Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies

 I was at the 2025 Squamish Nation Youth Pow Wow on the weekend. It was great to be out and about, enjoying the good vibes, and listening to the drums. Here I am with Bowinn Ma, amazing BCNDP MLA, and Ray Thunderchild. I wrote briefly about the film Night Raiders in my dissertation, and Ray was an actor in that film. He played Tiny. And he was also the emcee for the Squamish Nation Youth Pow Wow. 

Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies

Anyhow, today's book is Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies, edited by  Chris Anderson and Jean M. O'Brien. It was published in 2017 and is part of a series (the Routledge Guides to Using Historical Sources). It has 33 chapters, but they are concise chapters and the book is just over 300 pages. 

The editors describe the development of the collection as such: "We have, through our own long-standing networks, brought together a disciplinarily extensive and geographically expansive group of Indigenous Studies scholars who have, regardless of their formal disciplinary affiliation and training, signalled a commitment to Indigenous studies as a growing field - perhaps - disipline. Our invitation to participate made clear that participation would not require a 'toeing the line' in terms of what we wanted the contribution to look like. Instead, we left the shape of the argument nearly solely up to the authors, limited only by word count (about 4,000 words) and animated by a single question: 'What is your methodological approach to the way you undertake research, and how does it differ from past research in your field or discipline?'" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.4). This approach resulted in a wide variety of interesting writing. This was one of those books where every chapter felt like a whole new world, and so it was easy to sit down and read one chapter in a sitting, but I found that it was very difficult to read more than one chapter in a sitting because I needed time to digest and shift gears. The chapters contained enough material to whet the appetite, and so I think it's a good sampler of a broad range of approaches. It contained a mix of voices that I was familiar with (Daniel Heath Justice, Brendan Hokowhitu, Sheryl Lightfoot, Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark) as well as a number of people who's work was new to me. I didn't read all of the chapters. I would say I read over a third of the chapters. I think that I would probably return to it if I were in the early stages of a new inquiry on a topic outside of my usual interests (Indigenous literature, education). 

I think that the introduction, and in particular the first few pages, is valuable as a primer to Indigenous Studies as a discipline and as a thread within other disciplines. The editors begin by asking, "What isn't Indigenous Studies?" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1). And, "Were we to understand Indigenous Studies in all it's various iterations... what does that mean in practice?" (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1). The book is almost ten years old, and so a lot has been written since that which could inform the answers to these questions. In their exploration of these questions, they rely on Clara Sue Kidwell, Jace Weaver, Duane Champagne, Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and Robert Innes.

The editors discuss the ideas of Indigenous Studies as a discipline, and state that disciplines possess important epistemological prescriptions (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.1), and "as Indigenous studies continues to emerge, it continues to draw on a huge array of disciplines and methodological debates to inform our perspectives and work, and it has tended to do so in a context with little collective strategy or long term planning." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.2). The authors discuss the work of several scholars who have worked to describe Indigenous Studies. They state in a summary of Innes work that, "Innes argues that Indigenous Studies must practice methodological diversity. He suggests that Native studies ought to be broadly multi-disciplinary insofar as the issues we examine should dictate the methods and theories used."(Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.3). They state that Innes says that "Native studies is not the same thing as Indigenous knowledge, although in any given instance, it may incorporate Indigenous knowledge as part of its explanatory framework. Distinguishing between the two and not losing sight of their key differences is, we suggest, important to building the legitimacy of Indigenous Studies in the academy and in Indigenous communities, both theoretically and, more importantly here, methodologically... This means that Indigenous Studies is different from - but in certain cases and under the right conditions can be broadly allied with - Indigenous knowledge, particularly as situated and practiced outside of the academy." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.3-4).

There were a few chapters that I found particularly engaging, and I will discuss them below. 

Anderson and Kukutai

I found the chapter on statistics interesting. In the introduction, the editors have this to say about the chapter: "Michif (Metis) scholar Chris Anderson and Māori scholar Tahu Kukutai speak to the ways that quantitative information, particularly through official data like the census, has constructed Indigenous communities statistically, the manner in which this has produced simplistic and stereotypical depictions, and how Indigenous Studies scholars have more recently made creative use of official datasets to 'speak back' against these conversations." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.5). 

