User:MuseumHours/Library of Congress Subject Headings

Library of Congress Subject Headings

Indigenous studies
The LCC's attempt at classifying indigenous materials is deemed inappropriate by many scholars of Indigenous studies and library and information science as it fails to accurately represent the identities and works of Indigenous peoples. LCSH have been criticized for their failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of Indigenous nations and for the way they quarantine Indigenous materials into their own section under Class E. The majority of Indigenous material are confined to 'E 99---Native American tribes and cultures', strictly separating Indigenous historical material from the rest of U.S History. Most materials on Indigenous art are placed under Class E instead of Class N, leading to the implications that Indigenous art is not serious art. LCSH also fail to represent how Indigenous ways of learning focus heavily on spatial, social and cultural relationships.

LCSH use the term "Indian" which is considered inappropriate for scholarly use outside of referencing the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature. The ambiguous nature of the word also perpetuates a cycle of miscataloguing. On WorldCat, the search terms "Indians---Food" give results on South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to Indigenous cooking.

Final Draft (notes and extras)
-questions:

indigenous capital or not-- yes.

heading title--- indig studies.

format ok

biased writing? essay like? 'for example' ok --- importance of the example--make it sound important dont downplay

until the second page on WorldCat. ---> original research??

-- in the WorldC

END

Embrace weasel words--

-It is a fact that Indigenous materials are innacurately represented---though it reads like a claim?

Subheading decision

.Another major criticism is how LCSH uses the term 'Indian" to describe Indigenous materials.

et al.

According to ____, (scholars) of library studies/studies setting apart Indigenous art materials from being classified under the universal fine arts section leads to the implications that indigenous art is not serious art.

---

Old Lead:

A number of Indigenous studies scholars recognize the Library of Congress Classification system and its subject headings to be Western constructions, whose attempts to classify and represent global cultures favor a Eurocentric and Christian perspective. This criticism primarily focuses on the E99 classification number ... Criticism towards the LCC take on Indigneous people majorly concerns the subclass E99. The "Class E" designation for classifying Indigenous materials under Class E as inaccurate representations of the identities and works of indigenous peoples.

Old conclusion:

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 the term "Indians" except specifically when cataloging works relating to the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature. .It has been decades. In particular, its use of the term "Indian" reveals ( classification/ methodological ) flaws in the LCC system, and the ambiguous nature of the word perpetuates a cycle of miscataloguing. For example, "Indians---Food" leads to South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to Indigenous cooking until the second page on WorldCat. bout The LCC assess that all material that they deem as about Indigenous culture, x, x is to confined to the subcless E99.

---

Thus, the continuation of harmful cataloguing practices only serves to reinforce discrimination present in the rest of American and Canadian society.---attribute to someone, claim is obvious enough -judgement , generally

--

attribute the claim to someone, acceptable to choose one--primary example, seem less like an arguement, according---

anything that is analysis, cut off; condensed.

Regarding Indigenous Studies
A number of Indigenous studies scholars recognize the Library of Congress Classification system and its subject headings to be Western constructions, whose attempts to classify and represent global cultures favor a Eurocentric and Christian perspective. As such, the "Class E" designation for classifying Indigenous materials under Class E as inaccurate representations of the identities and works of indigenous peoples.

There are many reasons as to why the use of Library of Congress Subject Headings are deemed inappropriate when classifying indigenous materials. Firstly, it fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of Indigenous nations. More notably, Class E quarantines indigenous materials into their own history section, isolating them from US History with almost all works specifically confined under LC E99 considered '---). A significant example of this separation is how most materials on indigenous art are placed under Class E instead of Class N. Setting apart Indigenous art materials from being classified under the universal fine arts section leads to the implications that indigenous art is not serious art. LCSH ** also fail 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, the LCC system is deemed outdated knowledge organizing practices.

