[snip]
> A few weeks before Bush left office he signed into law an abstract
> that said that it was illegal for anyone to sell Indian Artifacts except
> Indians. It is against the law for anyone to say that what they are selling
> is an "Indian design" or an "Official Copy of an Indian design" except for a
> recognized Indian person. Secondly the law put Indiginous people under the
> headship of the Department of Interior and made it a law that it is illegal
> for Indians to own property in excess of what the Department of Interior has
> decided it should be.
[snip]
> Littlefeather
I don't believe this to be true. I don't have the wording in front of me,
but as I remember there are no restrictions on the race of the seller. The
law requires only that artwork represented as "Indian art" must be made by a
federally recognized Indian (a rare and elusive breed!). Penalties are
provided for artists that misrepresent themselves, and for sellers that
misrepresent their wares.
The second assertion is new to me. No federal agents have knocked at my
door to catalog my possessions yet, however. I would be surprised (kind of)
to learn that this is law.
As to the federal recognition part, I seem to remember a controversy
surrounding the Cherokee Nation shortly after this law went into effect.
Wasn't there some sort of official recognition of "Indian Artist" offered by
the CN? While I don't like to see the proliferation of non-Indian Indian
art, I applaud the CN for thumbing its nose at the Bush administration.
Finally, for a brilliant artistic commentary on this legislation, if you're
ever in Minneapolis and have a chance to get to the Walker Gallery, see a
piece by Ernie Whiteman called "Grandfathers, may I make art?"
*******************************
* Erik Phelps *
* University of Minnesota *
* PHELPS@EPIVAX.EPI.UMN.EDU *
*******************************