04/21/24 - Kevin Abourezk, Shannon O’Loughlin
Makes you such a threat? We choose the right to be who we are. We know the difference between the reality of freedom and the illusion of freedom. There's a way to live with Earth and a way not to live with Earth. We choose the way of Earth. It's about power.
Anne Keala Kelly:Heartfelt greetings and welcome. I shake your hand with good feelings in my heart and the whole world is a beautiful day. This is First Voices Radio coming to you one more time from the illegally occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, a nation state wrongfully taken by the US via a military coup that took place in 18/93. The Hawaiian people have never relinquished our sovereignty, and we still do not consent. I'm Ann Kalecki, sitting in one more time for your host, Tiokasin ghost horse, who will be back in the studio next week.
Anne Keala Kelly:This is all native hosted, all native produced First Voices Radio, now in its 32nd year of broadcasting. Our First Voices Radio producer is the wondrous Liz Hill. I want to welcome the more than 110 community, public, and commercial radio stations that carry First Voices Radio, and thank all of you who monitor this program online and around our mother, the earth. Now as our brother, Tiokasin would say, let's count COOP. Our guest for the first part of our show this week is Kevin Abaresk, a member of the Rosebud Sioux tribe. Kevin is an award winning journalist, film producer, and community organizer. He is also the deputy managing editor of Indian Country Today, and he is joining us to discuss a recent article he wrote about the bizarre outright theft of the Navajo word Nudoni by a luxury fashion brand.
Anne Keala Kelly:Aloha, Kevin. Welcome to First Voices Radio.
Kevin Abourezk:Thank you so much for having me. Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:First of all, please tell us. What does the word Nizhoni mean?
Kevin Abourezk:So the word Nizhoni, as I'm told by Navajo people, is, the word for beautiful. It's the word that the Navajo or Dene use.
Anne Keala Kelly:Explain to our audience how this Navajo word became the subject of the story that you wrote for Indian country today.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. So I follow a, an Instagram page called indigenous TV. They talk a lot about pop culture and fashion and movies and things like that, but they're, they've been digging into some really, really interesting things beyond that, such as the impact of artificial intelligence on on indigenous people. And so they they did a series of, Instagram posts about this issue going on, controversy related to a Dutch fashion design company called Nizhoni. And, in 2018, a Dutch fashion designer named Kitty Van Cossant, created her design company and named it after the Navajo word for beautiful, Nizhoni.
Kevin Abourezk:And recently within the past month or so, some native fashion designers, including a Navajo woman named Cheyenne Sky, learned about this company and decided to, bring it up, you know, really kind of confront the company even about their use of this Navajo word. And so Cheyenne Skye and I can just quote her on the what she posted on TikTok. She says, so let's say a Navajo designer wanted to start a brand called Nizhoni Knitwear. This brand would pop up. This is the problem.
Kevin Abourezk:This is cultural appropriation. That TikTok post, really kind of set up some alarm bells in the native fashion community, and indigenous TV heard about it and and, you know, published a series of posts on their Instagram page about it, and even confronted the company themselves to get some kind of response as to what they think about, you know, these net native, fashion designers who were taking them to task for the use of this indigenous word?
Anne Keala Kelly:One word. To them, it seems like a small thing to take. I mean, they know they're taking it, but to them, it doesn't seem like a big deal because it's just a word. But then there's this image that shows up that's supposedly a native model. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. So that was kind of the next phase of this was, and this was something that Indigenous TV really, dug into. You know, they they started looking at, the way that this company promotes themselves on their website. And, and this owner of Indigenous TV, who I was able to to interview, you know, really really looked into their description of themselves. And and his name, the indigenous TV owner, his name is Cody Anthony.
Kevin Abourezk:He's First Nations himself. And and so some things he started to see some red flags. And and one of the first red flags was, you know, this this so called indigenous model that appeared on their on their self promotional page, their about page. And, and and the model just looked perfect. You know?
Kevin Abourezk:Like, perfect perfect complexion, perfect lighting, you know, hair just the right way. And and, you know, having having looked into, AI and and the kind of images it generates when people, look up things like Native American, Native American woman, whatever it be. Cody Anthony is is very knowledgeable about what kind of images AI tends to produce, and it tends to produce these very, very perfect images and really kind of Americanized versions of, of indigenous women as well. And so he started looking into that further and he tried to find like the source code, you know, where did this photo come from? Was it something that the company created?
Kevin Abourezk:Did they pull an image off of, you know, some sort of, photo stock website? Did they take the photo themselves? And they did a reverse image search, you know, to look to see whether this image appeared on any other website and anywhere else on the internet. And he couldn't find any evidence that it appeared anywhere else. Nobody else had seemed to share it.