In the chapter, the authors begin by outlining an argument taken by some Indigenous scholars, that "Colonial regimes the world over have devalued Indigenous ways of being and knowing. Part of this devaluation has included their overlay and erasure by Western paradigms of knowledge. Quantitative research methodologies are part and parcel of the positivism that characterizes Western knowledge (and scientific inquiry more specifically). As such, positivism, within its reliance on 'external evidence, testing and universal laws of generalizability... contradict[s] a more integrated, holistic and contextualized Indigenous approach to knowledge' (Kovach 2009: 78). Hence, the devaluation of 'Indigenous ways of knowing.'" (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.43). 

Having outlined this argument, the authors challenge it, stating that: "While it is certainly true that quantitative research methodologies that focus solely on aggregate patterns do abstract from the local context, we argue that this is neither inevitably a bad thing, nor is it the only contemporary research methodology that does so (see Walter and Anderson 2013: 19). The issue is not so much that simple abstraction from local (Indigenous) milieus has led to the production and legitimation of stereotypes about Indigenous communities. Rather, we argue, it is the historical contexts within which this abstraction occurred: namely, in the stark absence of any collaboration with the Indigenous communities and peoples who provided this information. We turn to a discussion of sources now." (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.43). They then go on to say that "valuable information can be gleaned from undertaking respectful and collaborative quantitative research with Indigenous communities" and "failing to heed Indigenous voices and expertise produces bad statistics." (Anderson & Kukutai, 2017, p.45). 

I appreciate the way that the authors create space for Indigenous statistics.  I also appreciate the way that they challenge narratives which, taken literally, have the potential to inadvertently rule out the very concept of Indigenous statistics. 

Hokowhitu

The next chapter that I found interesting was a chapter on Indigenous masculinity studies. The editors summarize it in the introduction: "Maori scholar Brendan Hokowhitu explores how, unlike the typical ahistorical treatment of masculinity within the general field, Indigenous masculinity scholarship is linked to the tenants of Indigenous Studies more broadly. That is a common method that has developed within this nexus has characteristically been 'genealogical' in nature in that more scholars have tended to locate the production of contemporary Indigenous male bodies within the broader frames of settler colonialism and colonial history." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.8).

In the chapter, Hokowhitu begins by examining men's rights movement and mainstream masculinity studies. I won't go into depth into his summary here, except to say that in a short space he did a good job of pointing out some of the problematic elements of mainstream masculinity studies, both in terms of how to it positions itself in relation to feminism and also how it perpetuates stereotypes about Indigenous men. He doesn't say the word "manosphere" - but manosphere is an offshoot of men's rights, which he does discuss as a root of mainstream masculinity studies. And so in some ways it is adjacent to masculinity studies - a poor cousin or sorts. I think it's important for anyone who consumes online media or who has friends or family who consume online media (AKA everyone) to be aware of the manosphere and capable of critically examining the narratives within it. The Species podcast, by evolutionary psychology science educator Macken Murphy has an episode called Pilled which critically analyzes both the ideas within the manosphere and also the impact that it has on society. Macken interviews a researcher who has created a systemic analysis of the manosphere, and then they pick apart the ways that it has distorted actual science and become a form of pseudoscience. It's good to be aware of these distortions in order to spot them (and depending on the situation, address them) as they arise in conversation with friends and family. Some people might think that this is an obscure topic however, the CBC recently just reported on a trend where married men who consume misogynistic content online adopt misogynistic attitudes towards women, leading to the destruction of their marriages. The CBC article illustrates the impact of online extremism on everyday people. 

