From cultural appropriation to Sámi sovereignty in the souvenir market

Abstract

The cultural appropriation of Indigenous handicrafts in the souvenir market is common around the world. This article focuses on investigating how it relates to ongoing settler colonialism and the reclaiming of Sámi sovereignty in Finland. In so doing, it contributes to the understanding of current colonial and decolonial relations and practices in the Nordic countries, which have traditionally not been regarded as settler colonial. I address the making, appropriation, selling and buying of Sámi handicrafts as dynamic social practices, interpreting them with settler colonial theory and Indigenous sovereignty theories. My research material consists of interviews with Sámi and non-Sámi handicraft makers and sellers, tourism entrepreneurs and other relevant stakeholders, as well as observations from the field. The analysis shows how the state enables cultural appropriation with its policies and inaction, trying thus to make the Sámi disappear as a distinct people in the tourism landscape. Simultaneously, Sámi organizations, activists and handicraft makers have gradually changed the souvenir market in the opposite direction, backed by global responsible tourism and consumption trends. I also suggest various reparative measures that could transform the souvenir business to be more just to the Sámi. My research contributes to academic and practitioner discussions of cultural appropriation, colonialism, decolonization and Indigenous sovereignty in tourism and cultural industries.

Introduction

In Lapland, Finnish tourism companies have exploited Indigenous Sámi cultures in their business for decades. This cultural appropriation started after the Second World War due to growth in tourism, a need to differentiate Finnish Lapland as a tourism destination, and the diminishing visibility of traditional—from the tourists’ point of view, exotic —Sámi cultures resulting from the modernization of the North and a settler colonial state policy of assimilation of the Sámi into Finnish culture and society. The appropriation is continuing, but less visibly because of strong criticism by Sámi organizations and activists, increasing pressure for greater responsibility in the tourism business and growing Sámi involvement in the governance of tourism (Kugapi et al., 2020; Magnani and Magnani, 2025).

Public opinion in Finland has recently become more disapproving of the appropriation of Sámi cultures, but there are also influential voices in the public discussion that approve of the same appropriation and question the Sámi Indigenous rights. Colonial, extractive pressures on Sámi land continue as well (e.g. due to the green transition, tourism and Finland joining NATO) (Junka-Aikio, 2024). Simultaneously, the children and grandchildren of the assimilated Sámi generations are rediscovering their heritage and re-learning their culture, which has made Sáminess again more visible in the North (Finbog, 2023: 213). Furthermore, Sámi cultures have become highly valued in the Nordic arts and cultural sector through award-winning films and distinguished artists, musicians and festivals. Similar changes have also been taking place in other countries; for example, Canada; indicating that social relations between Indigenous and majority societies are changing (Junka-Aikio, 2024). In the global tourism sector, the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada (ITAC) is leading the way with its the Original Original certification system and the newly founded global Indigenous tourism marketing organization Destination Original Indigenous Tourism (DO-IT), which aims at improved Indigenous visibility in the tourism market and a more powerful position vis-à-vis governments and the non-Indigenous tourism industry (MacGregor, 2024).

Lenard and Balint (2020: 338) define cultural appropriation as:

the taking of a valuable, yet reusable or non-exhaustible aspect, of another individual’s culture (usually a symbol or a practice), for one’s own use, where the taker knows what she is doing (or reasonably should know), and where the context of this taking is contested.

Often, the appropriation is made worse by a power imbalance between the appropriator(s) and the one(s) whose culture has been appropriated, and by the profit accrued to the appropriator(s) (Lenard and Balint, 2020). All these characteristics of cultural appropriation are present in Finland (Truth and Reconciliation Commission Concerning the Sámi People [TRCCSP], 2025: 193). The most criticized issue has been the use of traditional Sámi dresses—important symbols of Sámi identity—by Finnish celebrities as well as tourism entrepreneurs and their employees, but cultural appropriation has taken many forms. A still common example are imitations of Sámi handicrafts sold to tourists as souvenirs (Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 8−9, 18).

This article focuses on investigating why the cultural appropriation of Sámi handicrafts is still common in the Finnish souvenir business and how it relates to ongoing settler colonialism and the reclaiming of Sámi sovereignty in Finland. The subject is little researched. My aim is to contribute to the understanding of current colonial and decolonial relations and practices in the Nordic countries that have traditionally not been regarded as settler colonial.

