Jocelyn Bussieres
I plan to look at Indigenous ways of knowing as articulated within the academy as both a form of resistance to and in relation with Western epistemologies. While I do intend to continue to narrow my research more specifically to highlight the voices of First Nations’ people within the Canadian context, I will also be drawing on the anti-colonial discourses of sociologists of colour such as Patricia Hill Collins and GJS Dei. While not wishing to homogenize or create a hierarchy for experiences of violence and oppression as key factors that inform and limit Indigenous ways of knowing, I hope to highlight similarities and contrasts between different the different frameworks of colonization that the Western historical cannon allows. With this, I will put a focus on not only Western epistemologies but the faculty/study of History, and how this can be challenged by Indigenous knowledges and memories.
In attempting to compare and contrast historical discourses around colonization and oppression (and the symbiotic Western epistemologies involved), I will be using an intersectional approach that keeps in mind the interconnectedness of capitalism, heteropatriarchy, violence and colonialism. An example of this would be looking at capitalism in the academy and in colonial discourses in Canada and how this informs Western epistemologies and both devalues and appropriates Indigenous knowledge systems.
Shahjahan, Ahmed Riyad. “Mapping the Field of Anti-Colonial Discourse To Understand Issues of Indigenous Knowledges: Decolonizing Praxis.” McGill Journal of Education. 213-240(2005). Web. 3 August 2015.
Riyad A. Shahjahan looks at anti-oppressive and anti/post-colonial pedagogies within the Western system of higher education. In Who Am I? Reclaiming the Self, Shahjahan is explicit in identifying his own voice as a scholar and writer (a Bangladeshi, able-bodied male), directly challenging pursuits within the academy to obscure or disregard one’s voice/background/identity in the name of “objectivity”. Said objectivity simply assumes sameness in the backgrounds of readers and imposes a presumptuous homogenizing truth in one’s work, language and thought frameworks.
Shahjahan speaks as a member of the academy, who uses academic theory and writing as a means for resistance, decolonization and healing (with a heavy emphasis on the importance of spirituality in knowledge systems not to be rejected in the name of “rationality”), but is also critical of this challenging relationship of using the masters tool’s to dismantle the master’s house, “we are transfixed in Eurocentric modes of thought, in that we have an ambivalence towards its ideas, even though we must decolonize the academy.” (229)
One of his strongest discussions is around language in anti-colonial academic writing. He asks, “who are we writing for?” and notes that much anti-colonial scholarship is “exclusive to a certain readership” (231) He attempts to navigate this in his discussion around spirituality, and engaging personal/spiritual knowledge and memory with higher learning and theory. Shahjahan is effective in approach to Indigenous knowledges as, knowledges and not static. This is important to acknowledge that while history, memory and tradition are vital to Indigenous ways of knowing, they “are cumulative in that they are able to combine with the complexities and particularities of modern world systems.” (227). Furthermore, he notes that “Western” knowledges have appropriated Indigenous knowledges, and while Western epistemologies are oppressive and violent, the relationships between ways of knowing are often symbiotic (symbiotic does not infer sameness or equality).
McIssac, Elizabeth. “Oral Narratives as a Site of Resistance: Indigenous Knowledge, Colonialism and Western Discourse.” Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World. 89-91 (2000). Web. 6 August 2015.
I feel that I need to begin my discussion of McIssac’s article with the fact that I did find it, in some areas, problematic, distant, and not a voice that I wish to particularly highlight in this conference. I am adding it to this anobib because of McIssac’s discussion around “class consciousness” and “colonial consciousness”, with a heavy focus on the intersectionalities between capitalism, colonialism and historical discourses. I take issue in McIssac’s identity as a non-Indigenous woman doing research surrounding First Nation’s orality and “consciousness”. Her article takes a particularly anthropological and voyeuristic tone, and while she acknowledges her positionality and notes that one of the biggest challenges in her research is this “mediation of orality” (who hears, interprets and relays the interviews), in which she is imposing all of her own epistemologies as a non-Indigenous woman, speaking about Indigenous consciousness. The article does seem to operate within the problematic realm of Wester epistemology as introduced by Coleman, and could potentially be used as an example of oppressive imposition of these limiting frameworks.