Anyhow, Hokowhitu contrasts mainstream masculinity studies with Indigenous masculinity studies. He says "Indigenous male dysfunction within Indigenous Studies has typically been treated as a symptom of colonialization," and as an example he points to narratives that point out that "hyper-masculinity, along with the traditionalization of homosexuality, homophobia and patriarchy" are ways in which Indigenous men mimic Victorian masculinity (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.199). He claims that Indigenous Masculinity Studies methodology "lays the groundwork for Indigenous masculinity scholars to work with Indigenous feminist scholars to lay waste the constructions of masculinity that serve to oppress Indigenous communities." (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.199). He claims that with the right methodology, this approach can move beyond binaries. He points out that one of the challenges of confronting manifestations of colonialism (such as rigid gender roles) is that "traditions (false or otherwise) are embodied by the very real community members." (Hokowhitu, 2017, p.202). 

Overall, I like Hokowhitu's approach and I agree that careful attention is required in order to challenge the nefarious ways that colonialism has negatively impacted gender equity within Indigenous communities. That being said, I don't know whether Indigenous Masculine Studies is the answer. I actually have tried to read an Indigenous masculinity essay before by a prominent scholar, and I found that it did contain mimicry. The author's background was in the armed forces, and the masculinity he espoused did not fit with my lived experience of masculinities that I encountered in friends and family. Based on that other reading, I don't think that all Indigenous masculinity studies adhere to the ideals espoused by Hokowhitu. And I actually wonder whether the aims that Hokowhitu aspires to can be served just as well if not better through Indigenous Studies generally. I think that limiting the conversation to masculinity risks obscuring the ways that colonial gender roles negatively impact women and diverse gender identities and Indigenous collectives/communities generally. I question whether or not centering men is an effective way to address patriarchy. That being said, Hokowhitu's work will inform how I read works on masculinity in the future. 

Raheja

I also enjoyed Michelle Raheja's chapter, which the editors summarize by saying that she, "analyzes Indigenous film history through the lens of settler colonialism, arguing that, since film's inception, motion picture companies have participated in a 'logic of elimination' (Wolfe, 2006) designed to erase Indigenous people visually. The chapter contrasts these desires by demonstrating the success of contemporary Indigenous science fiction filmmakers in drawing from both Indigenous speculative oral narrative as well as colonial literary and visual culture representations of 'first contact' to institute new modes of thinking about Indigenous futurity." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.9). I really liked this chapter because she highlighted Tsilhqot'in film The Cave/?E?anx by Helen Haig Brown (Raheja, 2017, p.241, 243-244).

Stark

I also enjoyed the chapter by Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark. The editors summarize it by saying that she, "makes the methodological argument that understanding story as law not only unearths a rich body of Indigenous thought, it also dispels the notion of inviolability of the law, demonstrating that law is likewise a set of stories. In examining the creation stories of the state, she explores how Western law took form and functions to legitimate the settler nation-state through Indigenous dispossession. The study of Indigenous law, in presenting alternative frameworks for the restoration of Indigenous-state relations, not only contains the potential to produce new methodological approaches, but may also unearth alternate methods for living together differently." (Anderson & O'Brien, 2017, p.9). I really like the work of John Borrows, and her work is in the same vein. She also edited a book on resurgence and reconciliation. I like her writing.

Overall, I found that this book did an excellent job of illustrating the wide range of sources and methods in Indigenous Studies the discipline and/or in people who are basically changing their disciplines by approaching them in a way that could also be considered Indigenous Studies. The questions around "how do we know what we know" or "where are we getting our information from" and "what counts as evidence" are all relevant questions for Indigenous Studies researchers. But these are also important questions for citizens who read the news and individuals engaged in conversations about public policy, so I think that the audience for this book is broader than just Indigenous Studies scholars.

Having gone through a reading spree where I read a lot of edited collections of scholarly essays, I think that I am done reading collections of scholarly essays for a bit. I haven't picked my next book yet, which is a weird place to be. I might start re-reading some of the novels that I read while studying, and really enjoying them in a relaxed manner. And that may or may not result in some blog posts if I feel moved to share the experience. I have been meaning to write some scholarly articles. Blogging is more fun, though. But if I am MIA from my blog for awhile it means I am off having random adventures and/or working on articles. 

