Vol. XVIII, No. 2___ Summer, 2007

PROCEEDINGS OF THE WESTERN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES SECTION, 2OO7.
April 11-14, 2007. Calgary, Alberta, Canada

"Insurgent Educators: Decolonization and the teaching of Indigenous-Settler relations."

Emma Battell Lowman

Introduction: Colonialism in Education, and Anti-Colonial Educators

Despite the oft-repeated ideals of tolerance, inclusion, and multiculturalism, in which the Canadian nation takes great pride, a 2005 report found that, “racism towards Indigenous peoples in Canada is the norm, not the exception.” [2]   So where is Canadian society going wrong?  One place to begin looking is the field of history. [3]   The act of teaching history, particularly in post-secondary institutions in North America, cannot be separated from wider implications of power and politics; history and the teaching of history has become “a crucial field of political struggle.” [4]   This is true, particularly in the case of the study of the history of Indigenous-Settler [5] relations.  Today, there is no dearth of historical and critical materials being produced by Indigenous scholars, and by Settler scholars in consultation with Indigenous communities, and yet the Indigenous perspective is rarely given more than passing attention even in history courses designed to deal with Indigenous history.  “Clearly, lack of information is not the problem,” [6] so what is?  As noted by eminent educator and scholar in North American Indigenous thought, Vine Deloria, “[t]he goal of much of modern education seems to be socialization,” [7] and the personal decisions and attitudes of the person teaching a history course on Indigenous-Settler relations can have a huge impact on whether or not students are socialized into perpetuating racist and oppressive practices and ideologies or not.  Therefore, the person of the ‘history teacher’ [8] becomes central to questions of historical interpretation and presentation, and therefore, to questions of power, influence, and harm in the wider arena of Indigenous-Settler relations.  As such, in response to the question of who should teach the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada, this paper will argue not for a specific type of teacher, but for a teacher with specific personal qualities.

Any discussion of Indigenous-Settler relations in the Canadian context must be conscious of the use (and abuse) of different types of power; this inherently involves a discussion of contemporary colonialism.  Colonization is the attempt to draw different peoples under imperial power, and thus under one hegemonic and homogenous form.  Inherently, colonialism (the ideology of colonization) is the opposite of diversity and autonomy, and abrogates the freedom of perceived “Others”. [9]   Regan explains that one method of confronting this is through historical study that involves Indigenous and other peoples’ stories, as “how Settlers choose to engage with and understand these stories -these alternative histories and testimonies- in relation to our own history as colonizers, can work to either reinforce colonialism or support decolonization.” [10]   In other words, choosing to teach the history of Indigenous-Settler relations from a colonized perspective entails support and propagation of oppression, and is therefore harmful to both teacher and student.  Conversely, revisiting the manner in which we choose to teach -and personally engage with- the history of Indigenous-Settler relations, particularly as embodied in the person of the teacher, offers exciting possibilities as “[h]istory can provide a powerful lens on the past through which the public becomes more conscious of our perceptions and beliefs – our myths – about the past impact the current political and social landscape.” [11]   Therefore, the concept and process of decolonization and self-decolonization are critical to moving towards a new peaceful and just relationship between Settler and Indigenous peoples. [12]   This paper will argue that the person who teaches Indigenous-Settler relations should be actively listening to and engaging with the Indigenous voice in the realm of history, and should be actively involved in both personal unsettling dialogue and self-decolonization, as well as engaging in relentless self-criticism and anarcheological analyses in order to appreciate his/her privilege, power, impact on the lessons they teach, and role in Indigenous-Settler relations.  History is alive; and the history that is taught in our post-secondary educational institutions is inseparable from the wider discussion and struggles around Indigenous freedom.

Section One: The Indigenous Voice

Sometimes we are offered a gift that we do not want to accept.  Perhaps we do not recognize the gift because it feels like a burden, a heavy responsibility that we don’t quite know how to carry and we are afraid that we will do so poorly… acknowledging how our painful history together is a burden we all carry, whether we admit it or not. [13]

The concept of the “Indigenous Voice” was introduced and explored with regards to critiques and reflections on Boasian ethnographic work, [14] where the inclusion of Indigenous points of view, stories, or ideas was used as an enhancer (or exotic side dish) to ethnographic and historical work being done by non-Indigenous researchers.  This superficial and unplanted use of the Indigenous voice does harm in that it encourages token treatment of people(s).  Use of the Indigenous voice without deeper understanding its implications and without giving appropriate weight and serious consideration to Indigenous kinds of knowledge and knowing, can lead to the “Aboriginal under glass” phenomenon, with the result that the work and words of Indigenous peoples are actually used in such a way as to encourage and propagate their objectification in the academy.  Further, perfunctory use of Indigenous materials or histories, or relying on Eurocentric Settler-produced material on Indigenous peoples can easily lead to “emphasiz[ing] colonial narratives of ‘victimization’ and ‘grievance’ as the cornerstone of Indigenous identity.” [15]   To avoid such dangerous pitfalls, teachers who seek to teach Canadian histories must educate themselves about the Indigenous voice and worldview, and how to incorporate Indigenous work [16] into their understanding and presentation of historical materials in order to be able to present a more balanced, informed, and just picture of Canadian history.  In the discussion of “who” should teach Indigenous-Settler history, the personal qualities of the individual with regard to the understanding of and respect for Indigenous voice are critical.

