Running head: Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems Deborah Harnke Emporia State University LI804XC

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop, and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems Biases in all Classification Schemes

Classification theorists stress the importance of an objective approach in the construction of classification schemes. Ideally the scheme should not reflect the prejudices of its designer, rather they should represent some kind of eternal and external truth (Foskett, 117). While neutrality is one of the ethical positions advocated by librarianship, another is universal and equitable access to information for the benefit of all individuals. This concern of bias in classification can be linked to the nature of classification as a social construct. Classification schemes reflect the same biases of the culture that creates them (Olsen, 1998). This concept is not new; Foskett suggested that catalogers are products of their time. Since classifications are the product of their creators, classification schemes will therefore mirror the biases of their time. Given that all classification schemes are products of their time and are not free from biases, is it even fair or reasonable to strive for a bias-free classification system? Conversely, can there be any rationale in continuing in something we know is biased and imperfect? The following discussion will examine the most widely used library classification schemes, the Dewey Decimal Classification system and Library of Congress Classification system, with regard to one of their most glaring biases.

Classification Systems of Our Time

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems

The Dewey Decimal Classification systems (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) system have set the standard for library organization throughout the United States and a large portion of the world. They are the most heavily used classification systems today and have set the bar for organizing humanitys collective knowledge. Without conscious intent, they influence the way library users perceive the world. Libraries in the United States have devoted their time to classifying knowledge produced by a dominate class of Western society; a class dominated by white, Judeo-Christian men (Gilman, 2006). The DDC and LCC have been maintained the epistemological framework of the dominant class. Native Americans are one group of people who have been adversely affected by classification systems and subject heading that are based on an individuals perspective in time. The DDC and LCC both classify Native Americans as being historical people, not placing them in todays society and insinuating they are a dead culture. This has unfortunately reinforced harmful stereotypes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system has been subject to many critiques of bias and inadequate representation. Although, it has undergone several revisions, the system still reflects the viewpoints and opinions of its creator Melvil Dewey. To understand his classification system one needs to understand the creator behind it. Melville Louis Kossuth Dewey was born in 1851, in upstate New York. From childhood Dewey was fascinated with books. He became very interested in simplified spelling, shorthand, and the metric system. Dewey even shortened his

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems name to Melvil as a young adult, dropped his middle names and spelled his middle name Dui for a short period of time (OCLC). During his time at Amherst College he

worked in the library without a uniform system for organizing. At that point in time there was no standardized system for organizing books. Libraries would often assign a location on the shelf for each book and record where the book was to be found within the catalog. This fixed location system was not effective for collections that gained new materials. Deweys solution to this inefficient system was to combine a numbering system with a classification by subject. The result came to be known as the Dewey Decimal Classification system. The Dewey Decimal Classification system is a top down system. It was first published in 1876 and is currently it is in its 23rd edition. The hierarchy of classification is by discipline for which the work is intended, not by subject. Numbers at one level are subordinate to a class that is one digit shorter. The basic structure of the scheme has remained stable through time. It has ten main classes, a hundred divisions, and potentially a thousand sections. The method of arranging the classes hierarchically, the general order of the classes, the correspondence of main classes to academic disciplines, decimal notation, were all in place for Deweys first edition. Herbert Putman developed the Library of Congress Classification system (LCC) in 1897, prior to working at the library of Congress. Influenced by Charles Cutter Expansive Classification and the DDC, he specifically designed it for purposes of the Library of Congress and its collection. His classification replaced the previous system created by Thomas Jefferson that was a fixed location system. Putmans

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems system has been criticized as lacking sound theoretical basis, since many of the

classification decisions were driven by the practical need of that library rather than epistemological considerations. Different from the DDC, the LCC is a bottom-up classification system in which new areas of knowledge can be added as needed. In theory this should create a system that is able to be flexible as new information is acquired and organized.

DDC and Native Americans In the DDC the majority of Native American materials are classified in the 970s, General History of North America. This devalues the Native Americans of today and their culture, placing them as people only belonging in the past and not an active part of contemporary culture. Imagine searching for materials on your culture and having to find it in the history section. Facets are given for North American native people, Specific native peoples, Native people in specific places in North America, and Government relations with North American native peoples. The DDC also does not recognize the unique status of Native American nations concerning their legal systems or their governmental relationship with the United States. In general it is difficult to locate materials on Native Americans due to fractured arrangement within the DDC. There is no category for tribal sovereignty causing these subjects to be classified near civil rights. A similar unfairness is that Native American art is classified as crafts or primitive art not belonging near Art created by van Gogh or Monet. Spiritual beliefs are also classified as 299.7 other religion, as a mythology or folklore.

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems Further, there are some less obvious biases within the DDC. One example is the placement of colonization within the scheme. Olson (1998) remarks, colonization is classed at 325.3, with a note class here exercise political dominion over distant territories which is also linked to the DDC Index Term colonization. Olson suggests that while the term seems to be neutral, it is really one sided, showing the point of view of the colonizing power as opposed to the people and

culture being colonized. Winston Churchill was very right when he said, history is written by the victors.