Specifically, this article focuses on the Kimmirut Inuit community in Northern Baffin Island. McIssac interviewed elders to gain an understanding of how Inuit narratives and “consciousness” (around class and colonialism) fall into the “confines of historical materialism” (87) and whether “[traditional practices and oral storytelling acting as forms of] resistance rearticulate or subvert dominant discourses.” (89)
McIssac’s use of language around definitions of “class and colonial consciousness” emphasize knowledge in reaction to oppression and within the frameworks of capitalist belief systems. McIssac acknowledges the fact that her focus of class consciousness relies on Western epistemologies that are heavily informed by capitalist belief systems. She emphasizes the significant role that capitalism (as a discourse, language and hegemonic norm) plays is colonialism, and Western epistemologies in the realm of History. When capitalistic values and language are not part of traditional Inuit knowledge systems, the histories, discourses and “class consciousnesses” do not translate to the epistemological frameworks presented by Western discourses around colonization and its ongoing legacy.
Gretta Dattan
I want to look deeper into the reading of Indigenous Canadian literature through Western epidemiological terms contrasted with the analysis of Australian Aboriginal literature. Indigenous peoples on both the Australian and North American continents were colonized primarily by the British and both have as a result undergone somewhat similar horrors over the past few centuries and continue to suffer under similar social and economic constraints and conditions. I want to explore how Coleman’s concepts can be compared and applied to peoples and cultures outside of Canada. Oftentimes literature by oppressed Indigenous communities is considered to be primarily political and involve expressions of hardship and difficulty resulting from centuries of suppression and genocide, or to simply be ‘primitive’. This view needs to be reconsidered, I believe the articles below begin to explore how varied both Australian Aboriginal and Canadian Indigenous literature is and how we can begin to approach both in a respectful, aware way. For decades the distorted lens of the colonizer’s Eurocentric literary analysis has robbed Indigenous and Aboriginal works of the respect they deserve.
Helen Gilbert, a professor at Royal Holloway University outside of London, specializes in the theatrical expression of marginalized communities. In her riveting article she explores how theatrical whiteface can be seen as a, “revisionist tactic designed to deflect-and reverse-the imperial gaze and critique the racist stereotypes it has circulated.” The concept of claiming whiteness on the stage is portrayed as a liberation and an opportunity for Indigenous theater to explore, analyze, and experience European artistic perspectives from the inside out. Obviously Indigenous Peoples have long been forced to submit to the constraints of European artistic theory, creation, criticism, etc. but in the case of whiteface the Indigenous person is empowered and explores Western artistic creation through choice and action.
However, can the use of white face in theater be at all likened to the Indigenous use of European literary styles and forms when used in an intentionally subversive manner? Could this be the ‘white face’ of literature? The fantasy of theater and of racial changes on the stage plays with white settler fears and fantastical delusions about the Indigenous experience. Can the white settler have the same experience watching a white face production as reading politically pointed Indigenous literature-that of displacement, confusion, and perhaps a new understanding? As Gilbert stresses in her article, white face performance is both a social critique and release. She writes, “by stressing the performativity of race alongside the enormous power (still) invested in skin color as a categorizing and stratifying tool, indigenous whiteface acts directly address the racial hierarchies that have undergirded the settler/invader cultures in which they are staged.” However, is white face necessary to generate these ideas, feelings, and thoughts? Could white face actually be counter productive and alienate all white audiences to the point that they no longer engage with the ideas and themes present in the piece?
In her piece, “Indigenous Thought, Appropriation, and Non-Aboriginal People,” York University’s Celia Haig-Brown explores the possible answers to the question, “What is the relationship between appropriation of Indigenous thought and what might be called ‘deep learning’ based in years of education in Indigenous contexts?” After searching to find the true meaning of cultural appropriation, she relies on the knowledge of the First Nations Peoples of British Columbia to help guide her better understand how Indigenous culture is undervalued, appropriated, and subjected to the Procrustean Bed of Western Literary criticism. Her passion to help support Indigenous literature while also acknowledging the dangers of appropriation and misinterpretation and misidentification make for a truly interesting web of ideas and thoughts.
In the article, Haig-Brown delves into what she determines to be three different kinds of cultural appropriation, those being, “: (a) commercial exploitation, (b) modernist “affinity,” and (c) post‐modern quotation.” Each brand of appropriation comes with its own set of distinct moral and cultural issues while also isolating Indigenous communities. One particularly interesting kind of appropriation that Haig-Brown explores is that of bio-piracy in which genetic information is taken from Indigenous peoples for DNA research. Could the British system of trying to eliminate Australian Aboriginals through preventing Aboriginal Peoples from marrying and having children also be considered a form of biological appropriation? Obviously it is already a colonial suppression and violence against the community but, by attempting to take control of Aboriginal genetics, could it be said to also be biological appropriation-which continues to this day as a genetic legacy?