The Sámi are the Indigenous people of Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Kola Peninsula in Russia. In Finland, there are approximately 10,000 Sámi. The Sámi Homeland covers northern parts of Finnish Lapland, but the majority of Sámi live elsewhere in the country (Sámi Parliament, n.d.). They are not a culturally homogenous group. That is why I speak of Sámi cultures in the plural. The best-known Sámi livelihood is reindeer herding, but nowadays most Sámi in Finland make their living in other sectors of the economy, including tourism. Handicrafts provide income to approximately 100 Sámi (Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 4).

The Sámi word often used for Sámi handicrafts is the Northern Sámi word duodji. Duodji is a social and cultural construct the meanings and boundaries of which are constantly negotiated within and between various Sámi and non-Sámi groups (Magga, 2018). Here, I use the definition by Magga (2021): duodji means handicrafts that the Sámi use themselves in their own lives. By Sámi handicrafts I mean all material objects that are handmade by the Sámi, both duodji and other handicrafts, including objects made specifically for tourists as souvenirs. Finbog (2023) notes that duodji is not just craft but also a Sámi knowledge system. It conveys stories and memories and transmits wisdoms, skills and deeply rooted values to the next generations. It also provides connections and relations to culture, people, land, and communities—past, present, and future. It is thus an important part of contemporary Sámi cultures and identities (Finbog, 2023; Magga, 2018).

Among previous studies on Sámi handicrafts, Joy (2020) is, to my knowledge, the only one specifically addressing the factors contributing to their cultural appropriation in the souvenir business in Finland. He suggests that the main reasons are a lack of effective legal protection, a loss of culture through colonialism, ethnic tourism and the Finns’ lack of education concerning Sámi cultural heritage. Unfortunately, his reasoning is poorly justified, and he omits much of the previous research, which is not to say that these factors might not contribute to the situation in the souvenir market. Other previous studies have discussed Sámi handicrafts in the tourism context from the points of view of cultural carrying capacity (Lüthje, 1995), tourist access to Sámi culture (Müller and Pettersson, 2001), visitor satisfaction (Johansen and Mehmetoglu, 2011), authenticity and commodification (Dlaske, 2014; Heller et al., 2017; Magnani and Magnani, 2025; Mathisen, 2020; Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011; Scheffy, 2004; Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018a; Tornensis, 2019), legal protection (Mattila, 2018; Nuorgam, 2012), handicraft culture and cultural identity (Kugapi, 2014), ethnicity (Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018b), ethnodevelopment (De Bernardi et al., 2018) and Indigeneity (Keskitalo et al., 2021). Viken (2022) examines the appropriation of Sámi land and culture in tourism in Norway, including the souvenir business, but without an in-depth analysis.

According to the previous studies, handicraft making and selling to tourists in Finnish Lapland is a balance between economic concerns (i.e., adapting the products to tourist demand), and the crafter’s or seller’s other ambitions, such as the preservation of cultural heritage, artistic creativity or aesthetics (Dlaske, 2014; Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018a). Both Sámi and non-Sámi handicraft makers and sellers authenticate their products by using various strategies, such as labels and storytelling (Heller et al., 2017; Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011; Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018a). Many handicraft makers and sellers see duodji as more genuine than other handicrafts, which makes Sáminess a desirable quality (Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018b), but it has not been studied whether tourists think the same. It may be that they see Finnish products as authentic and exotic (Dlaske, 2014: 591−592). No study has focused on tourist demand for Sámi souvenirs.

Cultural appropriation makes it difficult for the Sámi to benefit economically from the attractiveness of duodji. The appropriation directs the economic benefit to the non-Sámi and makes it more difficult for the Sámi to earn their living as duojárs (Sámi crafters making duodji), which may destroy traditional duodji skills. The appropriation may also dilute the cultural meanings of duodji for the Sámi and thus their willingness to continue the duodji tradition. Exploiting duodji is an exploitation of a collective Sámi identity, which negatively affects both the collective and individual Sámi identities (Mattila, 2018; Nuorgam, 2012: 346−349).

In order to protect duodji from appropriation, control its quality and make it possible for handicraft buyers to distinguish genuine duodji from imitations, the Sàmi in Finland, Sweden and Norway established the Sámi Duodji certification trademark in 1980, which duojárs can use in their products that follow duodji traditions (Lehtola, 2006: 42−48, 64; Magga, 2010: 27−29). In 2022, another pan-Sámi certification trademark, Sámi Made, was launched to complement the Sámi Duodji trademark. It can be used for all kinds of Sámi products (Saami Council, n.d.). The trademarks and other existing legal instruments in Finland do not, however, provide enough protection for the cultural heritage of the Sámi (Mattila, 2018; Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 9). A recent report of the Sámi duojárs’ Sámi Duodji association suggests that if a non-Sámi wants to utilize Sámi cultural heritage commercially, they should ask for permission to do so (Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 19). However, there is yet no agreed procedure for this.