LCC and Native Americans LCC also separates Native American materials in the History section. Indians of North America are in the E75-99; this is between Pre-Columbian American (E5173) and Discovery of America and early explorations (E100-143). Again, this devalues Native Americans and their rich culture that they currently have, placing them as people only belonging in the past. The LCC also organizes much of their materials in three subclasses: Geography belonging to E78, Topic to E98, and Tribes and Cultures to E99. Because topics are then alphabetized by these subclasses the classification system once again fails Native Americans because related topics are not by one another. Similarly, neighboring tribes are also not grouped together. Furthermore, the E99 section scatters a specific Tribes art, religion, and government making information difficult to find. Native American materials can also be found in subclass Native American arts and crafts NC825.I42. As mentioned above, this is a demeaning way to refer to

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems Native American art. A more appropriate place for their arts would be for other classically considered art or with their tribes classification. Law is categorized in the K class where materials for Native American law can be found between KF 8201-8228, and KF 5660-5662 for their lands. The law classification does not reflect the sovereignty of tribal governments. Furthermore, the LCC does not treat Native American nations consistently with nations, states, or cities. Native American law materials are classified just after materials related to the military (Carter, 2002). Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) have the intended audience of users of the Library of Congress, with the understanding that it serves users across the United States. LCSH has long been criticized for not adequately representing

marginalized groups. Hope Olson along with Rose Schlegl found 68 critiques on the basis of gender, race, religion, ethnicity and other factors (Olson, 2000). Charles Cutters Rules manage the choice of what terminology will be used to characterize a given subject. One such rule is that the convenience for the public is to be set before the ease of the cataloger. This places the public in the role of being the authority even when they may not be. The result is to reinforce the status quo of a society.

Possible Solutions Library content related to Native Americans remains poorly organized and largely inaccessible. Providing better access to these materials is vital if we are to preserve knowledge and protect the cultural and intellectual diversity of the world.

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems Researches should be able to find all the materials related to a group of people classified together in a single section. A solution to this problem may be found in Native Classification Systems.

These are based on the organization of ideas into categories that are consistent with Native worldviews and relevant to Native Americans. One such example is the Brian Deer Classification (BDC). Brian Deer, one of the first Native MLS librarians in Canada, created the BDC. He has created several different classifications systems for various libraries where he has been employed to meet the needs of that specific community. Within the system with each topic given its own notation, as new topics evolve they are added to the already existing format. It has been used for small community centered collections, however it is underdeveloped and needs expansion in many subject areas.

Conclusion DDC and LCC are tools that have been created by librarians who are products of their culture and place in history. These two systems include the standards, rules, and recommendations that are created to guide catalogers in the process of organizing library materials. This is done so library patrons are easily able to access information that is hopefully clearly organized. The purpose is that classifiers and library users may use such a controlled language to communicate among one another with fewer ambiguities, errors, and redundancies than might occur if they were instead to use a natural language (Furner, 2007).

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems American libraries symbolize democracy and intellectual freedom (ALA,

10

2008). Michael McLaughlin argues that ultimately the real purpose of libraries is to educate, or indoctrinate, people to particular ways of thinking. Although librarianship should be neutral at its core, it has been shown that classification systems fall short of this ideal. Some individuals may say these are only words, but language carries power and power is exercised in language (Yeo, 2006). ShinJoung Yeo argues that few librarians understand the underlying inequalities inherent in our classification system and are willing to challenge them. Complacency and inaction may be the result of not recognizing the history of oppression or not understanding how history affects our perception and guides our current and future practices and policies. We have discussed the inherent nature of bias in all classification systems. Are we to be content with knowing that all classification systems are biased in nature? If we do, what message are we sending to library users? More importantly, what message does that send to the class of individuals who are not considered to be the dominant class?

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems References American Library Association. (2008). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/ codeethics.cfm Carter, N. (2002). American Indians and law libraries: Acknowledging the third sovereign. Law Library Journal, 94(1), 7-26.

11

Dewey Decimal Classification Summary. (2011, November 16). OCLCs. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/summaries /default.htm Foskett, A. C. (1971). Misogynists All; A Study in Critical Classification. Library Resources and Technical Services, 15:2, 117-121. Furner, J. (2007). Dewey deracialized: A critical race-theoretic perspective. Knowledge Organization, 34:3. 144-168. Gilman, I. (2006). From marginalization to accessibility: Classification of indigenous materials. Faculty Scholarship, 6. Library of Congress Classification Outline. (2011, November 20th). Class E-F: History of the Americas. Library of Congress. Accessed from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/ Library of Congress Classification Outline. (2011, November 20) Class N: Fine Arts. Library of Congress. Accessed from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/ cpso/lcco/ McLaughlin, M. (2005). The need for American Indian librarians. Native American Times.

Misrepresentation of Native Americans in Classification Systems OCLC. (2011, November 13) How one library pioneer profoundly influenced

12

modern librarianship. Retrieved from http://www.anb.org/articles/09/0900229.html Olson, H. A. (1998). Mapping Beyond Deweys Boundaries: Constructing Classification Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains. Library Trends 47(2), 233-254. Olson, H. A. (2000). Difference, culture, and change: the untapped potential of LCSH. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 29:1-2, 53-71. United Nations. (1994.) Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Part 1: Article 4. Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ declra.htm Yeh, T. Y. (1971). The treatment of American Indian in the library of congress E-F schedule. Library Resources and Technical Service, 15(2). Yeo, S. and Jacobs, J.R. (2006). Diversity matters? Rethinking diversity in libraries. Counterpoise, 9(2), 5-8.