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. 

Hungry Listening: Resonant Theory for Indigenous Sound Studies by Dylan Robinson

This book found me through the algorithm. I don't think that I would have sought out sound studies on my own. So, thank you to the tiny robots inside of my phone for suggesting this book. While the book is written from the standpoint of someone who performs in the arts, I think a lot of the concepts within this book could be helpful to any Indigenous person who stands in front of mixed crowds physically or virtually.

The book sets out to address a problem in the performing arts where inclusion involves "a fixation upon - Indigenous content, but not Indigenous structure." (p. 6). "Hungry listening indicts those displays of equality that are more concerned with importing Indigenous content and increasing representation than with redefining the structure of inclusion." (p. 6). This is what he identifies as hungry listening. In place of hungry listening, he says that "the act of listening should attend to the relationship between the listener and the listened-to" (p. 15). 

He ends his first chapter with a Garneau except on irreconcilable spaces. "Irreconcilable spaces of Aboriginality are gatherings, ceremony, nehiyawak (Cree) - only discussions, kitchen table conversations, email exchanges, et cetera, in which Blackfootness, Metisness, and so on, are performed without settler attendance. It is not a show for others but a site where people simply are, where they express and celebrate their continuity and figure themselves to, for, and with one another without the sense that they are being witnessed by people who are not equal participants. When Indigenous folks (anyone really) know they are being surveyed by non-members, the nature of their ways of being and becoming alters. Whether the onlookers are conscious agents of colonization or not, their shaping gaze and trigger a Reserve-response, an inhibition or a conformation to settler expectations. (Garneau, 2016, 27)." Thus, the next chapter "is written exclusively for Indigenous readers." (p.25). I love that because I am often not the target audience. Even within reconciliation discourse, often direct address is made to non-Indigenous audience members, disappearing me within a discourse about me. It is tiresome to be a secondary audience, as though the messages are hand-me-downs, concepts created with someone else's needs in mind, but I can try them on for size if I like. So, I always appreciate the rare occasion where I am the target audience. The chapter is an attempt to build an equity space inside of a book. 

The book is packed with a wide variety of interesting concepts. The concept of hungry listening ties diverse theoretical perspectives together in a way that makes them coherent. In terms of methodology, I found this perspective helpful "to see Indigenous and Western theoretical discourses as mutually exclusive and to refuse all that is not essentially Indigenous is to impoverish our work as Indigenous writers and scholars, not to mention to assume that we do not make critical choices and repurposings of non-Indigenous theory in ways similar to how we have always repurposed non-Indigenous tools to advance our work." (p. 105). That being said, sometimes this repurposing occurs inside of an Indigenous structure or logic, and the Indigenous logic is not always visible to non-Indigenous people (p. 106). 

Something that I really appreciate about the work is that it does not equate non-Indigenous feelings with actual reconciliation. If a work allows "the feelings of being transformed to satisfy" - that is not actually transformation. Actual transformation requires one to "unsettle and engage with the enormous amount of work that must still be done." (p. 232). Additionally, Deborah Wong cautions that sometimes responses to the TRC lead non-Indigenous people to think that "feeling guilty and ashamed is equivalent to holding oneself accountable." (p. 241). 

By providing examples where Indigenous people have challenged the logic and structure in which their artistic performances take place, and attempted to create an Indigenous logic which engages the listener as an active participant with relational responsibilities, the book provides encouragement to Indigenous people to thwart attempts de-politicize Indigenous art. 

 

Number one favourite new book - Wayi Wah! Indigenous Pedagogies: An Act for Reconciliation and Anti-Racist Education

 Out of all the books that I have read over the last few years, this one is by far my favourite. 

Jo Chrona has contributed so much to education in BC through her work on committees, in curriculum development, and as a speaker. She has a strong foundation working as a teacher in public schools in BC, and I think that that's part of the reason why her work resonates with educators. I like the way that she has a lot of anecdotes in the book regarding conversations that she has had with others over the years. It makes the book very conversational and approachable. There are some complex ideas in her work, but she makes them accessible to a general audience. 

