 Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to our symposium, Contested Collections Grappling with History and Forging Pathways for Repetriation. My name is Jade Alburo and I'm the librarian for Southeast Asian Studies and Pacific Island Studies at UCLA. And I'm also one of the co-leads for the symposium's planning team. This afternoon's program is the third of four programs of this symposium, and we will be talking about Beyond NAGPRA Centering Cultural Sovereignty and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. So let us now begin with a welcome video from Virginia Steel, the UCLA Norman and Aramina Powell University Librarian. Hello everyone. Thank you for joining us for this symposium, Contested Collections Grappling with History and Forging Pathways for Repetriation. My name is Ginny Steel and I am the Norman and Aramina Powell University Librarian at the UCLA Library. As we begin today, I would like to acknowledge that as a land grant institution, we at UCLA acknowledge the Gabrielino Tongva peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tobongar, which includes the Los Angeles Basin and the South Channel Islands. And with our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, we believe that understanding the historical and current experiences of Indigenous peoples informs the work we do. So again, thank you for coming today. We're really happy to have you here as we open this discussion about repatriation, particularly repatriation as it applies to materials that are held in libraries and archives. As many of us may have realized when thinking about the general topic of repatriation, much of the discussion we've heard over the last several decades has focused on artifacts in museums and art held in museums and galleries. But there's been relatively little attention paid to materials that are in libraries and archives. At UCLA, we were contacted a few years ago by a Jewish institution in Munich to return a book to our collection that belonged to their library but was looted by the Nazis. We gladly returned the item but didn't think much more about it. Last year we were contacted another time, a second time, this time by the Jewish Museum in Prague. A curator there contacted Diane Mizrahi, our librarian for Jewish and Israel Studies. They had identified three books through Hadi Trust that rightfully belong to their library. The scanned images in Hadi Trust included their property stamps and accession numbers. When Diane communicated the news to her colleagues in the International and Area Studies Department in the UCLA library, their outreach team led by Jade Alburo felt that it was important not just to share what UCLA is doing in repatriating these books, but to use it as a jumping off point to initiate a broader dialogue about repatriation, why there's a need for it in the first place, and why it continues to be a difficult and complicated discussion. This symposium provides a more global context for this conversation by acknowledging the long history of colonialism, war, and even field research that has led to cultural heritage materials being taken from their communities and countries. As libraries, archives, and other cultural memory institutions begin to talk about decolonizing their collections, it is crucial to recognize that decolonization is not just about adding underrepresented voices to our collections, but it's also about understanding how materials in our collections came to be there, how they were obtained, whether they were taken from their original owners without their consent, and whether and how they should be returned to the communities and individuals from whom they were taken. In this symposium, you will hear about various issues related to repatriation, including notions of ownership and caretaking. You'll hear examples from museums and libraries, because we hope that many institutions will be interested in exploring and implementing reparative practices. You will also hear examples of existing policies and procedures that institutions and government agencies have put in place. And we'll have some ideas for working with the communities that own the materials in the first place. We're very happy to have you with us as we explore this for ourselves and determine what our next step should be. At the UCLA library, we are very committed to restitution, and we do expect to do more in the future. We hope you will be too. I'd like to thank everyone at UCLA who's been involved in the planning of this symposium, Jade Alburo and Tula Orem for leading the planning team, as well as members Alina Ising, Dana Laterer, and Yesenia Perez. Additional thanks to Sharon Farb, Shannon Tanhai Ahari, Giselle Rios, Magali Salas, the library communications team, and library business services. And thank you to the UCLA Allen D. Levy Center for Jewish Studies for cosponsoring this symposium. We appreciate all the hard work of all these individuals and the contributions that have been made, and we thank you for bringing us all together. And to our viewers and members of the audience, thank you again for joining us today. We're looking forward to continued discussion with many of you as we all try to figure out what the best way is to approach the need for us to look at our collections and identify materials that were taken without consent from their owners, and return them to the communities and individuals where they belong. Enjoy the symposium. Thank you for those words. And now it's my great pleasure to introduce to you our moderator Camille Collison. Camille Collison is a member of the Taltan Nation and is the University Librarian at the University of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, and a cultural activist pursuing a PhD in anthropology at Manitoba. Her research critically examines the role of cultural memory institutions and their relationships with indigenous peoples and their diverse knowledges, languages and cultures by examining best practices related to recovery, revitalization, appropriate access and repatriation. Everybody, welcome Camille Collison. Thank you very much, Jade. I'm really honored to be here today. And I appreciate the invitation. It's my honor to, to moderate this panel and we're going to start off with two very distinguished guests today, Dr. Wendy Giddens. Dr. Wendy Giddens is a cultural resource archaeologist for the Sanctum has been up to mass Indians and soon to be retired senior curator for archaeology for the Fowler Museum, UCLA's repatriation coordinator and lecturer in UCLA's American Indian Indian Studies. She has copied on to community based digital projects, mapping indigenous Los Angeles 2015 and carrying our ancestors home in 2019 is also the co director of the panel Catalina Island Archaeological Project in 2007. She serves on several boards and committees, including the UC presidents, Native American Advisory Council, the indigenous archaeological collective and chair of the Society for California Archaeology Curation Committee, and as a founder and advisory board member for the UCLA tribal learning community, and educational exchange program. It's also my pleasure to introduce her co speaker, Dr. Mishana. She is a professor in gender studies and American Indian Studies and affiliated faculty in community engagement and critical race studies in the law school at UCLA. She is also the inaugural special advisor to the Chancellor on Native American and indigenous cultural affairs, and the associate director of the Center for the Study of women in 2020 and 2021 she was a distinguished visiting scholar with the Center for diversity innovation at the University of Buffalo located in your home center Along with journal and book chapter she is also the author of Mark my words native women mapping our nations in 2013 co editor for keywords and gender sexuality in 2021 and co-finance community based digital project mapping indigenous la 2015 and carrying our ancestors home in 2019 and also the California native so it's my honor to turn it over to you now. Now I see Khan everybody we're very happy to be here, Wendy and I, and join you on this very important discussion. Wendy and I thought we would talk a little bit about how we began this project, and part of that occurred, because we were talking as a American Indian Studies scholar over the years. I thought I knew about NAGPRA, I thought you know I knew the legal literature, I knew the theoretical literature from the various disciplines such as anthropology sociology, literature, even. I, I, there's there's many poems about repatriation that I truly love. But it wasn't until I started started working with Wendy that I really began to think about about what that means in that process, my daughter became an archaeologist and anthropologist and through her she began to participate in indigenous archaeology as well. She eventually got a job at a museum and a job at a university. And so I learned through that process the toll that that takes on one. And so Wendy and I, we're going to write a book together. And we quickly decided that wrangling people to write a book and doing that editorship, not only would that take a lot of time and a lot of process, but also wouldn't have the dissemination that we thought was needed from our work with tribal community members. So, instead, we decided to that a digital heritage project would be a lot more beneficial to