Hello 470;
I have been reading through our blogs all week, and it is indeed a delightful and enlightening read. I want to thank you for your responses to my question.
can you see what is wrong with the following phrase: “… the Western perspective and the aboriginal perspective are equally valid.”
This is the answer I was looking for:
Aboriginal is not capitalized whereas Western is which implies the former is lesser in some way to the latter.
And, what follows is a most insightful dialogue.
In my opinion, what is wrong with this sentence is that valid as an adjective is not measurable, you cannot put an adverb or a quantifier in front of “valid”.
Cassie Lumsden Hi Dana, I think your opinion definitely makes sense! The word valid probably is not the best way to compare two different things since how valid something truly is can be very subjective. I also think that there is more than one issue with this sentence, in particular I noticed that the word “Western” is capitalized while “aboriginal” is not.
“aboriginal” is a western term, originating from latin language and imposed upon Indigenous peoples. This is not what Indigenous peoples call themselves. So there is something inherently colonizing about this terminology.
I see this statement also reinforcing a narrative that places the West and Aboriginal people in opposition of each other . There is an implicit, and false, dichotomy expressed between the lines.
I agree with the previous responders about the grammatical use of “Western” and “aboriginal”. Additionally, I think it suggests that these are the only two ways of thinking. Canada has many First Nations communities, and these communities do not all share the same perspectives. One current issue that really speaks to this is the Trans Mountain pipeline; it is easy to assume that all First Nations people are opposed to it, but we must recognize that there is not simply one “Aboriginal” perspective. https://www.google.ca/…/we-are-first-nations-that-suppo…/amp
Secondly, by capitalizing the word “Western” and not doing so for the term “aboriginal,” it showcases a potential superiority and inferiority dynamic, highlighted by punctuation.
Lastly, by mentioning the “two perspectives” side by side, it is inevitably referring to a binary that does not (and should not) exist in our world today.
I understand that this aforementioned sentence is pointing to the potential legitimacy and value of multiple stories, but it is attempting to do so through discretely discrediting one.
What’s in a name: Indian, Native, Aboriginal or Indigenous? | CBC News
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has been joined by Anishinabek of Ontario, representing 42 First Nations, in rejecting the name ‘Aboriginal.’ But that term and several others have not been easy to shed, writes Don Marks.
Along with what everyone else has already said, I think this statement is too optimistic. It is true that both perspectives are valid, or at least should be. But in reality and practice, this is just not the case. The western perspective dominates over the aboriginal perspective with only slight considerations. We see this in land claims/disputes all the time. If indeed the perspectives are equally valid, than the government wouldn’t force aboriginals off their land so that they can build pipelines or fish farms. They should be equal, but in practice are not.
Thank-you Ross, this is a very strong point.
Especially when you consider that the Canadian federal government issued official apologies to Indigenous peoples for Canada’s history of residential schools in 2018. But at the same time as this speech was being made -the Canadian government was continuing its years-long and brutally unrelenting legal battles against Indigenous peoples over land claims.It is readily apparent that despite statements of respecting Indigenous autonomy, in legal practice: Canadian government is still championed over the self-governing which Indigenous people had used for thousands of years before we settler-colonizers came to the land.Our western government is discriminative in laws and practices against Indigenous peoples. This is a good source about how the Indian Act was used to take away status and rights from Indigenous women: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/…/native-womens…And as you mentioned, the land claim disputes prove that legal discrimination and injustice is still present against Indigenous peoples today.But many still make problematically optimistic statements of equitable treatment, which are problematic for the precise fact that respect for Indigenous autonomy and self-government are being said and not practiced.There are also more complications to this problem, but this is the obvious one.I agree with others who say that the way this phrase is worded and capitalized make it seem like there’s a superior perspective. Also the word Aboriginal should change to Indigenous peoples, which encompasses First Nations, Inuit and Metis. The other problem is, you can’t lump western and aboriginal perspectives as two distinct groups having opposing views. There are a myriad of individual perspectives within the both supposedly differing perspectives. Good resource:
Understanding the differences between Indigenous Peoples worldviews vs Western worldviews is foundational to understanding Indigenous Peoples. Learn more in this short article.
