We have a full plate before us for our final class meeting. The texts by Coulthard and Pasternak intersect in significant ways and should provide for a rich conversation.

Please also remember to bring a food item to share, as well as a plate or bowl to eat from.

And meanwhile, enjoy what is left of this long weekend.  It’s a time of liberation after all for Jews, Christians, Easter bunnies, and April fools alike.

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.

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?

PERMITTED USE: This image may be downloaded or is otherwise provided at no charge for one-time use for coverage or promotion of National Geographic magazine dated January 2014 and exclusively in conjunction thereof.  ©Martin Schoeller/National Geographic
(credit: National Geographic) 
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/kayapo/schoeller-photography; January issue of National Geographic magazine.”
Kayapo who live near border towns supplement their subsistence diet with trips to the supermarket, like this one in Tucumã.

We hear from Phil Deloria again this week in the form of his monograph that has become classic in the field in its own right.  His arguments about expectation and time and history relate to the chapter by Mark Rifkin that accompanies the book.

I’m looking forward to discussing this project with all of you.  It adds to the diversity of examples of collaborative history we have had over these past few weeks.  And look who else is reading it!

Leslie Robertson was approached by members of the Kwagu’l Gix̱sa̱m Clan to write a book about their ancestor, Jane Cook.  This book offers a different configuration than Roy’s of the relationship between archival materials, disciplinary history, and community/family engagement.

As this book is lengthy, you can skip parts VIII and IX.  I realize this still leaves a lot to read.  I propose the following strategy. Please get a sense through careful reading in the early chapters of what her methodology does and why she includes so many documents in their entirety.  Then, for the remainder of the book, you can skim more quickly through the documents and focus on the relationship between the various voices (Robertson’s, her collaborators’, and the documents.)

**Remember that we will meet on 23 January at 11am and finish early at 12:30.

This week, Susan Roy’s These Mysterious People brings another discipline’s relationship to Indigenous peoples and colonialism into view: archaeology.  Roy worked for many years doing legal research for xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam)  before doing her PhD.  This book started as her dissertation.  Roy now teaches history at the University of Waterloo.  Her work continues to be in collaboration with Indigenous communities, at the moment particularly with the shíshálh (Sechelt).

We will use this site to share our discussion questions with each other on a weekly basis.  We will meet on Tuesdays from 11:30 – 2pm in Buchanan Tower 1207 on the unceded, ancestral territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people.

In preparation for our first class meeting on 9 January please read the assigned material for week 1 listed on the “course schedule page” of this blog.

Assignment details and other course information will appear on this blog shortly.

Here is a PDF that lists of the books we have ordered through the UBC bookstore.  The only change from this list is that we are not reading Witgen’s Infinity of Nations.  You will see there are quite a number of books that we have ordered for this course.  For the required books, we are reading all or nearly all of the book in question.  For the recommended books, we are reading shorter selections, but recommend that you purchase the book for your own future reference if possible.  Alternatively, we have also provided PDFs of selected chapters of these recommended books on the course schedule page.  We will make an extra copy (or, when possible, two) of nearly every book available to share in order to ease the monetary burden.

Looking forward to seeing all of you in January.

–Paige & Coll