US: Panama 1903, Mexico 1914 & 1916, Haiti 1915, Dominican Republic 1916, Russia(!) 1918, Nicaragua 1926, Lebanon 1958, Vietnam 1965, Dominican Republic 1965, Cambodia 1970, Laos 1971, Lebanon 1982, Grenada 1983, Iraq 1991, Somalia 1992, Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, not counting selective airstrikes, limited interventions or backing for local proxies or third-party interventions. Were all those countries de facto parts of the US?

Czechoslovakia was 1968, btw.

How respectful of a culture.

The article actually credits the museum once, under the photographs, but with an incomplete name based on what it was called until 2016. ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Their current correct name is Museum of Civilizations.

Is this the story that they made the Netflix show "The Keepers" about?

Not the way the British wanted. It was one of the reasons they didn't consider them to be an intelligent people compared to others, and they did that a lot even between tribes.

The likes of Maori and Tongans were easier and more "human" because they had similar understanding of trade and communication.

>because some of the tribes didn't understand trade and negotiation that the British are used to.

I'm 90% sure they all did trade.

[removed]

>it's just that the Europeans didn't see them as being up to their standards

Exactly. What I mean in my case was that I didn't know anything about them, and to have learned that many of the different cultures in Australia were very adaptive people who took great care of the land and its creatures, but the Western point of view I grew up with didn't even consider them to be a history worth mentioning.

Like I didn't know they migrated farming zones every few years, making the soil fertile, and ensuring animals keep to their own regions away from the settlements.

>I'm shocked that they were actually very sophisticated and adaptable.

oh yikes. so many groups were 'sophisticated' already, it's just that the Europeans didn't see them as being up to their standards. recently saw a clip of a Zimbabwean woman going off on a Cecil Rhodes fanboy...her ancestors had a perfectly fine way of life, yet Rhodes decided they were barbaric. ugh.

you know this stereotype was packaged like this on purpose, right? certain types of people needed to make sure that the natives were seen as barbaric/uncivilized so their colonisation would seem like a good thing.

Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia 1963. Afghanistan 1979.

thank you so much for clarifying! I'm both an archivist and librarian and it can be a bit while when people use the terms interchangeably. also, I live when researchers/historians credit institutions 🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾

I don't get the warning

>WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains images of people who have died.

Its about people who lived 150 years ago, and from as far as I can see didn't have anything bad happen to them. Why does this need a warning?

Is there an aboriginal taboo about seeing photos of people? dead people? (The camera steals your soul?)

Recently I've started learning more about the First Nations people and I'm shocked that they were actually very sophisticated and adaptable than I expected at the time. edit: because i didn't know anything about them.

The British made the awful misjudgment of considering them to be a less than human people, because some of the tribes didn't understand trade and negotiation that the British are used to.

When I heard the story I remember it being English, but I'm not sure now.

Is there a specific Aboriginal belief about photographs of the dead, cause the disclaimer seems a little odd. Most 100 year old photographs contain pictures of people who have since died.

Interesting! It does however make me wonder if every person in the tribe has a unique name, do names never pass down through families and how do they handle potentially having a twin show up in a photo and the other still alive?

English or Dutch?

Where should it have been found where there isn't that kind of history?

[removed]

My comment wasn't trying to imply anyone was racist but simply a friendly reminder of something called colonialism, may that be whatever you consider of it, happened. The article itself the OP posted was fascinating.

You find strange the fact that an entire population doesn't match your stereotype based on the behaviour of a royal family? You understand that not only greed and desire to exploit minorities moved European (including Italian) explorers to foreign lands but also a genuine scientific interest? Whether this interest was funded and used for colonial purposes is another story, but there were plenty of men just spending and risking their life to learn obscure languages and cultures. By the way, this was the same interest that made anthropologists and ethnographers start studying rural populations from their own country. Ethnic museums in Italy are full of material from both Italian regions and overseas territories. Even if you wanted to label all of these people under the racist category (and you could do it to an extent), it shouldn't be surprising that people wanted to learn and understand different kinds of humans.

I feel like people always have this stereotype of native Australians as being some long lost forgotten people who had less contact with the outside world than the Americas. In reality they were well connected with other continents. When the first European "discovered" Australia, there was already a native man there who spoke English because he had worked as a ship hand in Indonesia.

[removed]

It really started with less specific media and now it's standard practice. No one is doing it for show or signalling - it's just routine.