This book was published in 2022, and it's an excellent orientation to a lot of the good work that has been happening here in BC with respect to curriculum and pedagogy. Many of the chapters are relevant to anyone working in K-12 and the book contains an abundance of practical tips throughout. But the chapters on the First Peoples Principles of Learning and Authentic Indigenous Resources will likely be particularly helpful in a practical sense for those who are teaching in BC, including those teaching the Indigenous graduation requirements. 

From a theoretical perspective, I found her positioning of decolonization and reconciliation interesting. First, she raises an issue. "I often wonder if it is possible to decolonize an education system that is inherently a colonial construct. It seems to me that decolonization is often used to justify any change that someone wants to make in education, regardless of whether it is in response to the priorities of the Indigenous people who have been most impacted by colonization in this country." (p.43).  She answers this question of whether or not it is possible to decolonize education with the following explanation: "If we define decolonization as the continuing process of critically examining and challenging beliefs, values, structures, and processes that are steeped in mindsets that implicitly or overtly devalue or exclude Indigenous Peoples, rights, knowledge systems, and processes, then yes, we can engage in decolonization. However, I refer to this process as Reconciliation through education and responding to the rights of Indigenous Peoples as expressed though UNDRIP or specific comparable provincial or territorial declarations." (p.43). 

If you are curious about her work but on the fence about whether or not to buy her book, I recommend checking out this snippet of the book on her blog. 

Leanne Betasamosake Simpson - As We Have Always Done

My previous post was about a book which was a critical response to what the editors refer to as "resurgence contra reconciliation" as advanced by Glen Coulthard and Audra Simpson. Meanwhile, As We Have Always Done seeks to further and extend the work of Glen Coulthard and Audra Simpson and I would classify it as also falling into the category of "resurgence contra reconciliation." 

It's interesting to read different perspectives on the question of whether or not resurgence and reconciliation are at odds with each other. The mental shortcut that I use is not that they are at odds which each other, but rather, that they are pointed in different directions. Resurgence is the equivalent to domestic affairs. It's inward looking (within the specific First Nation). While reconciliation is outward looking (outside of the specific First Nation). It is one strategy among many that First Nations (plural) take towards one specific external nation (Canada) - it's the equivalent of foreign policy because it looks outward. Engaging in reconciliation discourse is often one part of a larger diplomatic strategy.  And it's one diplomatic strategy that exists within a larger set of tools. And it is not mutually exclusive to other tools. Resurgence literature often talks about direct action. Within my mental schema - if we use the metaphor of walking softly and carrying a big stick, reconciliation is walking softly - legal action and direct action are the big sticks. And politics can involve both walking softly and using a big stick. I don't pit reconciliation and resurgence against each other because in my mind, they serve categorically different functions. In terms of the external/internal division of nation functions, research also falls into the realm of foreign affairs if it is published, as once you publish it, it is an appeal to the outside. But if it is internal to the nation and not published and instead circulated internally, then it falls into resurgence, unless it is done in pursuit of shifting the relationship with external actors, in which case, it is in support of external goals, but still internal work. So - resurgence - domestic policy. Reconciliation - one element of foreign policy, which is used as part of a larger suite of strategies. In terms of "the nation", First Nations are not one big blob. Different nations have different approaches to both internal and external strategies, as is their right. And in terms of how I conduct myself, when I want to influence my own nation, I usually do so through conversations with other Tsilhqot'ins and by voting. Unless they directly impact my nation, I usually don't have opinions on tactics used by other nations. For example, I don't have strong opinions about how Tsuti'naa conducts itself internally or externally because it's doesn't really impact me. But I do have gratitude for solidarity from other nations, for the ways that different First Nations work together through collective strategies (which, by the way, in my mental scheme also falls into the realm of foreign policy/diplomacy), and for the fact that sometimes I see other nations do things that inspire me. Maybe this is a simplistic way of looking at things, because I think the resurgence contra reconciliation school of thought sees resurgence and the politics of refusal as both a domestic and foreign policy, but if that is the case, then it's only foreign policy tactic appears to be direct action. While I was reading As We Have Always Done, I was trying to understand a perspective other than my own. I have my own opinions, but it's still worthwhile to ty to understand other people's opinions. During my masters, I was strongly influenced by the concept of Enowkin, and so that is the spirit in which I try to engage with the work of other Indigenous people, including this book. 