Haig-Brown also explores the difficulties around the study of Indigenous art, stating, “Not only within the arts does such colonial occupation recur. What does it mean and what happens when one (attempts to or) does occupy culturally‐ based concepts, beliefs, values, and thought processes for purposes other than what may have initially been intended by the originators? What is the significance of original intentions and the world unfolding in unanticipated ways?” This sparks many interesting ideas and reflections that should be observed when encountering Indigenous art and text–how does one study Indigenous literature and art with respect and knowledge?
In his article, “Introduction: Conjuring Marks: Furthering Indigenous Empowerment through Literature,” Daniel Heath Justice expounds upon the immense importance the written word has always had for Indigenous communities. Justice is a both a writer and a professor at UBC where he teaches First Nations Literature and leads advanced research courses. In his article he describes the challenge of leaving behind the web of Western thought and theory when we approach Indigenous literature, and he acknowledges the difficulty in doing so. In a sentiment which mirrors the purpose of this conference, he concludes his article with the words, “Good intentions alone do not decolonize bodies and spirits–it takes action and commitment to do that. Healing, like education, is an active process. Writing about decolonization does not much matter unless we live its principles and-like these writers-take the risk of sending them out into the world.”
Justice raises important concerns regarding Indigenous relationships with the written word. He writes, “Native peoples in North America have a long and often vexed relationship with the unpredictable power of the written word. Those marks on paper, hide, bark, and canvas have served as both tools of liberation for Indigenous communities and as weapons of devastation used against them. Indigenous peoples were literate in their own systems of meaning long before Eurowestern colonization, but European-derived languages and their various forms of transmission (often forced or coerced) created a very different relationship to literacy, one which was formative to the Christianizing and “civilizing” processes of Eurowestern colonization.” The Indigenous experience with literature and writing itself is varied, complex, and very different from the settler experience. The complex and layered relationship between Indigenous communities and individual and literature should always be understood and respected when approaching an Indigenous text, but what is the best way to do this, to view the literature itself through a sociohistorical lens of awareness?
In her article, “Social Protest and Beyond in Australian Indigenous Poetry: Romaine Moreton, Alf Taylor and Michael J. Smith,” Dania Čerče explores the various ways to analyze Australian Indigenous Poetry. She describes the difficulty of analyzing Aboriginal poetry as she avoids relying on Western theory and while appreciating historical and socioeconomic background, also works to appreciate the art in itself without Western influences.
Cerce also explores the complexities surrounding critical review of Aboriginal literature and how resistance and sociopolitical criticism is expressed through Aboriginal poetry. Highlighting artists such as Romaine Moreton, Cerce also looks at how the power of Aboriginal words contrast sharply with the hollowness of the Australian government’s statements apologizing for the horrors of colonization. Our governments and leaders need to be aware of Indigenous understandings and should work to view their writings, statements, and speeches through an Indigenous perspective, not simply a Western one.
Melissa Kuipers
In “Aboriginal Epistemologies and New Teacher Induction,” Cherubini, Hodson, and Kitchen discuss teacher induction programs and the lack of focus on Aboriginal epistemology in the field. Cherubini et al. discuss how Indigenous epistemologies “‘fared spectacularly badly’ in university settings” and as a result, school systems tend to stick to “mainstream knowledge hierarchies,” that is, “Eurocentric paradigms”. They discuss the Ontario Aboriginal Policy Framework that recommends that faculties of education in Ontario induct more culturally-knowledgable and aware Aboriginal teachers. Through the induction of more Aboriginal teachers, Aboriginal epistemologies can be introduced, epistemologies that “focus on pedagogy that teaches through culture and fosters student awareness about the intricate connections they share with other and the natural environment”. Cherubini et al. also mention Aboriginal educators’ role in “preserving Aboriginal languages and cultures to further the self-determination of Aboriginal students”.
By training more culturally-knowledgable Aboriginal educators, Aboriginal epistemology can be introduced. To move toward epistemic justice, training Aboriginal educators is an important step. Not only does introducing more Aboriginal instructors help preserve language (through the teaching of First Nations Languages), it also helps to preserve “cultural and linguistic traditions”.
FNSA, and FNESC. “Curriculum and Resources for First Nations Language Programs in BC First Nations Schools.” (2009). Web. 3 Aug. 2015.
In their 2014 study, Johnston, Wiltse, and Yang take a critical look at the Canadian Literature curriculum in Canadian high school classrooms, exploring the value of taking a social justice approach in English classes by teaching Indigenous literature instead of the “same familiar canonized texts,” like In Flanders Fields or, more likely, American texts. Their study included eight high school teachers from six Canadian high schools, and entailed that each educator teach from a core list of Multicultural Canadian texts.