Kevin Abourezk:And, and if they wanted to share it off the website, even it's difficult to do because there was text overlaying it. So,
Anne Keala Kelly:right.
Kevin Abourezk:So, so yeah, if it fit were an original photo they had taken and shared along the way somewhere, somebody would have shared it. Right. You wouldn't find any evidence of the model. Right? Like, so, so he looked into it further and, and even looked at the text of the about page that wrote about themselves.
Kevin Abourezk:That sort of thing is harder to detect right now. He did plug it into kind of a reverse text AI search engine to see if it showed up as AI. And those search engines did show that this appeared to be about 90% rather 99 percent AI generated. So, you know, that that really sparked, a question in his mind. Wow.
Kevin Abourezk:This seems to be blatant blunt use of of of fashion a well known fashion design company using native AI models, using artificially intelligence generated text to describe themselves. You know? And he started posting things on its Instagram page about that. And, and very immediately, you know, started to get a wide response from native country. So
Anne Keala Kelly:Well, I mean, let's talk about that for a minute. Here we have this technology, and you've got this Dutch company 10000 miles away from the origins of the word and the the place where this fake model would originate. So if they're in the realm of AI and they're using this technology to create something that isn't real, In their mind, first of all, they're already thinking, well, it's just a word, so they're using that. And then they're probably thinking this isn't even real. I made this up.
Anne Keala Kelly:So where is the native in that? Yeah.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. I mean and that's that's sort of the question here. Right? Is, where did this company feel like they had the right to not only use this indigenous word as the name of their company, but promote themselves as if, you know, they're working with indigenous models and have some connection to Indian country that way. And it was really interesting the way this all played out, indigenous TV reached out to the the company, and the company finally responded and said, you know, we're working with, Navajo knitters.
Kevin Abourezk:And that's what this Dutch design company primarily creates is knitwear as they call it. And so we're working with Navajo Knitters on on our projects, and they're they're producing designs, producing, work for us. And we plan to give back to the Navajo community as well. And they even published a photo of of a Navajo family named the Jumbo family.
Anne Keala Kelly:Right. Now that's a real photo.
Kevin Abourezk:A real photo? Yeah. Yeah. So And
Anne Keala Kelly:they did it without permission? Am I understanding this?
Kevin Abourezk:Without permission. It was
Anne Keala Kelly:So it just keeps going with these guys. Right? They just keep, like, doubling down?
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. If they just kinda come clean at the start and say, oh, yeah. You know, we use an AI model and, you know, we didn't know this word was so important to you all or whatever. I mean, that that's one thing. You know, we can we can probably accept that.
Kevin Abourezk:Right? I I don't imagine too many people saying, you know, this is I mean, yeah. Of course, there's still gonna be criticism, but but I think in general, people would kind of give them an alternative. Say, well, what are you gonna do about it? You know?
Kevin Abourezk:Right. We'll need to change your name. But, but in this case, when they doubled down and and, you know, essentially shared a photo, they had no right to share.
Anne Keala Kelly:And this was after they've invented a fake native to represent.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. This was after they had, you know, shared this photo of this artificial woman. And so then then they've share a photo that is a real photo, but not a photo that they had any permission to use. They had no involvement whatsoever with the jumbo family. The jumbo family hadn't signed on to work with them, and they respond.
Kevin Abourezk:The jumbo family stepped in and said, you know, we we're not working with them. The person who took the photo, who's a member of the jumbo family, said, yes. I took the photo. They didn't ask me if they could use it. We're not working with them.
Kevin Abourezk:What's going on? You know?
Anne Keala Kelly:And, you know, I have to say I found it ironic that that photo of those 3 women, it really is a beautiful photo. And it's beautiful that it's older women, but it's it's beautifully composed. They're dressed beautifully. They're so dignified. Compared to the fake Indian photo that they generated, that struck me, you know, when I was looking at them side by side.
Anne Keala Kelly:There's this imaginary fake fantasized thing going on, and then the real native is so much richer and more beautiful.
Kevin Abourezk:Absolutely. Yeah. If they had just done this from the start. Right? If they just actually worked with Navajo knitters Right.
Kevin Abourezk:And the T Mobile family, you know, reached out to them and said, work with us. You know, we'll we'll use your designs. We'll give you credit. We'll we'll pay you royalties, whatever. Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:How easy would that I mean, that's so easy to do. When it comes to appropriation, whatever it is, whether it's native identity or land or culture, I believe there's something about the taking. There's something in it for them to actually just take
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:As opposed to ask. If they ask, somebody might tell them no. I've found this a lot with Hawaiian issues. Like, why didn't you just ask? Well, they didn't wanna hear the word no.