Generally speaking, I like Leanne's writing and I own a several of her books, and I even have one in both audio and hard copy. Her book Dancing on the Back of a Turtle influenced me when I was doing my masters. And one of the stories in This Accident of Being Lost was a key piece of my doctoral work. I also thought that her "Tidy Bun" poem in This Accident of Being Lost (in which she reflects on the stress of taking her daughter to ballet classes) was kind of funny in a strange and biting way. In the same collection, "Situation Update" captures the frenetic energy of trying to travel in the context of climate change. Her collaboration with RPM (available on youtube) is extremely impressive. I think it's awesome that she edited The Winter We Danced. And when she was in Vancouver for a speaking engagement at SFU recently, she did an advance session with Indigenous graduate students which was a generous offering. In that session, I asked her a question about a difficult ethical question that I was grappling with, and she provided a very helpful answer. So I have a lot of respect for her and her work. 

I struggled, though, with As We Have Always Done. As someone who works in K-12 education, I found that it did not provide a lot of guidance on how to do things differently because it generally dismissed the value of western education (50, 159). I am an intergenerational survivor of residential schools and I have been directly told by survivors that advocating for the TRC Calls to Action in K-12 is an important activity, so I found it difficult to read her take on the TRC (238-239). I was surprised that she did not consider Indigenizing the academy to be productive, but rather placed it in a position where it is potentially detrimental to decolonization (159). The first time I read it, I was in the early stages of my dissertation and I thought "this doesn't really give me a lot of direction in terms of my work inside of K-12 education or my research, and I already am committed to the activities that I am doing outside of western education in terms of culture, community, and family, so I'm not really sure what to do with this book." I appreciate it as a piece of self-expression and I enjoyed reading it as an explanation of why she does things the way that she does things. Aesthetically, her style is beautiful, and I find it delightful when poets maintain their voice when writing non-fiction. But I did not find guidance in it (which is totally fine, because I'm pretty dedicated to my own path, so I read a lot of books that I do not use as guidance). I am in a mainstream program in the faculty of education, and non-Indigenous people who also work in education kept telling me that I should read the book in order to inform my work, so I re-read it closely to try to see what they saw. I tried to re-read it through their eyes, and that was an even more curious experience, because she says things like "I actually don't care if they like me, nor do I care if they support me. That doesn't matter to me." (235, in regards to white racism in the mainstream media and Canadian society. For the record, I do care, because it impacts my safety). And "there is virtually no room for white people in resurgence." (228). 

Something that I did find useful, however, was her elaboration of grounded normativity. Before reading her work, I read Red Skins, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition by Glen Coulthard very closely, and was curious about this concept of grounded normativity (13, 53, 60-64, 172). I was unsure about whether it was a description of something that already existed or an imperative to do something differently. Or, if it was a stance for researchers to take in relation to community. Or if it was a political theory. When I looked at the definition of normativity, and initially tried to apply it to research, my thinking went like this: I think that pairing normativity with grounded means that whatever the people on the ground (and, as it takes place in Indigenous studies, I would presume it refers to the thoughts of people Indigenous to that specific ground) think is the morally correct rule or standard to follow (normativity) - then that is the correct thing to do. There is a challenge with this, though, which is that if my interpretation is correct, then the concept would not allow for universal claims. If the people on the ground think capitalism is good - then that's what's good. If the people on the ground think that reconciliation is good - then that is what is good. And if the people on the ground think that the politics of recognition is good... then that is what is good. So, I figured that within the context of Glen's book, my interpretation of what I initially thought "grounded normativity" means must be incorrect, because my interpretation is in conflict with the premise of the book (the politics of recognition is bad). I carefully read Glen's book when I was in the early stages of my dissertation proposal, as well as this article, and at that point I was looking for a methodology, and at that point I wished that I knew more about grounded normativity as a methodology, but I did not have enough information to imagine what it might mean to take it and run with it.