Drawing on Boler and Zembylas’ “pedagogy of discomfort,” Johnston et al. focus on two teachers who step out of their comfort zones and teach texts that stray form the typical lit canon: Monkey Beach by Eden Robinson and Keeper’n Me by Richard Wagamese. The teachers “encouraged critical inquiries into ways they and their students might begin to re-evaluate their world views and potentially consider ideas for social transformation”. The teachers discussed stereotyping, land issues, environmental issues, and the importance of language. Prompted by the novels, students were taught the ‘multiple, heterogeneous, and messy realities of power relations as they are enacted and resisted in localities”.
Interestingly, many students resisted discussing Aboriginal issues before reading the texts. One teacher said that, “anytime students encounter something Aboriginal, there is an anger associated to it.” One can assume that these reactions are a result of the colonial teachings in North American high schools. As Johnston et al. explain, “the dominant Discourse of the school tends to silence other practices”. Clearly, de-colonizing literature classes is an important step to take towards epistemic justice.
McCrae, John. “In Flanders Fields.” 15 May 1915. TheGreatWar.co.uk. Web. Aug 3 2015.
Lapointe, Micheal. “What’s Happened to CanLit?” Literary Review of Canada. Web. 03 Aug 2015.
Robinson, Eden. “Monkey Beach” GoodReads.com. Web. 3 Aug 2015.
Wagamese, Richard. “Keeper’n Me” GoodReads.com. Web. 3 Aug 2015.
Kevin Sun
What does the Indigenous epistemology entail, and how does it contrast to the Continental epistemology? The problem that I’ve forced myself to acknowledge even before exploring this question is the problem of my investment in Continental epistemology. It is a problem that I will continue to struggle with as my research continues, and I ask that those who share my problem continue to struggle with it as well.
Despite my problem, it is clear to me that differing epistemologies creates tension that has finally been acknowledged and yet is far from being relieved. Nowhere is this tension more explicit and fatal than in Canada’s school system. Michael Chandler brings this epistemic tension into light, pointing out its consequence that “a disproportionate number of Indigenous students in every province routinely underperform academically, drop out of school at inexcusably tender ages, fail to graduate from high school in heart-stopping numbers, and are woefully under-represented in institutions of ‘higher’ learning.” As he identifies the problem, however, Chandler also acknowledges the difficulty of formulating its solution—a solution that ideally requires deep understanding of not only Indigenous and Continental epistemology but of epistemology itself: how we know how we know. A very tall order.
A less tall order for adherents to the Continental epistemology is to understand or at least attempt to understand Indigenous epistemology and what it entails on a critical level. Michael Anthony Hart offers such an understanding as he formulates an “Indigenous research paradigm” (1). This paradigm, based on the Cree perspective, differs from the standard Continental research paradigm in these ways, among others:
The recognition of the spiritual as a source of knowledge.
The recognition of the researcher as subjective.
The employment of Elders as major sources of knowledge.
The holistic understanding that everything is connected (thus discrediting the isolation of variables).
The resolve to conduct research for the ultimate benefit of the local community.
While Hart does not provide an actual example of research conducted using this kind of paradigm, Lynn F. Lavallée does. Her paper provides a fascinating account of how she consciously used the Indigenous epistemology in conducting research and how this created problems in the academia, with its investment in the Continental epistemology.
In a dialogue transcript focusing on Indigenous perspectives in the academia, Daniel Coleman and several other scholars discuss how the “[I]ndigenous knowledges” have come into focus as a response to Continental knowledge, becoming “a key site for decolonization” (144). The discussion notes that the kind of “epistemicide” committed against Indigenous peoples in Canada happens “around the world,” highlighting the fact that Canada’s plight is not unique—it is part of a universal conflict.
Language is key to knowledge. This discussion brings up the very interesting point that whereas Continental languages (such as English) are “noun-oriented,” Indigenous languages are “often verb-oriented” (148). The significance of this distinction is demonstrated in a question posed by Continental linguists, which asks why the Cheyenne word for duck—“še’še”—is so similar to the Cheyenne word for rattlesnake—“še’šenovôtse” (150). The answer is in their “movement” (151). Thus, whereas Continental languages and its epistemology focus on subjects themselves, Indigenous languages and its epistemologies focus on the actions that those subjects take—how they interact with and change the world.
