{"id":51,"date":"2016-04-08T13:38:06","date_gmt":"2016-04-08T20:38:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/?page_id=51"},"modified":"2016-04-21T00:12:24","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T07:12:24","slug":"annotated-bibliography","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/annotated-bibliography\/","title":{"rendered":"Annotated Bibliography"},"content":{"rendered":"
Annotated Bibliography #1 – \u00a0Merriam Alica<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Gingell, Susan & Roy, Wendy. \u201cIntroduction: Opening the Door to Transdiciplinary, Multimodal Communication\u201d\u00a0in\u00a0Listening Up, Writing Down, and Looking Beyond: Interfaces of the Oral, Written, and Visual\u00a0<\/i><\/em>by Susan Gingell.\u00a0Waterloo:\u00a0Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2012: 1-50. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

This source is the introductory\u00a0chapter from this book<\/a>, published by Wilfred Laurier University Press. The book is an anthology edited by Susan Gingell<\/a> and Wendy Roy<\/a>\u00a0(also the authors of its introduction), both professors of Canadian Literature based at the University of Saskatchewan, with its purpose being\u00a0to “address the politics and ethics of the utterance and text: textualizing orature and orality, simulations of the oral, the poetics of performance, and reconstructions of the oral” (“Listening Up, Writing Down, and Looking Beyond”, Wilfred Laurier University Press).<\/p>\n

Central to the inclusion of this text are Gingell and Roy’s definitions of the following key concepts: that of “orature <\/i>and orality<\/i>; performance, speech<\/i>, and sound<\/i>; audience; text; textualized orature <\/i>and orality; <\/i>and storytelling”\u00a0<\/i>(Gingell & Roy, 5). Out of all of these, the most relevant and intriguing is that of oral+<\/strong>, which is used “…to signify the co-functioning of paralinguistic elements with speech and other vocalizations\u00a0[with]\u00a0the partialness of the term oral can be signalled by following it with a superscript plus sign: oral+” (6). Oral+ functions in response to Ong’s argument about orality\/literature, by setting orature apart from, rather than analogous to, \u00a0literature. They also highlight how the “textualized orality of politically and socially marginalized groups” can be read as incorrect and inadequate <\/a>by those judging from a conventional (settler\/colonial and\u00a0privileged) position, because of the lack of understanding of textual and oral forms (12).<\/p>\n

I choose to include this source as it functions in a similar way to MacNeil’s essay, “orality<\/a>“<\/strong> (2007)<\/strong>, in that it operates as a useful reference tool to turn to when defining integral definitions key to this project, as well as offering an exploration on the debate regarding the perceptions of orality and literacy. Written by Gingell (with Wendy Roy) this text also offers an elaboration of the idea of “sound identities”<\/strong>, as well as an explanation as to why they (as performance) are important, especially within the context of Aboriginal culture. Gingell and Roy highlight the importance of language (sound) to First Nations’ identity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
Annotated Bibliography #2 – \u00a0Merriam Alica<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Stewart, Patrick Robert Reid.\u00a0Indigenous Architecture through Indigenous Knowledge : Dim sagalts\u2019apkw Nisi\u1e3f [Together we Will Build a Village]<\/i>. Dissertation. University of British Columbia, 2015. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

“writing this dissertation reinforced my thinking \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 it reinforced my confidence
\nit reinforced my culture by reinforcing my writing as spoken word \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 part of an oral\u00a0tradition that has existed since time immemorial \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 this writing style requires particular deliberation \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0it is not random \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 it is democratic \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0it is not hierarchical”<\/p>\n

(Stewart, \u00a0xii)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In 2015, Patrick Stewart<\/a> – a member of the Nisga’a Nation<\/a> and at the time a Phd candidate at UBC’s Graduate School of Architecture – was featured in many news <\/a>publications due to his unconventional dissertation style. His dissertation, Indigenous Architecture through Indigenous Knowledge : Dim sagalts\u2019apkw Nisi\u1e3f [Together we Will Build a Village]<\/a><\/i>,\u00a0analyzed\u00a0“how the culture of…Indigenous architect[s] informs their practice of architecture” (Stewart, ii), and was written largely in a style that, in the words of one non-Aboriginal reporter, included a “lack of punctuation…gaps and spaces and poetic license” (Hutchinson, 2015). More than that, Stewart emphasized his Nisga’a heritage through his use of the\u00a0Nisga’a language and integration of traditional Nisga’a structures within his paper, following Fred Metallic’s decision<\/a> to write his Phd dissertation completely in Mi’kmaq<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Stewart’s dissertation can be read as an important example of Gingell’s intervention strategy of “sound identities” (Gingell, 127), and can be linked to Gingell and Roy’s ideas of textualized orality. In outlining his decisions for the choice of style for his dissertation, he writes: “Though I cannot be considered in any way fluent in Nisga\u2019a, I attempted to use the language in order to acknowledge my heritage and, more importantly, to strengthen the use of Nisga\u2019a in the academy” (Stewart, vii) and that the “formatting of this dissertation purposely provides an oral \/ aural \/ visually designed context and thereby underlines an indigenist research approach” (x). Stewart is making a significant political statement by choosing to follow this format, specifically “out of [his] need to privilege Indigenous knowledge in resistance to the colonizing provincial education system that continue to traumatize indigenous peoples in this province” (xi). These explanations, notably in conventional academic English, are found in\u00a0the preface, a section written mostly is conventional academic English that Stewart includes specifically in consideration of his (primarily academic) readers, in order to create a good rapport conducive to communication.<\/p>\n