Leanne's book, though, elaborates on what grounded normativity is. Now, I understand it not so much as a specific methodology, but rather, a philosophical orientation towards life. As a philosophical orientation, it has the potential to inform one's methodology, or pedagogy, or political organizing, or whatever life activity one is engaged in. It has the potential to undergird of one's own pre-existing Indigenous orientation to the world. It could be ontological, but more than anything, it is an aspirational normative value that she feels committed to striving towards. Once I realized that, I appreciated the book as a model of how to develop one's life purpose. Even though we differ on the value of mainstream education, reconciliation, and Indigenization, I do find the book inspiring in the way that Leanne grapples with her life purpose. I would love to see some case studies of how different academics apply grounded normativity in their research projects, similar to Jo-Ann Archibald et als' recent book. I would read such a book not in hopes of finding something to mimic in a formulaic way (because that would be contrary to the spirit of grounded normativity), but rather, in order to try to imagine the many possibilities of how it might be expressed. 

John Borrows Books

In the past, I have not read a lot of John Borrows books because he's a lawyer and so I assumed that they would be too dry. But over the last few years I've read some of his work and he's actually a really interesting writer. I mentioned Drawing Out Law in a previous post.  Two other books of his are worth checking out as well. 

They are both the product of events, where scholars gathered to present papers and discuss a specific topic, and then followed up to create books. The first one is Braiding Legal Orders: Implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited by John Borrows, Larry Chartrand, Oonagh E. Fitzgerald, and Rita Schwartz. It's available online for free, but I got a hardcopy because I love books. It was published in 2019 and I read it shortly after it came out. But it's only become more interesting since then because the implementation of UNDRIP has progressed since then. A lot of it was definitely over my head, so some chapters I started to read and abandoned. The writer whose work I enjoyed the most was Sarah Morales, who wrote two chapters including one specifically on Indigenous women. I also really enjoyed the chapter on inherent dignity. 

The other book is Resurgence and Reconciliation: Indigenous - Settler Relations and Earth Teachings, edited by Michael Asch, John Borrows, and James Tully. This one is actually kind of mind blowing. It's in response to a specific vein of thought which promotes resurgence and pits resurgence and reconciliation against each other. And so some degree, I suspect that this book is an attempt to try to ensure that reconciliation as defined by the TRC had a fighting chance to get off the ground. The introduction specifically names the work of Glen Coulthard and Audra Simpson as scholars who are "resurgence contra reconciliation." (p.23). To be fair though, those two scholars did not come up with this line of thinking on their own, rather, in my opinion their work is representative of  a larger conversation that was taking place, as evidenced by social media discourse at the time and signage in protests. The authors kindly didn't single them out in the body of the text, but did specifically mention them in the footnotes. 

The book is also in response to some veins of decolonization discourses which pit decolonization against reconciliation. To the casual reader, this may seem unexciting. But within Indigenous education, decolonization is mentioned in basically every book, so it's super unusual to pick up this book and see concerns raised about  decolonization. For example, they state that "some of the claims made in its name were over-broad and were applied in inappropriate ways. Dichotomies and binaries were advanced in a manner that did not always distinguish between contemporary North America and those of colonial Africa, Asia and Latin America in the 1960s. Differences in temporal, spatial, and socioeconomic circumstances were flattened and universalized. Ideas were essentialized, and deficiencies in Third World decolonization were overlooked. Thus, positions rejecting all forms of reconciliation entered the field. This flowed from a binary framing that insisted the decolonizing resurgence of the colonized had to take place in separation from the colonizer. Some followers of this field argued that no good relationship or dialogue with the colonizer was possible, because such encounters were simply thinly disguised struggled over power between hegemons and subalterns. Those who thought otherwise were dismissed as being misguided, even colonized by 'the system.' This criticism spread to critiquing the majority of Indigenous people as being co-opted." (p.6). I don't think that they are saying that we should reject all decolonizing discourse, rather, that we should be careful about letting decolonizing discourse lead us down a path where we pit decolonization against reconciliation. 

The book is truly an effort at peace making and building solidarity, as it openly speaks of some philosophical fractures within contemporary Indigenous discourse, and seeks to find a way forward by imagining how resurgence and reconciliation can work together. They acknowledge some of the legitimate concerns that the resurgence contra reconciliation discourses raises specifically, that if reconciliation is just an expectation that we accept the status quo, then it will not do. The editors of this book propose that we consider "transformative reconciliation" - which is reconciliation which addresses injustices, and would in fact be compatible with the aims of resurgence, and then move forward by treating reconciliation and resurgence as complementary. I think if we can get to a place where resurgence and reconciliation efforts are complementary, that would be nice. 

