others through thinly cloaked humor or downright ugliness. It’s time to turn that around. We can’t make our clients better by de-humanizing their competitors.

Instead, let’s tell those stories of brands that intuitively go against the grain and purposefully lift people up, regardless of their beliefs, traits and lot in life.

Secondly, we can “lead from the back.”

As a young U.S. Air Force recruit, I had a sergeant who taught us to march in formation. I noticed that he was never in front of our unit. He always droned the cadence from the rear of the pack. One day I had the courage to ask him why he did that. He responded, “I can lead from the back, not just the front.” His voice had more influence from the rear than if he were at the front of the line. It’s the same way with advertising agencies. We should be the trusted advisers lending our voice and conscience to our clients. We should guard our position of knowing audiences and their essential humanity.

Finally, we should “listen to learn, talk to teach.”

That means we must be the great listeners of our society. Stephen Covey said it another way: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Once we have insights by listening, then we can teach these to our clients and help them tell their brand stories in compelling ways. This is a strength we can grow as well as any consulting firm or data company. It’s what we should be doing anyway for our clients.

Championing human rights sounds easy. We each may think we’re good at it, and that we are already doing it. But it’s not as easy as it sounds.

When you are dependent on client revenue, the temptation is to go along with the flow and with whatever seems clever or catchy for the moment. It will take all of us working together for the greater good of our industry and world to consistently focus on the rights of all individuals to be heard, respected and, yes, loved.

Our industry has the power and the intellect. Now we need the will to do it.

Shelley Stewart is president and CEO of Alabama-based agency O2ideas.

11512: Human Rights On Madison Avenue.

Blog Action Day 2013 is focused on the topic of Human Rights. For a quick primer, scan The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

Has the dearth of diversity on Madison Avenue ever been properly framed as a human rights issue? Certainly not in recent years, despite the occasional intervention of the New York City Commission on Human Rights. Rather, today’s diversity discussions tend to dwell on the standard “it’s a good business decision” angle, emphasizing the importance of building staffs that reflect and relate to the U.S. audiences targeted by most major advertisers. Unfortunately, the popular, polite and passive route doesn’t succeed for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the standard “it’s a good business decision” angle has not been proven. In fact, Whites might argue that based on indicators like awards and account assignments, exclusivity works just fine. Because the advertising industry has been predominately Caucasian forever, it would be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a diverse company could produce better creative.

Secondly, in situations involving human rights, politeness has never led to dramatic progress. This has been proven time and again. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stressed non-violence; however, they were not polite in their protests. Polite people are not typically thrown into jails or assassinated. On Madison Avenue, politeness will get you promoted to Chief Diversity Officer or elected to Diversity Advisory Committees—plus, you can win prizes like ADCOLOR® Awards and Pioneers of Diversity honors—but you won’t truly impact change.

The second point is particularly sobering and even offensive when considering the advertising field. The greater society usually comes around to showing respect to rabble-rousers such as Gandhi and Dr. King; conversely, adland has traditionally blacklisted (pun intended) revolutionaries while crowning Whites who essentially expressed the same opinions.

For example, Dan Wieden exclaimed the industry was fucked up in the area of inclusiveness, and he ultimately nabbed an ADCOLOR® trophy. Harry Webber pretty much said the same thing in 1969 and hasn’t been welcome in a White agency since. And although he’s made unprecedented contributions for diversity and equality, as well as produced award-winning campaigns, Webber has yet to be invited to an ADCOLOR® gala.

Jeff Goodby wondered, “Where Are All The Black People?”—and he received praise and accolades for asking. Sanford Moore has posed the question for decades and is still waiting to be thanked for his inquiries and groundbreaking achievements.

John Wren, Michael Roth, John Seifert and other advertising leaders have admitted there’s a lot of work to do in order to end the separate-but-unequal conditions. Lowell Thompson and Hadji Williams offered identical observations and suddenly found a lot less work.

Shunning the industry’s real heroes for human rights makes us look a little inhuman—and it definitely ain’t right.

10789: Playing Games With Death.

This International Society for Human Rights campaign from Germany is reminiscent of the classic National Lampoon cover below. Except National Lampoon was making a freaking joke.

From Ads of the World.

8467: Agency Diversity Statement 22.

Dentsu doesn’t get a lot of attention in the U.S., perhaps because of its non-White roots. Regardless, the corporate website displays a basic policy on human rights and posters too. Job inquiries, however, can only be submitted in Japanese.