bring to bring to people as well. Possibilities with digital humanities include tribal voices and centering those tribal stories as well. That's easier sometimes because typical officers and CRM officers do not have the time or capacity often to write the story. Those stories aren't being told. But we did realize that in our in my capacity as the kind of more of a theoretician and somebody that does community engaged research that we could have that use of academia to do the research. And that public outreach could go back and forth in the conversation wouldn't be just flowing in one direction, or flowing in no direction in a book that might not get read or may get read, etc. Or make it read in classes but then not not disseminated to the community because these books often tend to be quite expensive as well. So we began to think of that. I'm going to turn it here to Wendy to talk about her practitioner experience also. Thanks, Michana. And exactly, you know, I think this is the important part is is what you mentioned is the lack of diversity and what what information was being forefronted and sort of scholarship around repatriation and NACRA. And what that what that really how that impacted the way people thought about repatriation, which is tended to be very black and white in everything should go home. Everything should be returned. And without really thinking about what kinds of difficulties and challenges, non museums, tribal communities were facing and doing this work, both from a from a physical putting oneself in harm's way and having to take responsibility for deceased relatives and individuals they no longer had connection to and knew about to just the very fact of what does it mean to rebury. There's there's if you try to type rebury inside or rebury all inside a document. It doesn't exist. It's not a real turn right you're supposed to bury you're dead and you don't have to rebury them. So just the very concept is is actually kind of perverse very perverse. And we have a lot of these conversations in the act of doing repatriation with tribes. We've been talking together about what this work is, and the financial responsibility, where does the money come from, where does the supplies one need in order to keep one safe come from, where does the time when you're trying to take you know, where's the basic needs for tribal community and acting in your way in sovereignty and taking care of your relatives. How do you then find time to take care of those have come before. There's all sorts of very big layers to this work. It is amazing and it's incredibly important to not shortchange how long it took to even get the opportunity to be able to remove ones loved ones from display inside museums, and small historical centers just removing them from from view, but then getting them treated with dignity respect and then getting them home. That took decades, decades and decades of really important work. So I don't want to shortchange that but then on the on the other side of that, then being able to explain to people that just because a community is unable to provide the information provide the time and the financial resources in order to get their loved ones because it becomes a choice of do you put, do you prioritize getting deceased ones home, or do you make sure a project doesn't destroy a burial site. These are often real decisions that tribal historic preservation office directors have to make or or cultural departments or elders councils and trying to take care of that I feel like these conversations were being lost in what was being written about and Miss Shawna and I really had a chance and and so many other my colleagues in American New Studies to really discuss what are often very sensitive issues and what we definitely don't really talk about outside of that repatriation contacts between the tribes and the museums themselves. So we wanted to be able to provide a safe opportunity for people to hear directly from first voices, and also to acknowledge the long history that happened at UCLA in order to make us one of the leaders in being able to repatriate and giving space for non non federally recognized tribes to also be able to return their ancestors and in what it what it actually means. Is that a good place to turn it back over to you, Miss Shawna. Yeah, so I'm kind of playing the timeline here because one of the other aspects that we realize it's everybody thinks repatriation began in 1992. What they don't look at is on the ground. American Indian activists and indigenous activists who made that law happen in 1992. Now as Angela Riley who chairs the committee says and Wendy and all of us say a lot is only as good as this implementation. But even before that we began to see early notions of repatriation. And so the thought that it was the law that makes indigenous people want their ancestors back is often what students come to the table thinking, when in reality, this has been something that people have pushed for all their for their entire act lives. I just recently heard a story from my uncle who is involved in the American Indian movement out of Boston all over he did a lot of. He did a lot of activisms in the 60s and 70s, and he told me this wonderful story about how he just went in. And, well, there it was a story I probably I don't even know legally if I should say, but, but these are something that people wanted, they didn't want to see their ancestors on display and this has always been the case. So the law, while it makes this highlights this, I, Wendy and I also found that it's really important to understand that before the law, there was all kinds of movement that occurred on the ground as well. As early as I'm going to get the date wrong, Wendy, you can correct me 1902 or 1906, but was the first repatriation case at Berkeley. Right is which date is it when they like I'm not. Yeah, I want to say 1896, but it could be 1906. Yeah, it was early. But they had been fighting for their ancestors to be returned and against Berkeley so we want to think about what that might mean and how much how long that has taken Berkeley to comply which has one of the worst reputations in the country. As well. So, boss only as good as this implementation. What does it take to have a university, a museum, etc, recognize the importance of this for people, but also the process that's involved, because as Wendy was saying, it's, it's also about who has the finances to do it. In a way, when we began this project and such, we have many anthropology departments who are like, oh, we don't collect, we don't do that anymore, we don't, you know, unburry and do this massive amounts of collections and things. But you did. In what now, what do we do now how do we move on, how do we be ethically responsible even to the past upon which major anthropology departments are built on. How do we hold them responsible, because the financial aspect of this disinterment of our ancestors and our cultural items often falls on the tribes themselves. And it's not just the financial aspects. It's the emotional and poignant aspects. And with that, I really hope you can check out our timeline here, as well as the many talks that we have. I believe every university should have a timeline, especially if they still hold human remains on what they're doing and have that public outward look for that as well. But we wanted to mostly show you today, this really poignant video that we comprise in order that people could begin to understand how just how important this subject is to tribal practitioners so let's turn to the voices themselves. Shemawih, Shatibah, Shemawih. For me, you know, my ancestors, my human ancestors are a direct connection to that sacred time of creation. You know, with our narratives, you know, and like some people will talk about, well, I pray to God, you know, and for me, it just seems like something that's so powerful that I couldn't have that direct relationship that I do it through my ancestors. There's a link to my life today. I see them everywhere I go, even if it's in the animals with the plants, I see it everywhere. So it's not something that's just in the distant past that you can easily forget. It's almost like in a building court that you have attached to the land or attached to the ancestors, and it's always going to be for you. No matter where you go, it's always going to be there. We're just trying to make ourselves whole again. This is who our ancestors used to make it to. You learn from textbooks and you can learn from the visual. So I believe that's the reason why for repatriation is it's just that sense of being a whole again. You know, we're frightened as Indian people and there's pieces of us all over the world now. Some of the stuff just got to different places. A lot of tribal communities lost so much information and lost a lot of connection. And we had to stop being who we are as people and start becoming as someone else. So repatriation for many tribes is just a simple as bringing things back home. Native people were sold off down into the block, such as down in Los Angeles, what is now known as La Plaza, were sold off to rancherias and made to work. So in the 1950s, we see assimilation policies do boarding schools through relocation and termination. And then we also see the state impinging on sovereignty or moving into reservation territories. But I knew the importance of getting on the