Indigenous Education Scholarship

 When I started my doctoral program, I tried to catch up on reading Indigenous education books that had been recently published. In this post, I am going to talk about some of the books that I read on the topic of Indigenous education. These are not summaries or readings notes or reviews. These are just a few comments on each book. I'm writing this post because I want to keep my memory of these books alive and I also want to return to the books again in the future. As I go through books that I read in the early stages of my degree, I am becoming aware of the narrow frame that I had while reading them. Rather than just sort of absorbing what they presented in an open ended and organic manner, I really just went through them trying to see whether or not they could help me with my dissertation topic. Surely reading them broadened my horizons. But I also read them during a period of time when I put pressure on myself to read a lot in a short window of time, so I probably did not really retain a lot of what I read. I look forward to rereading some of these books in the future at a leisurely pace and with no end in mind. 

So, one of the first books that I read was Indian Education for All: Decolonizing Indigenous Education in Public Schools by John P. Hopkins. It is published by the Teachers College Press, and it focuses on legislation in Montana which mandated that every Montanan learn about Native Americans, and that educators work with Montana tribes to pursue this goal. The legislation is called Indian Education for All, and if you would like to know more about it, the state has a website which contains information for teachers in order to support the initiative, including offering weekly pro-d by zoom. Montana's Indigenous population is about 9%, which overall is higher than BC's. But BC's Indigenous student population is over 11%. BC also recently implemented mandatory Indigenous content across the board through curriculum reform, so it was interesting to see something similar happening elsewhere, and specifically, to see how the government was investing resources in order to support teachers in implementing the initiative. Conceptually, another interesting thing about the book was the concept of reconciliation. In Canada, reconciliation first surfaced in land claims court decisions. And then the TRC was created as a result of a class action lawsuit launched by residential school survivors. So there is a very specific legal history attached to the word. It's interesting to see the word used in a context without that very specific history. The book also introduces new concepts, like desettling. It's kind of a dense read, but it's a great primer on concepts like culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy, tribal critical race theory, and survivance. 

The next book is Pathways for Remembering and Recognizing Indigenous Thought in Education: Philosophies of the Iethi'nihstenha Ohwentsia'kekha (Land) by Sandra D. Styres. The book is structured in five parts, in accordance with the author's own cultural framework. Vision - (Re)centering outlines some foundations knowledge including the seven grandfather teachings, wampum, terminology, rationale for the project, and decolonization. Relationships - (Re)membering talks about seven generation thinking and also the politics around who is and is not Indigenous. Knowledge - (Re)cognizing remembers ancient knowledges, and then goes into some theory around privilege and power, panopticism, and the tension between dominant western approaches and Indigenous approaches. Action - (Re)generating provides some thoughts around how education might look different if it were based on land centered approaches. And finally, Iethi'nihstenha Ohwentsia'kekha - (Re)actualizing talks about concepts such as "word warriors", doctrine of discovery, and critical intimacy. I found the anecdote in critical intimacy to be particularly poignant. The book ends with a call to go beyond responsive pedagogies and beyond place-based pedagogies. The book pulls together a lot of thinkers in Indigenous education. But it also uses non-Indigenous thinkers such as Foucault, Descartes, and Freire. It's not an easy book to read, as it is very philosophical (as one would hope it would be, based on the title) and covers a lot of ground. It is well written and well organized. I recommend eating this book in small bites. 

The next book is Indigenous Education: New Directions in Theory and Practice, edited by Huia Tomlins-Jahnke, Sandra Styres, Spencer Lilley, and Dawn Zinga. I found that it was an interesting read, and overall I think it approached Indigenous identity from a place of strength. It featured chapters by some authors who were already well known to me and led me to some authors who I had not heard of before. I'm unapologetically BC focused, but it's good for me to look and see what's happening in other places now and then. I did not read every single chapter, though. The chapter that I liked the most was Dawn Zinga's chapter on ethical space. As an educator, I like it when people talk about their practice, that is, about what actually happens in their classrooms with their students and what they actually do in order to bring the theories that they advocate for to life. Also, many of us have ideal conceptualizations of things like decolonization or indigenization, but many of us grapple with the chasm between the ideal in our heads and hearts and the reality of the daily grind. So I loved her teaching anecdotes. I've also heard the phrase "ethical space" in passing, but I never took the time to find out what it means. She did a good job explaining it. I also liked Dwayne Donald's chapter on Homo Economicus. 

