The article is deemed appropriately placed here as India’s traditional medical practices, processes, and products can be viewed as other examples of TCE (derived as they were from the ancient Vedas). TKDL may prove to be a valuable guide in ALA’s considerations and deliberations.

http://ics.mlanet.org/newsletter/ICS%20Newsletter%20Spring%202009.pdf

I have very strong feelings about two bullet points, though.

“Librarians must recognize that such materials do not exist separately from the living peoples whose cultures they reflect.”

This is true, but incomplete. TCE’s recorded in fixed form *do* also have an existence separate from their originating cultures.

“Librarians have a responsibility for developing policies and protocols for preservation and use of traditional cultural expressions according to the cultural values of indigenous and local communities.”

It is entirely appropriate for particular librarians to determine that their particular libraries should not hold materials that have particular (or any) access restrictions. If that means they cannot ethically acquire–or, possibly, continue to hold– particular materials, then so be it.

It is important to realize that however good a set of guidelines are, the one-size fits all model of guidelines creates many problems. Of course we all know this, but it is extremely important in this context.

First of all, every point that you have made in your draft, right from the very first claim that “The five concept areas addressed in this document are central to the topic of collecting, preserving, organizing and accessing TCEs.” are contentious. Not only are they contentious between the many different traditional knowledge communities – including our own, but they are more often than not contentious within knowledge communities. In every context of application, these points will have to be negotiated and re-negotiated.

This leads to the second problem. Such guidelines may work well for smaller local libraries, where they will be able to create a good working relationship with a few local knowledge communities. Where these long-term relationships can be successfully maintained and developed to positive ends. For larger institutions, such as regional, national or international libraries, creating such relationships across literally thousands of communities, relationships so necessary to the negotiations that will achieve the goals of your guidelines, are impossible. This does not mean, of course, that we should not strive for the principles stated in your guidelines, but I would recommend that you also consider these necessary mechanisms as part of your deliberations.

Thanks,
~Rene’