Response to question #6: Write a summary of three significant points that you find most interesting in the final chapter of If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?

Chamberlin raises numerous valuable points in his final chapter of If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? which I think are important to look at especially in a Canadian context. These points he make are important to understand at Canadians because we are a society full of diversity and need to know how to work together in order to progress forward as a nation.

1. Chamberlin seems to signify one of the main points in the “ceremonial” chapter: everyone tells stories of their lives and cultures in different forms. Through science, others through literacy and even oral, regardless, all must be taken into important consideration. Chamberlin is trying to highlight this point throughout the chapter because different cultural groups must understand the importance of how other groups share their knowledge among society. For example, our higher education institutions across Canada, including UBC, tend to share their knowledge with Canadian society through a scientific lens using raw data as the core argument. These institutions seem to take a Logos approach if we look at it in this context. However, Chamberlin uses the Gitksan people to illustrate how other cultures in Canada will take a more Pathos approach to share their knowledge through language and stories. Regardless of which may be more accurate, Chamberlin makes a good point about how these stories are highly valued among their culture using the Mediik story, representing their land. He states, “The Gitksan believe both of them. Both, for them, are true. Bear and bear, as it were. Both help their people live their lives. And both are revealed in stories” (Chamberlin, 327). This quote accurately describes how this group relies on these stories for life to progress in their society in the same sense that we use science to progress areas of our society. 
2. Another good point that Chamberlin brings up in the final chapter of this book is that although different cultural groups may see knowledge from a different light, it is important as humans to come together to solve the large issues we face as a society today. Chamberlin also uses excellent examples to ensure this point stands out to the reader; for instance, he tells the story about how the fishing waters were crucial to both the Gitksan members along with the “cowboy” frontier chaser during a community meeting. Both used different dialogue forms to share their stories of why the fishing regions were important to them and how they relied on the salmon in those waters. Chamberlin explains how “they left disagreeing about almost everything else, including whose land they were protecting. Nevertheless, they were one in wonder, and like the Gitksan elder and the government foresters, they agreed on how to protect some things of meaning and value in their lives” (Chamberlin, 354). Chamberlin leaves this point on a high note, explaining that they shared one common goal regardless of their disagreements. This goal both groups have respect for the land they used and wanted to ensure that the land will be protected for the sake of their own lives and for future generations to come. 
3. Chamberlin’s last important point in this chapter of the book emphasizes that we have to understand the truthful meaning behind knowledge versus what we see through a socially constructed lens. Often, we tend to come to conclusions around knowledge based on the social constructions we learn about different phenomena, which is how we understand it. Chamberlin lays out the example of how two painters are sitting in different views of a ship across the harbour and are drawing out their view of it. Although both painters depict the same ship, both come out with completely different works based on their ship position. This can be related to knowledge through a constructivist lens that we only see truth based on what we really know rather than seeking all knowledge or “positions” on the subject before concluding the real truth. Chamberlin emphasizes that although both pictures may or may not be accurate depictions of the scenario, both must be considered because one painter saw it from this perspective while the other saw it differently.

Let me know your thoughts! Is there a crucial point that I might’ve missed reading this chapter or do you think there is more to add to one of these points Chamberlin emphasizes in the final chapter?

– KO