Every people and all the cultures of the world come from a place. All people are coming into the world to learn. And they learn from the knowledges that begin within a particular place, and that place defines for a group of people what it is, how they relate to the world, how they relate to each other, and how they’re going to survive and live within that particular place (144).
This is common ground, Earth that will still exist once decolonization is complete. Even as Continental and Indigenous epistemologies conflict in how they perceive the world, it is important and necessary to acknowledge that they ultimately share a common goal—to enrich the lives of their people.
Is comparative literature the way to make use of this common ground? Katherine Durnin states that “[o]ne of the main impulses behind the comparative study of literature is the recognition that literary forms and practices are shared across cultures, and the desire to discover what exactly is shared and how that sharing takes place” (2). Continental epistemology is different from the Indigenous epistemology, and many of those differences are irreconcilable; however, this does not mean that one cannot learn from the other. Sharing between literatures and ways of knowing is valuable precisely because it is done between such different groups, and “comparative methodology needs difference as much as it needs comparability to proceed” (8).
Works Cited
“Cree.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, n. d. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
“Epistemology.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. EB Inc., 2015. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
Shah, Anup. “Rights of Indigenous People.” Global Issues. Anup Shah, 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
Shuttleowrth, Martyn. “What is a Paradigm?” Explorable. Explorable.com, 2015. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
“The Education System in Canada.” Study Canada. CEC Network Inc., 2003. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
Hi guys,
You have some great sources and thoughts here!
I want to start with a comment on Melissa’s Johnston, Wiltse, and Yang entry. You found a perfect study that narrows in exactly where Coleman directs his challenges. It’s really powerful to look at something so familiar to me and I imagine most of us – Canadian high school English curriculum. I’ve definitely experienced and witnessed the anger that they talk about, when students are confronted with any Aboriginal issue at all. In this class and other ones like it, where we have all specifically chosen to study Aboriginal and colonial literature, it’s pretty clear that we have less resistance to discussing these questions. But, even if we’re making the choice to take a look, we’re soaked through with the same silencing Western discourse as everyone else. How do you think this study’s findings relate to our class?
Thanks for the great start!
Kaitie
Johnston, Ingrid, Lynne Wiltse, and Kylie Yang. “Pushing Comfort Zones: Promoting Social Justice Through the Teaching of Aboriginal Canadian Literature.” Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education. 21.3 (2014): 264-277. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 4 Aug 2015.
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/1358684X.2014.929287
Hi Katie,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on our page. Truthfully, I saw and felt a lot of resistance when I was in high school learning about First Nations history. I feel that it is absolutely a result of the way the social studies curriculum is structured, at least at the school I went to. Aboriginal history was not introduced until quite late in the game, having been mentioned only in passing in class until an extremely brief unit in grade 10. These issues need to be talked about earlier on and in greater detail, an approach that I believe would lessen the resistance many of us feel. Of course, I’m not the first to think this. As you probably know, there is a lot of talk about educating young people on First Nations history. (see: http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/09/10/BC-Aboriginal-Education/)
This study relates to this class in a number of ways. Many of us are doing some serious unlearning in this class, being introduced to Aboriginal history from a completely different standpoint. Using atypical mediums to deliver history, especially storytelling/orature, is something that I’ve noticed is met with some skepticism. But learning about Aboriginal history in a form outside of colonizing literature is clearly opening up some minds and giving us more room to learn. In the Johnston et al.’s study, the English teachers choose to study untraditional Aboriginal texts, and use the texts as avenues to discuss broader issues. This is something we’re doing in this class, and I feel it’s a great approach to lessening the resistance many of us tend to project.
Hi everyone!
Your page looks great! My group and I found your goals to be most similar to ours, and as such I wanted to start by commenting on the article by Katherine Durnin, which I found really hit close to home.
Living in Eurocentric societies, often there is the need for bridges to be established in order to ‘close the gap’ found across cultures. I particularly like how Durnin highlights the study of comparative literature enhancing the cross-influence which actually exists within different societies, such as how colonialism has affected Indigenous life and vice versa (4). It only serves to highlight the commonality within cultures and the need for the fostering of meaningful and respectful relationships between cultures. Perhaps it sounds idealistic but harmony and progress through the understanding of one another’s cultures seems the only solution in a lot of situations.
Additionally I feel that Durnin’s comparative literature can be paralleled to the purpose of comparative politics and is also important as the former results in the consequence of the other. Would you agree that governments need to take more action into fostering an understanding between the past history of the land in accordance with their decisions on what to ‘do with the land’ for example? Perhaps I might be reading too much into this but would love to hear more from your team! Thank you!