Anne Keala Kelly:I thought it was funny when, I think it was a Kiowa filmmaker had sent him an Instagram message about it to them, and they said they said get a life. That was their response. It was get a life and then there was another one in there that was equally as rich and it was, don't gatekeep.
Kevin Abourezk:Yes.
Anne Keala Kelly:You know? And I'm like I'm thinking, get a lot. This is made of life you're taking and we have to keep the gate. You know? We need to guard against what you're doing.
Anne Keala Kelly:And I thought that was, you know, it was so much irony. There is so much irony in the story of this, company, which, by the way, says they're changing their name. Right?
Kevin Abourezk:That's what they say. Yeah. I don't it hasn't happened from what I can tell. So
Anne Keala Kelly:Do you think this is just another kind of mascotting?
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. That's a good way to put it. It's, you know, a way of using our image, using our culture, our language even to sell something. That's what I've always felt that a mascot was ultimately about was people romanticize native people.
Anne Keala Kelly:Fetishize.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. Fetishize. You know, let's let's use their image to sell what we're trying to sell. In sports, it's it's, seats to a ticket, you know, tickets to a game. It's paraphernalia.
Kevin Abourezk:You know? And it's it's hats and t shirts and what have you. You know, in the world of fashion design, of course, it's products, it's clothing. But, ultimately, you know, it it's value added. It's a way to promote their work and and feed into that romanticization, that sort of love, I guess you could even say, you know, if you wanna call it that, that people have for native people.
Anne Keala Kelly:Well, a colonizer's love, we could all do without.
Kevin Abourezk:Yes.
Anne Keala Kelly:And I think it reminds me of mascotting
Anne Keala Kelly:in a sense because one of the things I've noticed when a sports logo, for instance, it's an illustration maybe of a stereotype or however they come up with whatever it is. If they're using a fake AI generated image, they can hide behind that and say, well, it isn't real. This isn't a real person, so you therefore, you can't, you know, claim it, I guess, would be which is one of the reasons why I sort of thought about it as mascotting besides the obvious fetishizing of it is every in addition to everything you just said about it being about selling, one of the things I've heard people say about, I don't know, maybe it's the Kansas City Chiefs or something like, well, it's not real. It's just a made up image.
Kevin Abourezk:By the same token, I guess, and I kind of had a little hesitant to take it here, but I'm going to. Swastika isn't real. Right? I mean, it's it's just it's just a symbol. It's just that's that's probably the most blatant sort of example we can bring up.
Kevin Abourezk:You know, which is Mhmm. Not real. It's just a symbol. You know, the bars and stars, the southern flag is just a symbol. Right?
Kevin Abourezk:It's not real. We just made it up. But these things these things mean something. You know, they meant something to somebody, and it's what that meant to those people that matters. You know, it's our image or symbols that we use to represent our cultures, our histories.
Kevin Abourezk:You know, they they mean so much to us. They're they're the outward sort of, depiction of us, and they matter.
Anne Keala Kelly:There were a couple other things I wanna talk about in the article, because, you know, I mean, there's cultural appropriation and then there's the danger of AI, its impact its potential impact on native peoples. One of the things I thought was interesting in your article was this technology, how technology is already being used along the border in native land, native territory.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. So that was, you know, very scary to think about. And so one of one of the issues that, Danielle Boyer, who's Ojibwe. She's 23 year old, and she's working in, kinda computer science and technology. And, she makes robots.
Kevin Abourezk:She's followed these issues quite a bit, artificial intelligence and its impact on native people. And she brought up a number of examples of ways that artificial intelligence is impacting us already. And though I like the one you mentioned, which, you know, has to do with an Israeli defense company that was contracted by the US government to build, essentially watchtowers along the US Mexico border to monitor illegal immigration into America using artificial intelligence rather powered, technology, to to do this kind of monitoring. And it's and it's on the Tohono O'odham people's land. She mentioned that there was something like 10 different watch towers, you know, that were that were on their lands.
Kevin Abourezk:And the fear there, you know, by the by the native people that live in that reservation is what's to stop the government from turning those cameras on us and and monitoring our activity, monitoring, you know, whatever it be, you know, our our businesses or cultural ceremonies, you know, or whatever we're doing, what's to stop them from doing that? And so there's a great fear there. And just maybe as one other example that she brought up was in line very much with the Nizhoni issue, which is this, web series called the Ayanna, the Navajo AI flower that that are non native men. I haven't been able to find much about him. And, Danielle, I think, I don't know that she has found much about him either from what I can tell.
Kevin Abourezk:But it you know, she does know that he's non native, but he created this web series about a Navajo girl who, who uses artificial intelligence for various purposes. And, and so she was really and and and the whole web series rather is is generated by AI. There's no there are no native characters, no native voices voicing the characters of animation, you know, people or animation characters. So there's there's no native sort of presence here at all. It's just just a non native man who who used AI to create this web series about native people.