inside because so many times if you stand on the outside and try to make change, which is also important too, but getting on the inside, I think it can be well effective. Could we make archaeologists understand that our worldview was just as important as their needs as well as perhaps we can educate them. So I represent my tribe, Chonga, on cultural resources issues, preservation of sacred sites, and I've had archaeologists ask me point blank. So are you trying to change the entire practice of archaeology? I am trying to highlight that this is a study about a culture and a group of people that are still alive. And those perspectives and those viewpoints should be incorporated in any decisions that are being made about either resources or how you would write up an ethnographic account or how you would portray the definition of an item or a site or a resource that you have people living that have indigenous knowledge. Which, yes, may not be rooted in written history, but is rooted in an oral history that's valid, is rooted in indigenous value system, life ways that are still current and still being practiced. And that information is equally as valid as whatever scientific or archaeological information is being brought to continue. So that is a good place to stop there because I know we're running out of time and we wanted to talk about where we went since then, since some of these beginning videos that include what is NAGPRA for the introduction to what will be our centering tribal stories in times of disaster grant. And once we'll be creating 12 modules and we're working with UC Davis, UC Riverside, and UC San Diego, and we will be kind of discussing all of the various issues about repatriation, cultural heritage item, etc. Across the board, not all of them, but as many as we can possibly it feels like all of them some days. But we'll be talking, for instance, about wellness at UCLA we're talking about water rights access to water rights access to what that means when water in the flow of it and development in Los Angeles continues to disentere people, because we are talking about repatriation today, but there's an ongoing process and ongoing disentering of native people particularly in various zones so we address and federally recognized unrecognized. How can you heal from trauma or how can you move beyond this when it's still occurring. We'll also be looking at future T will be in one of the modules that we are working on is art and cultural heritage items, some people just look at it in a settler temporality. Like this is a past people are trying people are trying to obtain, but no it's it's it's the future in these in these cultural items that people really care about it creates a future for our artists a future for our singers a future for our basket weavers. And that's something that we look at as well and they have 10. Well, 10 to 12 modules but they're they're quite meaty modules so far. Wendy, do you want to discuss any of them. It's just really I wanted to just sort of point out just how important and how diverse the stories are. And so the Centering Tribal stories was really an opportunity for Michonne and I to extend the rafters as the hodashani say, and be able to incorporate all of the different ways in which something like repatriation touches each, each community. So we have often sort of thought about what does it mean to bring the ancestors home but it's way more about those connections. And it could be reconnection to land it can be reconnection to art and all of those and so we wanted to also again broaden the scope, because it's way more than than just talking about bringing ancestors home. It's that revitalization and that space in order to to practice culture without being dismissed or belittled as as Laura mentioned in the video. And this is what Michonne and I have been hearing from so many of our colleagues. So we look forward to there being lots more videos and lots more opportunities for you all to learn in the classroom and share them and share those voices even if you can't have people come in. And there will be four components to each module, each will have an original material whether it's a video and interview or map is is also might be on the board. My particular favorite thing to work with it but all the questions will we come from interviews and from what tribal practitioners really care about. There will be primary documents that will be pulled from university archives and libraries, and there will be secondary sources of analysis, and we'll also be doing classroom assignments that are appropriate from the practitioner's point of view. As always with Wendy and I's projects are digital projects we try to run everything by the community, not just once, but, but many many times until we can get it appropriately right to some of the names of the modules. The first module will be what is that crap the second will be land introductions and what I'm on seven I have seven podcasts that will be released in the UC system about the university and tribal relationships and student relationships as well. Navigating land repatriation rematriation that you see Davis is doing health consequences and caring for the ancestors which Cliff Traffs are will be working on and he he went well above and beyond it wasn't just one video he did or one thing he he took six really important tribal practices in the in the Riverside area, and that their notions of wellness and repatriation and why it was important from CRMs and typos artifacts art and present practice I don't like that title so I'll probably change it but art and present practice will be what we also look at climate change on cultural heritage that at UC Davis is about Rivera Colazo will look at that from Puerto Rico perspective and what it means for climate change in Puerto Rico when the beaches expose cultural heritage items there. I think that's really going to be an important one where which often doesn't get discussed is the effects of climate change on cultural heritage protection. So ecological knowledge at caravan now, Wendy is heading that up but we have now also we will work with Bayona Creek area which many of you may know as Silicon Beach area, which was a site of mass destruction, one of our tribal people that we work with quite closely Desiree Martinez is part of the indigenous archaeology lab. And we're ready to do that now so we waited till they were ready, protecting do you know Mike data of indigenous communities we have keolu Fox who's cannot go Molly, he will be looking at that in terms of Hawaii. And then we're working with Siba, hopefully on on a particular basket weavers preserving promoting and perpetuating a healthy environment for weavers, and then terminated non recognized tribes by Mark mench daily own, who also will be working with his own tribes. As well, in northern California, and he'll be looking about what does it mean to have a voice within these issues, and then we're working with a wonderful beautiful film which I know is almost that completion, called homeland or day he will lock which Hulain hulaeia Synogyny is one of my favorite artists will be working on as well. And so that will that will kind of be coupled with the land instructions around the same. So that is what we are working on. That's the future of what we're hoping to do. And eventually and I'm going to let Wendy talk to the international aspect we hope to work on. But with this, this particular centering tribal stories and times a disaster we hope to create a curriculum that we can use in the community try the developing tribal community colleges across California, so that there will be a direct credit from tribal community college into the universities because it's not good enough just to have videos, you have to disseminate, and you have to have people within the university that can also interact and be trained to do to typo CRM management practitioner stuff. Wendy, do you want to talk about the international. I'm really quickly because I know we have to move on but I will say that everything as it's being created will be available through our carrying our ancestors home website which Mishana has shared, I believe in the chat. And that's where you should look we're using the Mukheru platform, and which is a really important and we really hope to add in we've already started working with Rapa Nui and tape Papa and we we hope to add more of the national stories, more stories within the shumash homelands, and, and all of our peers so be sure to reach out to us and we're happy to answer more questions and we're always looking for new collaborators. So if you can visit our website, we will have the what is NAGPRA up, curriculum up shortly actually very shortly before even fall. And then we also have a lot of primary resource material online. And as there have been that per repatriation recordings, we have asked people if we could share them on our website so that's a great place to go for resources. So now with that. Well, thank you. Well, thank you very much. Amadou, I really appreciated learning about that and the module sound fascinating. Thank you so much. I appreciate that and our next panelist today in the continuing presentation for beyond NAGPRA centering cultural sovereignty and indigenous knowledge system. It is a chief in Tawani. And then Malerba, which she is the 18th chief of the Mojican tribe and the first female