Interspersed throughout the body of the dissertation are 12 \u00a0“ganimsiwilyenskw [talking stick]” (xxviii) insets. These insets function as biographical sketches of individual Indigenous architects. In Nisga’a culture, ganimsiwilyenskw is a\u00a0“a revered symbol of respect, order, and authority” (Nisga’a Lisims Government). Some of these bios are written in the subjects own words, functioning as part of a conversation and playing with the structure of the dissertation by operating across the borders of oral\/text. The\u00a0ganimsiwilyenskw denotes Stewart’s respect for these individuals, and are a good example of both the idea of textualized orality – as the talking stick is a device used during\u00a0spoken meetings of government – and sound identity, as Stewart is using\u00a0ganimsiwilyenskw to assert his identity in the (very protocol driven) academic sphere (who generally advocate for neutrality of writer’s voice).<\/div>\n

Stewart’s work here is, in my opinion, an excellent example of the intervention YAWP has chosen to profile. His choice to integrate orality and his Nisga’a identity throughout, and in the very structure of, his dissertation, and that his dissertation was approved (not without a long period of negotiation throughout the creation process) shows that the combination of orality and text has a place in the academy, with Stewart’s dissertation (and Metallic’s) an important precedent.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Annotated Bibliography #3 – \u00a0Brendan Ha \u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Dickinson, Peter.\u00a0Canadian Journal of Native Studies: ‘Orality in Literacy’: Listening to Indigenous Writing<\/em>. 14 Vol. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 01\/01\/1994. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

This article is written by Peter Dickinson who is currently a professor at Simon Fraser University. Trained as a literary crtic and with a background in performance studies, he works in the Department of English and the School for the Contemporary Arts. His research focuses on relationships between audiences, performances<\/a> and social structures. Naturally, his interest of the performing arts would lend toward a curiosity for the issues surrounding of orality. And in this essay, Dickinson seeks to disarm the dichotomy of the oral and the written by examining several works of Indigenous writers.<\/p>\n

In particular, Dickinson argues that the adaptation of an oral story into a written form configures the experience of reading into that of a “literary\/visual” (320) one that requires an active reader, one that listens and responds to the narrative at hand. This engagement with the texts of contemporary Indigenous writers helps to weaken the strict divide between the oral and the written according to Dickinson. Lastly, he argues that elements of orality are essential for the narrative construction of Indigenous works such as Marie Annharte Baker’s Being on the Moon<\/em>. Dickinson writes that the reciprocal relationship of the text and the reader is the result of the hybridization the medium, and allows Indigenous writers to valorize their respective culture’s social conscience<\/a>, their narratives and their struggles against historical imperialism.<\/p>\n

Dickinson first outlines Ong’s view that oral traditions are a primitive ancestor to an ever developing literacy before referring to Finnegan and Street, cultural anthropologists and social linguists who argue that literacy is heavily embedded within a variety of societal processes. He connects this to the need of a closer examination of language (English, its dialects, and Indigenous languages) within specific societal contexts and subsequently, a view that orality and literacy are within each other rather than entirely separate.<\/p>\n

According to Dickinson, the relationship of the reader and the writer for written Indigenous stories is characterized by a deeper inheritance of knowledge. Dickinson believes that this transference can be framed in terms of a performative event<\/a>, and consequently requires us to examine hybrid texts within a larger sociological context.<\/p>\n

Pertinent to the YAWP team’s research, Dickinson’s article introduces the intersection of the performing arts with Indigenous narratives. I have always wanted to discuss the performative nature of orality and by linking the area of the theatre with Indigenous literature<\/a>, perhaps we can point toward other innovations of the tradition.<\/a> Furthermore, I believe the importance of the reader as a listener, as an audience member even, is an important feature of Dickinson’s discourse. My blog posts have dealt with the idea of active reading\u2014and listening! Although brief, the two concepts of literacy presented by Dickinson early in the article will also prove helpful in enlightening us of the scholarship that engages with issues of orality-literacy.<\/p>\n

Annotated Bibliography #4 – \u00a0Brendan Ha\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Fee, Margery. Journal of Intercultural Studies: Writing Orality: Interpreting Literature in English by Aboriginal Writers in North America, Australia and New Zealand<\/i>. 18 Vol. River Seine Publications, 04\/01\/1997. Web. 9\u00a0Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Margery Fee is currently a professor at the University of British Columbia, and has written her PhD thesis about the issues of a English-Canadian national literature and its establishment. In her article, Fee first recalls the beginning of Thomas King’s novel Green Grass, Running Water<\/em>. She examines how King has brought together Indigenous and Western cultures under the context of storytelling traditions. Quoting J.D. Robins, Fee implicitly touches upon the concept of the “white settler” as she observes English critics of the early 1900s as self-proclaimed authorities of Indigenous storytelling who are able to determine the livelihood of such. Afterwards, she indicates that North American, Australian and New Zealand\/Aotearoan Indigenous writers draw upon the oral tradition in a similar manner to King, and traces how these writers respond to the notion that their narratives are on the verge of extinction<\/a>. In particular, Fee observes that modern day Indigenous writers marry the oral tradition to a written medium and notes the difficulty of the language barrier in regards to issues of readership.<\/p>\n

