Essay

14 Jun Essay

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND KNOWLEDGE: DECOLONIZING OUR PROCESSES

Leanne Simpson Department of Native Studies Trent University Peterborough, Ontario Canada, K9J 788

Abstract I Resume

The author suggests that Aboriginal scholars need to take control of the uses of.1raditiQuale.cologicaLknowledge (lEK). She suggests that, as Aboriginal people heal, and develop new processes for their communities, T~!S. ~s leamed from_EI(je~.wiIlJ)~come more and. more important.

L’auteur suggere que les universitaires autochtones doivent prendre Ie controle de I’utilisation du savoir ecologique traditionnel. A son avis, plus les peuples autochtones s’engagent sur la voie de la guerison et elaborent de nouveaux processus pour leurs collectivites, Ie savoir ecologique tradi- tionnel, appris des Aines, deviendra de plus en plus important.

The Canadian Journal ofNative stucfes XXI, 1(2001 ):137-148.

138

Introduction

Leanne Simpson

Aaniin. My Anishinaabe name is Petasamosake, Walking Towards Women, and I completed my Ph.D. at the University of Manitoba, during which I spent a lot oftime learning from my own Anishinaabeg people, and learning from the Elders. I work in the field of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). My research was unique, in that I did not want to study Aboriginal people, or my culture, or even Traditional Ecological Knowledge, but I wanted to study the people who were writing about TEK, defining it and documenting it in the area of the environment, and I wanted to do this from an Anishinaabe perspective. I interact with issues about Aboriginal peoples, our knowledge, and development as an academic, a researcher and a teacher. More importantly I think, these issues are intemalized within me, in my heart, my mind and even in the blood that runs through my veins. Anishinaabe knowledge is part of my internal environment, it is part of who I am and it comes to me through relationships with family, Elders, spiritual leaders, and interactions with the spiritual world.

Researchers often now see Traditional Ecological Knowledge as a ) necessary component of environmental impact assessment, natural re- source management regimes and development projects. The purpose of this paper is to examine how TEK is used or not used in Canada in terms ofAboriginal rights, and the role of Aboriginal paradigms, Aboriginal knowl- edge and Aboriginal processes in ensuring Indigenous peoples survive as Peoples.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Aboriginal Rights

In the past ten years, Traditional Ecological Knowledge has also become synonymous with Indigenous communities at least amongst non- Aboriginal researchers. TEK has become a popular buzzword in universi- ties, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and in governmental departments. Academic papers on TEK are filling up journals in numerous disciplines. Non-Aboriginal researchers are flocking to Aboriginal commu- nities, with one community in Ontario reporting 50-60 new non-Native researchers each year all asking to come and study their “TEK” (Lickers in Luckey, 1995). For Aboriginal peoples, at least initially, this was a good thing. After years of appropriating, assimilating, ignoring, undermining and degrading our knowledge, it was finally acknowledged by members of the dominant society. But outside researchers were not interested in all kinds of knOWledge, and they remain specifically interested in knowledge that parallels the western scientific discipline of ecology or the “environment”,

Aboriginal Peoples and Knowledge 139

and they are often looking specifically for information that presents solutions to their own pending ecological crises (Knudston and Suzuki, 1995).

Early researchers in the field of TEK felt that by documenting TEK and by integrating it into their research, environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and co-management agreements that Aboriginal Peoples would achieve a greater voice and greater control over decisions that impact our lands, our communities and our lives (Johannes, 1993; Johnson, 1992). New research paradigms and methodologies were sought out to accom- plish this task, and Aboriginal communities met both collaborative and participatory action research (PAR) processes. It was using these new ways of interacting with Aboriginal communities, that non-Aboriginal researchers felt they could best help us achieve our goals (Johnson, 1992).

Now, after nearly ten years of documenting and integrating, Aboriginal people are reviewing the results of this approach with great concern (McGregor, 1999; Simpson, 1999; Stevenson, 1999; Brubacher and McGregor, 1998; .Bombay, 1996). To a large extent{~,bOr!ginal pe~ple are unhappy with the Idea that TEK can be written down a-ncrThtegrated IOtO the frameworks ofwestern science and contemporary development paradigms. TEK has largely been defined and developed as a concept outside of Aboriginal communities, and many Aboriginal academics and community experts have problems with the way TEK is defined, conceived and con- structed by non-Native researchers, academics and development profes- sio~,~attiste and Youngblood, 2000; Simpson, 1999; McGregor, 1999; AssemBly of First Nations (AFN)/National Aboriginal Forestry Association (NAFA,) 1995). Most often, definitions reflect what the dominant society sees as important(fhe ecological coml?~nent of our knowledge is empha- sized rather than its spiritual foundation.§)TEK Ildata” or factual information is at the fore, rather than seeing our knowledge as worldviews, values, and processes (AFN/NAFA, 1995). In a sense, constructing Aboriginal knowl- edge into IlTEK”, has been a process of Ilscientizing” our knowledge for use in and the consumption of Euro-Canadian society (Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1997).

