User:MuseumHours/Library of Congress Classification

edit Brian Deer Classification system > add to Xwi7xwa Library page > Start Emily Carr University Library page

Indigenous representation/studies
The LCC system and its subject headings are recognized to be western constructions that attempt at classifying and representing global cultures using a Eurocentric and Christian lens. In North America, Indigenous scholars consider Indigenous materials classified under the E Class as inaccurate representations of the identities and works of indigenous peoples.

There are many reasons as to why the use of LCSH is deemed inappropriate when classifying indigenous materials. Firstly, it fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of indigenous nations. More notably, the E Class quarantines indigenous materials into its own history section, isolating it from US History, with almost all works confined specifically under LC E99. A significant example of this segregation is how most materials on Native American art are placed under the E classification instead of N classification. The LCC setting apart Indigenous art materials from being classified under the universal fine art section leads to the implications that Native American art is not serious art. The LCC also fails to represent how indigenous ways of learning focus heavily on spatial, social and cultural relationships. Because of its failure to reflect the way in which indigenous peoples prefer to represent themselves, using LCC is deemed an outdated knowledge organizing practice.

A major concern regarding subject headings that focus on indigenous materials is how they continues the use of the term 'Indian' to describe these works. Even though recent decades have shown greater representation for indigenous authors within mainstream and scholarly publishing, the term Indian" is still being used heavily across North America. In particular, the use of the term "Indian" brings to light a systemic flaw, with its ambiguous nature perpetuating a cycle of miscataloguing. For example, "Indians---Food" leads to South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to native American or Indigenous cooking until second page on WorldCat. Secondly, it has been decades since the term "Indian" was an academically or socially acceptable demographic marker for Indigenous peoples. It is argued that there is no reason in our society to use "Indians" except specifically when cataloging works relating to the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature. Thus, the continuation of harmful cataloguing practices only serves to reflect and instantiate discrimination present in the rest of American and Canadian society.

The LCC and LCSH continue to perpetuate colonial biases towards Indigenous peoples. Current directions for the future of the LCSH and Indigenous studies are to update the word Indian to Indigenous and replace mythology with spiritualitity.

As an alternative knowledge organizing system, the Xwi7wa Library in Vancouver uses the Brian Deer Classification System, the most well-known indigenous KOS.

Indigenous representation/studies
Indigenous scholars consider LCSH under the E Classification as inaccurate representations of the identities and works of Indigenous peoples. Within the realm Indigenous studies in North America, the use of LCSH is seen as an outdated practice. (as it fails to reflect the way in which Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and communities desire to represent themselves> outdated.) '''The LCSH being the LCC's attempt at classifying language to represent world cultures  LCSH is the LCC's attempt at classifying language to represent world cultures, but overall are constructions that were created to reflect the world views of those who contribute to them,  understanding the world from a Eurocentric and Christian perspective.. '''

-LCSH attempt at classifying language and represent cultures .. '''The LCSH is the LCC's attempt at classifying and represents.. though in its essence is a WEstern construction that reflects the eurocentric and christian world views of the LCC.'''

-constructions that reflect the eurocentric and christian world views of American LCC-- eurocentric and christian

(The LCC E Class (link) also fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations. It (confine, subjugate) Indigenous materials into its own history section, seperating it from US history. The majority of work about Indigenous topics is (confine) LC E99. The LCSH fails to show spatial, social, or cultural relationships among First Nations peoples--- Fails to classify/acknowledge the focus on relational epistimeology (Link) vital to Indigenous ways of being/culture.  A notable example is how most materials on Native American art is placed under the E classification instead of the typical N through NX. By seperating Indigenous art materials from general art materials leads to the implications the Native American art is not serious art.

A major concern of the LCSH from Indigenous perspectives is how it continues the use of the term 'Indian'. It also does not reflect the way Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and communities in North America prefer to represent themselves as individuals and collectives. The term Indian" is still being used heavily across North America in recent decades, even though scholarship is evolving and representation for indigenous authors in both mainstream and scholarly publishing is increasing. The LCSH's ambiguous nature leads to miscataloguing, thus continuation of harmful cataloguing practices only serves to reflect and instantiate discrimination present in the rest of American and Canadian society. For example, "Indians---Food" leads to South Asian Cuisine, and "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to native American or Indigenous cooking until second page on WorldCat. Secondly, it has been decades since the term "Indian" was an academically or socially acceptable demographic marker for Indigenous peoples. Outdated--> miscatalogue ---> It is argued that there is no reason in our society to use "Indians" except specifically when cataloging works relating to the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature.

The Xwi7wa Library in Vancouver uses the Brian Deer Classification System as an alternative KOS. It is the most well-known Indigenous KOS system.

The LCC and LCSH continue to perpetuate colonial biases towards Indigenous peoples. Current directions for the future of the LCSH and Indigenous studies are to update the word "Indian" to "Indigenous" and replace mythology with spirituality.

Outdated

-stayed focused on point, well-researched

-fully understandable

-acronyms-- ok

-sentence by sentence

-breaking things down into individual idea

Indigenous representation/studies
Within the realm of Indigenous studies, the LCSH Library of Congress Subject Headings attempt to classify language to represent the world's cultures and its bodies of knowledge They are social constructs that reflect world views of those who contribute to them. They are biased because they perceive and describe the world from a predominantly white Christian and Eurocentric perspective.

The LCC and LCSH continue to perpetuate colonial biases towards Indigenous peoples.

The LCC fails to show spatial, social, or cultural relationships among First Nations peoples. LC E99 places Aboriginal places in an historical ghetto

Alternate KOS system--The Xwi7xwa Library uses the Brian Deer Classification System, considered to me the most well known Indigenous knowledge organizing system. The E class fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of Aboriginal nations. ghettoize Native materials in history section, separating it from the rest of US history. most materials on Native American art will end up in the E classification instead of the N through NX classifications, not serious art.

Do not reflect the way Indigenous Peoples, Nations, and communities in North America prefer to represent themselves as individuals and collectives. These terms are still being used heavily across North America in the last five years, regardless of evolving scholarship and increased representation of Indigenous authors in both popular and scholarly publishing. It has become increasingly apparent that subject headings are often inaccurate, inappropriate and misrepresent the identities and works of these authors. Continuation of harmful cataloguing practices only serves to reflect and instantiate discrimination present in the rest of American and Canadian society. Considerable concern is the use of the word "Indians", it is ambiguous and leads to miscataloguing. For example, "Indians---Food" Leads to South Asian Cuisine. "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to native American or Indigenous cooking until second page on Worldcat. Secondly, it has been decades since the term "Indian" was an academically or socially accept demographic marker for Indigenous peoples. No reason in our society to use "indians" except specifically when cataloging works relating to the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature.

Current directions for the future of the LCSH and Indigenous studies are to update the word Indian to Indigenous and replace mythology with spiritualitity.

Outdated