	My team and I created a subject guide that we believe to be beneficial to Indigenous adults looking for essential family services. I have to wonder, though, if this subject guide would be made better if more resources were easily accessible to Indigenous people. 
	The resources included in the subject guide pull a significant parallel between their creation and the creation of most Indigenous-related material in libraries; that is, Indigenous material in libraries is mostly created by non-Indigenous people, as well. This is one of the crucial challenges of using traditional library practices to represent Indigenous peoples. Most of the book options available to librarians through traditional purchasing means are those written by those outside the culture. Non-Indigenous authors borrow, use, or steal Indigenous knowledge and cultural stories in order to promote their own career and financial want. This is a blatant disregard for Indigenous cultural and intellectual property. Burns et al. states that “when knowledge is removed from Indigenous communities and the systems are disrupted, there is a community loss of control over ways in which knowledge is represented and used”.  So although a librarian may think that a display or collection about Native Americans, for instance, is a way to honor and showcase that culture, by choosing such materials the librarian is actually robbing that culture of its intellectual and cultural rights to knowledge. 
	Attempts to remedy this challenge are not simple or easy. On a practical level, librarians would have to find books that involve Indigenous peoples in some way. That may mean switching to another publisher or paying more money on materials than the norm. It may take extra time to research the backgrounds of authors—and as shown while researching The Salmon Twins, this is not always an easy feat. Trying to purchase materials that are culturally appropriate may literally cost time and money for librarians. 
	Ethically, it may seem that a solution may be to push for more Indigenous authors to publish or to ask non-Indigenous authors to be respectful of cultures. But librarians do not have much influence overall in the publishing world. Additionally, Thomason points out that when non-Indigenous authors are asked about their appropriation of Indigenous knowledge, most are quick to assert that “these told stories are about the human condition and transcend race or ethnicity”. In that opinion, it does not matter how inaccurate the representation of the culture is, it only matters that children learn a lesson about humanity. It might instill a moral for the child reader but it also establishes a mindset full of biased Indigenous representation. 
	Politically, this issue furthers the inherent continuation of imperialism. Such non-Indigenous authors are essentially stealing the property from the minority culture, using them to their own gains, and displaying them in institutions for the more dominant culture. Roy, Hogan, and Lilley state that the location of Indigenous cultural expressions “can be viewed by indigenous people as a removal and continuation of cultural loss that reflects the nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny”. A librarian may try to combat this continuation of imperialism by choosing Indigenous authors but the fact remains that librarians are a product of the dominant culture, as well. An even better solution would be for librarians to incorporate Indigenous citizens into the selection and display of their cultural expressions, even if that means that some material may not be freely accessible by the dominant white culture. 
