Hopi Law of Life AND L/L Law of One

[smc]

To call Indigenous peoples wishing to keep their sacred ceremony/knowledge/cultural practice amongst those authorised in their own communities -

"unfair and unreasonable expectation of a group of people", "selfish" and "STS ownership"

is a degree of ignorance to the enormous suffering caused by the invasion of their lands by colonisers, the forced removal of their children, the banning of their languages and ceremonies under threat of punishment/death... and SO MUCH MORE
(the list of abuses is massive...)

- to say their activism to regain/keep alive culture and knowledge is 'selfish', and instead allow it to be exposed to the offspring of invader societies, is astonishing ignorance, arrogance and insensitivity.

Please (again) examine your PRIVILEGE which has you thinking you have any right to others special sacred personal belongings and DO SOME RESEARCH.

for example:

from: http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/outputs/blog/ca...ty-regime/

"Cultural heritage transcends the individual. The word “heritage” itself suggests that a practice must be maintained and passed on by more than one generation.[4] Among Canada's Aboriginal peoples, cultural heritage is usually communally owned. Sometimes, custody is assigned to an association or individuals who have been specially taught or initiated to be its custodians.[5] The custodian and members of the community have a responsibility to preserve, use, develop and transmit such traditional cultural expression in accordance with the customary laws and protocols of that community.[6] Preservation is achieved through patterns of behaviour and knowledge embodied in skills, ceremonies, rituals.[7] Aboriginal peoples transfer their cultural heritage primarily through intangible means, such as songs, symbols, legends and ways of life, and in a manner that reflects their history, culture, ethics and creativity.[8]
b. A (short!) history of the suppression of Canadian Aboriginal culture

The outrage expressed by Aboriginal people in the face of cultural appropriation cannot be understood outside of the historical context of colonialism in which the loss of culture began.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Canada's Aboriginal policy was one of aggressive assimilation, based on the false assumption that Aboriginal peoples are doomed to extinction, lest they be "saved" from their primitive culture and savage ways.[9] The ultimate goal of this policy was the assimilation of Aboriginal people into the dominant white culture and the disappearance of their traditional culture.[10]

Residential schools cut Aboriginal children off from their culture, interrupting and preventing the transfer of traditional values and practices to new generations. The removal of children from their families continued in the 1960s, when child welfare agencies were given broad powers to apprehend Aboriginal children. Almost all the children of that generation were sent to white foster homes.[11]

Most ceremonial expressions of Aboriginal culture were banned in the late 19th century by the Indian Act. For decades, the potlatch, sweat lodges and sun dances were banned. The wearing of traditional regalia was made subject to the permission of government officials, which was often arbitrarily withheld. The penalty for failure to comply with these restrictions was jail time and the confiscation of ceremonial objects.[12]

Forced displacement of Aboriginal peoples also played a role in the suppression of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Though some relocation took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Aboriginal peoples were displaced en masse as of the 1940s to make way for hydroelectric dams and other industrial projects.[13] Relocations contributed to the loss of cultural practices by severing the ties between Aboriginal peoples and the lands to which their traditional knowledge related.[14]

c. Continued endangerment of Aboriginal culture through cultural appropriation

Today, cultural appropriation and negative stereotypes pose a significant threat to the cultural survival of Aboriginal peoples.[15] It is part of a pattern of injustice that allows the perpetuation of inequalities.

Cultural appropriation is defined as the unauthorized 'borrowing' of expressions, artistic styles, symbolism, myths or know-how from a dominated culture by a member of the dominant culture.[16] Appropriation also occurs when a person of the dominant culture purports to be an expert on the experience of the dominated culture[17] or trivializes the experiences of a member of the dominated culture.[18]

It is a very real phenomenon: according to a 1997 study, 81% of Aboriginal artisans had experienced some form of misappropriation or use of traditional Aboriginal designs.[19] Aboriginal words and imagery are used by people and companies having no link to the communities from which they borrow (to name but a few: Eskimo Pie, Ookpik coats, Cherokee Jeeps). Native spiritual practices such as sweat lodges are commodified and commercialized by new age gurus.[20] Despite recent controversy, concertgoers still regularly wear war bonnets to music festivals.