To account for the written adaptations of oral narratives, Fee connects Eric Hobsbawm’s examination of the correlation between dramatic societal change and the innovation of traditions<\/a>. With new societal environments, old traditions are displaced and require adaptations to “enforce the sense of longevity<\/a>” (Fee 24). Fee asserts that although we may be tempted to parallel the English adaptation of the oral epic Beowulf<\/em> to the maneuvers of contemporary Indigenous writers, the difference in cultural contexts leads to the impossibility for Western perspectives to fully comprehend Indigenous narratives. Fee also explores Ruby Slipperjack’s Honour the Sun<\/em>, and echoes King’s character of Coyote when discussing the narrator Owl. She examines how texts like Slipperjack’s\u00a0disturb the supposed dichotomy of oral and written cultures, and simultaneously combat literary colonialism. Subsequently, this necessitates a particular treatment of Indigenous literature according to Fee. She states that we must always consider the processes of language (reading, writing, speaking) and the societal ideologies that colour our readings of Indigenous works.<\/p>\n

Fee’s article continues by discussing the privilege of written culture and how this discrepancy of respect affects Indigenous writers, languages and works, especially in regards to the educational systems of modern day North America, Australia and New Zealand. Another tension is discussed in regards to the view that Indigenous works, when presented in writing, are viewed as somehow inauthentic. Drawing from Jacques Derrida’s examination of Claude Lavi-Strauss and the destruction of the oral and written dichotomy, Fee observes how Western culture considers certain speech patterns as authentic or more respectable. These expectations feed into a respect for a certain style of writing, and this concern of respectability reflects onto speech. Speech and language are criticized in the rest of Fee’s piece, subverting expectations of a perfect, dialect-less English and examining the stigmas that result from the oral-literacy dichotomy.<\/p>\n

By outlining and examining the tensions and issues surrounding critical perceptions of contemporary Indigenous literature, this article proves to be immensely helpful in discussing how the scholarship has dealt with issues of orality. Fee draws from a variety of scholars and a variety of Indigenous writers, presenting a chiasmus that not only enlightens us of the Western perspectives on adapted Indigenous oral narratives, but how Indigenous writers have reacted to a history of\u00a0literary assimilation<\/a> and\u00a0English settler literature. Her thorough examination of the sociological conflicts and ideologies that affect the reception and perception of written Indigenous works prove to be thought-provoking, illuminating and allow for the potential for a variety of intersections with other conference groups.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Annotated Bibliography #5 – \u00a0Andrea Davis Johnston\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Cole, Peter. Coyote and Raven Go Canoeing: Coming Home to the Village<\/em>. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006;2005;2014;. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

\u201cCoyote and Raven Go Canoeing<\/a>\u201d is a free verse narrative journey and discussion between two Native tricksters, Coyote and Raven, written by U.B.C. Assistant Professor Peter Cole<\/a>.\u00a0 Cole, like Thomas King has First Nations and colonizer heritage and teaches and writes.\u00a0 He is a member of the Douglas First Nation, one of the Stl\u2019atl\u2019imx communities in SouthWest British Columbia, and has Celtic heritage.\u00a0 The canoe journey is a discussion intended to help indigenous people from around the world navigate back to their own cultural values.\u00a0 Cole notes in the introduction, which, like the rest of the book, is written in free verse, that he has gathered the indigenous so that they can understand their cultures before colonial devastation, share experiences of colonizer education and attempts to remove indigenous cultural practices, indigenous knowledge and \u201chow our words came to be woven together\u00a0 how they came to dance and sing and drum\u201d (Coyote xiii).\u00a0 As Susan Gingell says, Cole \u201cshape-shifts a word that evokes the book\u2019s tone and style: po\/l\/emic\u201d (Coyote Review 166<\/a>).\u00a0 Cole\u2019s book is a call to action for Canadian First Nations and aboriginal people everywhere to take back their culture and find their way back to the values and knowledge that they had before settler invasion.\u00a0 He is scathing in his critique of the settler\u2019s cultural \u201cholocaust\u201d.<\/p>\n

Cole\u2019s use of free verse, the cadence and rhythm of the narrative, and the use of sounds and song throughout the book contribute to how indigenous peoples are \u201crewrighting\u201d (Coyote 76) their own destiny. Cole, by weaving aurality into written text, contributes to Susan Gingell\u2019s concept of oral identities discussed in \u201cNegotiating Sound Identities in Canadian Literature.\u201d\u00a0 Furthermore, Cole \u201ctakes back\u201d the definition of orality from non-Native scholars as he says that \u201corality is not about \u2018writing down\u2019 anything\u00a0 it is about discourse\u00a0 speaking together\u201d (Coyote 48).\u00a0 He mocks the non-Native scholarly analysis of Native orality.\u00a0 He instead describes the Indigenous voice as \u201cthe poetic voice sings language dances and plays it\/ sometimes it is embedded in other voices\u201d (Coyote 118).<\/p>\n

I indicated in my \u201cAbout Us\u201d profile a personal interest in different voices in the workplace and the use of orality.\u00a0 Cole challenges the lack of voice and jobs given to Native people in universities and research, even when it pertains to Native culture.\u00a0 Hiring non-Natives is justified because Native people are considered unqualified based on the settler\u2019s western education system criteria.\u00a0 When a Native person is hired he is not really involved in intertextual communication as he is a \u201ctoken\u201d or one of \u201ctheir Indians\u201d (Coyote 76).\u00a0 \u00a0Cole indicates that there is definitely more than just nuance in the exclusion of the Native voice in a globalized world.<\/p>\n

I have included an interesting interview<\/a> of Drs. Cole and O\u2019Riley and their work on\u00a0language and culture regeneration that further illustrates Peter Cole\u2019s contribution to the discussion about indigenous orality and identity. \u00a0As with Coyote and Raven Go Canoeing\u00a0<\/em>they are working with different indigenous cultures on language and culture regeneration including\u00a0the\u00a0St\u2019at\u2019imc in B.C. and the Kichwa-Lamista in Peru.<\/p>\n