The focus on documenting TEK, or converting it from its Oral form, to one that is both more accessible and acceptable to the dominant society has the impact of separating the knowledge from all of the context (the relationships, the world views, values, ethics, cultures, processes, spiritu- ality) that gives it meaning. And it has the impact of separating knowledge from the people who possess it (Simpson 1999). For instance, when TEK is integrated into impact assessment, a large-scale documentation project is often undertaken. Elders are interviewed, hunters mark their hunting grounds on maps with the expectation that this knowledge is respected and

140 Leanne Simpson

will be used to make decisions. Most often it is not. The documented TEK is interpreted and used by non-Aboriginal scientists and consultants, and the holders of the knowledge, the Aboriginal people, have no power over how that knowledge is interpreted or used (Stevenson, 1996). In these situations, TEK does very little to promote the interests ofAboriginal people. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way TEK is most often handled in Canada (Stevenson 1999; McGregor 1999; Simpson, 1999; Brubacher and McGregor 1998).

This is unacceptable to Aboriginal Peoples. Aboriginal Peoples do not want to be just consulted or studied, we have a right to be at the table using the knowledge inside ofourselves to make decisions that impact our people, our communities, the plants, the animals and our lands. We do not want other people deciding which components of our knowledge are important and which are not. We do not want scientists interpreting our knowledge, when it has been removed from the values and spiritual foundations that give it meaning. The processes of documenting and integrating remove knowledge from the people. VVhen the knowledge is removed from our people, the power of our knowledge is lost. ~ur knowledge becomes assimilated and it is of very little use to those who are trying to advance their interests. VVhen our knowledge becomes a commodity it can be used at will by the power structures of the dominant society to support existing doctrines and the status quo. It can be appropriated, marginalized and even used against us)Widdoson and Howard, 1998; Salmon, 1996).

Aboriginal Paradigms

Aboriginal nations in North America have experienced a range of researchers, scientists and development professionals entering their com- munities to study, to develop or to empower them, almost since contact. This is well recorded in our oral traditions. In the past few years, many Aboriginal communities have said, “enough is enough”fffie Inuit people in Nunavut now require outsiders to obtain a license before they are allowed to enter into Inuit communities to conduct their work, with one community initiating a moratorium on research all toget§i0akes and Riewe, 1996). Although research methodologies are evolVing, orthodoxy is still common, and things collaborative or participatory are still rather unique. Some Aboriginal communities have benefited from the later, but many are still uncomfortable with participatory or collaborative research frameworks. For many, participatory action research just represents the latest way to study us, or the best way for Euro-Canadian researchers to access our knowl- edge. This is at least in part from our past collective experiences with outside researchers. However, I think it is extremely important to listen to

Aboriginal Peoples and Knowledge 141

these voices and to explore why PAR does not work for many Aboriginal Peoples.

Ten years ago, Patricia Maguire wrote that:

The power of a paradigm is that it shapes, in nearly uncon- scious and thus unquestioned ways, perceptions and practices within disciplines. It shapes what we look at, how we look at things, what we label as problems, what problems we consider worth investigating and solving, and what methods are pre- ferred for investigation and action. Likewise, a paradigm influ- ences what we choose not to attend to; what we do not see (Maguire, 1987:11).

Back then, she was writing in reference to the conventional research paradigms of the past. Today, I think her words are equally important, but in reference to the alternative research paradigms that are employed in contemporary times. specifically(§’.rticiPatory research and participatory development operate from a western paradigm, an alternative western paradigm (as opposed to the paradigm of the dominant society), but nonetheless a fundamentally western paradigm. Indigenous peoples have their own Indigenous paradigms and these paradigms perceive and under- stand knowl~r and power fundamentally different than western altema· tive paradigms. I think that it is our own paradigms, ourown ways ofworking with outsiders, our own decision making processes and ways of generating new knowledge that hold the greatest potential for finding solutions to our contemporary problems. We have our own philosophies, theories of knowl- edge, methodologies and methods. Instead of inserting fractions of our knowledge and our people into processes developed outside of our com- munities, Aboriginal peoples are using their own paradigms as foundations for research and development project, and our own concepts and processes for working with outsiders and western knowledge.

A number of Aboriginal intellectuals are calling for the recognition and employment of Aboriginal wor1dviews, paradigms, theories of knowledge and methods indigenous to Aboriginal cultures in intellectual endeavors and dE!Velopment projects (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999; McPherson and Rabb, 1997; Martin-Hill, 1995; Warrior, 1995; Longclaws, 1994; Colorado, 1988). And ill a :sense, that was the hidden agenda behind my own dissertation work. On one level, I was being critical of the dogma of Euro-Canadian researchers in the field of TEK, and on a different level, the processes I used to gain these insights were the Ancient processes of my people, and the ones that are regularly employed in contemporary Aboriginal communities. To do this, required a personal decolonization process, led by several Elders and a

142 Leanne Simpson

cultural revitalization process, again with me as the student, and the Elders as the teachers.