In the public forum, Aboriginal identity has been defined almost exclusively by the dominant culture,[21] often in ways that misrepresent or disparage Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal people have experienced difficulty in making their voices heard in order to correct the situation.[22] Publishing and production houses show little interest in Aboriginal content that is not "authentic" (a euphemism for "stereotyped").[23] In this manner, negative stereotypes operate as a means of social control. Stereotypes reinforce negative views of the dominated cultural group and serve as grounds to exclude its members from cultural and political discourse. Consequently, the dominant cultural group continues to wield a disproportionate amount of political power, much as it did in colonial times.[24]

The assimilatory effects of colonial policies and cultural appropriation are also similar.[25] Cultural appropriation dispossesses people of their identity. Due to the denigration of their values and the omnipresence of the dominant culture in education and media (which, in Canada, reflect a mostly urban, non-Aboriginal lifestyle[26]), members of a dominated culture will eschew their own culture in favour of the dominant culture.

Whether or not one accepts that cultural appropriation is a form of neocolonialism, its negative impacts on the health, wellbeing and capacity for economic self-sustenance of Aboriginal peoples cannot be ignored.

Cultural appropriation is linked to mental health issues. The inappropriate use of sacred traditional knowledge has destroyed its sacredness and twisted its meaning, weakening it in the eyes of all.[27] Aboriginal youth suffer from low self-esteem due to a negative view of their own culture, supported by a belief in negative stereotypes.[28] Culture stress is a major factor driving Aboriginal youth to self-destructive behaviour and suicide.[29]

Cultural appropriation also threatens Aboriginal peoples' economic self-sustenance. Traditional knowledge represents an interesting source for the development of new medicines and technologies. However, in the past, some Aboriginal groups have lost control of their traditional knowledge by disclosing it to Western researchers who then used such information for culturally inappropriate purposes. In some instances, non-Aboriginal companies have commercialized products based on traditional knowledge or expressions of culture, without sharing the profits with the community from which such knowledge originated.[30] For example, the Hudson’s Bay Company came under fire during the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games for its decision to market non-authentic Cowichan-style sweaters to commemorate the event. The Bay had initially entered into negotiations with the Cowichan First Nation to produce authentic Cowichan sweaters, which are hand-knit in a distinctive style from natural, undyed wool. The deal fell through, as the Nation did not have the capacity to produce the quantities of product required in the allotted time. The Bay’s subsequently outsourced manufacturing to a third party who had access to mechanized knitting equipment and cheaper materials. The sweaters produced by the manufacturer bore a striking resemblance to authentic Cowichan sweaters and were referred to as “knock-offs” in the media. Members of the Nation were upset by the loss of a potential source of income to a non Aboriginal company whose products might be confused with their own. The Bay eventually agreed to a last-minute licensing deal, allowing the Nation to sell their own sweaters at the Four Host First Nations Pavilion (a temporary pavilion located in downtown Vancouver) and at the Bay’s flagship store in Vancouver. No profit sharing arrangement has been reported.[31]

The fear of misappropriation of Aboriginal traditional knowledge, cultural expressions and genetic and biological resources and has created a chilling effect: the Chiefs of Ontario and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation have declared a moratorium on the commercialization of plants and animals.[32] Aboriginal communities' capacity to profit from their own knowledge is therefore limited as they are rarely equipped to engage in complex and expensive R&D without recourse to external resources or expertise.[33] Out-licensing would be an accessible way for these communities to develop and profit from their knowledge, but distrust has created an obstacle to the sharing of knowledge with outsiders."

This is just one link. There are so many examples/stories/historical facts that you could read to realise the extent of how inappropriate and self centred the idea that Indigenous owe anything to dominant western cultures is.

Another compelling aspect (from personal experience) is that certain knowledge REQUIRES secrecy to remain effective in it's purpose.

There are large amounts of ceremony/information that non initiated Indigenous people can not know without permission;

and yet you demand you have a right to the knowledge??

Oh dear.