Native Presence and Sovereignty in College

I have watched some plays recently at Firehall Theatre. I saw Women of the Fur Trade and enjoyed it. I particularly enjoyed Eugina, and in particular, her portrayal of a woman who had freedom of mobility and who participated in the public sphere of the economy. It has a study guide as well. Even if I am not teaching a text, I like to look at study guides just to check out the pedagogy. 

If one wanted to extend their learning, they could read Daniel Voth's essay "Descendants of the Original Lords of Soil": Indignation, Disobedience, and Women Who Jig on Sundays in the book Indigenous Resurgence in an Age of Reconciliation. In the essay, he basically argues that Metis people are Indigenous through women. 

I also watched Inner Elder. I totally confess that I did not know much about the show before going. When she kept saying "alcoholic" again and again and again and again in the first ten minutes, I thought to myself "oh no, what have I gotten myself into?" The second half redeemed itself through comedy... although, as an Indigenous person I always get a little miffed when an Indigenous person on stage (whether it be pro-d or performing arts) does a direct address to the white audience. What am I - chopped liver? That being said, definitely an inspiring tale of how one person overcame a very challenging childhood in order to experience success in their field. I think the core concept within the show was that her challenging childhood was something that she tapped into in order to portray her character on Blackstone which led to her receiving a prestigious award. So, taking hardship and turning it into resilience. Without a doubt, the biggest strength of the show was the audience participation portion. I sat in the front row... and I am just really relieved that I was not part of the show, but, I also found it wildly entertaining that she brought people up to be part of the show. I also have to say that I am so impressed when someone can do a sixty minute show on their own. I can't imagine the sheer energy it must take to be the sole performer for an entire hour. 

All and all, very happy that I was able to see both shows, and gratitude to the iconic Firehall for supporting Indigenous theatre. 

Before going to the Firehall we went to Bao Bei for dinner. I love bao. There used to be a store in my neighborhood that sold delicious and affordable bao. It had brown paper on the window, no seats, and the only furniture was a counter where you could get 3 for $10. Sadly, due to gentrification, it is gone now. Bao Bei is a more upscale experience. Their bao, while delicious, are definitely not 3 for $10. They do have Sichuan fried chicken, which has a special oil on it that makes your mouth go numb. If you want to try something totally new, go try their chicken. Trust me - it's an experience. 

I recently read Native Presence and Sovereignty in College: Sustaining Indigenous Weapons to Defeat Systemic Monsters by Amanda R. Tachine. It's part of the Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy series by Teachers' College Press. I first heard of culturally sustaining pedagogy in the introduction to Indigenous and Decolonizing Studies in Education: Mapping the Long View by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K. Wayne Yang. I vaguely understand culturally sustaining pedagogies to be a close relative to culturally responsive pedagogy/culturally relevant pedagogy, with a key difference being that teachers of Indigenous students work in a context where sometimes they are teaching within the context of knowledge(s) which exist within their teaching communities and student body, but which are not brought into the curriculum and classroom due to explicit prohibitions around who can hold knowledge. Thus, while the educator delivers formal education, they also engage practices which respect and do not undermine knowledge systems which exist outside of formal education, and which resist being subsumed into formal education. I could be wrong about that. Maybe I should do a separate inquiry into the term to ensure that I am understanding it correctly. I should add the book "Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies" to my reading list. 

Anyhow, I loved the structure of this book. It used the Navajo concept of monsters to frame the challenges that Navajo students encounter in their pursuit of post-secondary education. The author interviewed first year Navajo students about their lives, and it was a student who initially engaged this cultural concept of a monster. The author then expanded on the concept, using monster to describe systemic barriers to Indigenous student success. Monsters include things like financial barriers and classroom practices which undermine Indigenous students' sense of belonging in post-secondary. There were a number of gripping anecdotes within the book. For example, one of the students recalls receiving letters about scholarships, and going to the park to open the letters with their friends who also got letters. The students who did receive scholarships had a bittersweet experience, because they were also comforting their friends who did not receive scholarships (p. 42). I think that the research had the perfect number of participants, because there were enough to provide a range of perspectives, but few enough that I felt like I got to know some of the participants through the author's descriptions of them and through the many interview excerpts included throughout the book. The monsters concept comes from the Navajo twin story, in which there are twins who fight monsters. So, the author talks about how Indigenous students use various weapons in order to succeed in post-secondary. The weapons are not violence. They are "action and processual oriented and involved remembering, repositioning, and resurging against systems of domination." (p. 13). I love this framing of the twin story and its concept of monsters in order to interpret and represent the participants' experiences in post-secondary. I think that it is a strengths based approach. Within this framing, the author spent a lot of time integrating concepts from Indigenous scholarship, such as resurgence and survivance, while also critically examining the legal and historical context of the education of Navajo students in the US. The book is an excellent example of the way that storytelling tradition is not just a recital of stories, rather, the storytelling tradition also involves bringing the stories to life by engaging them in such a way that they help us to make meaning of the world and find our way in contemporary life. 

The methodological choices were also interesting. Inspired in part by Jo-Ann Archibald, she used a story rug as her method (p. 15). In terms of ethics, she did reach out to the Navajo Nation to ask if they wanted to engage with her research, but they told her that "because this research would occur off of the juridical boundaries of the Navajo Nation, Tribal approval was not warranted." (p. 15). I also note that she writes the book to her children (p. xi) and several times directly addresses her children. I really appreciate that, because oftentimes Indigenous people are not the target audience. Often, books are written with a general audience in mind, or even in order to help non-Indigenous people better understand Indigenous people. I know that type of work is important, but it is also weird to be sidelined within an imaginary audience. So I notice and feel joy whenever a book is written in a way that centers Indigenous readers. 

I also like the way that the book ended - with youth offering some final words, hopes for the future, and prayers. Here are some examples: 

Sam: Strength, energy, and clarity of mind to pursue my dreams and continue on strong with my life. That my path will be cleared of any obstructions and my vision is clear, that I will see what I need to do, how I need to do it, just where the road leads. Really, the biggest prayers, what I need to do to become what I need to be. (p. 184). 

Sarah: Pray for us to be more humble and to remember who we are and where we come from... Help us in that way so we can also help others... Help us keep our minds right. Help us remember our main goals, help us be as leaders, and help us be thankful too and just look back, and this is what we've done and we need to pass it along. Bless us financially so it won't be a burden. Bless our academics. Bless our living situations while we are here. But most of all, like I said mentally, physically and emotionally, bless us in that way to be strong, to keep strong. (p. 182). 

I highly recommend this book for anyone who works with Indigenous students in any capacity. The author also did a book talk which is available on the University of Chicago's Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture's youtube channel. I listened to the book talk after reading the book. I think I would have actually benefitted from listening to it before reading the book, so that I could "hear" the book in the author's voice while reading it. She is a very engaging speaker, and I also like how she said that before she became a researcher, she was a teacher in K-12. 

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. 

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.