Debra
Durnin, Katherine. “Indigenous Literature and Comparability.” Clcweb: Comparative Literature and Culture 13.2 (2011). Web. 6 Aug. 2015.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1740&context=clcweb
Hi Debra. Common ground is indeed the foundation of all relationships. What you write does not seem idealistic to me at all; rather, it is the ultimate goal to strive for, the most realistic and most practical way to facilitate the coexistence of different cultures while maintaining their independence. If cultures can value what they themselves are while valuing other cultures for what they are, then communication and comparative studies becomes truly powerful as a way to build on that common ground.
I think that all comparative studies, not just comparative literature and comparative politics, serve to build on common ground. Your question is interesting to me, however, because it focuses on comparing the past to the present, rather than comparing present groups. I will admit now that I am not fond of historical studies; rather than investing resources on analyzing the past, I think that it is more useful to invest those resources on analyzing the present and its course towards the future. As such, I would be skeptical about having the government take more action in this field in general, although I am admittedly rather ignorant about its current efforts in that field.
I feel that, to an extent, my disinterest in history is part of my investment in Continental epistemology. I know, or think I know, that Indigenous cultures value their histories in a different way and to a different degree from how Continental cultures value their own, and I suspect that this is what motivated your question. I think, then, that as Canada’s Indigenous cultures place great importance on the history of their land as sources of their present knowledge, the Canadian government should take more action to understanding that history, as a way to understanding the present cultures of its Indigenous people.
I would enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter.
Hi Kevin!
I really like what you said: “If cultures can value what they themselves are while valuing other cultures for what they are, then communication and comparative studies becomes truly powerful as a way to build on that common ground”. Well phrased and hits the nail on the head!
Essentially what I meant is that we have to learn from the past in order to know how to frame the future. For example, the gentrification of land or areas which belonged to Indigenous peoples has definitely alienated them instead of including them as we progress towards the future. I feel that much of the discontent towards ‘Eurocentric rule’ is due to a lack of the interest in the past as an investment for the future. Growing up I learnt that the importance of learning history is to avoid making the same mistakes of our forefathers. Perhaps there is a need for acknowledging the problems of the past in order to create a more inclusive society.
That being said, I do agree that this strategy could also be counter-productive and instead be detrimental through the wastage of resources and in that sense I guess I am left pretty confused!
Hi guys,
I was home for the weekend and noticed the sign on the way into my home township – “Proud heritage, exciting future.” We generally scoff at this sentiment, because there’s not much in the way of excitement around! But it relates to what you’ve been talking about, Debra and Kevin. I thought I would try to find something useful in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission literature, about this balance between learning from the past and acting in the future. I haven’t found the profound kind of quote that I was looking for (which I’m sure exists in many places and in many different words). But the overall feeling seems to be a goal to use the truth of the past to build a better future.
This feels like something we’ve all heard and said, and you as mentioned, Debra, sounds very similar to what we learned in history class growing up.
But, it’s still kind of profound, isn’t it? It’s really hard to do.
“Our Mandate.” Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. n.d. Web. 9 August 2015. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=7
Perhaps we are being too skeptical (in the Continental epistemological context). Rather than thinking about the issue as having insufficient resources to adequately invest in both history and non-historical research (for lack of a better term), we can think about it as having multiple ways to creating a better future. And of course, the two are far from mutually exclusive. Research is done with past research in mind, and much of historical studies is done with the intention of contributing to present research. The part of historical studies that I’m not fond of, then, is the part that seeks to record and force people to memorize history, largely in the form of outdated and/or dubious facts, for its own sake, or with the argument that it might one day prove itself useful in some random and indirect way. I feel that resources spent on that can be far better spent elsewhere.
I think I know, however, that Indigenous cultures perceive history in a completely different way. Like Debra, I also learned that history is necessary “to avoid making the same mistakes of our forefathers.” This is what our (or at least my) Continental culture emphasizes to us (or at least me); I do not think that it is what Indigenous cultures emphasize to its people. Their emphasis seems to me to be more centered on exploring the “truth of the past,” as Kaitie writes. The feeling to me, and my hopefully educated assumption, is that Indigenous cultures study their history for its own sake, because their present is, to a different way and degree to Continental cultures, based on their past. Their holistic view of the world thus involves not only perceiving as one everything in the present, but everything in the past, present, and future as well.