To add to the existing understanding of the cultural appropriation of Sámi handicrafts, I draw on settler colonial theory (Wolfe, 2006), which is new in Sámi research (Kuokkanen, 2020: 294), and Indigenous sovereignty theories (Finbog, 2023; Kuokkanen et al., 2025), which have been little used in tourism studies (Hunt et al., 2023). Settler colonial theory makes it comprehensible why cultural appropriation persists in the souvenir business. Sovereignty theories help to understand the impacts of cultural appropriation from a Sámi perspective as well as how tourism could be developed in a more just way (Hunt et al., 2023). The primary basis of my research is the work of Sámi scholars, in particular that of political scientist Rauna Kuokkanen and archaeologist, museologist and duojár Liisa-Rávná Finbog. I address the making, appropriation, selling and buying of Sámi handicrafts as dynamic social practices and ask how they relate to settler colonialism and Sámi sovereignty in Finland. Finally, I suggest how the souvenir business could be transformed.

Settler colonialism, Duodji and Sámi sovereignty

The colonization of Sápmi, the area where the Sámi have traditionally lived in Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden, started about 1000 years ago. The process of assimilation has taken place during the last 500 years (Finbog, 2023: 39−53). Finbog (2023: 61) describes it as ‘the complete erasure of [a] people and of their civilization’. For a long time, the Sámi were represented and treated as an undeveloped, inferior race, forcing on them such shame that many of them rejected their Sámi identity and culture. This process also killed much of the knowledge contained in duodji practices (Finbog, 2023). Later, cultural appropriators in the souvenir business have participated in efforts to eliminate the rest of it (see Mattila, 2018; Nuorgam, 2012: 346−349).

In Finland, the state continues to follow a settler colonial logic of elimination (Wolfe, 2006) vis-à-vis the Sámi, making them progressively disappear as a distinct people with the help of legislative measures, failure to fulfil its obligations towards the Sámi, support for initiatives detrimental to Sámi livelihoods and other assimilationist policies and practices (Kuokkanen, 2020; see Veracini, 2010: 16−17). Behind this logic is the idea that as long as there are Sámi, the state’s ownership of land and natural resources in Lapland can be questioned (Junka-Aikio, 2023: 282; see Wolfe, 2006).

The Sámi worldview is relational. Accordingly, duodji is constituted of relations. To make duodji sustains ‘the world as one of relations, between and to other people, lands and waters, nature, beings, and other entities’ (Finbog, 2023: 150). In recent years, many duodji objects that had earlier been taken to museums outside Sápmi as part of its colonization process have been repatriated. Duojárs engage with these heritage objects and re-activate the knowledges embedded in them by re-learning and taking old techniques into use and pass them on to others. This process of rematriation restores old relations and creates new ones. Similar processes are also ongoing elsewhere in the Indigenous world (Finbog, 2023; TRCCSP, 2025: 193−195). ‘Rematriation restores Indigenous sovereignty by reinstating practices, knowledges, protocols as well as Indigenous ways of being, doing, and knowing’ (Finbog, 2023: 160). Simultaneously, there is, however, a risk that repatriated Sámi heritage objects in public Sámi museum collections are appropriated by souvenir makers (Aikio, 2023: 87).

Indigenous sovereignty is relational. At its core is the ancestral link between the land and the people, which has never been ceded. As Indigenous nations are diverse, their understandings of sovereignty, however, vary (Finbog, 2023: 26; Kuokkanen et al., 2025: 1−3). In the Sámi context, in Finbog’s (2023: 262) view, sovereignty means that the personal and collective autonomy of the Sámi stems from the maintenance of all their relations (e.g. to land and people). Sámi sovereignty is ‘the right to centre Sámi ways of being, doing and knowing in everyday life … through spiritual independence, language renewal, cultural revitalization, intellectual property rights, land rights and health and wellbeing’ (Finbog, 2023: 250). Sovereignty means, hence, cultural integrity and self-determination (Finbog, 2023: 25−26, 221). Indigenous sovereignty is a source of Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in the wider academic and Indigenous discussions as well. It challenges traditional understandings of sovereignty belonging to states only, perpetuating cultural and legal pluralism (Shrinkhal, 2021).