\n
Annotated Bibliography #6 – \u00a0Andrea Davis Johnston\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Sligo, Frank, et al.\u00a0Text & Talk: Young Adult Literacy Learners Describe the Text-Orality Nexus<\/em>. 35 Vol. Mouton de Gruyter, 01\/01\/2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

\u201cYoung Adult Literacy Learners Describe the Text\u2013Orality Nexus\u201d<\/a> is a paper documenting research undertaken by Frank Sligo, Elspeth Tilley<\/a>, Niki Murray and Margie Comrie, researchers from Massey University in New Zealand. In their research and this paper, they sought to explore how young adults learning literacy skills incorporate those new skills within their lives, including the workplace.\u00a0 While text literacy is generally<\/a> viewed as a separate, measurable individual attribute used for competency assessment in the workplace, social-practice oriented research<\/a> shows that text literacy, influenced by local and cultural differences, must be understood within \u201cthe whole oral-experiential context of people\u2019s work and everyday lives\u201d (Young 102).\u00a0 This team sought to fill the research gap to investigate the effects of workers\u2019 typical \u201ccollective oral-experiential work endeavors\u201d (Young 102).\u00a0 Furthermore, the research further expanded knowledge as it was done with people who, by virtue of their low levels of initial literacy, used more oral communications.<\/p>\n

Through research into orality in the modern world our team hopes to prove its continuing value and relevancy. While there is no shortage of business texts on the importance of oral communication in the workplace this research gives an evidence based perspective on the interconnectedness of orality and literacy in all facets of subject\u2019s lives, including the workplace, by subjects who are perhaps not biased with now traditional literacy based education. Additionally, New Zealand has a similar colonial history to Canada, including extermination of aboriginal peoples and their culture and language, and thus research there provides another lens on Gingell\u2019s assertions about Indigenous sound identities. The research subjects identified as 28% Iwi<\/a> (New Zealan M\u00e4ori tribal) affiliation. The conclusions of the research provide strong support for the enduring value and relevancy of orality in all areas of life, including business.\u00a0 The subjects, like prior theorists such as Chamberlin, identified how literacy is interwoven throughout their oral communication, not something that is a separate skill.\u00a0 In fact they saw that text could support oral communication in important ways.\u00a0 They supported academics\u2019 assertions of a strong interconnectedness of orality and literacy and a continuum of communication methods.<\/p>\n

While I feel that the research contributes to the dialogue on the intersection between orality and literacy in a modern, practical context, I was concerned by some of the implications of the researchers\u2019 paper.\u00a0 One of the stated purposes of the paper was to provide input into adult literacy training needs, thereby implying a focus on literacy in the debate.\u00a0 Furthermore, they describe the research subjects as having \u201climinal or threshold\u201d (Young 102) literacy which implies inferiority despite their purpose of using this terminology as \u201can alternative to the deficit-framing\u201d orientation of much adult literacy dialogue.\u00a0 I felt an uncomfortable memory of Walter Ong<\/a>\u2019s orality and literacy assertions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Annotated Bibliography #7 – \u00a0Simon Sierra\u00a0<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Mills, Jane. \u201cFirst Nation Cinema: Hollywood\u2019s Indigenous \u2018Other\u2019<\/a>.\u201d Screening the Past <\/i>(2009): n. pag. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Published in Screening the Past<\/i>, a peer-reviewed journal of screen history, theory and criticism offered through Australia\u2019s Latrobe University, this essay focuses on First Nation cinema to explore how minority cinemas are defined and work alongside, or against, the mainstream. Jane Mills\u2014an Associate Professor of Film and Television at the University of New South Wales\u2014begins by looking at the various designations applied to First Nations cinema that work to present it as a homogenous genre. Labels such as \u201cThird, Third World, Fourth, postcolonial, subaltern, hungry, imperfect, anti-racist, ethnic, multicultural\u201d\u2014amongst others\u2014fix First Nations cinemas in an one-way relationship to the dominant mainstream cinema of Hollywood, and is a forcible relocation of First nation cinema into the boundaries of a mainstream it does not want to participate in. She specifies that First Nations cinema, unlike other films of genres, carries a cultural baggage and a perception of \u2018otherness.\u2019 With this in mind, she proposes her argument that while First Nation cinema\u2019s relationship to Hollywood and the mainstream is not one of equality, the inequality does not necessitate that First Nation cinema is \u201ccannibalized\u201d by the mainstream; more diversity is allowed to exist than what is imagined.<\/p>\n

She contends that, contrary to popular belief, cultural phenomena does not yield fixed, \u201cimpermeable cinematic borders.\u201d A film\u2019s narrative, it\u2019s dialogue, the mise-en-scene, the cinematography, the soundscape and even the editing can be useful tools to identify what culture it is the product of but these boundaries are growing increasingly fluid and heterogeneous. Nonetheless, in relation to Hollywood, First Nations cinema is still governed by these fixed borders, as evident in the racism that remains. According to Mills, racism raises a boundary that works in visible ways to designate the First Nation on screen as \u2018other\u2019 and also in invisible ways such as the formal properties of a film, particularly the limited scale of production, distribution, exhibition and reception First Nation cinema receives in contrast to mainstream films. There is evident of \u201cpro-Indian\u201d films in early years of Hollywood and indeed, these can still be found today but the institutional racism remains.<\/p>\n