Sorry to comment in the middle of this stream/conversation, but I felt that this was perhaps the most appropriate spot to poke my head into your discussion around the study, experience and value of history. A huge part of my degree is History, and I absolutely love it, but have also a significant amount of time trying to identify and breakdown the voices that make Continental historical discourses in the (capital H) study of /History/. I would disagree that resources would be better used “moving forward” and planning for the future, as there are so many practical merits to not only continuing research in the field of History, but in reforming the pedagogy of History and redefining it away from the solo Continental voice.
One potential reform that I would highlight in the context of this discussion, would be to look at History, specifically Aboriginal histories, from a trauma informed lens. I am still speaking as a white scholar, and do not wish for this to be a comment on groups defining their own histories, so much as a look at one possible change within the academy to incorporate and understand Indigenous knowledges. Glen Coulthard talks about anger in his book “Red Skin, White Mask”, with focus on even Continental and Institutional language around anger, and how they abide to a linear perception of time. For example, the term “resentment” clings to the notion that anger (in this case, anger as a reaction to ongoing experiences of violence and oppression) is linear and can heal and evolve with time to eventually become resentment. Coulthard notes that resentment is almost viewed as an expired or unjustified anger, a dwelling that occurs from not being able to let go of past experiences. If we approached some parts of history of settler-First Nations relations from a trauma informed lens, we would see that anger does not operate on a linear or fixed timeline, can come in waves or circles and can re-affirm and re-realize itself through generations. Violence can be residually experienced through generations in so many forms.
Shahjahan identifies his position as a South-Asian man within the academy, breaking down the Continental learning frameworks he by which he is confronted as incredibly healing.
Studying, reworking and engaging with histories and the study of History can be very /very/ oppressive, but also incredibly healing and thus directly influence the present and future. I don’t so much see history and present as separate so much as symbiotic and continually informing one another.
Coulthard, G. (2014). Seeing Red. In Red Skin White Masks
(pp. 105-129). Vancouver.
Hi Debra,
In regards to your last question, I think America’s current climate of racism against black communities is indicative of the fact that governments need to work hard, really hard, to foster understanding and dialogue between different communities and demographics in a single nation state. Obviously America has been an constitutionally racist nation since its inception, but now thanks to phone cameras everyone–not just singled out and oppressed communities–is aware of the racism and intolerance in American society, politics, and police forces, Now American officials and policy makers are being confronted with a massive issue-how to span those bridges and create connections between minorities and communities in a way which will curtail violence and intolerance.
Although Canadian Indigenous communities may not face the physical violence that has sparked movements like Black Lives Matter, First Nations Peoples in Canada face cultural and societal violence that also desperately needs to be addressed. In order to create a more unified and whole country where certain minorities are not marginalized, politicians need to be aware of historical relationships and events while also working towards starting dialogues between communities and groups. Divides and mistrust between demographics will not fade away very quickly; rather policy makers and community builders are required to begin forging connections. When these tensions are ignored and historical injustices written off, bitterness and misunderstanding deepens and develops.
Hi guys! Our group found a lot in common which your group. Thank you all for your sources and analysis. All of your sources really connect with your intervention and I appreciate the work you have put into it.
I really enjoyed the part on the orientation of different languages, comparing noun-oriented language to verb-oriented language. I had never known of this. Do you think that this has partly contributed to why Aboriginal languages are not valued as much in Canadian society? Western thought and Aboriginal thought valued different verbs throughout history, some verbs may be attributed to one group that the other group does not value.
With Ahmed Riyan’s article, you mention how one must disregard their voice, histories, cultures etc to be objective. Why is it do you think that academia deems Aboriginal pedagogy to not be objective, whereas history teachers that teach Western history do not seem to fall under the same scrutiny? Why do you think it is that the West views itself as objective and others as not? Great article! Really brings up interesting points.
On your points on Canadian literature often using familiar texts (such as Flanders Field) or turning to American literature, do you think that other groups in Canada have their literature ignored as well? Aboriginal literature is certainly not taught in most schools in Canada, but I also do not think that we read anything wrote by African-Canadians, women of colour, or really anything that was not Western, White, and Male. Do you think that if the education system had to change to incorporate more Aboriginal teachings and lessons, that it would also signal more changes in literature studies to include a variety of backgrounds from writers? Canadian texts are often ignored for American ones. Do you think that having Aboriginal texts would spark a larger movement beyond just Aboriginal literature?
I really like all of your sources and look forward to seeing your dialogue and summaries!