Settler colonialism is a social, economic and political structure (Kuokkanen, 2020: 298; Wolfe, 2006: 390, 401−402) that enables and fosters colonial relations and practices. The dismantlement of this structure requires both decolonization and Indigenization which together contribute to advancing Indigenous sovereignty (Roth, 2019: 318). Indigenous sovereignty theories help to ‘understand and challenge colonial structures that have historically undermined and continue to disrupt the exercise of Indigenous sovereignties’ (Kuokkanen et al., 2025: 2). Individuals, institutions, and communities are constantly negotiating sovereignty within their decision-making processes (Naylor and Hunt, 2021: 4). That is, although structures influence individual human agency, individual agency can challenge and change structures (Giddens, 1984). Changes often take place gradually and are resisted by those in power (Roth, 2019).

As a Finn, I see it as my responsibility to ‘do something’ about settler colonialism to transform its structural injustices into less unjust ones (Kuokkanen, 2022: 303) and this paper is part of my doing something. As Kuokkanen (2022: 305) says, ‘It is everyone’s responsibility to recognize both their individual power and the workings of institutional power, and to participate in dismantling inequitable systems, attitudes, viewpoints and values together’. That is what I am doing here.

Methodology

I draw on relational ontology where subjects and objects ‘constitute each other and co-emerge from the relationship they establish and develop’ (Cerratto Pargman, 2023: 42). From this perspective, knowledge also emerges relationally (Pernecky, 2024). In this paper, knowledge is generated through my collaboration with Sámi persons and organizations since the 1990s; my residence in Lapland since 2001; engagement with previous research and theory, ongoing observations from the field (e.g. souvenir shops) and semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019 in the ARCTISEN (Culturally Sensitive Tourism in the Arctic) project to study the challenges and possibilities of tourism development in Lapland (see Kugapi et al., 2020). The Sámi Parliament in Finland and the Sámi Duodji association were associated partners in the project. This article is one of the project publications.

Among the interviewees were Sámi and non-Sámi tourism entrepreneurs and other tourism company representatives, representatives of authorities working with tourism and other relevant stakeholders, the majority of whom lived and worked in the Sámi Homeland. In total, 44 interviews were conducted, with part of them recorded and transcribed, and part of them documented based on notes taken during them. Before the interviews, each interviewee signed a consent form explaining that the interviews would be used for research and publications, and their rights as a research participant. The length of the interviews was 30−60 minutes. All interviewees received a report of the main interview findings in 2020.

As many interviewees talked about handicrafts and souvenirs, this paper focuses on them (20 interviews with 21 interviewees, because one of the interviews was conducted with a couple). 12 of the interviewees were females and nine were male and they represented different age groups. The ethnicity of the interviewees was not asked, but 11 of them indicated during the interview that they were Sámi and six that they were Finns, or I already knew this beforehand. The ethnicity of four interviewees is not known to me, but it is Sámi or Finnish. The dichotomy Sámi/non-Sámi (or Finnish) is commonly used in Lapland to categorize people in various contexts (Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018b), although the question of who is Sámi is controversial in Finland due to its connection to Indigenous rights (Junka-Aikio, 2023). The interviewees nevertheless classified themselves very straightforwardly as either Sámi or non-Sámi. My knowledge of their backgrounds is not enough to question their categorizations. That is why I took them as given in the analysis.

Seven of the interviewees made handicrafts for sale. Six of them were entrepreneurs. One crafter worked as an employee in a tourism company. Five crafters were Sámi and two were Finns. Of the rest of the interviewees, six worked in a tourism company as entrepreneurs or employees. Two interviewees worked in a visitor centre, one in a museum, two in an association and three in a local municipality in tourism-related tasks. In total, the work of 11 interviewees was directly related to souvenir selling.

I started a practice-based analysis of the interviews because my initial idea was to utilize Shove et al.’s (2012) theory of social practices. I collected all handicraft- and souvenir-related doings and sayings explicitly expressed in the interviews in a table. Then, based on Shove et al.’s (2012) theory, I added all explicit and implicit materiality, competences and meanings (i.e., elements of practices) to them that I could see in the interviews. As a support in the analysis, I used direct observation in the souvenir and handicraft shops discussed in the interviews, as well as their websites and social media accounts. Next, I examined similarities and differences between the interviews. In one table I collected all the doings, sayings, materiality, competences and meanings connected to handicraft making, in another table everything connected to handicraft selling and in a third table everything connected to souvenir buying.

Based on the tables, I identified the main elements of four practices: Sámi handicraft making, Sámi handicraft selling, cultural appropriation, and souvenir buying (see Supplemental Tables), and based on these, wrote an initial description of each practice. I elaborated on the descriptions with the help of Shove et al.’s (2012) theory and previous research on Sámi handicrafts. I also showed the tables to two representatives of the Sámi Duodji association to check how the tables corresponded with their understanding of the practices described and to share the analysis results to their community. Neither of them saw anything wrong or missing from the tables, which does not mean that all duojárs would see the practices in the same manner. For me, it was still a point of validation that I was on the right track in my analysis.

