Presentation at Mount Royal College, December 1, 2008. (by J.S. Frideres, University of Calgary)

Presentation at Mount Royal College, December 1, 2008.
(by J.S. Frideres, University of Calgary)
(The following is the text of a presentation made on a panel discussing the book Disrobing the Aboriginal
Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, by Widdowson and Howard, 2008).

        When I received an invitation to participate in this panel and was told of the title
of the book to be discussed, I was excited and looked forward to reading a solid academic
piece of research on the topic. I would like to note that there are lots of “businesses” out
there in the world and the Aboriginal industry is just one of many. There is the “Cancer
Industry”, the “Diabetes Industry”, the “Green Business”, the “air traffic business”. And
how are all these dealt with? How different are they from the Aboriginal business? I
thought the authors would take a comparative perspective to see how these various
industries emerged, evolved and are structured. Alas, it turns out the authors are not
really interested in the “Aboriginal industry,” they are more interested in arguing that
Aboriginal people have no culture, have no language, are degenerate Canadians, sucking
out money and power from the good middle class folks (who by the way don‟t really care
about Aboriginal people until they do something that actually impacts their way of life.)
and informing good Canadians that their tax money is not being well spent on Aboriginal
people. Their interest is in telling the reader how bad lawyers and anthropologists are
and the fact that Aboriginal people actually have the audacity of using them to support
their legitimate rights. Lawyers can‟t be used because they have a self interest in the
issue of Aboriginal business. As though those people interested in cancer research don‟t
have the same self interest. In short, if they (Aboriginal People) were good Canadians
they would just accept the decisions of the government and private sector and “suck it
up.”
        When I received the book, I noticed the sub title (The Deception oBehind
Indigenous Cultural Preservation) and then upon opening the book I reviewed the chapter
titles and sub headings. It was then that a small clue told me that this was not an
academic piece of work but an opinion piece that was cloaked in scholarly footnotes and
academic jargon to make it look like a scholarly piece and thus be able to make
outrageous claims under the guise of “scholarship.” And, after reading the material, my

                                                                                                            1

suspicions were correct! It is NOT a scholarly piece of work but it is a disrespectful
piece of journalism. For examples, many (approximately one third) of the footnotes are
not to scholarly pieces of research but rather to citations that include “The Edmonton
Journal, Chatelaine, News/North, Glove and Mail, Toronto Star. These are not scholarly
pieces of evidence. Long ago we discovered that newspapers were not interested in
providing the reader with “an analysis of the facts.” They are, and legitimately so,
interested in selling newspapers to make money. Moreover, many of the citations are old
and have little relevance for today. In the end, the authors have not carefully assessed
previous research on various topics, have not carefully analysed existing archival
documents and no real data is presented to support the claims presented. The old
technique of using selective quotes to support their claims is used generously. Even I
was quoted and when I went back to the quote, I think any fair minded reader would ask
“what did it have to say about the claims being made?” The fact that the program Aid to
Scholarly Publication did not support this book should provide you with additional
information that the book was not judged as scholarly.
       I also think the book represents disrespectful journalism. Let me give a couple of
examples as to why I think the book is disrespectful. First of all, the concept of “First
Nations” is no-where in the book and yet this is what the book is all about. Second, the
concept “Aboriginal” is never capitalized. One would never talk about a people such as
“Germans,” Canadians,” Americans, without capitalization. And, to add insult, the term
“Aboriginal Industry” is capitalized for both words. Third, chapter titles and subtitles
such as “Discovering the Emperor‟s nudity,” “Consolidating the lawyers‟ retirement
fund,” “Denying the developmental gap: preserving culture in a jar,” and “Native studies
and the creation of pretentious arrogance” are derogative and demeaning when
addressing issues that impinge upon Aboriginal people. I should note that this was the
reaction of people 30 years ago when “Black studies” and “gender studies” were first
proposed. Or even further back when it was decided to create subdivisions of Biology
and Engineering. I thought we had come further in our intellectual development than
using arguments that have been disregarded nearly 4 decades ago. My overall reaction to
the book was to refer to the authors, in Cree, as “Ti-timma-kish” (pitiful persons). My