Kevin Abourezk:And it's troubling, you know, because it's what she's worried about, and, honestly, I'm worried about it, is this kind of a harbinger of things to come that art, TV, other kinds of expressions of artistic expressions and and other kinds of expressions about us, about native people, will become largely AI generated for for a variety of reasons. Like we mentioned earlier, it's easier to ask for for forgiveness rather than permission in these ways, I guess. And they don't wanna share with us. You know? They don't wanna share whatever comes from their use of our images, the use of use of our cultures and our languages.
Anne Keala Kelly:It's not politically fascinating at all. It's really disturbing and and culturally upsetting, but it's also kind of fascinating to me that that's when you really know that they know what they're doing. They know they're taking something when they would just rather go around you and see if you catch them, you know, see if you call them out. Because if you don't call them out, they just can just keep making that money.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:So, you know, now with this technology, which is I I I personally call it the Terminator app because I think it's the beginning of the end and, you know, everything I see, everything I read about it, it's just about taking jobs from people, it's about consolidating power into fewer hands. There'll be it'll shrink the labor force. But in this sense, when it comes to the to native peoples, there's so much more that's at stake than just a job. I mean, yeah, that matters. Economically, it matters, but this is a this is a taking, like, on this level that goes beyond the taking of the land and, you know, and sovereignty.
Anne Keala Kelly:It is a matter of sovereignty. I actually think that. Do you believe it's an issue of sovereignty?
Kevin Abourezk:I certainly do. Yeah. You know, we should have the right to decide how our images are used. We should have the right to decide how our languages are are shared with the rest of the world. You know?
Kevin Abourezk:Another example that Danielle shared was this app called Whisper that, is meant to, translate, you know, foreign languages, non English languages, into English and and back and forth. But this app called Whisper used, somehow access the Maori language. And, you know, the various people who are, you know, trying to do the same thing in the Maori culture, don't know how they got this information. No. Maori people don't know where they got, you know, how they gained access to to the Maori language to populate this this app.
Kevin Abourezk:And and they're very much opposed to it. You know? And they said it's inaccurate. I mean, that's the other part of this is just inaccurate. It's it's part of what I would call further erasure of indigenous people.
Kevin Abourezk:I mean, you know, not only now are we being, scrubbed from the history books and and, you know, our languages are are dying out as a result of assimilation efforts over generations now. But what little we have left, you know, what little culture and language we've been able to hold on to and it's don't get me wrong. We've been able to hold on to a lot. But but what we've been able to hold on to now is being taken from us without our permission and used to sell products, used to, promote, you know, in in case, you know, clothing. And and it's, yeah, it's an absolute violation of our sovereignty.
Anne Keala Kelly:You know, it's again, to go back to this word technology, I mean, I the stagecoach was technology. The railroad is technology. You know, as as Western and, you know, US American technology develops, when it comes to the native, it's not terribly useful except to take from the native because what you just said is true. We have many, not enough, but many native languages are surviving and are starting to revive and thrive again. At the same time, that's taken decades decades to do, and this technology is doing something by Sunday.
Anne Keala Kelly:You know? It's lickety split.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:So I'm wondering, how do you see this going for natives? What do you think native people need to do? Because I personally think we need to get together and come up with, like, you know, an international treaty for ourselves, like
Narrator:Yeah.
Anne Keala Kelly:Of how to determine what is and isn't okay. Because we've had decades of experience with the so called intellectual property is what it's you know, our identity is somehow property, and that isn't really what it is for us because we're always dealing with the spiritual and the cultural at the same time. So what do you think would be the best way for native peoples to deal with this in the future? How do we protect ourselves?
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. Great question. And it's something that since my story is published that I started looking into, and it's gonna be one of the next stories that I do on this because, you know, I'm just so fascinated with AI in general. I mean, just how it works and, you know, what we need to be careful of and, you know, and and people have already started looking into this, luckily, and and not surprisingly either. Native people, you know, looking at how we can protect our culture or languages from from AI.
Kevin Abourezk:You know, misuse of AI, I should say. There's really already an effort underway. And some of the things some of the possible solutions people are talking about are trying to develop a list of best practices that and and kind of a manifesto why this is important to to do, you know, and bringing that before it's a body like the United Nations. And, you know, having some kind of resolution pass, like the, the resolution on the rights of indigenous
Anne Keala Kelly:people. Right. Right. We might need to amend that.
Kevin Abourezk:Yeah. Absolutely.
Anne Keala Kelly:Because this is not they do not have, you know, clear and informed consent is a part of that.
Kevin Abourezk:Yes.
Anne Keala Kelly:And we're not consenting to what's being done here.