Through the close reading of several First Nations films including those made by Indigenous and non-Indigenous filmmakers, Mills concludes that the boundaries are paradoxically porous and fixed. The concept of \u201cminor cinema\u201d proves useful to Mills in her study to suggest that Indigenous filmmakers contribute to a cinema that focuses on issues of de-territorialisation by making use of the major language of mainstream cinema. Hollywood\u2019s cinematic codes and conventions are applied but these First Nations films make use of these to create an opposition of ideas and images.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Mills asserts that First Nations cinema is project of reclamation, as the filmmakers working in this genre\u2014regardless of their ethnic origin\u2014attempt to salvage the narratives that belong to Indigenous people even as they work in a mainstream medium. In order to accomplish this, thematic and aesthetic border-crossing has to take place and as one Indigenous filmmaker, Sherman Alexie says, Hollywood is fundamental to the language of his filmmaking. Mills quotes Alexie: \u201cI think a lot of Indian artists like to pretend that they\u2019re not influenced by pop culture or Western culture, but I am, and I\u2019m happy to admit it.\u201d The mainstream is inescapable but, as Alexie and Mills suggest, it is necessary to cross into its forms to \u201cbridge the cultural distance between the characters in [a First Nations film] and the non-Indian audience.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reading this essay in light of Gingell\u2019s raises an interesting dialogue. In the same way that Gingell looks at the poetry of Neal McLeod and how he includes Cree words, phrases, and sentences into the text of predominantly English language poems in an attempt to decolonize Cree territory, Mills turns to the work of Indigenous filmmakers and identifies a similar process. To reclaim the \u201cownership\u201d of their cinema by Hollywood\u2014the institution that has a great influence in the production and distribution of these films, as well as the psyche of the national audience\u2014these filmmakers apply their heritage into the conventions of the mainstream so it is recognizable as a film to non-Indian audiences but the voice is genuine. For both Gingell and Mills, Indigenous artists are active in a process of reclamation from the dominant culture and be it poetry or literature of film, common strategies are used to retain their sound identities.<\/p>\n

While this blending of cultures is theoretically an encouraging idea, it lacks fulfillment in the contemporary film industry. The Revenant <\/i>(2016), for instance, was applauded as a \u201cgame-changer\u201d in how Indian characters and stories are presented in mainstream film. But at the same time, the argument remains that these \u201cpositive portrayals\u201d simply veil the continuation of a colonial gaze in Hollywood that can never be overcome. \u201cThe Revenant is a Game-Changer<\/a>\u201d and \u201cThe Revenant is not an indigenous story<\/a>,\u201d both written by Aboriginal film critics and published on the same day, show the divided camps in this criticism but\u00a0more or less indicate a shared\u00a0notion: in spite of the best efforts in the part of Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists, the very nature of mainstream mediums will make the process of reclaiming and retaining sound identities a challenging, and perhaps, an impossible one.<\/p>\n

\n
Annotated Bibliography #8 – \u00a0Simon Sierra<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Shaw, Patricia A. “Language and Identity, Language and the Land<\/a>.” BC Studies.131 (2001): 39-55. ProQuest. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

\u201cLanguage and Identity, Language and the Land\u201d is an essay by Patricia A. Shaw, a Professor of Anthropological Linguistics and the founding chair of the First Nations Languages Program at UBC. In this essay, Shaw surveys a variety of voices responding to the loss of voice in BC\u2019s First Nations community. She explores both the factors that contribute to language death within these communities and the short-term and long-term impact this can have on an individuals identity.<\/p>\n

Shaw begins by identifying the flaw in mainstream society\u2019s perspective\u2014hers included\u2014when it comes to the significance of language; for English, utility and hegemony are its prime value while for First Nations languages, it can be one\u2019s unique relationship to the Creator, one\u2019s attitudes and belief, and one\u2019s notion of who they are. With this fundamentally different ideology and value systems in mind, Shaw asks, how \u201cis the impassioned first nations discourse on the profound impact of language loss to be understood within mainstream society\u201d (\u201cLanguage\u201d), and this is a question that is an issue in classrooms, in courthouses and even in increasingly English-speaking First Nations households.<\/p>\n

This passivity in regards to impending language death, Shaw states, is the consequence of systematic repression and denigration of First Nations languages that were\u2014and continue to be\u2014perpetuated by Canada\u2019s political, social, and educational institutions. These are quite obvious, but what is less recognized, is the impact that this history of repression continues to have on individual, familial, and communal motivations to maintain a linguistic heritage. The message that these languages are \u201cworthless, futile, inconsequential, and undoubtedly detrimental to one\u2019s children\u2019s potential for success in life\u201d has been spread for so long it has been accepted as a reasonable truth, destructive it may be. One Musqueam parent identifies the generational legacy of these false truths: \u201cBecause [our Parents] got punished so severely for speaking the language, they didn’t want us to go through the same punishment. So my Mother said she chose not to teach us any Indian language, so that there was no way we were going to get punished at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

The irony of this dismal situation is that Canada, and Vancouver in particular, claims to possess a remarkable sensitivity to multilingualism but the majority of Canadians are unaware of \u201cthe exceptional linguistic legacy in our midst\u201d\u2014within BC alone, there was once over thirty different aboriginal languages, eleven of which belong to eight genetically unrelated families. So while this rich and unique heritage is ignored, a hypocrisy of sorts is at work. In New Westminster, Shaw encounters a car dealership that proudly boasts a \u201cMulti-Lingual Sales Staff\u201d and goes on to differentiate Mandarin and Cantonese as separate languages, and likewise, Hindi and Punjabi are listed apart. This level of respect and awareness seemingly runs dry when the twenty-six First Nations languages in BC are lumped into one category. A display of political correctness is at work here, but is simply veiling the very ignorance that has proved so threatening to linguistic longevity of these languages in BC.<\/p>\n