chief in the tribes modern history she follows her mother. And then she served on the tribal council and her great grandfather chief Madagascar in tribal leadership. Prior to becoming chief she was the chairwoman of the tribal council and served in the tribal government as executive director of health and human services. She then had a love, a lengthy career as a registered nurse and served as the director of cardiology and pulmonary services at Lawrence and Memorial Hospital. She's earned both a doctorate in nursing practitioners at Yale University and was named a Jonas scholar. She also awarded an honorary doctorate in science from Eastern Connecticut State University and a second doctorate, an honorary doctorate degree in female letters from the University of St. Joseph. So currently she's the chair of the tribal self-governance advisory committee of the federal Indian health service and is a member of the justice department's tribal nations leadership council the tribal advisory committee for the National Institute of Health and the tribal advisory committee and she serves United South and Eastern tribes board of directors secretary. So it's my honor to welcome you here today and I apologize if I mispronounce that. You did just great. And I say greetings and Camille I would ask you to kind of come back on screen when my time is up just so that I don't go over my time. But I do appreciate everyone's participation and I'm so anxious to hear everyone's presentations because they're really terrific and so I would say a week is good day. I'm telling what's a hash I am called chief many hearts Lynn Malerba. And so I'm going to begin my discussion with a video, and then I'm going to share with you a little bit about how we've approached repatriation and repatriation, it's a bit different. And I'm going to share a video that we made with with Cornell University, because they were very, you know, very instrumental in returning some very important documents to us. So let's see if I can do this in the right way here. We've lost so much over the years and then we have a chance to bring some of the back that it's just absolutely an amazing gift. I'm very grateful and it's very heartfelt. It's very emotional. In our Mochigan beliefs, when someone creates something whether it's the written word, or whether it's, you know, a bowl or, you know, a piece of wampum, you imbue your spirit into those into those objects. And we knew that Fidelia really wasn't keeping her diaries and her documents for the Mochigans of that present day that she was in but it really was to leave a legacy behind for future generations. Fidelia knew that she needed to preserve that language and those words. And so her work is extremely important to us, because as we look at restoring our language now, just having her documents and her spirit come home to us is going to be very meaningful to our entire community. It is clear that the having the diaries with the Mochigan tribe as they work on this language project was really, would be critical for success. So we're pleased that we'll be able to transfer them in preparation for the transport of the collection to Connecticut. Every item was given an individual protective enclosure, which helps suffer any changes in the environment that they might experience along that journey. And then they're consolidated inside the custom made clamshell box, which gives it physical and chemical protection during that time. We temporarily look off the material. So that's what we do. So we're very grateful that they're coming home such a good condition and probably there all these years. It's a privilege and an honor for us. We just are still, I guess, lost up at the fact that, you know, we're able to receive her words back into our community. So I wanted to share a little bit about our approach to repatriation and rematriation because NACPRA is a very important law, but it doesn't always serve our purposes well. And to go back to why some of our collections are objects of cultural patrimony ended up in museums. It dates back to the early 1700s, 1800s, when archaeologists and anthropologists thought they were doing tribes a favor by digging up our burial grounds by taking our articles of cultural patrimony and putting them in museums. And at the time, the thinking was that the tribes would vanish, that we would no longer exist. And so therefore they were preserving our histories for us. And as we know, despite all of their best efforts, we are still here, and we're proud to still be here. And as we think about those objects of cultural patrimony, no one has the right to alienate them from our tribal community. And I will talk a little bit about Yale and Cornell as you just saw that video and then Dartmouth because those are our three biggest events of cultural repatriation and rematriation. Yale University had many, many, many artifacts, very important artifacts in their museum at the Peabody Museum. And they had them there for years. And one was a mortal and pestle that went back to the early 1700s. Another was a bowl with inlaid wampum that was Chief Uncas' daughter's bowl. And another was a doll. And then multiple, multiple items that had been dug up from our burial grounds. And initially, when we approached Yale, they were very hesitant to give the articles back to us. And, you know, we started to go down the path of NAGPRA, but we decided that rather than using law, we would use diplomacy. And so we chatted with the president of Yale and we chatted with David Skelly, who is a director of Yale Peabody Museum, to talk about why those objects belonged with Mohegan because they do contain our ancestors and they do contain our history. But our history and our ancestors inform who we are today. And it allows us to connect with our unique cultural heritage and bring that forward for further generations. And so as we talked about it, and we continue to talk about it, David Skelly, who is the director of Yale Peabody had a wonderful idea. He said, you know, museums do intramuseum, museum to museum transfers all the time. So rather than go through NAGPRA, why don't we just do a museum to museum transfer. We have a wonderful museum. It's oldest Indian owned and run museum in the United States. It was formed in the 1930s. The collar of our great chief unkiss from the 1600s his wampum collar still intact in that museum. So we know that we can take care of anything that comes back to us and we recently built a cultural preservation center that has can house all of our archaeological artifacts as well as allow us to do research. And so as we talked about it that became a very simple process we developed a letter of agreement, and all of those objects came back to us and we were so thrilled to have them back in our community we have a celebration for that. So we began talking to Cornell University because we understood that Fidelia Fielding's diaries had been somehow ended up in their library and I think it had a very circuitous route to get there. But again, we believe that her words will help us with our language restoration project, because she was writing those those words in English and Mohegan and keeping those diaries in English and Mohegan. And so she was talking to herself for future generations because she was beaten for speaking that language but I think she had, she was prescient she knew that we would restore our language at some point in time and so she preserved those languages for us and that language for us. And Cornell University was just fabulous as soon as we approached the president and we always from a diplomatic perspective we would from a government to the president of the university is how we would approach it and then they would typically steer us to whomever would be making the decision. And so when we approached the president she absolutely was supportive and and sent us to Gerald Beasley who was the head librarian at the time and as he said, we were keepers and we were keeping this but absolutely we know that they these words belong with you and we are happy to return them home. So flash forward to just a few weeks ago, one of our tribal counselors attended Yale and she is a Yale tribal advisor and is on a committee with the Dartmouth College. Dartmouth had all of the papers from Samson Occam, who was a very revered person and his writings predate Fidelia Fielding's writings, his writings were from the 1700s. And so he was educated by Elisa Wheelock, and he was fluent in Algonquin languages, he was fluent in Greek, Latin and English, and he was an ordained minister as well as an herbalist. So he traveled to England to raise funds for Dartmouth College, which was supposed to be in Lebanon, Connecticut, and it was supposed to be a college to educate Indian students and Indian children by that and he raised the equivalent of about $6 million, I believe, in pounds in the 1700s when he was in England and when he returned home, he found out that the charter for the college had been changed, it was no longer going to be to educate Indian people, and that it was going to be relocated to Hanover and New Hampshire. So he has a treasure trove of documents about all of his travels throughout New England, thank you Camille, as well as his work in England and his work with Dartmouth. So now we have all of his documents home and his manuscripts home, but it was really through diplomacy that we