These four pieces each take on the prehistory-history divide and illustrate the necessarily interdisciplinary approaches required for this kind of work. What lessons might we bring from earlier weeks to our assessment of these works? How is doing more “distant” history different, if at all, from the kinds of research and writing we’ve already seen? Are the stakes at all different? Lastly, what sorts of interventions are these particular works trying to make?
With these four pieces, we see some interventionist history (is this a term?) that revisits and re-centers oral history and traditional knowledge sources to place Indigenous resilience in the pre-history narrative in order to overturn or re-contextualize post-contact disaster narratives. Indeed, those histories have in many ways sought to undermine, knowingly or unknowingly, contemporary (and past) Indigenous identity. By telling histories that favour disaster and disappearance, histories written about Indigenous people have re-enforced a dominant colonial framework that happens to Indigenous people and is ultimately, successful. Particularly with Carlson’s piece, we see how histories of pre-European contact displaced peoples have been and continue to be used to “identify distant relations and open lines of communication.” For me, this bridging of the pre-history-history divide is essential to us understanding complex continuity, rather than focusing on trauma narratives in which we also favour the notion that colonialism was successful.
My question is, when we consider the methods employed by the authors this week, is it as “simple” as re-reading and re-examining existing sources, especially oral history, to reframe Indigenous resilience and history? What other work needs to be done by scholars to ensure a re-examination doesn’t simply re-enforce colonial disaster narratives and history happening to Indigenous peoples? Is there an historical ethics (or is that too broad) that might inform how we approach decolonizing histories?
Several of these articles concern histories that are far more distant from any current individuals, families, or communities than our previous readings. This made me wonder what new ethical questions these more distant narratives ask. For instance, I’m not sure this is the case, but if no one today claimed Cahokia as their own history, then who is the historian of Cahokia responsible to? If you aren’t telling a history that someone in the present claims, then who are you telling the history for? What new ethical problems and responsibilities does this distance pose?
Also, regarding Coll’s article, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on how indigenous “seismological data” could responsibly be used with western scientific ideas. The article makes clear the value and risks of conjoining these knowledges. But it leaves the question of “how” fairly open. How do you avoid an irresponsible appropriation of knowledge given the political, social, and economical climate science exists in?
Haven’t gotten through all the readings yet, but I wanted to throw this preliminary question into the ether.
As a TA for a world history course that begins with 1500, I’ve often wondered how to decenter contact and colonialism as the beginning of history in the Americas. Accordingly, my question is pedagogical. How can we (instructors, institutions) offer large survey courses of interconnected global histories in which European contact is not situated as year zero of Indigenous history, but rather as a recent, but not aberrant, process in the continuum of preexisting Indigenous history? Is there space within the confines of a first-year world history course to discuss deep Indigenous political, spiritual and demographic shifts and processes? Or does the concept of “global history” preclude the kinds of methodologies used by the authors of these articles? To be clear, I think such a class structure and content is entirely possible; what I am more asking is what are the structural hindrances that get in the way of undoing these narratives? What is at stake of “globalizing” Indigenous histories?
Guys! Your questions are all so insightful and thoughtful. I’m so excited to discuss this with you all on Tuesday. Building on Nick’s introduction and questions above (and I’m playing devil’s advocate here) – by de-centring colonial contact and bridging the history/pre-history divide, do we risk mitigating the true devastation and implications (and blame?) for colonialism – presenting it as one part of a continuum of Indigenous conflicts, religious cycles, history etc. in a way that perhaps forecloses discussion/acknowledgement of its ongoing implications?
I was thinking about this last night, Rosie. I definitely see the risk in that, which is why I’m still hung up on how historians can work within an agreed upon(?) ethics that allows for nuanced understanding of Indigenous resilience without undermining the devastating effects of colonialism. I think what these pieces seek to do is return some agency and place events (such as small pox outbreaks) in a larger context than one of a singular colonial event of devastation.
This week’s readings undertake the difficult task of breaking away from a periodization that casts indigenous life and culture as static prior to contact with Europeans while simultaneously addressing how colonial practices affected and continue to affect indigenous peoples. Producing this kind of history seems especially challenging because of present-day concerns about reconciliation and decolonization. How can historians work towards bringing to light these issues while rejecting the centrality of contact and colonialism in indigenous history? Is it even possible to separate histories about pre-contact experiences, processes, and events from the moment of contact and its consequences?
The fact that I felt the need to describe it as “pre-contact” demonstrates just how pervasive this periodization has become. Carlson’s call to adjust “our gaze to look for both continuity in change and change in continuity” strikes me as a fruitful way forward, as it positions contact as one major change within a continuity of other major shifts (167).