In Merritt, Shaw encounters yet another \u201csystematic negation of identity\u201d as she speaks with those who experienced the Residential School system. Indigenous language in these spaces was not only ignored, as it often is in mainstream society, it was prohibited on deeply personal levels. One victim recounts the erasure of her birth name<\/a>: \u201cSister Maura asked me what my name was. I said, my name is Seepeetza. Then she got really mad like I did something terrible. She said never to say that word again.\u201d This is a loss Shaw emphasizes is a disruption of lineage and ancestry and requires a drastic re-evaluation of self.<\/p>\n

To conclude this essay, Shaw likens the loss of Indigenous language in BC, and the effect of this loss, to the fragmentation of traditional lands. Languages, reasons Shaw, are like geographical landscapes that change over time. Yet as her travels have indicated, the changes in language are exacerbated but the societal and cultural pressures that Canadian society, as a whole, remains complicit to.<\/p>\n

A recent report by the First Peoples\u2019 Cultural Council in BC<\/a> provides evidence to the warnings of language death Shaw wrote about nearly fifteen years ago. In 2014, there remains 5,085 fluent speakers of Indigenous languages, 3,002 (59%) of whom are aged 65 and over, while only 54 of them (1.06%) are 24 years or younger. It is trend that if allowed to continue spells certain death for many languages, as there will be no fluent speakers left in three generations. These harrowing figures, in conjunction with the complicity Shaw points towards in her essay provide a dismal reality for Gingell\u2019s hopes that Aboriginal sound identity can be salvaged in contemporary society. It is encouraging, however, to see that efforts are being made in BC\u2019s Aboriginal communities to educate, with 11,049 currently learning a language, of which 78% are under the age of 25. Hopefully the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and these effort can save the mistakes made in the past.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Annotated Bibliography #9 – Nicholas Wilson<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Harrison, Klisala. “‘Singing my Spirit of Identity’: Aboriginal Music for Well-being in a Canadian Inner City.”\u00a0Musicultures: Journal of the Canadian Society for Traditional Music.\u00a0<\/em>Vol. 36, 2009, pp. 1-21. Web. <https:\/\/journals.lib.unb.ca\/index.php\/MC\/article\/download\/20244\/23346>.<\/p>\n

This article is written by Klisala Harrison,\u00a0who is currently\u00a0a research fellow at the\u00a0Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of\u00a0Helsinki, Finland. \u00a0She grew up and completed her undergrad here in BC at the University of Victory, later completing her Ph.D. in Ethnomusicology at York University. \u00a0Her area of interest is focussed around the indigenous music in Canada and Scandinavia, namely the aspects of sustainability and individual and cultural regrowth that\u00a0are\u00a0possible\u00a0within the Indigenous aesthetics of the music and art.<\/p>\n

Harrison sums up her article with this succinct question: “How may Aboriginal Canadian music facilitate well-being for individuals who take part in cultural healing programs?” (Harrison, 1). \u00a0Indeed, the article is concerned with the role Indigenous music, tradition, and ceremony plays in the rehabilitation and regaining of cultural identity, within Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside<\/a>; indeed, this article is exceedingly close to home, and simultaneously increases awareness of the importance to sound identity within the Indigenous culture, as well as spreads the word on available and culturally intertwined support for those who are struggling to move past “situations of substance misuse, crime, and violence…[and] choose [to] affirm lifestyles of wellness and dignity” (Harrison, 1).<\/p>\n

Harrison first articulates the various agencies and support programs which offer Indigenous singing and drumming in Vancouver, including the Aboriginal Front Door<\/a>, the Hey-way’noqu’ Healing Circle for Addictions Society<\/a>, and The Positive Outlook branch of the Vancouver Native Health Society<\/a>; these facilities and support programs all offer combinations of Plains powwow drumming, hand drumming from Northwest Coast, Eastern Woodlands, and Navajo First Nations, as well as songs and ceremonies, including sweat lodges and sun dances from the Plains. \u00a0By using these facilities as starting points, Harrison seeks to identify the importance of Indigenous music and sound to the identity and well-being of the Indigenous community in the Downtown Eastside, as well as across Canada.<\/p>\n

The way in which Harrison compiles her research is extremely pertinent to\u00a0the YAWP team’s research, as she physically and intimately engaged in oral conversation with various people in Downtown Vancouver, going to the source, and listening to the voices of the people, in order to ascertain identity and cultural sound. \u00a0She interviews Fred John<\/a>, a St’at’imic<\/a> elder from Lillooet or T’it’q’et, BC; Gerry Oleman, a singer from the St’at’imic First Nation at Chalath BC; and Brenda Wells and Frank McAllister, two Alberta Cree, in order to hear their stories, of how Indigenous music and\u00a0culture allowed them to regain lost or\u00a0stripped identity. \u00a0She does so with the intention of creating an “indigenous ‘storywork,’ a term coined by Jo-ann Archibald to evoke how indigenous ‘stories and storytelling [a]re to be taken seriously’ (Archibald 2008:3),” and indicates the seven major points of her inspiration for this research: “respect, responsibility, reciprocity, reverence, holism, interrelatedness and synergy” (Harrison, 3).<\/p>\n