Aboriginal academics are in unique situations when they become “outside” researchers and enter into Aboriginal communities other than their own. Aboriginal communities, have specific cultural processes they go through when they have invited someone from another Aboriginal culture into their communities. V\lhen the outsider is Aboriginal, research or devel- opment projects operate from this Aboriginal cultural paradigm, and this often is in conflict with the community based, participatory or collaborative paradigms we are encouraged by other academics to use (Martin-Hill, 1995). It is most appropriate to adhere to the cultural protocols and norms that are common to everyone involved.

Learning within the context of Aboriginal knowledge is a life long experience, and some of the processes take 50 or 60 years to leam and master.~the Elders, Aboriginal academics are students. And for many Aboriginal academics, the Elders are the expertS\They are the keepers of the knowledge, and we are the students. To~k otherwise is to show tremendous disrespect for the Elders and Aboriginal community members. Often my role is not a co-researcher or a co-participant, but a student, and this is likely to remain the case for quite some time. Although my academic skills may be useful to differing degrees depending upon the project, the control and direction of the work must lie solely in the hands of the Elders and community experts. It is only when I sit quietly, patiently, and listen with my heart, that Indigenous paradigms and processes emerge and begin to assume control.

Aboriginal Knowledge and Aboriginal Processes

Knowledge within traditional Aboriginal worldviews is perceived differ- ently than it is in westem society~r a large part, knowledge ultimately originates in the spirit world, and it IS controlled in very specific and intricate ways in Aboriginal lifeways. The process of learning, or of gaining new knowledge is focused around learning more about oneself in relation to the land, the spirits and all of our relations (Cajete, 1999; Graveline, 1998). !’lthough the Elders are expected to share their knowledge with younger members, this sharing follows cultural protocols, and individuals must be ready to accept full responsibility to use the knowledge they receive in a gOOd way (Beck et al., 1990). This knowledge might come to us from relationships, experiences, story-telling, dreaming, participating in ceremo- nies, from the Elders, the oral tradition, experimentation, observation, from our children, or from teachers in the plant and animal wOr1~ (Simpson, 1999b; Peat, 1994). The spiritual foundation of these processes in the past

Aboriginal Peoples and Knowledge 143

was fully integrated into daily life, and the inter-connectedness ofall creation is integrated into the very structure of Aboriginal languages. Leroy Little Bear, Wolf Horn, Blood Tribe, Blackfoot Confederacy, writes:

Language is a good repository of this basic philosophy and world view. The English language is all about nouns, things, and objects, following up on the notion of objective language. It is not about process. Native languages are process oriented. I don’t like to say verb-oriented because even the word verb is a noun (Little Bear, 1998:17).

( Indigenous processes of “managing resources”, teaching, knowing, governing, leading, resolving conflict, raising children, decision making and interacting with human and non-human entities are difficult to fully commu- nicate in noun based languages. They can only be understood in reference of the wor1dview, principles and values of an Aboriginal culture and by recognizing and respecting the spiritual foundation of our knowledge. \lVhen these are ignored, the creative, innovative, and dynamic nature of Aborigi- nal knowledge is lost, so too is the understanding that Aboriginal knowledge is at once values, process and conte~

It is important to note that~ortgTnal peoples have continued using their knowledge to suit!!I~ir own needs and to live sustainably for thousands and thousands of years. {I am noticing that a great many Aboriginal Nations are returning to Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous processes to solve contemporary problems. The Anishinaabeg (Ojibway) of Hollow Water Nation in Manitoba are using their own Anishinaabe processes, traditions and ways of healing in their community holistic healing circles, a successful attempt to heal individuals and communities from physical and sexual abuse. The Rotinohshonni (Mohawks) of Kanawake have begun the “re- establishment of a traditional political culture” (Alfred, 1999:81). The Haida Nation of Haida Gwaii has entered into a co-management agreement with the Federal Government for the “management” of Gwaii Hanaas National Park Reserve based on Haida values. Similarly, the Gitksan Wet’suwet’en Nation in northern British Columbia is “managing” the lands of their Clans and Houses in their traditional territory based on their own worldview and values, and the knowledge of the hereditary Chiefs and the oral tradition (Walsh, 1998). The Okanagan people in southern British Columbia are taking control of their education by using their own “enow’kin process” (Armstrong, 1997).[Es more and more Aboriginal Peoples look to their traditions and to their knowledge for the strength and courage to meet the demands of contemporary society, the process of cultural revitalization will be recorded in our oral traditions and will become part of our Indigenous

144 Leanne Simpson

knowledge, just our experiences with the process of colonization, assimila- tion, and colonialism is part of our body of knowled~~

With this knowledge, we fully understand the power structures that have dominated our daily lives for the past 500 years. We are intelligent, intellectual people. We have been advocating for social change for centu- ries, we are experts at resisting the power structure ofthe dominant society. We. have resisted decades of assimilation policies. We have survived as Aboriginal peoples. Researchers and activists advocating for social change have something to learn from our people.

