for Canadian museums and First Nations groups developing partnerships (Cooper

2008). This official reaction by the Canadian government marked a new recognition of

Native peoples as communities who demand to be informed and included when others

are representing their heritage. Summarizing this tumultuous time, Cooper (2008, 172)

states, "The protests can be seen as part of a movement seeking autonomy, self-

definition, respect, dignity, human rights, and protection of religious freedom-all

necessary ingredients for a people's cultural continuation."

Museum Collections Practices For Ethnographic Collections ca. 1990 to Present

A Shift in Collections Practices

      Gradually during the 1990s, most American museums discarded the robe of

paternalism and adopted a pluralistic attitude. This became a driving philosophy for

collections policy and practice. This change in perspective concerning the collection and

care of cultural-heritage objects offered new agency for cultural groups who were

previously denied any voice concerning collections involving their heritage. In the early

1990s, issues of repatriation, cultural patrimony, and transparency of object provenance

came to the fore. In recent years, a new demand for digital access to collections has

emerged: this method has increased collections accessibility which proves beneficial for

both Native and non-Native users.

      The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed

in 1990, became a turning point for museum collections practices. Before NAGPRA, the

active building of historic Native American museum collections slowed dramatically after

the 1960s, but collectors continued to purchase Native items and donate them to

museums. Looting of Native graves remained a problem, until the Archeological

Resources Protection Act (ARPA) was passed in 1979. This outlawed the unauthorized