Kevin Abourezk:Yes. Yeah. No. Absolutely. And there you know, other people looking at other things we can potentially do such as, in the case of perhaps Nizhoni or or any anybody else who might attempt to, create art that they wanna call native, but that is essentially, you know, incorporating either AI or, you know, something like it, I guess, into creating this art, but then pawning it off as native.
Kevin Abourezk:So somehow broadening things like the Indian Arts and Crafts Act to to incorporate the use of AI to to create so called indigenous art in order to protect that, you know, native people, native artisans from that. So so that's another way. And and that's obviously something that would be US centered and and have some sort of practical penalties assigned to it as well. You know? What happens if you do this?
Kevin Abourezk:And so and and there are other ways too. I mean, you know, one of the more hopeful things I heard from, Cody Anthony from Indigenous TV is he's so proud, and I am too, of of all the different people who are watching this. You know? Like Danielle Boyer, like Cheyenne Sky, all these different, people who care about, you know, how their how their cultures, their languages are being used in the world and who are keeping an eye on that. Who and they tend to be young people, to be honest.
Kevin Abourezk:You know? They tend to be the people who best know how to use these platforms like TikTok and Instagram and, and search engines and log algorithms and those kinds of things. So so just you know, let's list let's be sure we listen to them. Let's be sure that, you know, we're we're keeping them on our radar. And if they have issues, if they see issues that come up, you know, let's let's work together, like ICT, like your program, like indigenous TV to amplify their message.
Kevin Abourezk:And these are all ways we can protect ourselves as well.
Anne Keala Kelly:Kevin Abarask, thank you so much for being on First Voices Radio today, and I I look forward to talking with you again about this in the future. Where can the listening audience go to find out more about this and your work?
Kevin Abourezk:Thank you. Noa, and I really appreciate you inviting me on. I always love talking to you. And if people wanna reach you know, find my work and, you know, other people's work that were involved in this, They can find us on the Internet at, www.ictnews.org. And, of course, you know, we have an Instagram page and a Facebook page, but we we have our own, you know, TikTok account as well that you could check out.
Anne Keala Kelly:Absolutely. Well, Kevin, and, yes, we will be in touch. We will be back in a moment with an interview with Shannon O'Loughlin. For now, a piece from Sandra Sutter's 2018 album, Cluster Stars. It's called Indian in the child.
Sandra Sutter:6 years old on his first day of school, and emotions are running high. Mom and dad are left home alone as he bids his parents goodbye. The shiny white building in a faraway place holds promise and a yet unknown fear. The footsteps this young boy will take on his own should have been taken with family near. The weather here is changing and dark clouds are closing in.
Sandra Sutter:The boy can't withstand them for long. They remind him his skin is sin. They are sinister like the weather and like a storm that brews within. They wash away childlike innocence trying to kill the Indian in him. They tried to kill the Indian, kill the Indian in the child.
Sandra Sutter:They thought he was a savage, untamable and wild. They could not see the creator's plan for him was the same for you and me. We are meant to walk together on the good red road of beauty. Kill the Indian and the child, they said, and to be sure those teachers tried. No language, no family, no culture, every night he cried.
Sandra Sutter:A forced haircut and a cruel bath, bleaching brown skin into white, though they tried to kill the Indian, the Indian survived.
Anne Keala Kelly:Welcome back to First Voices Radio. For the second half of the show, we're gonna talk story with Shannon O'Loughlin, citizen of the Choctaw Nation and the CEO of the Association on American Indian Affairs. She's here to discuss the new rules for NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Aloha, Shannon. Welcome to First Voices Radio.
Shannon O’Loughlin:Yakoaki, Keala. It's really nice to be here.
Anne Keala Kelly:A lot of things have happened in the past 4 months, and I just wanna bring people up to speed on that or I'm hoping you can bring us up to speed. Tell us about the NAGPRA changes that went into effect on January 12th this year.
Shannon O’Loughlin:Okeydokeyal, we've had such a huge change to the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. It was a law that was passed back in 1990. There's really a couple purposes to the act, but one of the main purposes is, returning all the ancestors' bodies, all the people that have been stolen from their graves to put in museum, I guess, research rooms and academia research rooms and on exhibit as well as our those burial belongings that were with those ancestors and cultural and sacred objects. The purpose of NAGPRA was to return all of those items that had been taken mostly by theft, violence, and other unconscionable duress from native nations and native peoples and returning them. What happened, unfortunately, is over the last 30 years of the law, museums have really co opted the process and have used a lot of loopholes that were in the previous regulations.
Shannon O’Loughlin:For example, the previous regulations didn't include any definition for what it meant to consult with native nations. So museums just chose not to consult with native nations.
Anne Keala Kelly:Oh, wait a second. So just because it can spell it out, they just made a decision kind of a unilateral, we're just not gonna do it?