The practice-based analysis pointed to issues in the interviews that seemed illogical to me and that I could not properly explain with Shove et al.’s (2012) theory. While reading Kuokkanen’s (2020) paper, I realized that the ‘illogical’ aspect was the settler colonial logic of elimination and, therefore, I decided to draw on her research. Later, I decided to balance the settler colonial theory with Indigenous sovereignty theories (Finbog, 2023; Kuokkanen et al., 2025). Throughout the research process, I followed the ethical guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2019). According to this, no ethics approval was required for the kind of research I conducted. My study is also in line with the ethical guidelines for Sámi research (Heikkilä et al., 2024), which were published after I had completed the empirical part of my study.

Making Sámi handicrafts and their imitations

According to the interviewees, Sámi handicrafts are crucial for tourism in Lapland. Duojárs make many kinds of handicrafts that tourists buy as souvenirs, such as jewellery, knives, bags, shawls, mittens and shoes. Many of these are duodji. The materials include reindeer antlers, bone, leather and fur, wood, wool and silver. The following issues in the interviews related to settler colonialism and Sámi sovereignty in the context of handicraft making.

Control over Duodji education

Making duodji requires particular crafting skills and knowledge. Traditionally, these have been obtained at home, and still are, but increasingly also outside the home, due to colonial assimilationist processes and societal changes that have disrupted the transmission of duodji skills in many Sámi families (Finbog, 2023; TRCCSP, 2025: 191).

In Finnish Lapland, the state-owned Sámi Education Institute and local adult educational centres arrange courses where anyone interested can learn to make duodji. According to the interviewees, the courses are popular. The Institute also provides the option of studying duodji making at a vocational degree level. The Sámi Duodji association and many duojárs have been against teaching duodji making to non-Sámi people, but due to public funding and the state policy tied to it, it has not been possible to select the students based on their ethnicity (Lehtola, 2006: 39−41, 48; Magga, 2012: 220−221; TRCCSP, 2025: 191−192, 242). ¹ This diminishes Sámi sovereignty to decide on education which is important for maintaining the Sámi identity and cultural integrity (see Finbog, 2023: 25−27, 221). This violates the educational rights of Indigenous peoples outlined in international law (i.e. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) (see May, 2025). It has resulted in many Finns having the technical skills to make duodji, which makes cultural appropriation possible. This is an example of the settler colonial logic of the Finnish state to eliminate the Sámi by making them disappear as a people with distinct crafting skills (see Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 9). The Sámi Duodji association arranges duodji courses for Sámi only. One can also learn to make duodji through an apprenticeship or by studying in a Sámi educational institute in Sweden or Norway (Magga, 2018: 50−51; Rensujeff, 2011: 35).

Based on the interviews, only duodji made by Sámi is regarded as genuinely Sámi (see also Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018b: 38−42, 44). The Sámi do not transmit the traditional knowledge embedded in duodji to outsiders (Mällinen and Sarkki, 2014: 32; Sámi Parliament, 2018: 12), which is a demonstration of Sámi sovereignty. Important Sámi knowledge is therefore missing in the Finnish duodji imitations, and that is why they are only craft, not genuine duodji. They also lack the relationality of genuine duodji (see Finbog, 2023). For example, one Finnish crafter interviewed who said that he imitates duodji noted that he does not know much about Sámi cultures and that he does not need to. He uses traditional Sámi techniques to make Sámi-style handicrafts. He has learned his skills from other Finnish crafters who have worked in the same company as him.

Maintaining Sámi relations

There are Sámi-style souvenir products that are not even handmade or even made in Sápmi. Many interviewees saw these products as inappropriate and fake. As one of them explained, they diminish the Sámi’s chances of making a living in their homeland. The more the Sámi must move away from their homeland to find a job, the less they can maintain and develop their Sámi cultures, relations and sovereignty. For example, many materials needed for duodji are difficult to obtain elsewhere because they come from the northern nature and reindeer (Finbog, 2023; Valkonen and Valkonen, 2014: 31−32). In many Sámi communities, duojárs also contribute to the process of healing the traumas caused by colonialism (Finbog, 2023: 250, 263). Diminishing their possibilities to live in their homeland is thus a further example of the settler colonial logic of the state: cultural appropriation weakens Sámi relations, cultures and people and hence supports their elimination.