were able to accomplish this. And we are so grateful to those universities for actually remembering that where all of those documents and and objects of cultural patrimony should be are with the people who created it so I will leave my comments there but thank you Camille for giving me the heads up, and I will look forward to everyone else's comments and presentations, thank you. Thank you so much, that was a wonderful presentation and I really enjoyed it and learned quite a bit from you. My pleasure to now introduce Dr. Jennifer O'Neill, who is an assistant professor at Indigenous, race and ethnic studies at the University of Oregon, and a co-director of the Native American and Indigenous studies academic residential community. She's an enrolled member of the Confederate tribes of Van Raj in Oregon, and her interdisciplinary research and teaching focuses on Native American and international relations, history with an emphasis on sovereignty, self determination, cultural heritage, global indigenous rights, activism and legal issues so it's dedicated to central indigenous traditional knowledge, developing place based education and implementing guidelines for the ethical research of Native American communities and management of cultural heritage collections. She, over the last 15 years she has led the implementation of the best practices for Native American archival materials in the non-tribal repositories in the United States through the collection development and sharing of the protocol for Native American archival materials that were developed and presented in 2006 so welcome Jennifer. Thank you Camille for the great introduction and I know a few people shared some a lot of great links already I just put in the actual original link to the protocols for Native American archival materials in case anyone wants to take a look at that and just have that as a resource. I first just want to give a huge thanks to all the organizers and people who work behind the scenes to put this conference together. It's wonderful to be able to see all of this work come together and just want to honor and recognize my fellow presenters as well. So what I'm going to talk about today is, I feel like a good book into a lot of what has already been presented today just kind of giving a conclusion of not only what's been talked about but echoing a lot of what has already been said and kind of ways forward and just some of my thoughts around particularly the repatriation of not only objects but focused on archival materials. So as what you'll hear me talk about is really echoing a lot of what you've heard from our speakers today and building upon what they've already said with their really great examples and projects so their projects that have been presented today really reflect this larger shift over the last decade where institutions and researchers are collaborating and building respectful relationships with Native American and Indigenous people whose collections they stored or whose collections they are working to return. And I just also want to echo what Mishana and others have said that although NAGPRA was developed and passed in the early 90s and 1992, much of the work and activism around this law even happened even before that and so much work has happened after that. And much of the work that I've been involved with has centered around how we can create protocols and guidelines for archives that are not included in NAGPRA and that the gaps that are created when mainly objects are covered by that law that what do you do when you have archives and records and photographs and recordings that are not connected to that law and how do we ensure that those collections not only are properly cared for with protocols but also how can we actually have the return of those collections. So this much needed change in curatorial and research practices comes from this larger awakening and reckoning by non-Native curators and researchers in various different disciplines to both the colonized and unsettled past colonial paternalistic collecting and research practices that have displaced, dissociated and disconnected collections from Indigenous communities. In addition to institutions realizing their curatorial responsibility to collaborate responsibly with Indigenous people, this change is also due in part to the implementation of Indigenous research methods, curriculum and training in undergraduate and graduate programs where we have both Native and non-Native academics who are increasing their understanding of knowledge of centering Indigenous ways of knowing into their research and curatorial practices and how can we go beyond the law and how can we ensure that collections are returned to Native communities. So this turn toward return and decolonial practices also stems from an increasing number of Native American and Indigenous people working in repositories and in the Academy and of course amazing incredible tribal leaders who are at the center of a lot of these projects which you're hearing about today. So these practitioners and scholars, elders are increasingly finally consulted and providing expertise which is being shared today to help really guide these projects. So what I want to do though is just turn toward some of the gaps though that we're seeing or where we need to really turn some of our attention and just more of thinking in the future and the current major challenges that we're seeing. So while many institutions are finally making some of these much needed changes to their collections, there are still many that need to acknowledge and recognize many of these problematic colonial histories and substantial changes that need to occur in their repositories and many finally are doing that work. And we've seen increasingly again over the past 10 to 15 years, many repositories who are working with Native American tribes and collections to collaborate on those collections. And, and that's often done by the acknowledgement of how the collection was acquired, and also ways that the community can be involved with their, the curation of those collections. But what I want to turn toward is actually the return of some of those collections and why that's so important. So rather than just simply digitizing content and hiring Indigenous archivists, which are definitely important steps, institutions also need to establish long term collections policies that hold these institutions accountable for their colonial collecting policies, ensuring that Indigenous people have not only meaningful access to these collections, but hold the institutions accountable and how the institutions can actually work to return collections if that is in the best interest of the communities which we're seeing. We saw some really great examples that were shared just before this of where that is in what's in the best interest of these communities. So, we're seeing some examples of that. Of course, this is not without its challenges, but many scholars and institutions have and continue to address this and find some solutions to these issues through providing access context and the either digital return or physical return of collections. And what I want to acknowledge here is that while the digital return of collections has become a solution for some institutions to provide Indigenous communities access to and connection with the collections. This process fails to provide the actual physical return of and so tribal communities are not able to actually physically interact with the collections, sometimes if there's a digital return but not a physical return. And of course digital people want and have the desire to actually physically interact with those collections and because that is centering that knowledge and the physical item in back into their community. So, no matter the medium, the collection, whatever that might be whether it's a photograph or a document or a journal. These items hold really strong relational and holistic meaning for our communities. Being able to have that physical access to it is just as important is also providing digital return which is also, of course, a meaningful step in the right direction, but we really want to get to how can we provide and have a physical return. So what I wanted to highlight is just some of what we're seeing in this area and, as I mentioned you're you're already seeing some of the examples here that was provided before. While a digital return and decolonization must continue to be the baseline for these collections. We must also I think forward and think about what are more substantial goals for indigenizing research archives and the return of collections. So I'm, what I'm asking is us to think about how to shift the standard beyond just digital return but actual the physical return. And what I mean by this and it's already been noted before, but much of what we see in a lot of our community is so much time and attention that's had to be spent on many of our tribal elders as well as those who are tribal cultural heritage managers have to spend so much time on these issues. And so we just want to highlight that while NAGPRA exists as the legislative authority for the return of objects. It's important to think about how materials and archives are not included in that and how currently federal or state laws do not exist for the return of archival collections that document those sacred indigenous traditional