The authors of each piece revisit, interrogate and decenter existing settler colonial-centric understandings and interpretations of Indigenous history in North America in order to highlight that Indigenous autonomy, agency and resiliency existed (and exists) both separate from, and despite of, settler colonial contact. This is my first time reading texts that address the prehistory-history divide in this way, and as I was reading I couldn?t help pondering broader questions about their political implications outside of the fields of history and anthropology (the questions people have already posed are really good, so I figured I?d try another angle).
For example, how could Carlon?s argument be incorporated into ongoing cases and discussions regarding land claims and the types of evidence currently needed to corroborate these claims? How does his discussion about resettlement and displacement relate to the ways that archaeological evidence of long term occupation is often needed/used in land claim cases? How does this relate to themes from Susan Roy’s book from earlier in the term?
How might Barr?s piece be incorporated into public discourses happening in Canada right now about reconciliation? In particular, does it have any implications for how ?reparations? could be conceptualized and addressed at a policy level?
Brooks discusses the importance of ?reading against the archival grain? (740), which is reminiscent of the concept of ?writing against X? (i.e. ?writing against the grain?, ?writing against culture?, ?writing against disciplinary conventions?, perhaps even ?writing against imperialistic agendas? etc.). However, within the context of the political and social climate in Canada right now (and my above questions) could this move ?against? in any way be misconstrued or used to undermine the author?s intentions? I see this partly as relating to Paige?s/Coll?s question of ?Are the stakes at all different in these pieces? and ?What sorts of interventions are these works trying to make??
In response to Michael?s question: I went to an interesting presentation at NAISA by a seismologist who was working with the Burke Museum at the University of Washington on a project that sought to find ways to include Indigenous knowledge in the fields of seismology and geology. The museum had a great page about the project, but I can?t find it now. Perhaps Coll knows more about this?
Ah! Sorry for all the question marks in my post. They are supposed to be quotation marks. They showed up as quotation marks when I was writing, but somehow the formatting futzed out when I posted. I don’t think it will let me edit the post.
Attempt #2:
The authors of each piece revisit, interrogate and decenter existing settler colonial-centric understandings and interpretations of Indigenous history in North America in order to highlight that Indigenous autonomy, agency and resiliency existed (and exists) both separate from, and despite of, settler colonial contact. This is my first time reading texts that address the prehistory-history divide in this way, and as I was reading I couldn’t help pondering broader questions about their political implications outside of the fields of history and anthropology (the questions people have already posed are really good, so I figured I’d try another angle).
For example, how could Carlson’s argument be incorporated into ongoing cases and discussions regarding land claims and the types of evidence currently needed to corroborate these claims? How does his discussion about resettlement and displacement relate to the ways that archaeological evidence of long term occupation is often needed/used in land claim cases? How does this relate to themes from Susan Roy’s book from earlier in the term?
How might Barr’s piece be incorporated into public discourses happening in Canada right now about reconciliation? In particular, does it have any implications for how ‘reparations’ could be conceptualized and addressed at a policy level?
Brooks discusses the importance of ‘reading against the archival grain’ (740), which is reminiscent of the concept of ‘writing against X’ (i.e. ‘writing against the grain’, ‘writing against culture’, ‘writing against disciplinary conventions’, perhaps even ‘writing against imperialistic agendas’ etc.). However, within the context of the political and social climate in Canada right now (and my above questions) could this move ‘against’ in any way be misconstrued or used to undermine the authors’ intentions? I see this partly as relating to Paige’s/Coll’s question of ‘Are the stakes at all different in these pieces’ and ‘What sorts of interventions are these works trying to make?’
In response to Michael’s question: I went to an interesting presentation at NAISA by a seismologist who was working with the Burke Museum at the University of Washington on a project that sought to find ways to include Indigenous knowledge in the fields of seismology and geology. The museum had a great page about the project, but I can’t find it now. Perhaps Coll knows more about this?
I have one broad question and one very narrow question:
1) All four readings this week work towards a refutation of a declentionist (my new favourite word) narrative that situates Indigenous history as dependent on the arrival of Europeans. Thinking about the Carlson piece in particular, it is clear that re-reading European records from a lens informed by Indigenous concepts of history can alter the Western documentary record. However, does this not re-centre the documentary record? What are the risks of this practice? Ok, that was two questions…
2) This is directed more towards Coll but was the use of “Ash Wednesday” and “Boxing Day” in dating some events a conscious choice? It strikes me as taking away from the inherent scientific assumptions about the western dating system. Maybe not?
