Hi Doc.,

Sorry this is late, but we’ve had a leaky basement and we have thunderstorms headed our way today…I haven’t really been doing much else other than work and then more work when I get home.

Languages, for what it’s worth, are place based tools for understanding the environment and other humans. Language is the fundamental building block for any culture, regardless of what meaning or expression that culture takes. Languages also change, and it is this change that made me curious about how pristine languages are and how easy it is to lose meaning and significance over time. Place that change within the context of a dying language or a language that is being revived and many questions begin to pop up. It is here that I wish to focus my research.

What I have been reading lately is the connection between the past of so many dying languages and the struggle to preserve or revive them for future generations. In light of how languages change I propose that current methods and techniques of preserving and reviving a language are “unprecocious” (i.e. less advanced and less capable of delivering on promises than at first glance) and that they do more harm than good. There are times when I think it is best to let a language die. Having said that there is still hope for many dying languages to be revived, but that hope is not and cannot and will never be found in technology. In order to completely revive a dying language a revival has to happen amongst souls, a spark has to set ablaze a group of committed people who will be willing and able to use the dying language on a daily basis.

One strategy currently being employed by researchers and conservationists is recording the sounds of dying languages, and this is often done by outsiders of the cultural context of the dying language. I believe this to be one of the worst approaches, because in many ways it’s no different than what Flaherty did with Nanook. A digitalized language is just a representation of what it really is/was, and that leaves it with (no pun intended) too much room for interpretation. Once a language has died, it is impossible to determine factual, fictional, and actual meanings and all of the subtler shades in between; only a willing human, with a brain, and who is capable of interacting with others, and who can interact with the environment, can fully revive a language from the brink of death.

The biggest example of a more holistic approach (i.e. one that places people front and center) that I believe can help revive dying languages is Hewbrew. Other groups whose languages are dying have actually visited Israel to understand how Hebrew came back from the brink of extinction. All political debates aside, it’s nothing short of a miracle. It’s amazing that it went from a liturgical language (e.g. only used in religious ceremonies, much like Latin and Aramaic) to a fully thriving and living language. So where does change fit into an event of this magnitude? It figures in because the language has changed; those who resurrected it brought with them words and idioms from abroad. But that’s not to say it’s a bad thing, or that it’s no longer the same language.  I suspect a language that cannot change or adapt quickly dies; a language that can change and adapt can live. It is perhaps a key to understanding how to revive a dying language.

-J.S. Velasquez

Mod 2 – Post #1

While I was looking up Aboriginal representation in the media, I came across this Facebook page. FAIR Media stands for Accurate Indigenous Representation. There are 10,488 likes on the page and it seems that many people post and comment along the issues of how Aboriginal people are represented in the media. It seems like a community of learning and sharing and it is an example of how the Internet has allowed Indigenous people connect and relate to one another as well as bring awareness to stereotypes/misconceptions.

Check out this 5 minute video posted on the site: First Nations People in Mainstream Media

Facebook Page:

https://www.facebook.com/realIndigenous

Alicia

Module #2 – Post #2

Smith, Loretta. (2006). Mending Fences: Increasing Aboriginal Representation in Canada. Department of Political of Science, University of Guelph. Written for the 78^th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association: York University. Accessed via: http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Smith,%20Loretta.pdf

In reviewing literature in module #1 and now Module #2, our discussions have led me to further explore the type of representation and amount of representation that exists for Aboriginal people in Canada in regards to the federal government. This of course leading to barriers to participation in governance and precursors that we can than connect or discount as influencing this participation.

As I wrote in Discussion #4, I quote myself, “having to partake within the Canadian government requires assimilation at many levels for Aboriginal people, it is a Western construct.” So what is it specifically that could present challenges, barriers or even benefits in contemporary times for participation in federal governance?

I hypothesized before beginning the article that socio-economic conditions, lack of access to higher Education, secure and well paid employment of course tension from historical relationships between Aboriginal people and the government.

Smith’s article hypothesizes 6 factors, of which many I had not considered:

• Aboriginal candidates receiving less funding than non-Aboriginal candidates
• Aboriginal candidates placed in non-winnable ridings
• Aboriginal candidates run at more local governance levels than federal due to less personal sacrifice
• Aboriginal people not considering Canadian government to be legit and therefore do not participate
• Aboriginal people do not have appropriate professional experience/education
• Questions whether the single-member electoral system prevents Aboriginal candidates to be elected in proportion to their total share of the population

Smith provides great stats (so I do recommend looking at the tables provided) – local stats are out of BC and Federal stats obviously cross the nation J Smith concludes that funding did not consistently seem to be an issue for Aboriginal candidates, nor did the placement of ridings for candidates (there was no evidence of tokenism either). And, there was also a lack of Aboriginal participation at local levels of government, therefore cancelling out that hypothesis.

Results did show however, that for those Aboriginal representatives that were elected, they had high level Professional experience and had University-level Education, all of which is not representative of the Aboriginal population. Only 6.39% of Aboriginal population has University education and only 17.48% of the Aboriginal population is employed professionally (Smith, Loretta. 2006. Pp.19). This result indicates, along with other details, that Aboriginal politicians and candidates are more like non Aboriginal politicians than their own communities.

For my final project I would like to explore the use of technology to engage young learners in Mathematics. The inspiration for this topic came from my stumbling upon an Indigenous Math Story Telling  resource that intrigued me.  I had never thought of employing this method to teach mathematics to aboriginal students.   As my education and teaching assignments have always been entirely in math, this topic interests me.  While teaching aboriginal youth, I don’t think I was ever equipped with the necessary training or resources that would make me an effective teacher.  This opportunity would allow me to increase my own knowledge, ideas, and expertise.  It would also allow me to share this with fellow math teachers I work with.

I aim to present my project in the form of  a slideshow with links, multimedia, and text.