" As the Discovery's immigrant population expanded westward, our sacred sites and properties fell to the destructive nature of "progress," for the "benefit of the entire population." Unfortunately, for the "benefit of the entire population" generally does not include the Indigenous populations. Part of the dilemma is the view non-Natives have on what we (Indigenous People) consider cultural or sacred sites and properties. From their perspective, in order for some article, place or object to have importance it has to have momentary value and it has to be tangible, to be seen and felt, otherwise it is not real. If it lacks any of these, then it is of no value and it fails to exist or be credible. I recall this same viewpoint when the French court, in 2013, made a determination for approving the auction for several Hopi/Zuni kachina masks in Paris. The court stated, "Hopi ascribe 'sacred value' to the masks but 'clearly they cannot be assimilated to human bodies or elements of bodies of humans who exist or existed'" (News.Yahoo.com, 4/12/2013). Although this viewpoint is from a foreign nation, it sets precedence for other opportunistic non-Natives to utilize elements of the language to oppose protection of Indigenous Nations sites on federal, state, public and private lands. The disturbing portion of the French court ruling is the need to "assimilate to human bodies or elements of bodies of humans who exist or existed" to articles, places or objects that are deemed important by Indigenous Nations as a requirement before protection is provided (News.Yahoo.com, 4/12/2013).
The lack of understanding how Indigenous People view their world, past and present is also evident in the "In the Light of Reverence" film. Non-Natives in this film express the same rhetoric as the French court did, and continue to desecrate and disrespect Indigenous Cultural and Sacred sites and properties through their recreational or business activities.