***

In other news, the SFU Indigenous Student Centre held an Honoring Feast for Indigenous students in June, and they recently sent out photos. Here I am at the event. They gifted each graduate a very cool sash and a cedar headband, as well as some other items. For a minute when I arrived, I was a little bit disappointed by the fact that my robe was the same colour as everyone else's. In the regular event, PhDs wear regalia which is distinct from the other degrees, along with a distinct hat. But then I checked myself... after five years in the institution, of course my impulse was to extol the virtues of rank, status, and hierarchy. Deep in the belly of a western institution, I had internalized its values. I realized that what was most important was that my family was there, I got a degree, and I was symbolically moving on from the student phase of my life. I reflect on this moment in order to be transparent about the little decolonial transformation that I made while getting ready, and also to proactively address any reader who might ask "why are you not wearing the colours typically worn by SFU PhD Education grads?" The fact that I am even concerned that a reader might be concerned that I am not wearing the correct clothing speaks to the degree to which, in spite of this reflection and self-awareness, the logic of institution continues to take up a lot of space in my head. I was surprised by the attire, but at the end of the day, extremely happy to be part of the event and extremely grateful for the work of everyone who organized it and participated in it. And I am really grateful for all of the support and encouragement that I received while studying. 

Crossing the stage. I didn't get my parchment here. I didn't go to the big convocation so I didn't pick it up there either. And I am never on campus so I didn't go to the office to pick it up.  I'm currently waiting for it to come in the mail. Really drawing out the anticipation of getting my degree lol.

Yay! So many Indigenous grads!

Fancy scarf that they gave us as a gift - thank you ISC!

Ways of Being in the World: An Introduction to Indigenous Philosophies of Turtle Island

 I recently went to Bill Reid Gallery for their new exhibit, Vital Signs. Here is a description of the exhibit from Bill Reid Gallery: 

We are currently living through a very critical time of recurring natural disasters caused by climate change. Indigenous people and communities are some of the most impacted by these disasters. Our traditional territories are being affected by flooding, fires, drought, and in many areas a decline of the species that we rely on for hunting and fishing. Indigenous people have been at the forefront of environmental activism for generations and continue to actively fight for our traditional lands. 

Vital Signs is a group exhibition that features artists who are discussing the impact of climate change through personal experiences and effects on their traditional territories in a variety of mediums. The title, Vital Signs, refers to the measurements of the body’s most basic functions, but is also a reference to how the land is essential to our being and is a living entity itself. 

The artists featured in this exhibition are Jade Baxter (Nlaka’pamux), Jasper Berehulke (Syilx/Okanagan), Kali Spitzer (Kaska Dena), Kwiis Hamilton (Hupačasath/Leq’a:mel), Rebecca Baker-Grenier (Kwakiuł, Dzawada’enuwx, and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh), and Sage Nowak (Tahltan). 

Co-curated by Aliya Boubard and Amelia Rea

The entire exhibit is great, and worth checking out. And Bill Reid Gallery is a fabulous space. The work that spoke to me the most was Jade Baxter's film Why Would I Leave? The film featured audio of Jade reading a poem with footage of the devastating 2021 Lytton fire. You can read more about the exhibit in this IndigiNews article.

And here is the fancy dinner that I had after work and on my way to the art gallery. 

I recently read a book on Indigenous philosophies - Ways of Being in the World. It is an edited collection, created to support post-secondary faculty teaching about Indigenous philosophy. The editor, Andrea Sullivan-Clarke, is Muskogee and has three degrees in philosophy. The book contains an introductory essay. Then it is grouped into five parts and each part has its own brief introduction. And then each selection within the parts has its own blurb. There are seventeen selections, and the authors range from a Mexican American person writing about Aztecs to an Inuit person writing about contemporary life. Each selection also has a few discussion questions and also a QR code which readers can scan with their phones in order to go to webpages which contain videos as well as links to art and poetry. I like the way that it is a book, yes, but it is also a virtual space, allowing for a more dynamic reader experience. 