Non-Participation as a Form of Reslslance

Participation, respect for individuals’ autonomy, and diversity are val- ues that are common amongst many Aboriginal peoples, although they must be viewed within our cultural contexts. In the face of colonialism, ~n-participation has also proven to be an effective form of resistance. ~fusing to participate in co-management agreements, EIAs, treaty nego- tiations, natural resource management agreements, research projects and the Euro-Canadian educational system are effective ways of resisting the dominance of Euro-Canadian society, and its assimilative tendenc§Sy not participating, Aboriginal J?-~oples send the message that the process is unacceptable to them. That/the process or framework itself negates power sharing, traditional values, liiaTgenous knowledge and meaningful negotia- tion by Aboriginal peoples·~

..—.J As our experiences with TEK have shown us, participation does not

guarantee that Aboriginal people will be valued, listened to, and afforded the respect we deserve. Resistance is a powerful tool Aboriginal commu- nities have fostered in order to survive the hostilities of the past, and we will continue to resist in order to provide our children with land, traditions and cultures that are meaningful to them.

Ancient Directions for the Future

At the time of their contact with Europeans, the vast majority of Native American societies had achieved true civilization: they did not abuse the earth, they promoted communal respon- sibility, they practiced equality in gender relations, and they respected individual freedom (Alfred, 1999:22).

Solutions to our contemporary problems will come when we tum to the voices of our ancestors, when we sing our songs, dance our dances, and live our traditions. Academics, researchers and development workers can support us in these aspirations. Outside researchers who are useful to Aboriginal peoples do not have their own research agendas, or they are a

Aboriginal Peoples and Knowledge 145

least able to put them aside. They are willing to spend time looking inside themselves, uncovering their own biases, and privileges and they are willing to learn from our people-not about Aboriginal peoples, but about them- selves and their place in the cosmos. They ~.r:.,…Wl. illing to be transformed, in a sense, they are willing to be developed. ~nge for Aboriginal peoples will come when the dominant society respects us as Peoples, honours our treaties to their full meaning and intent, acknowledges our land rights and treats us with the same respect any self-governing Nation would exp~ (McGregor, 1999). It is not Aboriginal people who have to change or be developed, it is Euro-Canadians. And I like to think that Euro-Canadian NGOs, researchers, academics and community developers have a role to play in this transformation.

Aboriginal people~ have our own work to do. We have to continue to heal frofJl.P’s§l_qp_lJ,§~,§;,f~Qm Jh~epidemi~ that wiped ()u!be!\Y~~r:t,§Q::~Q p~r~~~t 9!g,lJE,9?mrT1lJl1itif3§,.tb f3 ‘,., yi()lf3 rlg~fr(‘)rl’l,(;(),I(.)~i~~ti(.)n”.q()IQ rl i~Ji§m.J ~lt:ftmP!~~~~ss’i~Jlati()l1, [~§i(jefl!i~l. §chQ()I~,tt)f3jn~i~(J/J.ct: V\je’ ha’ve~io-h;aT from the’ generations’ ci abuse and maltreatment that continue in our communities today. Because in order to survive as nations, as peoples, we have to live our traditions, listen to the whispers of our Ancestors, and heed thewamings of the Grandmothers and Grandfathers. Taiaiake Alfred, Rotinohshonni, and an Indigenous academic writes:

The present crises [of Aboriginal communities] reflects our cultural loss, anger at the mainstream’s lack of respect for our rights, and disappointment in those of our own people who have turned their backs on tradition. And I believe it is height- ened because the choices we make today will determine whether or not we survive as indigenous peoples beyond the next generation. No one can deny that our cultures have been eroded and our languages lost, that most of our communities subsist in a state of abject economic dependency, that our governments are weak, and that white encroachment on our lands continues. We can, of course, choose to ignore these realities and simply accede to the dissolution of our cultures and nations. Or we can commit ourselves to a different path, one that honours the memory of those who have sacrificed, fought, and died to preserve the integrity of our nations. This path, the opposite ofthe one we are on now, leads to a renewed political and social life based on our traditional values (Alfred, 1999:xi-xii).

Our Elders tell us that the earth is sick, and when the earth is sick the people are also sick. Ifwe do not work together on our complimentary paths, Aboriginal peoples will not survive, neither will mother earth, or Euro-Cana- dian people.

146