knowledge. So the digital return of cultural heritage collections has increasingly of course become the solution. But when institution are not legally mandated to physically return collections that can kind of be another kind of way around it. However, what I would like to suggest is we think about ways of returning collections are in the spirit of the law. And just because a lot does not yet exist doesn't mean institutions can't already return collections and we're seeing that in the precedents that are being set here for the Mohegan tribe, working with Yale and with Dartmouth. So while the return of collections is not as prevalent in archives, it does not mean it's not possible. It's always an option and should become the new standard. If just a few repositories can be the first in admitting their role in these historically colonized way of collecting these collections and they can provide the example for other repositories to follow which is what we've seen here. Similarly, recently Native American and indigenous peoples across the United States and Canada have called for the return of indigenous land through the larger land back movement. While this movement increased substantially over recent years with the idle norm, no more movement and land demonstrations to reclaim the black hills and South Dakota, the fighting for return of ownership and stewardship of land to indigenous has existed since colonization. According to Nikita Longman a community organizer from George Gordon First Nation in Canada, they say anytime an indigenous person or nation has pushed back against the oppressive state, they are exercising some form of land back. Rather than simple return or transfer of land deeds, the movement also includes respecting indigenous rights, preserving languages and traditions and ensuring food sovereignty, housing, clean air and water. But above all this it's a rallying cry for a dismantling white supremacy and the harms of capitalism. And indeed over recent years, tribes have made small efforts and wins in gaining original indigenous treaty land back. We've seen this in 2020 with the Nespiers tribe, who successfully reclaimed a small portion of their traditional homelands and hundreds of years after the US Army forcibly removed them from the Walla Valley in eastern Oregon. And in other areas of course in the example shared today, we've even seen the actual return of collections by repositories who know it is in the best interest of the tribe. So, if large organized churches can return land and buildings, so too can large national federal and regional repositories return collections back to Native American and indigenous communities. I call on our institutions who have our collections to let us all be leaders and committing to doing this work for ours and future generations. Just as indigenous people seek a connection to land. So do they seek a connection and return of their cultural heritage, including records recordings photographs and languages that were meant to be preserved our traditional homelands. What if various repositories and professions across the nation led the way in the collections back movement. Think what a difference this would make in the reconciliation and healing of indigenous communities repositories could agree that as part of each community engaged project. They will also include the return of at least a portion of the collection as part of that reconciliation. So there is not just the intellectual return or digital return of collection, but the actual physical return of items that belong in indigenous communities. Once this begins to happen, it opens up a whole new baseline and vision for Native American and indigenous studies scholarship collections that is grounded in true ethical respectful and reciprocal relationships. The reconciliation justice and healing that would emerge in Native American and indigenous communities with the return of collections would be life changing for our indigenous livelihood. So I hope that some of these comments and suggestions might help you to think how this kind of all comes together for both the examples that you've seen here today and how these can also be examples for other institutions and repositories as they're engaged in collective work together so thank you all so much. Thank you so much Jennifer that was terrific presentation and I just like to invite all of the panelists to come back and we'll have a bit of a panel discussion. So that would be great. And I found today's panel very illuminating and I'm excited to see everything that's happening across across the United States to do with the work within the situation. One of the things that I think that we can all recognize as Indigenous people is some of the ways that NAICRA might have fallen short and so I just wondered if each of you might like to comment on what improvements could be made and what can be done about items that were not actually included in NAICRA. So sometimes many times we're dealing with things like oral histories or films and sound recordings. So maybe we can go to you first, Landi, since everybody else has spoken recently. And I wonder if you can talk a little bit about those improvements and we'll just go around and I'll call. I'm happy to start and thank you to everyone. I really enjoy hearing all the panelists and and all the work that's been done. And it was really, it's been very interesting sort of watching the development of the implementation of NAICRA over the last 32 years. And how far and not far we've come because 30 years you think that that would be a significant amount of time for us to move this ball a little bit farther down the court than than the conversations that we're still having. It becomes a little frustrating to hear the same sort of conversations, you know, simply like, hey, you really should give them back. No, no, no, really, you should give them back. It's okay. We understand it's hard, but you really should. So digital repatriation is actually one of those words that I really can't stand. I understand the sentiment but sharing files is something we all do as colleagues. We're not giving anything back. If you are returning the book. That's repatriation. That is, you know, acknowledging that it doesn't belong to you and it really belongs to someone else and and I'm really happy that the foundation of this was about returning back into libraries that were taken during the Holocaust. So I mean, I think that these are the kinds of things that should have been part of a conversation when we were talking about repatriation to Native American tribes. I'm really happy and I remember hearing this really impactful conversation from the Miami tribe in returning some council books that was that were inside a museum, and how, you know, council books are not necessarily think thought of in terms of like something that they are or what we typically think of, but they are not owned by an individual. They are actually covered under NAGPRA. And, and I'm so I'm grateful that the conversation is being had, but repatriation legislation didn't lack in thinking about them. They were, they were lacking in the creativity and the understanding by the museums and libraries and institutions in knowing that it was going to be a ride. It could be anything. NAGPRA applies to everything. And then it is up to the tribes to decide what needs to come home, and then to make sure that that happens. And I think that that's something that we've always strived to accomplish at UCLA. And, and we need to do more of that. So, count NAGPRA, I just want to sort of briefly say that there's now an estate law that actually says just that. It says, No, really, you have to start with a tribe, which is in the law, which is in the federal law, and then you go for it. But that's where we need to begin. So consultation matters. And I also think that in terms of NAGPRA, we can't just limit it to things that were in the ground, you know, things that were in a great, you know, because, as I said, you know, we don't believe that any object of cultural patrimony can be alienated from the tribe. And no one has the right to alienate it from the tribe. But yet things were alienated from the tribe. And why was that? People were starving. People were starving. And they said, Geez, you know, I shouldn't sell this, but, you know, and I'm only presuming, you know, that some things happened that way, you know, in the 1600s, starving, you know, and, you know, starving because of the colonists policies. So unfortunately, I am going to have to let this go. And so, you know, there are many, there are many objects that tribes would want back. And I agree with you. Digital copies is not repatriation. What we said was just the opposite. Sure, you can have the digital copies, and people can access them for scholarly purposes. We're okay with that, but we want the originals. And I think tribes just need to be clear about that. Yeah, I think what also needs to be addressed to is how I've been working with our librarian who's wonderful at UCLA, Joy Holland. And we have who's the librarian for the American Indian Studies Center here. And the problem is with some of the state universities also is the issue of copyright law or ownership laws or it being in Boston, in property law, right. So when we have collections coming in, that might be a more pan Indian collection, for example, the the