The essays feature a number of voices which were already familiar to me, such as Vine Deloria Jr. Winona LaDuke, Kyle Powys White, and Jo-Ann Archibald. And it also includes works by people that I am less familiar with, such as Peter Irniq and and Viola Cordova. One of the essays which I liked the most was by Joseph Len Miller, on living in harmony. I think that it would be great to use it as a discussion piece for Indigenous scholars in order to discuss how to navigate that ongoing tension between trying to fit into the academy (harmony with out world) and trying to transform the academy (harmony with one's own inner world). I found the book extremely accessible. I planned to sit down and read one essay at a time with my morning coffee. But I often found myself reading two or three essays per sitting. 

If I were to use it as a teaching resource, I would probably develop my own questions, because I have certain ways that I like to approach things. But the questions included in the book are good for those reading the book on their own, without an instructor. 

The word "philosophy" is laden with many colonial connotations, due to a history of what Marie Battiste calls cognitive imperialism. It would be easy for philosophy to eat up Indigenous philosophies, incorporating them into mainstream scholarly practices in such a way that they become consumed and lose the qualities that make them Indigenous. It is also the opposite of holistic and relational to assume that anyone can know anything about Indigenous philosophies without actually engaging with Indigenous people individually and collectively on their own terms (AKA not within the walls of a mainstream state institution). Can Indigenous philosophy be truly known without interacting with Indigenous people? Maybe not entirely, but I guess one could be introduced to ideas from Indigenous philosophies through a book, and the book title definitely says it is an introduction. Then comes the question, "how can one engage with Indigenous philosophical works without recreating colonial patterns of harm?" The editor of this book provides guidelines in the introduction for working respectfully with Indigenous philosophies. She uses the Muskogee saying "Cokv Kerretv Heret Os" (learning is good) as inspiration to create a list of tips for teaching Indigenous philosophy. I won't share them all, but here are my favourites:

• Focus on the philosophical thought instead of attempting to explain or practice the culture.
• Indigenous philosophical thought is not to be used as a tool to understand or support Western philosophy.
• While we refer to Indigenous philosophy in the general sense, the thought of each community remains distinct. Do not overgeneralize. 
• Acknowledge your sources and seek permission to use Indigenous materials and stories.

Indigenous Resurgence in an age of Reconciliation

I recently visited the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec. One of this pieces was this work by Michael Patten. The caption hanging beside it says "The bloody-looking end of this baseball bat highlights its potential for being used for violent acts. By covering the bat with seed beads, Patten affirms a strong identity associated with a traditional Indigenous practice: beading. Although he covers the object as if to camouflage it, at the same time he reveals part of Canada's history: the blood stain is not some unshaped blob but a map of the country." I think Quebec City is a good place for this work to hang because the city definitely celebrates violence through its use of cannons as decorative objects. I noticed that a lot of the plaques and other public educational displays talk about early settlement and the use of military might within the context of competing colonial powers. However, I think its always important to keep in mind that even though these technologies of violence were not places there specifically for use against Indigenous people (according to the various displays), surely their mere existence surely impacted relationships with Indigenous people at the time. 

I recently read this book, Indigenous Resurgence in an Era of Reconciliation. 

Overall, I found it a great read. There were a few chapters in particular where I paused and thought to myself "I love the way that this chapter has been intentionally structured." A lot of analytical thinkers here. It is an edited collection of essays. The book was the product of a symposium at University of Victoria in 2017, which I am presuming that some or all of the authors attended. There are some books where they are outward looking, as in, they are speaking directly to a non-Indigenous audience or in a way to educate people who may be unfamiliar with Indigenous issues. What I loved about this book is that it felt like Indigenous people talking to other Indigenous people with the assumption that everyone in the conversation is well versed in the basics, and thus capable of engaging in the nuances of various ongoing debates. In my mind, the book stands out as special and unique in that respect. 