Shannon O’Loughlin:Well, how do you prove consultation if there's no definition of what that means? So most of the time, we saw institutions send a letter, and that was it. And and so that kind of unilateral notice is not consultation. And, unfortunately, the previous NAGPRA regulations also didn't have very strong enforcement mechanisms. So it was really difficult to hold institutions accountable to what consultation is supposed to be without a correct regulatory definition.
Shannon O’Loughlin:And so these new regulations that went into effect on January 12th this year, they include a very nice definition of consultation and many other changes that close-up those loopholes that institutions have used, so they didn't have to comply with NAGPRA.
Anne Keala Kelly:You know, using that kind of language of consultation and then saying that there needs to be consent, Do you see this as related at all to the UN declaration, the UNDRIP? Because it seems like there's that kind of language in that statement as well. Like internationally, there is some kind of a shift for indigenous peoples. Is that correct?
Shannon O’Loughlin:It is correct, and it's absolutely amazing. I never thought I would see the United States use language directly from the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in US law. During the Obama presidency, there was a lot of discussion about how the United States would implement the UN declaration, and nothing ever came of it. We haven't seen anything anywhere. This is the first time where we're actually seeing in, law and policy, language that requires, institutions to obtain free prior and informed consent before they can do anything with the native collections in their possession because they don't own.
Shannon O’Loughlin:They don't have any legal rights to those items under NAGPRA. So the whole purpose of NAGPRA is to transfer control, from the institution to the native nations that are affiliated. And this free prior and informed consent language is kind of like this wonderful magic bullet that puts our voice, our evidence, our cultural expertise on our own cultures versus what the museum thinks and understands about our cultures. It puts that in the forefront in in the top line of evidence that that's required for this work to be done.
Anne Keala Kelly:That's first of all, it's refreshing, and and I think it's super important that people understand this law that exists already is over 30 years old. What so what essentially did take place with these new rules? Is it just going in and tweaking what's there or just adding clarifying language? What's sort of the gist of these new rules? Because as we saw happening in January, museums had to start covering up some of their exhibits.
Shannon O’Loughlin:That's right. They had to, cover up their exhibits after January 12th because the language in those new regulations required those institutions to have obtained the free prior and informed consent of affiliated native nations before they can exhibit or do research or anything else. And and to be clear, that doesn't prevent those things from occurring or those exhibits from from not being covered up. But the the tribe has to give its consent to allow that to happen. So the changes that were made to the NAGPRA regulations were absolutely comprehensive besides having the free prior and informed consent language, language about consultation and what that means, and requirements of deference to native, traditional beliefs.
Shannon O’Loughlin:There are clear timelines and process driven requirements for institutions.
Anne Keala Kelly:Well, let's talk about that because there are deadlines now attached to these rules. Right? Yes. What are those?
Shannon O’Loughlin:There are some amazing deadlines depending on what part of the process that you're in. So it's a it's a little bit convoluted and technical, but there are certain types of timelines. So an inventory process has about a 5 year timeline. And, of course, there are timelines that build to that 5 years. Right?
Shannon O’Loughlin:So there are certain deadlines that leave to that 5 year final completion date for inventories. There's also a certain certain timelines in the process of developing summaries. So institutions have certain deadlines to meet to finalize the summary process. And then there's there's a process of requesting repatriation. So then the native nation gets to request repatriation, and the institution has to respond in writing of whether it will repatriate or not and, then transfer control in their specific deadlines for that.
Shannon O’Loughlin:So where some institutions have taken 33 years and haven't finished that process, they're they're still on on the hook for finishing it within the time frames. So institutions many institutions have done some work regarding NAGPRA. They just often didn't include Native nations in the process. And so now they have to
Anne Keala Kelly:go back and correct that. Right. Right. So is it fair to say that not every collection, whether it's at a museum or a a university, is it fair to say not all of it will be given back to the tribes because maybe not all the tribes want it back?
Shannon O’Loughlin:That's a great, great question, Kyala. And you're absolutely right. There's a lot of things that can happen here. Let me first state that every inch of land in the United States, Alaska and Hawaii, every inch of it is connected to a present day native nation, native Hawaiian organization. So so wherever ancestors or other items have been found, there will be a connection to a present day native nation Today, unfortunately, all of those native nations may not be recognized as a federally recognized tribe.
Shannon O’Loughlin:Unfortunately, the law puts state recognized tribes and other nonrecognized bands and communities that are legitimately related to these ancestors and cultural items. The law kind of puts them as secondary claimants. So the law is built for federally recognized tribes, but many of those federally recognized, native nations will work with their cousins and and, that are not recognized to make sure things get back in that primary process and that that the main process for repatriation. In the end, though, when federally recognized native nations do not request repatriation, then that opens, the request up to nonrecognized nations to come and and request repatriation. So, so that could be one of the reasons why federally recognized tribes, aren't repatriating.
