Authentic Voices

“Until the lion starts telling his own story, the stories will always be told from the perspective of the hunter” – old African proverb, related by Stephen Abram (Drake, 2012, p. 1).

Our class visits to the Arizona Historical Society and the Arizona State Museum last semester got me thinking about the stories being told about Native Americans and wondering if those stories were more accurate and robust than the ones I remember from my years in school. It certainly seems to be the case, but this could simply be my perception or wishful thinking so I decided to look for some evidence.

I discovered a 2012 article by Allison Boucher Krebs, titled “Native America’s twenty-first-century right to know” that gave me some insight into the answers I was seeking.  The author states that in order to really assess if progress has been made, the reader needs to go back and review Vine Deloria Jr.’s paper prepared in 1978 for The White House Pre-Conference on Indian Library and Information Services On or Near Reservations titled “The Right to Know.” In his paper is a To Do List, which Ms. Krebs (2012) summarizes as follows:

Inventory and catalog of existing records in federal possession

Document repositories and access

Development of information services customized for tribal communities

Library and information science education for tribal members

Turnkey digitization capability for tribes

Regional research center

Acquisition funding for repatriation. (p. 177)

Ms. Krebs (2012) states that Mr. Deloria argued that not only is this list based on provisions found in treaties, considered to be documents that bind future generations, but the belief that “as Indigenous peoples we have not only the rights to but also responsibilities for our knowledge” (p. 177).

After walking the reader through a timeline showing how the legislative, judicial, executive and citizen-based or professional organizations have all contributed to moving Mr. Deloria’s agenda forward, Ms. Krebs (2012) then examines two institutions and their activities/missions that are aligned with the To Do List.

She first discusses the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the grants they have made to Indian tribes and organizations that serve and represent Native Hawaiians.  The legislation that established the IMLS states that 1.75% of the funds designated for grants in any given year must be made to tribes and Native Hawaiian groups/projects.  These grants are distributed through non-competitive and competitive processes (Krebs, 2012).

According to Ms. Krebs (2012), IMLS grants have had the kind of impact that all grantors hope for: 

Not only do these funds make projects possible, they also make it possible for these tribal institutions to pilot programs, creating a track record that can attract funding from other federal, state, regional, local agencies, and private foundations. These grants also facilitate the development of collaborative partnerships with a gamut of educational institutions. (p. 184)

She goes on to provide some examples ranging from the preserving, cataloging and digitizing of collections to the archiving and storage of oral histories to the establishment of early literacy programs and the development of educational programs that align with state curriculums.

The IMLS has also invested in grants to help Native American professionals achieve training at the Masters level and sponsored conferences to promote collaboration, delve into issues facing tribal libraries, archives and museums, and encourage networking.  Ms. Krebs (2012) states, “This brief overview of IMLS-funded projects demonstrates the breadth and depth of its impact” (p. 185).

The author then turns to the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI).  Not to be confused with the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) that primarily holds documents buried 90 feet below ground in a limestone cave in Kansas (ensuring that its collection isn’t very accessible), the NMAI holdings are primarily artifacts. Numbering more than 800,000 items, the NMAI is one of the Smithsonian’s seventeen institutions and has three physical locations: the museum on the National Mall in Washington D.C., the Cultural Resource Center in Suitland, Maryland, and the George Gustav Heye Center in New York City (Krebs, 2012).

Though established by legislation in 1989, the building on the mall didn’t open until 2004.  In those intervening years, the staff and Board held a series of consultations with tribal members and developed the concept of the Fourth Museum, a name for the “ongoing, intangible relationship building and outreach with Indian Country” (Krebs, 2012, p. 187). The essence of the Fourth Museum is represented in the NMAI Repatriation Policy Statement that was adopted in 1991. Pledging to honor the ceremonies, rituals, claims of ownership and the need to access materials along with establishing training opportunities for Native Americans, the policy also states that consent must be obtained by NMAI prior to any decisions being made regarding care, treatment and display of any items.

Ms. Krebs (2012) circles back around to the To Do List since she has clearly demonstrated that this institution has also helped achieve some of the goals outlined by Mr. Deloria.

I found this article very interesting, particularly in light of the fact that both Ms. Krebs and Mr. Deloria were associated with the University of Arizona. The author biography at the end of the article states that Ms. Krebs (2012) earned her MLS as a Knowledge River Scholar at the University of Arizona. Mr. Deloria taught at the University of Arizona in the Political Science Department and, later, at the College of Law (Arizona Board of Regents, 2012).

Originally presented at a conference in Australia and then published in the Journal of Archeological Sciences, Ms. Krebs’ writing style strikes a very interesting balance. Acknowledging that she can’t get too personal, she starts with a story as a way to introduce herself.  She also recognizes that she is representing to some degree all of the tribes located within the US borders, and she uses the opportunity to educate the audience about the Native American point-of-view as she introduces Mr. Deloria and his To Do List. It reinforced to me the value and importance of having Native Americans speak on behalf of Native Americans.

Due to the current political climate, I am well aware of the danger the institutions she mentioned must be in.  The Republican party and its very conservative faction, The Tea Party, probably has its sights set on eliminating the grant programs developed and administered by the IMLS. Though setting aside 1.75% is nothing compared to its entire budget, to them it probably sounds too similar to affirmative action or an entitlement, “evils” that they feel must be done away with at all costs.

Ms. Krebs (2012) also mentions that the legislative act that established the NMAI stated “priority will be given to Indian organizations with respect to agreements regarding lending of Native American artifacts, sponsoring of traveling exhibits, training and technical assistance. Furthermore, these services may be provided by the Smithsonian Institution at minimal or no cost to Indian organizations” (p. 187). Again, preferential treatment of people of color, especially those who want to retain self-identity, is viewed as unpatriotic and evil by some segments of our society.

Just as state governments are being encouraged by the Far Right to chip away at Roe v. Wade by placing onerous regulations on abortion clinics and closing them one by one, I can’t imagine that there have not been attempts to dismantled these institutions by defunding them piecemeal. We all need to be diligent and react quickly and vociferously when the alarm is sounded before we lose these national treasures, and the progress we’ve made in telling history from the Native American perspective since I was in school.

References

Arizona Board of Regents. (2012). Vine Deloria: Faculty Emeritus/American Indian Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ais.arizona.edu/people/vine-deloria

Drake, M. (2012, September). Up close with Stephen Abram. Information Today, Vol. 29, Issue 8, pp. 1, 32-33.

Krebs, A. (2012). Native America’s twenty-first-century right to know [Electronic version]. Journal of Archeological Science, 12:173-190.