I particularly enjoyed Dian Million's essay,  "Spirit as matter: Resurgence as rising and (re)creation." Effect of urbanization, industrialization, and criminalization of Indigenous lifeways on Indigenous people, with a focus on the Pacific Northwest, and, more specifically, the damage done to the Columbia River. Here are some notes on that chapter:

• "The Colombia River's loss cannot be measured. Their loss was a spiritual blow to the lives of Native peoples in the Pacific Northwest and to all of us who contemplated the silencing of these places." (Million, 2023, p. 46). 
• "I claim that anywhere we are is already an Indigenous place first. An Indigenous ethos rises when we take responsibility for where we are, in the power and depth of our relations and responsibility to the Indigenous people of the places we are - to know and honour their ancient relations in that place. We have a responsibility to know the languages of these places and recognize them in the land, in their names for food and kinship. We need to honour and uphold these relations first, and to know that our Indigenous spirit reconnects any lands we are on, even - and especially when - these lands appear to be encased in concrete." (Million, 2023, p. 49). 
• "I met Jeannette Armstrong when we were much younger, in Portland, and I was still in what I felt was a life lived in strife, but I became impressed by her spirit and movement. As a Sylix person, Jeannette believes strongly in our ability to connect to spirit, the life forces that are always part of us, and part of all our places. She states, 'Indigeneity is a viable tool toward transformation of the people-to-be into being part of the social order as tmixw and to be a life-force place rather than being part of the social order of depletion and destruction.'" (Million, 2023, p. 51). 

I also enjoyed Gina Starblanket's chapter on treaties and resurgence. I like the idea of beginning with aspirations and thinking about what we might dream about if we could proceed on our own terms. "An oppositional treaty politic may distract from the need to build an alternative treaty politic instead, as oppositional approaches can run the risk of limiting movement and self-transformation and can contain our ability to engage in alternative theorizations that might break free from, instead of just being differently configured by, colonial relations. When we Indigenous peoples constitute ourselves through oppositional politics rather than what we aspire to be, we inadvertently allow our own political projects to be shaped by external sources rather than our own philosophical traditions." (Starblanket, 2023, p. 90). 

I also liked Darcy Lindberg's chapter, Nehiyaw hunting pedagogies and revitalizing Indigenous laws. The chapter beings by introducing nehiyaw hunting practices as illustrative of law, points out comparative deficiencies in Albertan law (including Canadian law), and then goes on to discuss how traditional Indigenous laws can inform court and law schools. As a teacher, the third item was of most interest to me because I'm always interested in conversations around pedagogical strategies. Lindberg notes "the use of origin or creation stories by many Indigenous societies to set out constitutional or legal principles." (2023, p. 116) and then begins a discussion on their interpretation. "The ability to access legal resources from Indigenous social practices remains a challenge in the academic study of Indigenous law. Hadley Friedland identifies three general categories of legal resources according to their accessibility and availability: '(1) resources that require deep knowledge and full cultural immersion; (2) resources that require some community connection; and (3) resources that are publicly available.' Resources that require deep knowledge and full cultural immersion include laws embedded withing a 'language, dreams, dances, art, beadwork, pots, petroglyphs, scrolls, songs, natural landscapes, ceremonies, feasts, formal customs and protocols.' Resources that require some community connection include laws embedded in 'stories, communally owned oral traditions, information from knowledgeable community and family members, as well as personal knowledge and memories.' Resources that are publicly available include 'published resources' such as 'academic work by outsiders... published court cases, [and] trial transcripts.' Thus, 'the most ideal resources' - those intertwined with ceremony, songs, and language - 'are likely the least available at this time, while the least ideal resources,' such as stories and published resources, 'are the most available.'" (Lindberg, 2023, 116-117). 

The article that she is summarizing in this section is freely available online. It looks like a very interesting resource on both a pedagogical and epistemological level.

She goes on to talk about pedagogy in the law school at University of Victoria. "The initial trend within law schools is to rely upon a few methodologies (all three that overlap each other) to teach Indigenous legal principles. An initial avenue has been the modified case brief method that has been developed and utilized by the Indigenous Laws Research Unit at the University of Victoria. This methodology relies on the synthesis of case analyses of stories to identify and restate legal principles within Indigenous social orders. Understanding that multiple analyses are needed, researchers immerse themselves within the stories of the community. This strategy aims to have researchers discover trends within the normative practice of the community, leading them to a thicker frame of legal analysis. this methodology is favored because it requires mostly publicly accessed knowledges (published stories) and is tailor-made for the pedagogical environment of the law school. The largest drawback from the adapted case-brief method is that it decontextualizes legal principles from the lifeworlds they relate to and requires a light relationality with Indigenous communities without a natural onus for researchers to engage with a community or seek feedback on their conclusions. It requires institutions to apply internal accountability mechanisms that require community feedback on the results of their synthesis." (Lindberg, 2023, p. 117).