Shannon O’Loughlin:There are also cultural concerns, with many native nations and tribes, and they don't want repatriation and often, speak of the institution causing harm and that they don't want to take on that harm. So they would prefer them to keep the ancestors and cultural items and deal with the harm themselves. And so what NAGPRA does in cases like that, it still requires the institution to rebury. It still requires those ancestors to go back in the ground.
Anne Keala Kelly:Okay. So they can't just keep it forever?
Shannon O’Loughlin:No. Because they never obtained the free prior and informed consent of those individuals or, in relation their native nation to be able to take that body from the ground to do whatever they want to with. So they need to put it back. Right? They need to repair the harm that was done.
Shannon O’Loughlin:And so NAGPRA provides for that as well. What we found that NAGPRA does so beautifully is it finally allows native nations to come to the table to educate the institutions about what elections are in their possession and how to better educate the public, which is which is the purpose of a museum is to educate the general public.
Anne Keala Kelly:I still find some of these numbers staggering, and I'm gonna ask you to share some of that with the audience. What's the scope of the problem? How many objects and, human remains are we talking about just in the US?
Shannon O’Loughlin:Yeah. Just in the US, what has been reported to the National NAGPRA Program by Institutions and Federal Agencies that have reported is, there have been 2 about 218,000 ancestors bodies reported in institutions and in federal agencies agencies in the United States. That's just ancestors. As far as their burial belongings, that number is much, much higher. As far as cult other types of cultural items, we have no idea the extent what those numbers look like, but I'm sure they're in the millions.
Shannon O’Loughlin:And then, of course, we have no idea the numbers internationally. So there are many institutions internationally that also hold our ancestors' bodies and cultural items.
Anne Keala Kelly:It's it's so it's hard to describe to people how the taking of these objects and then the keeping of them, which makes money for these institutions, how that remakes us, how it reshapes us almost from the inside out, and it's so subtle and yet so in your face at the same time.
Shannon O’Loughlin:I'm not sure what to comment about that. Yes. I mean, you're absolutely correct. Yes.
Anne Keala Kelly:There's a lot of people don't understand what's the big deal. They don't really understand the the weight of cultural theft and the spiritual consequences of that and the psychological consequences of that. I'm constantly having to explain that when it comes up in conversation with non natives. Well, here's what that means when this object that belongs over here is actually thousands of miles away on exhibit. Here's what that actually means to the people it belongs to.
Anne Keala Kelly:And and Americans struggle with that, and Europeans too. Well, who pays for this, by the way? Is this the institutions paying for it? Is the government paying for it?
Shannon O’Loughlin:Money this is always a really, I guess, humorous subject matter for me about this topic because who has been making money? Who's been doing the research? Who's been bringing in the public? Who's been benefiting off of these institutions holding these collections? And the only answer I can see is the institution.
Shannon O’Loughlin:It hasn't any benefit hasn't flowed to any native nations. So, it seems to me the right thing is that those institutions would prioritize. They would prioritize it with their donors and their other fundraising to get funding to fulfill their federal legal obligations under NAGPRA. Instead, what many institutions have done is complained, oh, it costs too much money. Oh, we need to hire to we need to hire more staff.
Shannon O’Loughlin:We need to do more of this and more of that. And, again, it's like, well, it's been 33 years. This is a federal legal obligation that you're required to comply with, or else there could be civil penalties and others. And you're the one who's been making all the income and other
Anne Keala Kelly:Careers. They've made their careers off of it.
Shannon O’Loughlin:Yes. Exactly. So why would anyone else be giving them funding except for them and their their supporters? So, it always makes me kinda giggle a little bit. I think where we really need to talk about funding is building capacity with native nations so that they can fulfill the consultation requirements of the law.
Shannon O’Loughlin:So many, tribal folks who are working in their cultural, heritage departments, you should see what their desks look like. In in most all of their departments, they are covered in huge documents full of consultation papers, not just under NAGPRA and repatriation, but also under the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation on various developments and projects that are digging up the ground and uncovering more native bodies. So, the work in in addition, those tribal departments are also educating the public. They're they they also may have a museum. There's so many things on their plate.
Shannon O’Loughlin:They really need funding for consultation and capacity to have the personnel to do the work under NAGPRA. That's where the funding is needed, not with the institutions. There may be some small institutions, little historic societies that just have nothing. And that's when I would say, well, you've got volunteers. You have, other support, from the community.
Shannon O’Loughlin:There has to be a way for you to prioritize your federal legal requirements. And the way the changes have been made with the new regulations, they're much more efficient and effective. One of the problems institutions have is that they have been doing intensive research on these collections, which is actually contrary to what the law says they're supposed to do.