It seems an underlying theme—actually quite central component—of the readings this week is space/place/land and the way landscapes hold multiple histories materially and perhaps immaterially. I think this has something to do with the source-base available to us when we think about these distant narratives and deep histories. Many of these articles look to archaeological remains, architecture, iconographic documentation, and patterns in the landscape to draw conclusions (or make suggestions) about the past that connect us to deeper pasts, and the ongoing present, a process that works to destabilize that pre-history-history divide. It strikes me that, though the strategies and sources used to look at these so-called “pre-histories” are much different than perhaps more common strategies in “history” today, they both think critically (I think) about the role of place-making in history and the role of history-making in places. I guess my thoughts stem from a recognition of continuity between this work in so-called “pre-contact” history and “post-contact” history. How might recognizing this continuity, speak to the critical importance of place in Indigenous history (as we discussed earlier when reading Justice’s piece)?
How do we “read”—inhabit, move through, engage with—space or place as historians? Is this a form of scholarship outside our disciplinary boundaries (just for geographers, archaeologists)? In what ways can we imagine new ways of recognizing landscapes as gendered, defended, sacred? And how might seeing landscapes as constructed in these ways—or perhaps, lived through and with—rather than as a surface that we act upon become part of the project of seeing Indigenous lives/people/communities not as static “pre-historical” entities, but as dynamic and distinct?
Another thought – these articles suggest a tension that I hope we can discuss further (which others have brought up already): the tension between continuity and discontinuity. It seems that there is an onus we place upon Indigenous history to be both continuous (to make claims to land, or to hold deep genealogical knowledges for example), and to be discontinuous (to prove they are anything but static people). This paradox or tension, I think, might be predicated on a similarly false binary that we discussed last week (i.e. “moditional”). Is there a way for continuity and discontinuity to be held/experienced/historicized at the same time? Are we always having to seek ways to prove one or the other, or can we imagine futures where they can exist simultaneously? How do we account for this supposed contradiction in historical practice?
Some other smaller questions:
How do these articles compare or perhaps complement other forms of response to declension narratives that we’ve read this term? For example, how do these articles converse with Josh Reid’s piece from last week?
The non-linearity of Brooks’ piece has stuck with me, particularly in his choice to begin with the Awat’ovi massacre – how might we make this movement from the conceptual disruption of periodization to the practice of it, as Brooks has in his own way done?
I’m (fashionably?) late to the party once again, but at least I’m here this time.
I’m really impressed by the ethical and historical intelligence on show in the questions, and many of you have already voiced my thoughts as I was reading this. I’m particularly thinking here of Rosie’s thoughts on how to balance submerging the experience of colonialism within broader indigenous histories, without minimizing the political and cultural stakes bound up in understanding the advent of settler colonialism.
What makes these accounts different from the ignorant settler argument of “well the natives were warring and enslaving each other for millennia, so we didn’t do anything different”? Is it there attendance to historical specificity, whilst emphasizing continuity? Or is it there rootedness in a sense of place as Nicole suggests?
Still working my way through Brooks + Barr fyi. See you tomorrow!!
I’m going to try and loosely articulate some thoughts that have been floating round my head this weekend and attempt to add one more question for tomorrow, although it will be a slight tangent to these readings. Building from thinking about the ‘start date’ of colonialism and/or history, what happens if we jump forwards and interrogate the ‘end date’ of colonialism in the same way. I would imagine most if not all of us in this group understand colonialism and especially settler colonialism as an ongoing structure/process – but this isn’t a universal assumption; in History, in academia, in the classroom, in Canada, or even in the western world. Out of interest I did a quick google search for ‘end of colonialism’ and various articles including Wikipedia (which I imagine is a good gauge of popular understandings) suggested dates in the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly around revolutionary wars/independence from respective European countries . In a more academic sense, I remember disagreeing with my undergraduate dissertation supervisor at Cambridge over whether I could include a sentence to the effect of ‘ongoing effects of colonial policies’, let alone asserting that settler colonialism was an ongoing process. In the world history course Elspeth and I TA we have had students challenge why land acknowledgements matter, because ‘it all happened in the past and is done now’. Among much of the mainstream population, popular understandings of Canadian history firmly situate settler colonialism as something that happened in the past, although I would imagine if you took a poll on the streets lots of people would not be able to tell you the exact date they believe it ended. (As someone coming recently from outside the Canadian education systems/society I can’t really speak for Canada, but in the UK this is definitely the view.)
How can we write histories that accounting for this continuity and ongoing processes, while still remaining works of history/rooted in the past? Especially when these processes shape the institutions we work within and the discipline of history itself? Does this expansive view, encompassing ‘pre-history’ to history to the present challenge our preconceptions of the discipline/the practise of history? Is there a way to write like this that still takes account of time and space and specificity?
Also I realise Juliana Barr alludes to this – so I am building on the point she raises!
Rosie, your question here about the assumed end date of colonialism is a fascinating line of inquiry! I just wanted to suggest Waziyatawin’s piece “The Paradox of Indigenous Resurgence at the End of Empire” (http://www.decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18629/15553) that asks a similar question in a similar vein.
Looking forward to tomorrow’s discussion!