The next book is Indigenous and Decolonizing Studies in Education: Mapping the Long View by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K. Wayne Yang. This is a collection which contains a wide range of works, both in terms of topics covered and approach to the topics. I read most of the chapters and I think it's a great collection. There was a chapter on Indigenous content requirements, and as someone who has spent time advocating for minimum content requirements, I was surprised to read about how unenthusiastic academics were about the concept. No qualms about everyone having to take a minimum number of English credits, though? Based on the chapter's conclusion, I think they landed in a place where their criticism is largely around unsupported implementation, and their final statement is that minimum content requirements are "probably as good a first step as any." (p.173). Oof. Maybe they should give their upper admin a copy of the book on how Montana implemented minimum content requirements. The sections of this book that I have the most notes on are the series editors' introduction by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang. Indigenous education is a topic that transcends boundaries, as it lives both within Indigenous/Decolonizing studies (which is usually in the faculty of arts) and the faculty of education (which is a discipline focused on practice/application, and often times the students in this faculty are oriented towards a professional life outside of the university). The introduction is laid out such a way that these two separate areas of the university are oriented to each other. The introduction is also a good read. The introduction features comments from the editors, and my favourite section is where Eve Tuck reflects on why so many Indigenous people are drawn to education even though education is an undeniably colonial space (p.8). I also really loved the afterward by Erin Marie Konsmo and Karyn Recollet. They talk about how ableism and purity narratives manifest themselves in shaming people who live in the city. They advocate for an ethic of caring for all (p.244) and talk about how we can love land even after it has been damaged. Erin has a particularly beautiful section where she says "What does it mean to shame those who pick medicines in cities or at bus stops? In a conversation with a friend about my experiences being shamed for picking medicines at a bus stop, she responded, 'What does that mean for our people who live in the cities? are they not medicine?" (p.239). 🧡

 The next book is Troubling Truth and Reconciliation in Canadian Education: Critical Perspectives, edited by Sandra D. Styres and Arlo Kempf. By the time that I read this, I was already moving in a really specific direction, so I only skimmed sections of it. But one sentence in it made a lasting impression on me. Jeannie Kerr and Amy Parent open their chapter by stating "we trouble the notion that postsecondary institutions are currently able to address the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) calls to action for reconciliation in education, and offer what we see as pedagogical opportunities for instructors in higher education to gesture towards decolonial possibilities." (p.281). Later, they state "we have attempted to trouble the context of higher education in Canada as a colonial structure that takes up the words of reconciliation in the lineage of the TRC while simultaneously maintaining colonial logic and violences." (p.291). They talk about obstructions to reconciliation in post-secondary, and they open up the conversation but don't definitively close it. In response to this, I have a few thoughts. First, even if PSEs are currently unable to address the TRC Calls to Action, they ought to act as though they intend to address the Calls to Action, and ought to at least make as much progress as they can towards the Calls to Action. Second, standing outside of the university, and speaking from the standpoint of an Indigenous citizen, I conceptualize the university as an institute of the state, especially as universities function within and are accountable to a number of pieces of legislation including the Universities Act and property laws. While universities can make some strategic gains here and there, and while individual educators can help shape the minds of citizens, at the end of the day universities can only move as fast and as far as their legislative framework will allow them. So there is a bigger conversation at play in terms of governance and accountability. The opening of this chapter was very jarring (in a good way) and it really made me think, what conditions would have to be in place in order for universities to be able to fully implement the Calls to Action?

I have one more pile of books that I might blog about (Indigenous literature). And a bunch of random books I also want to talk about. But I might not do them right away or ever. I will only do them if I feel inspired to do so, because this blog is my place of joy, and so I have committed myself to the idea that I will only blog when I think to myself "it would be so fun to blog right now." So, no promises that I will blog those anytime soon... but I probably will blog them sooner or later. ✌️