                                                                                            2

suspicion is that the authors will not know the meaning of such a term and it reflects their
own inability to engage in critical cultural discourse.
       Over the years we have been told that the Aboriginal population in Canada was
going to disappear. Through active and passive efforts, there was a belief that Aboriginal
people would disappear. Starting in the mid 19th century until the mid 20th century,
people were convinced Aboriginal people would simply disappear. Policy and programs
were predicated on this assumption. Well, by 2006 we find that the First Nation
population has increased over one hundred percent in the past half century, the Métis
population has increased by 300% and the Inuit population has doubled over this time.
Gee, it seems the predictions were not true. Then, in the 60‟s we were told that all the
First nations‟ people were going to leave their homelands. The statistics showed that an
increase in outmigration was taking place and that the glitter of the urban scene was so
powerful that soon there would be no Aboriginal people living on the reserves or
settlements. Well, in 2006 we find that the reserve/settlement population has increased
over the past quarter century and that urbanization is not all cracked up to be the positive
incentive that western people felt urbanization was. Today we are told that Aboriginal
languages are on the verge of extinction. However, again in 2006 we find an increase in
the number of people speaking an Aboriginal language.
       So, here is the new book telling us there is no Aboriginal culture. It tells the
reader how the Aboriginal people are the cause of their own problems and until they
admit that they have assimilated into mainstream society, have taken on “white” values,
and are living like middle class Canadians, mainstream society can‟t help them. Or since
they have already done all this, they don‟t need help. I thought we had gotten over this
when dealing with immigrants. This old, outdated philosophy of “if you want to come to
Canada, then act like us.” Well, folks, the values have changed and these values are no
longer appropriate. We need immigrants and we need Aboriginal people in our society.
And they are not passive recipients who say ”yes sir” and „no sir” when middle class,
white Canada demands are made. They are part of Canada and they have a say on how
this country evolves. Unfortunately our authors are still mired in the mid 19th century
philosophy that says “if you want to be part of Canada, then do what we say and be like
us.”

                                                                                           3

The authors claim to have lived in the North for some time, yet one gets the
distinct impression that they did not invite a single Aboriginal person to their home over
their stay, did not visit an Aboriginal person at their home, did not learn any of the
language of Aboriginal people in the region, and certainly did not attempt to understand
any of the cultural aspects of Aboriginal way of life. We are treated to this for example,
when the authors say there is no such thing as “traditional knowledge.” What is appalling
is that the authors did not discuss this with Aboriginal people in the north, did not go into
the literature to see what it is and what are the central tenets of it. Only to simply say, “it
doesn‟t exist” and then move on to the next derogatory statement.
          Let me take this issue one step further since it is an important issue in the book
and the authors make a big deal by saying there is no such thing as “Aboriginal
Knowledge.” I do so because it illustrates the lack of knowledge of the authors and
address the contempt the authors showed when one of the First Nations leaders did not
provide the authors with a quick, 10 word assessment of what is “indigenous
knowledge.” First of all, Aboriginal people are tired of trying to justify their existence to
interlopers who have no real interest in Aboriginal culture and knowledge. But, I guess it
is not surprising that the authors expected a ten world explanation but it does suggest that
the Eurocentric world view they have simply trumps any other world view to the tune of
“if it ain‟t western, it ain‟t any good.”
    Before I go into the discussion of the concept Aboriginal Knowledge, I think it is
important to note that there is a difference in language structure, meaning and
epistemology. And, I think I need to go into this just a bit to set a context for what
follows because the authors make a big deal of it. So, what follows may seem a bit like a
lecture but I think a lecture is in order. Languages have symbolic, verbal and
unconscious elements that act to structure and order knowledge and worldview. Thus the
understanding of language is a prerequisite for understanding culture and the concepts
within.
    While Aboriginal worldviews in Canada are similar in that they are place-based, they
are, by the very same token, as diverse as the places from which they emanate.
Indigenous peoples‟ worldviews are cognitive maps of particular ecosystems and they
experience nature as a part of themselves and themselves as part of it. Therefore, in order

                                                                                               4

to understand indigenous worldviews, one must understand how indigenous worldviews
perceive nature and the ecological order.
       What are some of the attributes of Aboriginal languages that differ from the
official languages of Canada? And, of equal interest, are these differences important?
First of all, European languages are noun oriented language and they are ineffective in a
verb centered indigenous language system. Second, Aboriginal languages focus on
relationships as well as reinforce relationships, rather than on proving points. The
language is used to establish connections and negotiating relationships with the goal of
living in balance. The structure of these languages establishes the relationship between
the subject and object of a phrase differently than English or French would do. For
example, Anishnabe permits the speaker to emphasize the identities of the objects as well
as the relationship between them while in English; the focus is on “awareness of oneself
and what that person has to say.”
       Third, stories in an Aboriginal language encourage the imagination. Moreover,
words carry the content of messages as well as a sense of continuity, history and linking
the past present and future. As such, Aboriginal languages are associated with the themes
of infinity and perpetuity. Euro-Canadians tend to see these words as “hyperbole”, in
part because of the analytic, objectivistic traditions of Euro-Canadian thought. The
rhetoric of western language deals with finite movements with beginnings and ends, with
causes and effects. French and English are clear in differentiating between speakers and
audience; speakers deliver messages, audiences serve as receptors.
        Moreover, Western languages have little tolerance for ambiguity, incompleteness
and inconsistency. You are expected to present complete, consistent messages and clarity
and precision is highly valued. Language in Aboriginal communities is not about a
discourse that assumes completion or expects an ending. The language of Aboriginals
believes in letting people contemplate answers and they purposefully avoid being
directive to allow the listeners to glean the meaning and implications of the messages
being sent out. Aboriginal languages stress the existence of the invisible worlds while
westerners generally cut themselves off from the invisible world, considering it suspect
or unreal.

