U.S. intellectual property laws are based on individual creativity, on the originality of the work, and only protect expressions based in tangible or permanent media. Communal ownership is not recognized. Knowledge that is already in the public domain is not protected. Western concepts of property do not acknowledge that indigenous groups may not demarcate rigidly between ideas or expressions, oral or written forms, intangible or tangible works, and personal or communal property. Anthropologists confound the problem of protecting cultural heritage because they turn sensitive information into tangible media and make it part of the public domain.
Culture is seen as having definable limits, identifiable traits, and idealized pasts.
This essentialist view turns cultural heritage into an objectifiable entity and does not accommodate the emergence of new cultural heritage. Interestingly, indigenous groups in the U. S. employ similar arguments to protect their cultural heritage and are, therefore, accused of essentializing. Similarly, American Indians seem to invoke a 'tribal identity' in their arguments for the repatriation and protection of cultural heritage. However, this identity may already be shaped by Western ideas. Alexander and Mohanty show how the postmodernist dissolution of race makes it difficult to claim the experience of racism.