Out of the three texts we read this week, I found the “Introduction” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K. Wayne Yang most interesting, but perhaps for the wrong reasons.
Though the text aimed to create an inclusive environment and encourage diversity, I thought it did quite the opposite for me. I thought the message of the writing in many instances encouraged a sense of division and disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous, and in a way, created a sense of dismiss to those who didn’t belong to the indigenous community. For instance, it repeatedly used the term “white settler”. I believe this term is very dismissive because firstly, it assumed that everyone who wasn’t indigenous was a settler and therefore white, which is obviously not true. Furthermore, the term settler is very misleading. What defines a settler? Is a person born in Canada whose parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were also born in Canada still a settler? Does it mean that even though they were born in this land, they will never be able to call Canada their home? Where do they belong? When does it end?
Another aspect in which the text encouraged division was by explicitly separating “insiders” from “outsiders” and saying that a “beginner needs to know about boundaries, borders, liminality, and intersectionality” (Smith 13). I fear that this results in a double standard. How is it that society aims to have open borders and condemn’s Trump’s wall, yet, the text encourages “boundaries” and “borders” between indigenous and non-indigenous? I think the goal should be for everyone to share our country of Canada and be united by our citizenship because in the end, Indigenous or non-indigenous, we are all Canadians.
Hi Andrea!
I completely agree that Smith’s language in the section about “insiders” and “outsiders” was not very encouraging, and even sort of cruel… I think she could have conveyed her point in a much more diplomatic way and in that sense I agree.
I do think that her main point isn’t to separate out “insiders” from “outsiders” in the way that Trump’s wall is blatantly separating folks, but rather to point out that it seems wrong for researchers to come into communities with little background information about the culture and ways of life in that community, expecting a spectacle so that they can record it, insert it in their research thesis and turn around and go home. That might be more along the lines of what she meant, but I do see what you mean about her delivery seeming exclusionary and taunting.
Hi Andrea,
I absolutely loved your perspective on our reading this week! While I was reading the text, it had never occurred to me how it created a separation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, but for the wrong reasons. Although it is important to recognize that we are residing on land that was taken away from families years ago, we shall do it in a way that doesn’t compromise others! Nonetheless, I do believe the main cause behind the tone of the author was simply their passion to appreciate and remember the Indigenous peoples.
Hi! Firstly, I like your point about the word “settler” – it tends to have different definitions depending on the text. I can also see where you’re coming from when you say that this text discouraged diversity! The “boundaries, borders, liminality and intersectionality” discussion was super interesting, but I understand why you viewed this as resulting in a double standard. I have learned over the years that it’s always important to ask questions and to point out things that don’t sit will with you. It also makes for a great discussion!
Hello!
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you that Smith’s way of describing things were a bit of harsh and unfriendly.
However, I agree with Avery Bradamat about the concepts of “insiders” and “outsiders”. I believe Smith was warning future researchers to be very careful about trying to be an “insider” in order to observe an “outsider” group since it is almost impossible to achieve even in long periods of time. I am from Istanbul and I have lived with my Canadian best friend for over four years. We still have not been able to be “insiders” for each other. Even though we have interacted with each other too many times we are still confused about some of our traditions and behaviours. Therefore, people coming into a whole new culture expecting to be “one of them” within the other group with limited information and a short amount of time is almost impossible.
So sorry Avery Bramadat!