tribe's not having ownership or it gets real messy real fast right over who has ownership over it. And, and who has the right to decide what is studied or not studied and so while there can be closed files or open files. I really feel that the tribes always being under UCLA as ownership or whether this came up with my students who are collecting oral histories for instance at one point. They're like, how can the library have ownership over my material, because it all seems like a wonderful practice right it seems like a good feeling thing but there has to be a way we begin to, we begin to kind of think outside those property projects when it comes to repatriation and tribal sovereignty and putting forth the self determined tribal practice within libraries. So I'll just leave it there. And we are trying to work with that and I see there's a question here about, does UCLA have a tribal consultation policy, we do not have a policy writ large, Wendy and I have a policy for all our projects we have multiple kind of policies. But at the UC level, we are working on an MLU with tribes but for something very specific in terms of hunting. And I will say hunting because I'm from the East Coast, gathering caretaking, gathering and caretaking and planting rights. So at, at for the Gabriolino, Tomva and stadium, hopefully eventually as well. So, we do have that's being developed now, but it does become difficult because of federally recognized and unrecognized tribes which we have not discussed here today. Thank you so much and Jennifer, I wanted to give you could maybe address that and just talk a little bit about even in relation to some of that and also to the protocols for things that can be done or what improvements can be made that would be great to get your take on that as well. And then we'll move on to some of the questions that are in that that have been proposed by the audience. Yeah, I think what I would add to that is just noting first of all how in the protocols for Native American archival materials there's an entire section that covers the copying of materials but then also the repatriation of materials so for those who want to know about that they can go straight to that section, which gives in the protocol that gives guidance both for the institution and also for the, the tribes as well. And so what I'd say about that is we develop that entire section, we developed these in 2006. And so, since then, of course we've had the passage of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and so that's the caveat I would give for that to is that just remembering that that declaration is not yet in the protocols for updating that and adding more information and more details. However, we wanted to include a section on that because that's the one of the hugest gaps of course with NAGPRA is it doesn't cover the accompanying materials that might have went along with the objects or human remains that went along with those collections but it also just doesn't cover archival materials in general that have that are culturally sensitive that were taken without consent that just have a very historic way that they were gathered and without consent. And of course that's a huge section of UNDRIP is you must have consent from the community you must have free prior informed consent, particularly related to not only collections but intellectual property and cultural heritage. So, this is a huge section that is very important and that we were trying to cover because that's the huge gap with NAGPRA of course it's covering objects and human remains which that was a huge first step for for getting that law passed but of course, your law isn't doesn't cover everything and so that's why we developed the protocols was because we saw while objects there was a call for objects to be documented and start working with tribes but the huge thing that is the gap with archives is because there was no official law created for the return of archives. There's no call then out to institutions to create a list of everything they have that should be returned. The onus unfortunately is on tribal communities which places a huge burden on communities to do that work. Many of them are doing that work, but it should be placed on tribal communities it should be on the institution to recognize and make their lists contact tribal communities, because that puts so much of the burden on tribal communities, and not just time, but funding and time to then go to those collections communities don't always have funding to travel to those communities to look at them to start to collaborate to actually have the process start for return. So things people need to keep in mind just the practical side of it that goes into doing this work, which is why it's so important for the institutions that have these collections to take up that responsibility as part of this larger movement. I think that's a very good point because the responsibility really is the institution to get the collecting during the era of colonization rather than the tribal communities paying for that again and again and also paying for the repatriation work. Next, we only have a few minutes left and so one of the questions I'm going to combine a couple of them to be able to ask you this so when museums or libraries or archives are working through the repatriation process. I guess what kind of good practice and maybe just quite quickly, would you suggest and one of them, they talked about dealing with the collection with derogatory language and identifiers when working through repatriation and identifying the tribal collections but I think that there's also other things that we can suggest as well too so what would we suggest when they're dealing with some of these derogatory terms and also how would they go about respectfully working through repatriation and I think I'll start off with you and then and you can go first and then we'll go in and a bit of a circle here. Me. Yeah. Well, you know we did not experience that but the one thing I would say was, you know people initially questioned our ability to care for, you know, the things that we were requesting to come home which I think is a little insulting. The other thing that we experienced was, sometimes people would say to us but you know, we have a good chain of custody here. We understand how we got them we paid for them, or somebody paid for them and then donated them to us. And so one of the things that I think is really important is just to think about what's the moral imperative here. You know, we don't actually care how things got to the museum necessarily, and we don't, you know, we don't, we don't care necessarily about that chain of custody but what we care about is, okay, all of that happened. But don't you have a responsibility to our tribal community. And I think that that's the most important takeaway. And, you know, and I think that we were really fortunate because the people that we encountered on this journey understood it, and not to disparage attorneys but their job is to protect the institution, not protect our tribal community. And so once you begin to go down that legal path, I think it makes it more difficult sometimes with NAGPRA. And so if there is a way that you can just enter into a an agreement with the institution rather than have to kind of go down that very very circuitous path of NAGPRA, it's better for everyone, it's better for the institution, it's better for us and we can recognize, you know, their, their gift of, of, you know, openness, and their gift of, you know, being willing to consider what what's important to our community and what's more, you know, who is it more important to our community or their community, right. So I would leave it at that. Michelle, if you do want to contribute to that. I think she pegged it, what is the ethical responsibility of universities. I feel like with the land acknowledgments which I call land introductions because it's an introduction and that after an introduction you have to follow up you have to be responsible you can't say you didn't know what you should know. So I feel like with that universities and different. I think sometimes universities can be really huge such as UCLA right and have all these disparate functions and places, but there really has to be a way that the university sit forth an ethical way that they're going to be dealing with all of these questions which are related. For instance, and thinking the part of the reason we have land introductions and a modules on cultural repatriation is not just because I'm the weirdo out in the, in the group where we have all the experts that are doing TIPO working with TIPO and CRM. Because you can't say you want to increase attendance of native students that you want to retain native students and that you want to commit to diversifying faculty and still hold on to remains and collections that are not yours and not acting good faith on that. So I really feel that what we have to do as a university is not look at all these things as separate, but really try to look at it as an ecosystem that you're trying to create to have better tribal relationships in general. So that's that's kind of how I, that's how I see it. And I spoke earlier that we have to rethink how our gift of deeds work in libraries I really believe that is true. We're trying to, trying to keep looking in a different circumstance. Trying