By listening to the music and the words of those experiencing a loss of cultural identity and sound, Harrison provides a unique and in-depth look to the realities of rehabilitation on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, as well as the significance of sound identity and cultural regrowth to the process of rehabilitation.<\/p>\n

\n
Annotated Bibliography #10 – \u00a0Nicholas Wilson<\/strong><\/h6>\n

Iseke, Judy. “Negotiating M\u00e9tis Culture in Michif: Disrupting Indigenous Language Shift.”\u00a0Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society.<\/em> Vol. 2, No. 2, 2013, pp. 92-116. Web. <http:\/\/decolonization.org\/index.php\/des\/article\/viewFile\/19587\/17017>.<\/p>\n

Judy Iseke is currently the Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Knowledge and Research at Lakehead University, as well as a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Her main focus is on the significance of Indigenous language \u2013 namely Michif, the language of the M\u00e9tis \u2013 to the identity, culture, mental-health, and vitalization of the Indigenous communities across Canada. Her work has become world renowned, gaining worldwide support in both research funding and international Indigenous networks, and her website www.ourelderstories.com<\/a> provides educational materials from Elders across Canada as a means to aid the decline of Indigenous languages and speakers.<\/p>\n

In this article, Iseke thoroughly explains the history and significance, as well as the misconceptions about the M\u00e9tis people and the Michif language. She describes the combination of French and Indigenous language, Michif, as \u201can example of the production of a new language that is not the colonial language but rather developed by a people fluent in both the colonial language and the Indigenous language\u201d (Iseke 107). She explores the vast level of disenfranchisement and pure racism, to an extent of separating from the First Nations designation by the Canadian government that the M\u00e9tis people have experiences; by asking how and why this is happening, and what society and communities can do about it, as well as effectively answering those questions, Iseke provides a succinct and encompassing article that conveys a refreshing depth of knowledge.<\/p>\n

Iseke\u2019s article is thoroughly cited and her breadth of research allows for an unbiased and perfectly informed stance, and also provides an amazing research base for future scholarly work on Indigenous issues. Perhaps the most interesting and refreshing aspect to the article is Iseke\u2019s involvement with the Elders of various M\u00e9tis bands across Canada, who she brought together, held ceremonies and told stories with, to gain a better understanding of the state of the Michif language and what can be done to preserve and rejuvenate it in the M\u00e9tis communities across Canada and the United States.<\/p>\n

The Elders, Tom McCallum, George McDermott, and Albert and Alma Desjarlais, all put forward their stance and hopes for the future, and all held a similar, medicine-wheel based knowledge and belief, and all agreed of the significance of the Michif language to their identity with the Creator, and thus with the universe. Iseke explains that \u201cboth Cree and Michif peoples, when they speak their languages, use the expression Nehiyawak to refer to themselves\u2026or the four directions people that is a reference to the medicine wheel worldview in which the four directions \u2013 east, south, west, north \u2013 are integrated into a way of life\u201d (Iseke 102).<\/p>\n

The most interesting aspects of this article to YAWP\u2019s research and intervention strategy are the storytelling contexts, based in the oral and original Michif language traditions of the M\u00e9tis, which Iseke was able to document and truly become a part of because of her relationships with the M\u00e9tis elders across Canada. Another very important aspect to Iseke\u2019s research is her involvement in strategies for growth and change, bringing to light the various web-based and internationally available resources that can help retain the Michif language, and thus the culture, beliefs, and identities of the M\u00e9tis. These websites include: http:\/\/www.learnmichif.com\/<\/a>, http:\/\/www.metisresourcecentre.mb.ca\/<\/a>, as well as the YouTube channels Learnmichif<\/a> and Michifspeaker<\/a>. These tools allow young people, linguists, and those who have lost their language to regain, learn, and pass the knowledge and sound identities of the M\u00e9tis people forward.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"null\"<\/p>\n

Some References for Orality and Literacy from Our Course:
\n<\/strong>
\nChamberlain, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground.<\/em> Toronto: A.A. Knopf Canada, 2003.<\/p>\n

Hansen, Erin. \u201cOral Traditions\u201d. Indigenous Foundations. First Nations Studies Program at University if British Columbia, 2009. Web. 20 January 2016<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories : A Journey of Landscape and Memory<\/em>. Talonbooks, 2005. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.<\/p>\n

Wickwire, Wendy. \u201cThe Grizzly Gave Them the Song: James Teit and Franz Boas Interpret Twin Ritual in Aboriginal British Columbia, 1897-1920\u201d. American Indian Quarterly<\/em> 25.3 (2001): 431\u2013452. Web \u00a02 Feb. 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n

Some References for the Concept of Sound Identities:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hudak, Glenn M. “The “Sound” Identity: Music-Making & Schooling.”\u00a0Counterpoints<\/i>\u00a096 (1999): 447-74. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

\"null\"<\/p>\n

Bosenberg, Erin. \u201cMi\u2019kmaq PhD dissertation a Canadian first\u201d.This: Progressive politics, ideas & culture. <\/i>12 May 2009. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

Chamberlin, J. Edward. \u201cA New History of Reading: Hunting, Tracking, and Reading.\u201d For the Geography of a Soul: Emerging Perspectives on Kamau Braithwaite<\/em>. Ed. Timothy J. Reiss., 145-164. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2001. 145-164.<\/p>\n

Courtney MacNeil, \u201cOrality.\u201d The Chicago School of Media Theory<\/em>. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http:\/\/lucian.uchicago.edu\/blogs\/mediatheory\/keywords\/orality\/<\/a>http:\/\/lucian.uchicago.edu\/blogs\/mediatheory\/keywords\/orality\/<\/a><\/p>\n