A major concern is the LCSH's use of the term 'Indian" to describe Indigenous materials. Indigenous authors take issue with this term, and it is generally considered inappropriate for scholarly use outside the Indian Act. 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 the term "Indians" except specifically when cataloging works relating to the Indian Act, or similar historical legislature. .It has been decades. In particular, its use of the term "Indian" reveals ( classification/ methodological ) flaws in the LCC system, and the ambiguous nature of the word perpetuates a cycle of miscataloguing. For example, "Indians---Food" leads to South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to Indigenous cooking until the second page on WorldCat.

---

Thus, the continuation of harmful cataloguing practices only serves to reinforce discrimination present in the rest of American and Canadian society.---attribute to someone, claim is obvious enough -judgement , generally

--

attribute the claim to someone, acceptable to choose one--primary example, seem less like an arguement, according---

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

There are many reasons as to why the use of Library of Congress Subject Headings are 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 specifically confined under LC E99. A significant example of this separation is how most materials on indigenous art are placed under the E class instead of the N class. Setting apart Indigenous art materials from being classified under the universal fine arts section leads to the implications that indigenous art is not serious art. LCSH also fail 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 system and LCSH are deemed outdated knowledge organizing practices.

A major concern of the LCSH are how it continues the use of the term 'Indian' to describe indigenous materials. 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, its use of the term "Indian" reveals ( classification/ methodological ) flaws n the LCC system, and the ambiguous nature of the word perpetuates a cycle of miscataloguing. For example, "Indians---Food" leads to South Asian Cuisine, while "Indian cooking" does not yield any results relating to 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 the term "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 reinforce 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.

-clear, to the point

UNDERNEATH ARE EXCERPTS FROM ORIGINAL PAGE RELATING TO ^^

LCSH policy issues[edit]
Historically, given the complicated nature of the United States, its various ethnic groups, and changing society, numerous classification issues have been related to the terms used to identify racial or ethnic groups. The terms used to describe African Americans have changed over time, especially during the 20th century.

Until the 1990s, the LCSH administrators had a strict policy of not changing terms for a subject category. This was enforced to tighten and eliminate the duplication or confusion that might arise if subject headings were changed. As a result, the term 'Afro-American' to describe African-American topics in LCSH was used long after it lost currency and acceptance in the population. In 1996 LCSH decided to allow some alteration of terms to better reflect the needs and access of library users.

But, many common terms, or 'natural language' terms, are not used in LCSH. This may limit the ability of users to locate items. Research has increased in Library and Information Science faculties related to identifying and understanding the cultural and gender biases that affect the terms used in LCSH; these may limit or deprive library users access to information stored and disseminated in collections. In 2016 LCSH was subject to national news coverage when The Library of Congress decided to revise the heading 'Illegal aliens', an action opposed by congressional Republicans.

Sanford Berman, a notable American science scholar on this subject, has noted the difficulty in finding material on certain topics, such as various denialisms, because the Library of Congress has not yet incorporated the natural language terms for them, for example, climate change denialism, into LCSH.

As ideas about human sexuality have changed in the United States since the late 20th century, the LCSH has been criticized for biased organization and description of materials on sexuality. For instance, works about heterosexuality are scarcely labeled as such in LCSH; this suggests that heterosexuality is the norm and only queer sexuality needs a separate classification.

Developments in Canada[edit]
LCSH representatives worked with staff of the National Library of Canada to create a complementary set of Canadian Subject Headings (CSH) to express the topic content of documents on Canada and Canadian topics.

In addition, the Brian Deer Classification System, developed by librarian A. Brian Deer (Mohawk) for Aboriginal materials to express First Nations relationships, has been adapted for use in several First Nations libraries in Canada. It has been described as a valuable tool for "the decolonization of library collections created for and by Indigenous people,” as it allows for the "expression of indigenous world views." The Xwi7xwa Library at the Vancouver branch of the University of British Columbia use First Nations House of Learning (FNHL) Subject Headings, a local variant of Brian Deer's system. It is fully integrated with the main UBC Library.

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. 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