to keep Seneca and Hote Nishani material in territory. And, but we're, we come up against again that idea of ownership and gift of deed and how it operates so we have to begin to think of these things and clever ways with an ethical responsibility. I agree when you get lawyers involved it takes a good six months and it goes to like 20 lawyers and a university system. And it's just it's exhausting a little bit. And it's adversarial and it shouldn't be adversarial this should be a partnership. I think that the best practice of museums and libraries working through and I know that we have a few of the panelists and have to leave but I wondered about the dealing with the collection of drug tri language and identifiers what would you suggest that an archiver museum. I would address this working with recreation and identifying the accurate tribal connection and I wondered if you could answer that for us. Jennifer, because I know that you've done quite a bit of work around that area. And in the protocol section there's also one just talking about cultural sensitivity and exactly kind of what you're you're talking about. The other thing I will add and for those of you who are not aware of it or haven't seen it. We developed and I led a protocols webinar series just about a variety of different topics like this. So I'm going to drop that in the chat as well too so everybody can see it. Let me make sure I have I might not have the full link here let me just double check. Yes, I believe that's correct. If this link doesn't work, let me know and I can drop another one but this is, we did five webinar series over different topics and this was actually one of them. And that five webinar series and this was hosted by the Society of American Archivist Native American Archive section, and also by the Sustainable Heritage Network. And we did this because there was the need for working through these different issues so in each of these webinars, we talked through different topics, and one of the webinars was talking about cultural sensitivity and and wording and how to change and one of the of course biggest lessons learned and talking through these issues and we did this through talking through like actual examples working with other repositories like the American Philosophical Society, the Library of Congress all of these different larger institutions and through that the biggest lesson learned is that I think many institutions come in and they want these solutions very quickly. And the biggest word of advice here is, this is a slow process you also have to be slowly slowing the process down. I think we are oftentimes want very quick solutions. And this type of work with tribal communities should not be approached in that way it should be very slow and working collaboratively with the communities. I think, and not only working within my own institution but also other institutions that I've asked to be a consultant on, again a huge lesson learned for different examples from that is, I think again we, we want a simple solution, which sometimes can be with changing the wording, but also the most important thing I've seen and learned is that instead of just thinking oh we need this simple solution, or we want to create this, this project or we have this funding to do this project. Start with conversations with the tribal community first, because you might be heading in a direction that is actually not the right solution. And so just sitting down and having the conversations I know, for example, even just with a couple of the examples that's been shared for the actual return of collections that I don't think is where they probably started the conversation, but because they actually sat down and started to build relationships. People probably realized, oh, maybe us having this collection is not even the best thing in the best interest of either of our institutions so we need to return the collection. So building the relationships with the tribes over time is where you get these answers. It is not always going to be a simple solution, but it's also about educating yourself too. And again, that goes back to our same comment about not just putting everything on the tribe, it's also up to curators and archivists and those information professionals who are over these collections to educate yourselves, which is why we are so glad so many people are here today listening. That it's also up to these people educate yourselves to also come into these meetings was like, okay, I've listened to all this now tell me what I need to do next, and be open to what they're telling you because that's what it's all about is building the relationships and listening. And that's where you're going to get the answers. Great, and that is such a good point and it really leads us into our last question from the audience that museums, there are museums that have formal re-patriation liaisons to build those relationships, which is a good start like the Autrian LA. And it seems like library archives museums to benefit from having a staff person trained to liaison and collaborate for institutions and I just wondered Wendy if you wanted to address that question and it says about deciding to be proactive and so why would you feel that having a liaison would be especially important coming from your position. I think it's it's critically important because none of the people that we spoke to at any of these institutions were native. And so they weren't indigenous they, but they had good hearts. And that made all the difference for us but I think having a liaison who can really understand what it means to approach a tribal community. And as we all say if you know one tribe you know one tribe right. And so, because there are so many of us and we are also very different. But I think having a liaison who could really be that person to talk with the tribe, and to understand what the tribes needs are and what the tribes goals are is really, really critical. I used the example with David Skelly at Yale. You know, I, well we had t diplomacy because I went to his house we had a cup of tea we talked about this, and we came up with this very simple solution. And I think you know that that should happen you know it because it still is that person to person relationship that you build that helps you create this good outcome. So I think having a liaison, who I at least understands how to approach an indigenous community and I was fortunate to be part of a repatriation ceremony of bones that were kept at Yale with the Maori people and the Maori people were bringing their ancestors home. And that was very moving. But again, it really has to do with the motivations and the willingness in the open and to be open to understanding what this means so I think having a liaison is a great start. Thank you so much and I wondered, Wendy, if you want to take on the last question about the labor of tribes and figure out relationships. And wonder if this is still a good way of acknowledging that by testimony. Yeah, I mean, building relationship is critically important. Going back to having someone who's dedicated within the museum or institution to working with tribes, I think it's critical. You should never outsource relationship building that should come from within. And it should be long and and while repatriation might be a first step and wanting to look at all of the collections all the materials that are within an institution and helping to write that it is then using that sort of starting point in conversation to extend how it is that the museum can serve the community. These are these are local. These are often local community members. And just as Lynn was saying you want to make sure that they're always available and always a part of the ongoing work, especially if you have someone like the Maori who need to have a land introduction. And so they really want to be introduced to the land from those original caretakers and so it's important the museum has that ongoing and constant relationship building. I want to say thank you so much and I think we're going to end with relationship building and I'm going to raise my hands and the way that we do in the West Coast and say thank you, Madhu, Cho from my innermost being I thank you for all of your time and for your expertise. I know I learned a lot today and I really value the time that you spent with all of us. And I hope that we can have more events like this in the future so thank you so much to our hosts and to UCLA and thank you for your gift of knowledge today. Thank you so much everybody for coming. I'm a great speakers and moderator. I learned so much. And please do when you get the survey to answer that because we do want to know how to move forward. Not just with this discussions but with anything with any ideas you have because we're at UCLA are also learning as much as you are. So we have a program tomorrow which is also focused on pathways and solutions and potentials. So if you want to go to that that would be great. And we do have an exhibit that talks about the return repatriation of Jewish books to the Jewish Museum and Prague which started this whole conversation in the first place. So check that out and also just continue checking the guides and we'll add the links there to the recordings and all that stuff. So thank you everybody. Thank you for coming. Have a good evening day afternoon wherever you are. Bye.