Self-determination through trademarks

The Sámi and non-Sámi crafters use a variety of labels to tell their clients about their products. The information given may be ambiguous and misleading, especially if the crafter is not Sámi (Dlaske, 2014; Mällinen and Sarkki, 2014: 32, 34; Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011: 333−339). Misleading consumers is against consumer protection legislation (Mattila and Jaakonsaari, 2022: 102−103), but is nevertheless common in the Finnish souvenir business, which is again an implication of the settler colonial logic: the state does nothing to stop the violations of the law because they support the disappearance of the Sámi. The Sámi Duodji association sees it as important to label Sámi handicrafts as Sámi to distinguish them from non-Sámi ones, which is a counteraction to the settler colonial logic of elimination. The best-known label is the Sámi Duodji label. However, according to one interviewee, not all duojárs use it because one must apply and pay for it, and it is not possible to use it for all kinds of Sámi handicrafts. The latter reason is why the Sámi Made trademark was launched, but one must apply and pay for it as well (Saami Council, n.d.). Nevertheless, the trademarks are ‘a piece of Sámi self-determination’ (Hætta, 2025) where the Sámi decide who is entitled to them and under which conditions.

Selling Sámi handicrafts and their imitations

Several interviewees reported that it is not easy to get Sámi handicrafts for sale in the souvenir shops, nor other local products, due to the limited number of crafters and products. That is why many products on sale are not local, nor handmade. The following issues in the interviews related to settler colonialism and Sámi sovereignty in the context of handicraft selling.

Individual and community autonomy

Many tourists want to see Sámi and traditional Sámi dresses when they are in Lapland. Some Sámi handicraft sellers wear traditional Sámi dress in their work, but most do not. There are varied opinions among the Sámi about the appropriateness of wearing the Sámi dress in the context of tourism (Kugapi et al., 2020; Sámi Parliament, 2018). For example, one interviewee explained that she does not wear the dress at work for tourists because that would be inauthentic—she does not wear it daily elsewhere either. She is Sámi in her way, not in a way determined by tourists (see Kuokkanen et al., 2025: 3; Roth, 2019). Similarly, in Aotearoa New Zealand, having self-determination as a guiding principle in business development helps Māori tourism companies to align their businesses with Māori values and represent themselves in authentic ways in situations where Māori values conflict with capitalist values (Ransfield and Reichenberger, 2021: 54, 57).

Another controversial handmade Sámi object in the context of tourism is the drum (confiscated in the 17th century by colonizers; see Finbog, 2023: 39, 51−53) and its symbols, also mentioned in several previous studies (Dlaske, 2014: 589; Kramvig and Førde, 2020; Magga, 2018: 65; Schilar and Keskitalo, 2018b: 39, 42−43) and discussed in more detail by Joy (2018, 2020) and Mathisen (2020). Both the drums and their symbols are imitated by non-Sámi crafters and industrial souvenir producers. Joy (2018: 193) assumes that Finnish crafters do not know that the drum symbols are important to the Sámi and are part of their identity and culture even today. The Finns seem to think that the symbols no longer belong to anyone and, therefore, can be used freely (Joy, 2018: 186−207), but would it make any difference if they knew? Due to strong Sámi criticism in the Finnish media, most Finns know that the Sámi disapprove of the appropriation of their cultures, but it is nevertheless commonplace. The state is inactive because of its settler colonial project to eliminate the Sámi.

Some duojárs make drums for tourists, whereas others think that it is inappropriate to sell or otherwise use them or their symbols in any tourism context. Among the interviewees, for example, one duojár said that she uses drum symbols in her handicrafts and talks about them to tourists, while a Sámi handicraft seller said that in her shop, there were no products with drum symbols depicting Sámi gods, but that products with other drum symbols, such as the sun or snow, were acceptable (see also Joy, 2018: 104). Sámi handicraft makers and sellers have, hence, different business principles which are not always approved of by others in the Sámi community (see Dlaske, 2014; Mattila and Jaakonsaari, 2022: 39). The Sámi Parliament in Finland is currently creating a certification for responsible, ethically sustainable Sámi tourism companies to set criteria for responsible Sámi tourism business. In ITAC’s the Original Original certification, Indigenous tourism companies must get approval for their products from their local community (ITAC, 2021: 10), while in Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori tourism entrepreneurs who base their business on Māori values consult with family and elders about which values to integrate into their businesses and how (Ransfield and Reichenberger, 2021: 53, 55). This aligns with Indigenous sovereignty theories where the autonomy of individuals and collectives needs to be balanced with the responsibilities they have towards each other’s wellbeing. Consent has a central role in Indigenous understandings and practices of sovereignty (Kuokkanen et al., 2025).