First Peoples\u2019 Cultural Council. Report on the Status of B.C. First Nations Languages 2014<\/a><\/i>. Brentwood Bay: First Peoples\u2019 Cultural Council, 2014. PDF file.<\/p>\n

Gingell, Susan A. Coyote and Raven Go Canoeing: Coming Home to the Village<\/em>. 77 Vol. North York: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http:\/\/muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/article\/238357\/pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Gingell, Susan. \u201cNegotiating Sound Identities in Canadian Literature.\u201d Canadian Literature\/Litt\u00e9rature canadienn<\/em>e, 204 (2010): 127-130. Web.<\/p>\n

Hawkins, Margaret R., and Ebooks Corporation. Framing Languages and Literacies: Socially Situated Views and Perspectives<\/em>. New York: Routledge, 2013. Web. 17 April 2016. http:\/\/reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/(S(smhp5glcszgzpzbmx41itx04))\/Reader.aspxp=1170292&o=1267&u=Hh1ba7GtuQP3hP5hYbAafg%3d%3d&t=1460912643&h=AACF88695469FD0132E0DAB69F9E24BBC59495A9&s=44232116&ut=4226&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2<\/a><\/p>\n

Hutchinson, Brian. ” UBC student writes 52,438 word architecture dissertation with no punctuation \u2014 not everyone loved it” National Post. <\/em>8 May 2015. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

Indigenous Foundations UBC. \u201cLanguages\u201d. indigenous foundations.arts.ubc.ca. First Nations and Indigenous Studies at UBC. <\/i>2009. Web. 16 April 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n

Interview \u2013 Drs. Cole and O\u2019Riley. Faculty of Education – Research at Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy – Interview Series.<\/em> Web. 18 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Kielty, Matt & Keel, Abigail. “Debatable.” Podcast. Radiolab. <\/em>WNYC Radio. 11 March 2016. Web. 16 April 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n

Lam, Daniel. “Architecture student writes 149-page thesis without punctuation” The Uybssey. <\/em>19 May 2015. Web.<\/a><\/p>\n

Lyiscott, Jamilia. “3 ways to speak English”. TED. Lecture. February 2014. Web. 16 April 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n

Matas, Robert. “Building a career on native roots” The Globe and Mail. <\/em>17 March 2009. Web. <\/a><\/p>\n

Nisga’a Lisims Government. Nisga’a Lisims Government. <\/em>Website. n.d. Web. 16 April 2016.<\/a>
\n* Note: A very excellent website for anyone interested in the culture, traditions, activities and mandate of the Nisga’a Nation<\/p>\n

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy : 30th Anniversary Edition<\/em>. London: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Ebook Library. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http:\/\/www.ubc.eblib.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/patron\/FullRecord.aspx?p=1092747<\/p>\n

“Patrick Stewart” Patrick Stewart Architect. <\/em>Web Page. Patrick Stewart Architect, 2015. Web. 16 April 2016. <\/a><\/p>\n

Public Health Agency of Canada. “Aboriginal Children: the healing power of cultural identity”. Public Health Agency of Canada. <\/em>Web Page. Government of Canada. 20 February 2013. Web. 17 April 2016.<\/a><\/p>\n

Quan, Douglas. \u201c\u2018Assault\u2019 on residential school students\u2019 identities began the moment they stepped insid<\/a>e.\u201d The National Post<\/i>. Postmedia Network. 2 Jun. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Taonui, R\u0101wiri. ‘Tribal organisation’, Te Ara. The Encyclopedia of New Zealand<\/em>, updated 9-Nov-12. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. URL: http:\/\/www.TeAra.govt.nz\/en\/tribal-organisation<\/a><\/p>\n

Thursfield, Denise, and Roger Henderson. “Participation in Lifelong Learning: Reality Or Myth? Issues Arising from a United Kingdom Coalfield Closure.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training<\/em> 56.1 (2004): 117-36. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http:\/\/www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/doi\/pdf\/10.1080\/13636820400200249<\/p>\n

Tilley, Elspeth. \u201cThe Uses of Fear: Spatial Politics in the Australian Whiter-vanishing Trope\u201d. Antipodes<\/em>23.1 (2009): 33\u201341. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. http:\/\/www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca\/stable\/pdf\/41957754.pdf?_=1460910382747<\/a>
\nKillsback, Leo. \u201cThe Revenant is a Game-Changer<\/a>.\u201d Indian Country<\/i>. Today Media Network. 14 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Wente, Jesse. \u201cOpinion: The Revenant is not an indigenous story<\/a>.\u201d CBC News. <\/i>CBC Radio-Canada. 14 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.<\/p>\n

Wilfred Laurier University Press. “Listening Up, Writing Down, and Looking Beyond”. Wilfred Laurier University Press. <\/em>n.d. Web. 16 April 2016<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Annotated Bibliography #1 – \u00a0Merriam Alica Gingell, Susan & Roy, Wendy. \u201cIntroduction: Opening the Door to Transdiciplinary, Multimodal Communication\u201d\u00a0in\u00a0Listening Up, Writing Down, and Looking Beyond: Interfaces of the Oral, Written, and Visual\u00a0by Susan Gingell.\u00a0Waterloo:\u00a0Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2012: 1-50. Web. This source is the introductory\u00a0chapter from this book, published by Wilfred Laurier University Press. The … Continue reading Annotated Bibliography<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26893,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-51","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/51","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26893"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51"}],"version-history":[{"count":86,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/51\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":382,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/51\/revisions\/382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/banm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}