                                                                                            5

Finally, official Canadian languages are representational. Words represent reality.
However in Aboriginal languages words are considered presentational. That is, words
bring reality into being or present the being of things. Viewing words as presentational
may explain why Aboriginal people consider language as standing for reality. Thus
words are intrinsically powerful, magical and sacred. In summary, we find that language
shapes ones perceptions of the world, their reaction to their environment and responses to
issues and problems that confront them. In the end, we find that languages provide their
users with a world view that is created, in part, by their language. The loss of a language
brings a new world view to the holder and poses adaptive techniques to bridge the
change. At the same time, as the language shift occurs, there will be tensions within the
community between those who retain their Aboriginal language and those who do not.
       Now we are ready to deal with the complex but nevertheless important concept of
Aboriginal knowledge. First of all, the concept does not fit into the Eurocentric concept
of culture nor is it a uniform concept among all indigenous peoples. Indigenous
knowledge is embedded within indigenous worldviews. And, an indigenous worldview
provides the filter from which place-based epistemologies, methodologies, and
pedagogies can be articulated. Although Aboriginal Peoples come from diverse cultural
contexts, there is a shared worldview in which humans are intricately connected to the
natural world. This is best seen as embodied in the concept of “Place” that is part of
Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge.
       So, let‟s look at the dimensions of Place and I draw upon the seminal work of
Battiste and Henderson (Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage, 2000), Bastien
(Blackfoot Ways of Knowing , 2004) as well as from the work of Mitchell, Vizina
Augustus and Sawyer (Learning Indigenous Science from Place, 2008).
   Place is multidimensional. It entails both physical and emotional characteristics and
   refers to more than just a geographic space.
   Place is relational. Relationships are a central epistemology of Aboriginal world
   view.
   Place is experiential. This is the experiences that an individual has had on their
   land—their place. You must participate in the natural world.

                                                                                            6

Place is local. It is site-specific and locality is central to its understanding.
   Aboriginal people interact with the places in which they lived for such a long time
   that their landscapes became reflections of their very souls.
       As such, the physical, cognitive, and emotional orientation of a people is a kind of
map they carry in their heads and transfer from generation to generation. This map is
multi dimensional and reflects the spiritual as well as the geography of a people. For
example, to not understand the concept of “emanance” (the knowledge of, belief in and
respect for spirits), is to fundamentally not understand Aboriginal epistemology.
       This worldview leads to a holistic and cyclical view of the world. If everything is
constantly moving and changing, then one has to look at the whole to begin to see
patterns. The Aboriginal worldview asserts that all life is sacred and that all life forms
are connected, e.g., harmony. In summary, the term indigenous knowledge is meant to
convey a complete knowledge system with its own concepts of epistemology, philosophy
and scientific and logical validity. It contains linguistic categories, established customs
and responsibilities for the holders of knowledge. It embodies a web of relationships
within a specific ecological context; contains linguistic categories, rules and relationships
unique to each knowledge system; has localized content and meaning; has established
customs with respect to acquiring and sharing of knowledge and implies responsibilities
for possessing various kinds of knowledge. I have gone into this concept with some detail
because I think part of the audience needs to be educated and have a better understanding
of Indigenous Ways of Knowing.
       However, I go one step further by noting that even Western science has rejected
that there is only “one way of understanding the world.” And, yet here we are reading a
book where the authors‟ central premise is that “only the western ways of knowing” are
correct, legitimate and worthwhile.
       Finally I want to talk just a bit about “appropriation”. It would seem that there is
little left for mainstream Canadians to appropriate from Aboriginal people. Not only has
appropriation occurred (ranging from government structure, medicine wheels, language
patterns, medicines), they are commercially exploited. And the two authors point this out
constantly but then suggest that it‟s really not appropriation, it is the fact that Aboriginal
people didn‟t get it written first so therefore its not theirs. They didn‟t write about their

                                                                                                 7

philosophy so the first white guy that puts it in writing is the author, they didn‟t spell out
what the medicine wheel does/looks like in writing, therefore the white guy who writes
about it invented it; they didn‟t write down what plants were used to cure illnesses so
whom ever gets the patent is the “owner and one who discovered it.” And the story goes
on and on. In one sense, there is little that has not been appropriated and in this
revisionist book of history which argues that Aboriginal people have not contributed
much of anything to society and culture.
       What is so problematic of this book is that the authors have not done their
homework. The have a particular vision of the world and if others don‟t agree, they are
wrong. It‟s always interesting to see how this plays out. The authors are particularly
incensed about what anthropologists and Lawyers do. But when they need to use an
anthropologist to buttress their arguments, e.g., Lewis Morgan, then they do so. When
they focus on „Aboriginal business,” they use the old technique of “blaming the victim.”
Why not, it has been used for other arguments. The authors fail to appreciate the
structural institutional arrangements that have produced the plight of Aboriginal people in
Canada and elsewhere in the world. The role of capitalism and its support mechanisms
are conspicuously missing in the material. The integrated linkages of the institutional
orders are somehow ignored and the corporate leaders of the world have managed to stay
outside the line of logic and arguments presented by the authors. How opportune not to
involve the corporate sector in the analysis.
       Would I recommend this book to my students? NO. Why not? Because it is not
well researched, it is not well argued and it definitely does not meet the minimal
standards of scholarship.

                                                                                                 8