Narrative sovereignty

In tourism promotion, there has been a great deal of incorrect information about the Sámi for a long time (Kugapi et al., 2020) due to the colonial need to create an exotic image of Finnish Lapland to exploit the area and its Indigenous people economically. For the Sámi, it is important that the information disseminated about them is correct (Sámi Parliament, 2018), given the centuries-long and continuing colonial assimilationist period of misinformation about them (see Finbog, 2023). As one Sámi interviewee said, it affects their wellbeing. Several Sámi interviewees said that when they sell handicrafts to tourists, they explain how the handicrafts are made and used and also tell them other things about Sámi cultures, thus giving them correct information (see Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022: 11). Teaching the tourists about Sámi cultures is emphasized in other Sámi tourism practices as well (Kramvig and Førde, 2020: 9; Sámi Parliament, 2018: 21). This kind of narrative sovereignty (see Greene-Blye and Pursche, 2025; Molloy, 2025) can increase tourists’ understanding of the Sámi and colonialism, thus sparking wider societal change (De Bernardi, 2020: 140); particularly when combined with the rise of Sámi voices in the arts and cultural sector that also highlight the impacts of colonialism and the need for decolonization (Junka-Aikio, 2024).

Buying souvenirs

According to the interviewees, there are tourists in Lapland that are not at all interested in Sámi, while others are. There are tourists who know a lot about Sámi cultures and seek genuine duodji, but based on the interviews, most tourists have little or no knowledge of the Sámi or the information they have may be incorrect (see Sámi Parliament, 2018: 19). This lack of knowledge together with the lack of interest may explain why tourists buy Sámi handicraft imitations. Most tourists do not have the competence to distinguish a genuine Sámi handicraft from an imitation unless there is a label that clearly indicates what the product is. Many labels do not do that, and it may be difficult for tourists to understand even what the Sámi Duodji label means (Mattila, 2018: 38). According to the Sámi interviewees, tourists are happy when the handicraft maker or seller tells them about the handicrafts and their making or even shows them how they are made or used. This education makes the tourists more competent concerning Sámi handicrafts. Other issues that arose in the interviews that related to settler colonialism and Sámi sovereignty in souvenir buying were the following.

Tourist constructions of authenticity

Based on the interviews, tourists may buy Sámi handicrafts not only because they are Sámi, but also or instead because they are local or handmade. These three aspects may mean authenticity to them (see Dlaske, 2014: 592). According to the interviewees, tourists’ understanding of authenticity varies, which has also been noted widely in previous tourism studies (Rickly, 2022). For example, a Finnish interviewee who made and sold Sámi handicraft imitations said that tourists do not ask where the products come from nor who made them. They appreciate handmade products and are satisfied when they see him making them, they want to take pictures with him and have him make personal decorations for them on the items they buy. One can assume that the tourists find the interviewee and his products to be authentic and Sámi (see Dlaske, 2014: 590; Pietikäinen and Kelly-Holmes, 2011: 336−337, 340), which makes him an appropriator of both Sámi culture and identity. To avoid misleading his clients and thus violating the consumer protection legislation, he should clearly tell them that he is Finnish not Sámi.

Cultural dominance

Traditional duodji is often expensive because it takes a lot of time and effort to make. Several interviewees mentioned that it is too expensive for many tourists. The high price is probably one reason why tourists buy imitations. They simply cannot afford duodji or are not willing to invest so much money in souvenirs. They may also have difficulties in understanding why duodji is so expensive, due to a lack of knowledge regarding how it is made. According to one Sámi interviewee, there are also tourists who do not understand why cultural appropriation is wrong. There are also Sámi crafters who focus on less expensive products. Buying inexpensive souvenirs is a widespread practice of a global mass tourist culture. One can ask who should adapt to what: duojárs to the tourist culture by producing large quantities of cheap souvenirs or tourists to Sámi cultures by buying fewer souvenirs but paying more for them? The cultural dominance of tourists can be seen as neo-colonialism. The satisfaction of Indigenous needs is subordinated to that of the tourists’ needs, and the tourists exploit Indigenous peoples and cultures for their own enjoyment (Akama et al., 2011). In Finland they may also become part of the settler state’s colonial project to eliminate the Sámi as a people with their own distinct cultures. Cheap souvenir buying sustains cultural appropriation in souvenir making and vice versa. Simultaneously, it disrupts Sámi sovereignty to engage in tourism on Sámi terms (see Kuokkanen et al., 2025: 3). Decolonizing the souvenir market; that is, dismantling its colonial structures; would mean not only halting the cultural appropriation by souvenir makers but also halting the tourists’ cultural dominance (see Roth, 2019); and all souvenir makers, sellers and buyers have a responsibility here (Kuokkanen, 2022: 303).