There was also a chapter by Corey Snelgrove and Matthew Wildcat on education governance/development, "Political action in the time of reconciliation." Out of all of the chapters, I think that this one did the best job of discussing reconciliation, and honouring resurgence while also doing away with what Asch, Borrows, and Tully refer to as "resurgence contra reconciliation." The authors begin by stating: "our interest is in two opposing perspectives on reconciliation - considered as ideal types- expressed by those who seek to further Indigenous self-determination. On the one hand is a perspective that involves an embrace of reconciliation, where the idea of reconciliation is a vehicle for positive change in the Indigenous-non-Indigenous and/or Indigenous-state relationship. While the degree of embrace fluctuates within this perspective, one predominant form takes the argument of contrasting definitions or conceptions of reconciliation. On the other hand is a constellation of critiques that normatively reject reconciliation as a political movement and language. The reductionist version of this critique is captured by the sentiment 'Reconciliation equals assimilation.' Here reconciliation is a political sleight of hand where the Canadian state uses a benevolent front to recognize Indigenous rights, title, and political authorities while quietly carrying out its intended goal of extinguishing Indigenous peoples as legal and political entities through incorporation under provincial and federal legislation. In the following, we offer a different approach that sees reconciliation as a unique moment of colonial reconfiguration." (Snelgrove & Wildcat, 2023, p.157-158). 

Rather than framing reconciliation as something which the state is trying to do to Indigenous people, they state that "reconciliation has not emerged through Canadian self-reflexivity, introspection, socio-historical learning, or progressive enlightenment but by generations of Indigenous peoples' sustained legal, political, and economic action that has forced a reckoning within Canadian society and responses by the state - motivated in part by Canada's self-image as a land of justice." (Snelgrove & Wildcat, 2023, p. 158). 

With respect to resurgence, they use an example of the Maskwacis Education Schools Commission as an example of resurgence. "Coulthard calls for a turning away from seeking state recognition to find an emancipatory praxis grounded in one's own traditions, upholding one's own self-worth as the source of liberation... Here I would like to argue that the history of building education systems in Maskwacis was the result of an internal focus on building the schools rather than an externally focused politics of looking towards the state as a source of change. In other words it is possible to turn away in Indigenous institutional contexts." (Snelgrove & Wildcat, 2023, p. 166). 

I thought it was interesting that they cited (167, 169, 170) Marshall Gantz's book Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement . It's been in my audiobook library for awhile now and I'm almost finished. Certainly an inspiring book about unions. Listening to the audiobook also inspired me to see if Marshall Gantz has podcasts, and yes, he does. I listened to the episode in which his guest was a leader of a large digital racial justice organization, Arisha Hatch. Highly recommend. 

Goeman, M. (2023). Beyond the grammar of settler apologies.  In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.23-41). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. 

Hunt, S.K. & Simpson, L.B. (2023). Thinking through resurgence together: A conversation between Sarah Hunt/Tlalilila and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.   In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.129-141). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. 

Lindberg, D. (2023). Nehiyaw hunting pedagogies and revitalizing Indigenous laws.  In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.112-126). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. 

Million, D. (2023). Spirit as matter: Resurgence as rising and (re)creation.  In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.43-52). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. 

Snelgrove, C. & Wildcat, M. (2023). Political action in the time of reconciliation. In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.157-175). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. 

Stark, H. K. (2023). Generating a critical resurgence together. In H.K. Stark, A. Craft & H.K. Aikau (Eds.),  Indigenous Resurgence in an age of reconciliation (pp.3-20). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.