A/77/514 treating them as sentient beings.94 Removing these items from indigenous communities, land, and spiritual leaders may break their relationship with attached spirits 95 or risk "spirituallycaused illnesses" that persist through future generations. 96 Plundered by colonizers, displayed as curiosities, and even utilized to justify pseudo-scientific racist theories about indigenous peoples, it is reported that over one million indigenous ancestral remains and cultural items still reside in repositories worldwide.97 Interlocutors emphasize that public display of such objects may inflict spiritual and physical harm, damaging its spiritual essence and relationship with indigenous peoples, particularly where there are inappropriate preservation methods, untrained staff, and breaches of cultural secrecy. 40. Yet States, museums, other cultural institutions, and private collectors often express reluctance to repatriate ceremonial objects and remains, prioritizing proprietary "ownership" or scientific/historical value over indigenous rights. Interlocutors further report facing temporal, financial, and legal hurdles for successful repatriation, such as many national laws "limit[ing] deaccessioning" and enabling State justifications to set aside repatriation claims. 98 Article 11 UNDRIP emphasizes that indigenous peoples must enjoy effective redress and restitution for spiritual property taken without FPIC. 41. Recalling that educational institutions were historically sites for forced assimilation and loss of cultural identity of indigenous peoples, restrictions on indigenous spiritual practices within this context remain contentious. In the Middle East, North Africa, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Mongolia, and Bolivia, interlocutors observe barriers to teaching their children about indigenous spirituality. Barriers include mandatory religious education that promotes "dominant," non-indigenous spiritual teachings without accessible opt-out options and a lack of indigenous language options in schools. Some highlight primary and secondary schools restrict indigenous students from donning traditional clothing and sacred symbols, including eagle feathers.99 42. EMRIP submits that appropriating indigenous peoples' cultural heritage causes "spiritual, cultural, religious and economic harm." 100 In several regions, states and non-State actors have reportedly commercialized indigenous spirituality –– fuelling derogatory stereotypes and violating cultural secrecy or commercializing their sacred sites, practices, and objects—including plants and their genetic material—without FPIC or sharing benefits with traditional custodians. Food, pharmaceutical, tourism, and fashion industries are amongst those implicated. "Folklorization," the re-stylizing of traditional expressions to reduce aesthetic and semantic complexity for outside consumption, often homogenizes and ignores the complex identities of indigenous peoples, including their spirituality. 101 For instance, interlocutors observe that Kenya tourism material often treats "Maasai" as shorthand for all indigenous peoples. 43. Corporatized "cultural exchange" (especially given the speed and reach of the Internet in driving globalization and following the colonial-induced loss of traditional knowledge) might either homogenize indigenous voices or may magnify some while silencing others.102 Appropriation does not occur on equal playing fields, often perpetuating unremedied histories of oppression and exploitation. Between 60% and 80% of "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander," arts and crafts sold are created without their involvement or benefit received.103 One interlocutor has described appropriation as "another form of colonization,"104 taking from those who already had everything taken from them. 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 12 https://www.uctp.org/_files/ugd/2b292f_a11c68dabe624648be7a4e7b497dda7d.pdf,(pp.472-73) A/HRC/45/35,(para.14); Submission-Pueblo of Acoma Moiwana Community v. Suriname,(para.195). Submissions-International Repatriation Project/Association on American Indian Affairs, and International Indian Treaty Council (“IITC”). A/HRC/45/35,(paras.18-19). https://lakotalaw.org/news/2019-06-03/right-to-regalia A/HRC/45/35,(para.38). https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/05297-EN.pdf,(p.6). A/76/178,(paras.36,41). https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/indigenous-arts/draft/indigenous-arts-draft.pdf. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/arts/are-dot-paintings-traditional-aboriginal-art.