While learning about the IACA, I read William J. Hapiuk, Jr.’s article, “Of Kitsch and Kachinas: A Critical Analysis of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.” The final portion of this article, which Hapiuk, Jr. wrote in 2001, presents areas where the IACA, even as amended, fails to solve the problems in the American Indian arts and crafts market.
First, Hapiuk, Jr. explains the difficulty or “messiness” in defining “genuineness.” He gives the example of a company that claims to sell knives “made” by a Native American. The juxtaposition of this claim is that a Native American designs the knives, but the knives are actually assembled by factory labor in China. Should these knives still claim to be “made” by a Native American?
Next, Hapiuk, Jr. presents a controversy between two Native American tribes. In this case,
“the Hopi tribe has accused the Navajo tribe of making fake kachina dolls, appropriating a Hopi craft that has no traditional basis in Navajo culture. According to Leigh Jenkins, director of the Hopi cultural preservation office, “[The Navajos’ craft] work technically meets the letter of the law, but it’s members of another tribe appropriating the religious symbolism of another tribe.” The Navajo carve the dolls from balsa wood, while the traditional Hopi kachina doll is made of cottonwood. Under the IACA, the Hopi would have no cause of action, since the Navajo themselves are Indians” (1073-1074).
Finally, Hapiuk, Jr. talks about the complications globalization brings to the IACA. The expansion of arts and crafts sales via Internet makes it more difficult to enforce a cultural preservation law such as the IACA. Websites such as www.buckagram.com admittedly sell fake American Indian jewelry. If you visit the buckagram website, you will see that Bob Nizza, an American expatriate now living in Thailand, openly calls his jewelry “Indian-style.” Does fake Indian-style jewelry sold over the Internet fall under the jurisdiction of the IACA? Hapiuk, Jr. makes the point that tracking down fake-Indian retailers on the Internet, especially those outside of the United States, may prove difficult, as well as gaining jurisdiction over these retailers.
In conclusion, Hapiuk, Jr. states that, “To compete in such an environment, and to preserve American Indian tribal heritage, Native American tribes should concentrate their efforts on the existing trademark provisions of the IACA and work in tandem with the Indian Arts and Crafts Board to develop internationally recognized and locally implemented certification marks for their handcrafts” (1075). As Hapiuk, Jr. illustrated in his analysis, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 has a long way to go until it ensures cultural survival.
Leave a Reply