Anne Keala Kelly:Well, wait. When you say intensive research, what do you mean? Can you give people an idea of what that entails?
Shannon O’Loughlin:Sure. So what they're what they're working to do is collect information about affiliation. So here's ancestors and burial items, they were found in a particular geographic location, maybe even a particular site, a known site. Generally, what institutions had been doing is they wanted to do a lot of forensic research on the ancestors' remains to be able to put them together to understand what sex and other detailed information. They want to do extensive studying drawings, even pictures taking of the burial belongings.
Shannon O’Loughlin:And then they wanna go around, to all the academic research and say, who have people said this area, this site may be connected to? So spending a lot of time, doing a lot of research to understand specifics about what they have. That's much more than what the process the legal administrative process of NAGPRA requires them to do. So so what we're finding is many institutions just to have done way too much, research and have used that to actually prevent native nations from requesting affiliation. So what institutions like we've seen Harvard do is, literally, is to paper, what I call papering the issue, which is just throwing all the paper that could possibly be related at the issue so that the burden really becomes on the tribe to prove that Harvard is not correct in its assumption of affiliation.
Anne Keala Kelly:Wow.
Shannon O’Loughlin:So, that's what many institutions like Harvard, AM and H, the Field Museum, and other of those kind of larger ivory tower type museums have done to prevent tribes from getting items back. So now we all know where the bar is set. The research bar is very low. It's not needed. We know from the new regulations that the whole purpose of this is to repatriate.
Shannon O’Loughlin:It's not to do research. Right. It's not a research project.
Anne Keala Kelly:It's not a research project. Right? Well, what does a signal for native sovereignty? Can you talk about why repatriation is a a matter of sovereignty?
Shannon O’Loughlin:For those who don't understand what native sovereignty is, native nations are independent what the federal government calls pseudo sovereign nation nation states. So they are recognized as separate independent governments who have governing systems. They have their own tribal courts and legislature and executives. So native nations are separate sovereign governments along with the federal government and states. And sovereignty means that those native nations can use their government status to help provide services to their citizens.
Shannon O’Loughlin:So they provide various social services, education, health. Some of that is through, some funding through the federal government, which was promised as part of the taking of the lands. Right? We took all your lands and all of your GDP so we could create our own, and so we will provide you this funding for health care and education for in perpetuity. Those numbers have always been really low, so tribes can utilize their sovereignty to help support their own economic development in order to support their citizens.
Shannon O’Loughlin:How I see NAGPRA supporting native sovereignty is that it allows those public facing institutions that have been educating about who we are using our bodies and our belongings to do that. They they are primary primarily responsible today for the continued stereotypes of who native people are, that we are no longer around, or that we are from some past history of the United States that we're not contemporary people. That has always been how institutions have educated about us. And now with NAGPRA, NAGPRA requires those institutions to work directly with native nations. What that will do in turn is start changing the public's perception about who we are as contemporary people and how we interact in this, whatever this world order that we're living in today and how we've contributed to the success of the United States and how we have still held on to many values that the United States still doesn't value, like value of our ecosystems, of our environment, of our culture, and how we value community over the individual.
Anne Keala Kelly:That's so well put, Shannon. Shannon, where can people learn more about this issue and, you know, more of what AAIA is doing?
Shannon O’Loughlin:Yeah. The Association on American Indian Affairs, we have a Web site, indian dash affairs dot org. We're also all over social media and TikTok. TikTok is great. An another great resource, if you really wanna understand, is going to the National Park Service National NAGPRA website.
Shannon O’Loughlin:It will give you links to the law, to the new regulations, to templates, and other learning tools so that you can learn more about this issue and, really, the legal, and policy parameters around it.
Anne Keala Kelly:Shannon O'Loughlin, for being on First Voice Radio today. It's been such a pleasure to to talk with you about this, and and I'm sure we'll have you back on the show as this story unfolds.
Shannon O’Loughlin:It's always wonderful to speak to you, Keala. Thank you, Yacoki.
Anne Keala Kelly:It has been a pleasure and an honor to spend this sacred time with you for the past 4 weeks. Our host, Tioksan ghost horse, will be home from his travels and in the studio next week, So we leave you with another piece from Sandra Sutter's fabulous album Cluster Stars. This one is called Mountain Song. Aloha, umuiho malamapunum. Until we meet again, stay righteous.
Narrator:If faith can move mountains, then why can't I believe that my people will protect me, Not bring me to my knees, oh, watch over me. Watch over me.
Narrator:I give to my people. My blood, my blood, my pain. I was here in the beginning. I would be here at the end. I'll watch over you. I'll watch over you. There's a reason