Responsible consumers

There are also tourists who hesitate to buy duodji because they do not know if they, as non-Sámi, may buy or use it. They want to be responsible consumers, not cultural appropriators. Due to a general trend towards responsible consumption and Sámi criticism of cultural appropriation, the number of hesitant tourists has increased recently, negatively affecting the sales of Sámi handicrafts. The Sámi Duodji association has therefore created guidelines for the responsible purchase of Sámi handicrafts (Nuorgam and Paadar, 2022; see Sámi Duodji, n.d.). Sámi criticism has also reduced the demand for certain duodji imitations (e.g. four winds hats), which has, in turn, reduced their production (Magnani and Magnani, 2025). It seems, therefore, that tourists are becoming more responsible souvenir buyers. Nevertheless, for a large part of tourists currently visiting Lapland, experiencing authentic local cultures is not important. Husky rides and igloo accommodation are among the most popular tourist activities in the region, though they are appropriated from Indigenous peoples living elsewhere. Consequently, making the souvenir and wider tourism market less colonial is, thus, gradual (Roth, 2019).

Conclusion

Kuokkanen (2022: 300) argues that ‘in the settler colonial situation, the dominant group settles and unilaterally imposes its sovereignty over another jurisdiction’, which describes well the Finnish state and the souvenir makers and sellers who appropriate Sámi cultures. The Sámi laws concerning duodji are insignificant to them, the appropriators can do whatever they want with Sámi cultural heritage, and the state is inactive in stopping it or even supports it with its policies. Settler colonialism is a structural injustice (Kuokkanen, 2020: 305), of which the practice of cultural appropriation in the souvenir market is a part. Kuokkanen (2020: 306−308) calls for a structural change including various reparative measures to achieve a just social structure for the Sámi in Finland. These measures would consist of, among other things, the Finns (and foreign tourists and tourism operators) recognizing that the Sámi are a people with their own society and institutions forcibly incorporated into the Finnish state, of ceding part of the state’s power to the Sámi, and of changes in legislation and the institutions and resources for their implementation (see TRCCSP, 2025).

Tourism and handicraft companies as well as tourists have a responsibility to do something about settler colonialism (Kuokkanen, 2022: 303). They could learn from Indigenous sovereignty theories that they must balance their autonomy with the responsibilities they have towards others’ wellbeing. As consent is central to Indigenous sovereignty (Kuokkanen et al., 2025), it should be central also in the souvenir business to make it less colonial and more Indigenous (see Roth, 2019). This involves ‘actively seeking permission or agreement from another party before taking a certain action’ (Kuokkanen et al., 2025: 20)—such as utilizing crafting techniques or symbols of another people.

The exclusive right to determine how and by whom Indigenous traditional cultural expressions, such as duodji, may be used is part of Indigenous peoples’ rights to their own culture. In Finland, this has been guaranteed to the Sámi by the Finnish Constitution (Mattila, 2018: 9−10, 18−19; Mattila and Jaakonsaari, 2022: 42−43), but it is currently not adequately implemented. The Sámi Duodji association has very limited resources. Achieving structural change in the souvenir market would require the state providing sufficient resources to create and implement a Sámi system for the governance of the commercial use of duodji traditions, for example, a system of permits that non-Sámi crafters could apply for, as suggested by Nuorgam and Paadar (2022: 19). The state should support the creation of this system by all necessary means, for example, regarding legislation and supervision of the market. It should, for instance, take measures to ensure that souvenir makers and sellers do not mislead consumers in their product information (i.e., that they comply with consumer protection legislation). In Canada, ITAC has created a fund to which tourists and non-Indigenous tourism companies can donate money to advance reconciliation by supporting Indigenous tourism development (ITAC, 2023). The same could be done in Finland, including financial support to the Sámi Duodji association. Moreover, the Sámi should be the ones who decide who gets education in duodji making and under what conditions.

It would also help if all duojárs used the Sámi Duodji or Sámi Made trademarks on their products. This would help tourists to make responsible choices. Their awareness of the trademarks, cultural appropriation and settler colonialism should also be raised. The Sámi Duodji association would need resources for this as well. Hopefully, the new Sámi tourism certification in the making and the new global marketing organization DO-IT will also change the market towards greater responsibility in the future. If public opinion in Finland were to continue to shift more negatively towards cultural appropriation and the trend towards responsible consumption were to strengthen, the appropriators might switch to more responsible business practices, even if the state continued to be settler colonial.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material - From cultural appropriation to Sámi sovereignty in the souvenir market

Supplemental Material for From cultural appropriation to Sámi sovereignty in the souvenir market by Monika Lüthje in Ethnicities