Libraries in the United States and Canada are changing the way they refer to Indigenous peoples
The two largest agencies responsible for the language we use to discover books in libraries in North America — the Library of Congress in the United States and Library and Archives Canada — are changing the way they refer to Indigenous peoples.
Recently, the Library of Congress announced that by September 2022, a project would be underway to revise terms referring to Indigenous peoples.
From 2019Library and Archives Canada has made changes to Canadian subject headings, starting with replacing outdated terminology with “Aboriginal peoples” and “First Nations,” and adding terms that specify Métis and other specific nations and peoples.
It is important to recognize what these library changes can and cannot do, and the need to consult and guide Indigenous communities and Indigenous library workers. This is a break with the status quo for the maintenance of these systems.
The Library of Congress and Library and Archives Canada manage the lists of terms used in public and academic libraries in both countries.
When a book is published, library employees use lists of approved terms to indicate the topic or topic of the book. These terms determine how the book can be found in a library search and may even be printed on the copyright page of the book itself. The catalog record is then copied to each library that holds a copy of the book.
Read more: Libraries may have 3D printers, but it’s still about books
Obsolete terminology such as “Indians of North America” has remained in these term lists despite changing usage in society and no longer corresponds to the language used in the books themselves. The management of these term lists last made international news when politicians interfered in the shift from “illegal aliens” to “undocumented immigrants”.
The heading “Indians of North America” has been on these lists since the Library of Congress subject headings were standardized and shared with libraries. over a century ago.
Library researchers and librarians hope that revisions to existing systems will reduce some of the friction associated with using the library for Indigenous and decolonizing research. This friction relates both to the fact that the materials are categorized in strange ways and to how the use of older terms such as “American Indians” could negatively affect some members of indigenous communities, even if ‘There were. are a diversity of views that exist in Indigenous communities on identity labels.
1,000 terms under review
Since 2015, the Manitoba Archival Information Network has shared a list of over 1,000 terms relating to Indigenous peoples with suggestions for more precise and respectful language. Many of the recommended changes use the term “indigenous peoples”, which already exists in the term lists.
Currently, the addition of a geographical term at the end, such as “Indigenous Peoples — Asia” is a permitted title, except in the case of the Americas. Currently, terms like “Indigenous Peoples – United States” and “First Nations (North America)” redirect to “North American Indians.”
The same goes for terms that redirect to “Indians of South America.”
Library and Archives Canada continues to roll out changes as a shift from “Canadian (English) poetry by Inuit authors” to “Inuit (English) poetry”.
Indigenous Knowledge Organization
Beyond revamping misleading terminology, library scholars and Indigenous knowledge holders (such as Sandy Littletree, with colleagues) examine how to advance the organization of Indigenous knowledge practices in library systems.
Research conducted by my team of librarians and students shows that authors prefer their books to be labeled with Indigenous-centred or reconciliation approaches. For instance, Xwi7xwa bookcase
is a branch of the University Library at the University of British Columbia devoted entirely to Indigenous materials. The indexing is adapted from a system developed by Kahnawake librarian Brian Deer in the 1970s for the National Indian Brotherhood, now the Assembly of First Nations.
Greater Victoria Public Library introduced locally developed temporary native subject headings which use more current terminology.
Interviews with authors
Over the past two years, my team and I interviewed 38 authors whose books have been labeled in libraries with terms like “North American Indians”.
These authors told us that these terms did not correspond to the language of their books, nor to what is acceptable in their professional communities. They shared how these terms have created difficulties in research work by or about Indigenous peoples.
They explained how people using the library’s search functions had to use terms they disagreed with and would not use in their courses and writings. Ambiguous terms like “Indian cuisine” and “Indian activism” create confusion as to whether an item relates to the indigenous peoples of North America or India.
As the authors of our study suggested, the continued use of these terms imposes a colonial worldview on books that often resist, challenge, or expose the wrongdoings of colonialism.
Slow to change
Library systems tend to be slow to change because they prioritize consistency. Yet the Canadian and American systems are constantly being revised to add new terms and, less often, to replace old ones.
Since there are over 1,000 terms relating to Indigenous peoples in library listings, revisions to this will be monumental. In a typical monthabout 200 new headings are added to the Library of Congress subject headings, on all subjects.
The terminology of the indigenous peoples of this continent varies as the communities themselves are numerous and diverse. At the same time, terms like “Indians” persist in law in Canada and United States.
Changes to these terms, through consultation and guidance from Indigenous communities and Indigenous library workers, can align our library systems with the language used in everyday conversation and academic research.
They cannot invalidate the terms people use to refer to themselves. A list of library terms is intended for shared and government-supported systems to enable discovery and access and does not determine self-expression.
Even in this context, changing the terms for Indigenous peoples is unlikely to change how these lists currently use the Canadian and American colonial borders. At this time, works on Coast Salish botany or art, for example, may still be redundantly labeled with “Indigenous Peoples – British Columbia” and “Indigenous Peoples – Washington (State)”.
Continued research will be needed as libraries consider how to update their practices.