Hi Alyssa. I am not aware of differences in the verbs that Western and Aboriginal thought value respectively, although I wouldn’t be surprised if these differences do exist and am interested in reading specific examples. My understanding from the Coleman et al discussion is that whereas Continental cultures place emphasis on nouns, Indigenous cultures place emphasis on verbs. This difference may indeed have contributed to Canadian society’s evaluation of Indigenous languages as lacking value, but I think that this evaluation is more significantly influenced by other concerns (such as the colonial goal of suppressing the cultures themselves). Understanding this language difference would itself require an understanding of an Indigenous language, and I suspect that few non-Indigenous people even possess that understanding. I know that I don’t, although I did take the shortcut to learning this difference (which I suspect is one of many) from Coleman et al’s discussion.
Hey Alyssa,
Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly read and respond to our research! With regard to your question about objectivity and the voice of the Western History teacher as objective, I think it is kind of a cycle that feeds itself. Because the white Western voice has been, for so long, the only voice amplified by academia, it is more or less seen as the norm. It is normalized to the point that it is not seen as a perspective (such as “Western” or “Continental” or even “white”) but as the foundation for learning and discussing. The Aboriginal voice is marked as different from this norm and always seen in the light of the Western norm–as a reaction to or product of the set framework. In teaching something from only perspective, with only one language and set of values, not only is it seen as objective, it is unmarked and the existence of values that influence it go unseen.
Great point about Indigenous voices being some of the many that go unheard and oppressed by the academy (and curriculum of primary and secondary schools)! I do think that if Aboriginal voices were highlighted, it would make room for other voices to be heard as well. But, at the same time, and in line with what I said above, the approach to different knowledges would need to be outside of the “Western” “non-Western” binary. If Aboriginal stories are only read as the “alternative” to white male voices, then I think the norm of Continental knowledge systems would be maintained and all of these other voices would continue to be oppressed by it.
Hi Alyssa, I would like to respond to your comment about Canadian texts and their diversity (or lack thereof) in the educational system. Although I grew up in America, from what I have learned the educational system and curriculum is very similar to that of Canada. I cannot remember reading a single Indigenous text in school growing up, but in America (or at least in Seattle) a large amount of emphasis is placed on black literary movements and literature from a myriad of minority groups. I do think however that although many American schools do a great job of promoting diverse literature, more emphasis needs to be placed on Indigenous works.
Personally, I believe that one of the best ways to begin to understand and feel an empathetic connection with a culture is through experiencing a culture’s art. Reading is especially powerful because the audience is placed in the position of the narrator of the text and therefore the events and feelings are experienced vicariously and oftentimes in greater depth and detail than one can experience from say, looking at art or listening to music. (this is an interesting article on reading and empathy: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/ )
Native American communities are very often forgotten in America as clashes and social justice issues with other minority groups often take priority with the media. However I think it is vital that students begin to understand the reality of the Native American experience both in the past and in the present. And to answer your question, yes I do think a non-literary movement could start as a result of an increase in the study of Indigenous texts. Even if the movement is an increased interest in Indigenous welfare and Aboriginal rights, I think it is extremely important. Also, beginning the conversations about Indigenous communities and Native American historical and social experience at an early age is really important and can only lead to a more open, welcoming, and whole generation.
Chiaet, Julianne. “Novel Finding: Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy.” Scientific American Global RSS. Scientific American, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
Hi Alyssa,
Thanks for the detailed comment! You’ve brought up some great, thoughtful questions.
I want to address the last few questions you ask regarding other CanLit authors being ignored. It’s unfortunate that my experience is the same as yours and I was not taught anything other than old books and poems written by white Canadian men. It would be a huge step to start teaching texts by Aboriginal authors, not only because diversity is so rare in English classes, but also because reading something so far from the typical CanLit canon will undoubtedly cause a stir in classrooms. I don’t know about you, but English class for me was always tame, with few discussions ever leading anywhere outside of establishing a book/story/poem’s theme and moving on. Introducing books by Aboriginal authors would push classroom discussion in another direction, getting students talking about social justice issues and creating what I would call productive discussions around social issues. Introducing any form of storytelling outside of typical prose, especially orature and song, would also expand peoples’ approach to literature and I think could really get youth more involved and interested in Aboriginal rights.
This is the same for books by POCs, women, LGTBQ authors… Basically, like you said, anyone other than a white male. Adding minority voices into the lit canon would allow for productive conversation around important issues affecting Canadians. These discussions should not be reserved for high school social justice classes, but they should also find a home in English classes, social studies classes, etc. By introducing more diverse voices through high school curriculums, students would have the opportunity to learn more about issues that are typically overlooked in North American high schools.