“History is the fruit of power, but power itself is never so transparent that its analysis becomes superfluous. The ultimate mark of power may be its invisibility; the ultimate challenge, the exposition of its roots.”
― Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: The Power and Production of History
What stood out to me the most in our readings regarding Indigenous communities and digital access management is just how far the inequality created by colonialism extends: even into the digital world. I would say that the history of information management as it relates to Indigenous Americans has been one of inequality and outside control, with the “rules” created by other people and the knowledge of Indigenous people made out to be less valuable. In many cases, people have sought to profit unfairly from Indigenous knowledge.
One quote from “Does Information Really Want to Be Free?” stood out to me: “The celebration of openness, something that began as a reaction to corporate greed and legal straightjacketing of creative works, has resulted in a limited vocabulary with which to discuss the ethical and cultural parameters of information circulation and access in the digital realm.” (Christen, 2012, p. 2874). Entering this class, as I mentioned on Wednesday, this was something that I had taken for granted; Open = Good. However, my perspective completely shifted when, through the readings and class discussion, it really sank in that the appropriation of Indigenous Americans has extended and continues to extend to not only physical cultural heritage materials, but to the digital adaptation of them. One moment in class that stuck with me was when we looked at the digital archive materials of the Civil War Museum. The museum has an artifact in its possession that was given to them by people who essentially stole it from a dead man whose consent fundamentally could not be given for its display; and they are the rule rather than exception. This is really disheartening, as I feel that it implies that Indigenous Americans are not allowed to own and do what they want with their own cultural artifacts if someone else managed to take it and give it to a museum. As Christen quotes, “’Still, many indigenous people have limited access to their own cultural heritage and may be excluded also from interpreting these objects even when publicly displayed.’ (Resta, Roy, De Montano, & Christal, 2002, p. 1482)” (Christen, 2012, p. 2876). Instead of a family heirloom or community artifact, it sits in the Civil War museum as an “artifact of the Confederacy”, the name of the man whom it belonged to or the tribe for whom he fought completely erased from the record.
Something else that particularly stood out to me from our class discussion and exercise was that, while the intellectual property of Western institutions, corporations, and individuals are usually respected under copyright law and often made profitable, the intellectual property of Indigenous communities is often made public domain under the excuse of it being “folklore”. This is a huge imbalance of power when it comes to the ownership of materials, as under public domain, everyone “owns” this knowledge, and Indigenous communities do not have control over the interpretation and use of their own knowledge. A particularly egregious example of copyright law being used to shut Indigenous communities out of controlling their own knowledge that we discussed was the case of Jan Ulrich and the Lakota Language Consortium. Even though he got the knowledge from tribal members who apparently trusted him, using their time and labor for seemingly no compensation, by copyrighting the information for profit, he basically declared himself the owner of Indigenous knowledge that he did not create, only gather.
I think resources like the Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari archive are an awesome step in the right direction. It makes me glad to see that Indigenous communities are reaching a point where they have some ownership and control over their own intellectual property, as well as restricting access to their own private knowledge without it being up for grabs as “public domain.”
Riley, thank you for sharing your reflections on intellectual property and the issue of “openness” as it extends to Indigenous communities. I really like the quote you selected from Trouillot’s _Silencing the Past_, which reinforces that systems of power are often invisible. I think this relates well to the concept of “openness”; that if something appears transparent, free, and available to all, then it must *always* be good. However, as we discussed in class, we must take a more nuanced approach towards openness, especially when working with communities that have their own cultural protocols for producing, preserving, and sharing knowledge.