With regard to your own paper:

1. Topic: The topic of my paper is…
2. Thesis: The argument of my paper is…
3. Evidence: Three key pieces of evidence/literature that I use to back up my argument are… They back up my argument because….[make it explicit how the evidence proves your point.]
4. The stakes: My argument matters and is important because…

With regard to the paper(s) of your colleague(s):

1. The strengths: Three really strong elements in what you’ve said / written are… Be specific here. This might be the evidence itself; how the evidence is explained and linked to the argument; the stakes of the argument, the writing style; the argument itself; or something else.
2. In need of clarification: Three elements that I would like to understand better are… Again, be specific and try to provide concrete helpful suggestions. Is the point not made explicitly enough?; is additional evidence needed?; is the connection between the evidence and the point the author wants you to take away not clear enough?
3. Questions: Three questions that I have after hearing about your paper are… These should be questions that will help your partner(s) go deeper into their own writing, not questions that go off in additional speculative directions. Try to ask questions that you think will help your colleague(s) clarify their argument both for themselves and for me.
4. The stakes: An additional way that I see significance in your argument is… Help your colleague(s) connect their specific argument to broader themes, conclusions, and issues.

Lawrence’s first book, “Real” Indians and Others, was widely read when it was released in 2004. She has always worked at the boundaries of place, peoplehood, and recognition, and this book is no different.

Hi all,

Apologies for the delayed posting.

Here are questions from those of you who emailed yours to me.

from Nick:

For this week’s reading, I want to ask whether folks think The Clay We Are Made Of might be a viable example of how a non-Indigenous scholar might be able to consider viable ethical research frameworks based upon the fundamentals of what Susan Hill lays out. I find it pretty interesting that Roy and other Indigenous historians we have looked at this term offer extensive introductions that lay out the strengths and limits of their methods, sources, and cultural knowledge but some of the non-Indigenous scholars we have read, stop short of discussing the limits of their decolonizing lens, if they mention it all.

I wonder how we might consider Hill’s point that for the Haudenosaunee, “the belief that creation is a constantly occurring and reoccurring process rather than something that happened once in the long-ago past,” (Hill 17) might be a viable framework to look for elsewhere. That is not to say we try to find some totalizing notion of Indigenous time and past but rather if we can learn from scholars such as Hill to read between the lines and look for different frameworks and ways of knowing that might guide non-Indigenous scholars to ask better questions of sources. Coming back to my question around ethics, Hill’s conclusion lays out the groundwork for what considerations must be made if we are to move forward with any sort of effective reconciliation project, outlining the importance of land claims, education, and environmental responsibility. I wonder if we might use this as a framework for approaching non-Indigenous ethical scholarship?

from Vicki:

A theme that Hill revisits throughout The Clay We are Made of is that of continuity. She discusses the importance of continuity in showing Haudenosaunee connection to land, to understanding and working towards reconciliation, and also in bringing a more inclusive understanding to Haudenosaunee history overall. I feel as though she addresses continuity in two specific ways (1) by interweaving published sources, oral histories and origin stories together to create a coherent (and continuous) dialogue and history and (2) by highlighting the ways that this method of inquiry and discussion illustrates a Haudenosaunee history that is continuous and adaptive, instead of fragmented and disconnected.

We’ve touched on this concept of continuity before in several class discussions, but I feel like Hill wants to bring the discussion to another level. So, on the theme of continuity: What are the wider implications of Hill’s approach, both disciplinarily and for Haudenosaunee and Indigenous history in Canada overall? In what ways might it be subversive, and what might it subvert? How does the fact that Hill is framing these arguments in wider discussions about land occupation and rights relate to her claims about continuity? How might it also relate to ongoing discussions in Canada about land rights and claims?