Key to understanding the role of the Indigenous voice in teaching the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada is the recognition that: “[c]olonialism is not satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and content.  By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it.” [17]   Not only has the history of Indigenous peoples in Canada been distorted, disfigured and in some cases, destroyed but also at play is a strong denial of Indigenous history from the Canadian historical consciousness.  As Regan explains,

[b]y erasing Indigenous diplomacy, law and peacemaking practices from the public consciousness, Settlers justify in our own minds the historical appropriation of Indigenous lands and resources and the perpetuation of contemporary colonial relations.  The national history of Indigenous-Settler relations as we currently tell it is the colonizers story and in it we Settlers cast ourselves in the positive light as benevolent peacemakers.  But there is another peoples story, one that puts us where the light is not so flattering, and our flaws are revealed. [18]

However, in teaching the history of Settler-Indigenous relations in Canada “there is a danger in allowing colonization to be the only story of Indigenous lives.” [19]   What is implied here is that neither a teacher ignorant of colonialism, nor one focused exclusively upon it, truly understands Indigenous voice.

So what should a teacher who understands the importance of Indigenous voice choose as the focus of the course?  Deloria, in discussing courses in ‘ethnic studies’ states that “we would be on very thin ice if we purported to teach what I regarded as the context of Indian life.” [20]   Instead, he suggests that concentrating on the history of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Settler peoples and institutions is far more useful and appropriate in post-secondary educational institutions, as students of these institutions are likely to be in policy- and decision-making positions in the future.  This imperative to teach a ‘history of relationships’ has an important implications for the question of who should teach this material.  The teacher of Indigenous-Settler history, as it will necessarily include history from both sides and from shared encounters, need not be Indigenous (or Settler).  It is, however, crucially important that the teacher be capable of presenting the Indigenous perspective as well as the Settler perspective, and this is dependent on experience and engagement, not on heritage. [21]   However, given that I am writing as a Settler person, I will be directing the rest of this paper towards a theoretical Settler subject.  This decision is based on two considerations:  first, Settler people in the Canadian context possess power and privilege not accorded to Indigenous peoples, and therefore have more work to do in critically unpacking their role and influence in the teaching of history, and second, at this time Settlers still hold the majority of  the majority of instructor positions at post-secondary educational institutions in Canada.

As demonstrated by Regan, the denial of Indigenous histories “constitutes a subtle, yet effective form of violence against Indigenous peoples and precludes Settlers from examining our own legacy as colonizers and perpetuators of violence not peace.” [22]   Inherently, then, to honestly and respectfully include Indigenous voice in the teaching of Indigenous-Settler relations not only helps to eliminate this violence, but also forces Settler (and Indigenous) peoples out of the comfortable places created by colonial lies.  Consider that, contrary to many Settler assumptions, “in the Canadian context, there is a profound doubt among indigenous peoples about the value of being incorporated into the national-multicultural context.” [23]   This demonstrates that Indigenous voice can be personally challenging; it implies that there is no one common conception of singular Canadian history or of singular Canadian national identity.  This lack of ‘definition’ (or of definitive narrative) and the level of complexity this approach involves can be unsettling to many teachers, which is the second quality that must be possessed by a teacher of Indigenous-Settler relations: a willingness to be personally ‘unsettled’ and to fearlessly engage in unsettling dialogue as part of the teaching process.

Section Two: Unsettling

If we are content to remain where all is safe and quiet and serene, we shall dedicate ourselves, as teachers have commonly done in the past to a role of futility. [24]

As unquestioning participants in colonization and colonialism, many (if not most) Settlers operate daily from a position of comfort, power and privilege denied to marginalized peoples. [25]   It is difficult to begin to understand these currents of power and privilege because “dominant ideas tend to take on an appearance of naturalness and inevitability that renders them relatively impervious to critique”. [26]   Further, it is personally uncomfortable to consider the possibility that our privilege comes at the expense of other people.  The challenge and the discomfort of confronting these issues serve for many as impediments to honest analysis of social history, as well as self-analysis.  However, the harm of unquestioningly following (and profiting from) colonization and colonialism is now very apparent, and the need to confront these issues is becoming ever more urgent as relationships between Indigenous and Settler peoples reach new critical impasses. [27]   Teachers of Indigenous-Settler history are inherently involving themselves in this confrontation, and there follow implications for their personal comfort.

Another valuable role of the work of Indigenous scholars and thinkers, in addition to the previously discussed roles, is that this work can be helpful in that it can present views from outside this Western/Settler hegemonic paradigm, acting as a sort of revealing mirror and making visible ideological constructs we accept as natural and neutral.  However, it is very difficult and sometimes painful to question our national myths, and the way we profit from the marginalization of others, and to begin to think differently about the way our society works, from within comfortable positions of power.  For this reason, “the process of being uncomfortable is essential for non-Indigenous people to move from being enemy to adversary to ally.” [28]   It is from being ‘unsettled,’ from asking questions about our moments of discomfort in this dialogue that we have the opportunity to learn, question and find new ways of thinking.  Further, these moments of unsettling are opportunities for discovery and for making space for new and different narratives and truths.  In “Unsettling the Settler within” Regan explains that the basis for her work is the hope that “Settlers will become deeply unsettled in our minds, our hearts, and our spirits so that we can finally take the genuine leap of imagination necessary to make space for Indigenous peoples of this land whose history, presence and humanity we have denied for so long.” [29]   This “leap of imagination” makes space for honest consideration of the shared history of Indigenous-Settler relations because, as Regan explains,

[w]ithout facing our true history as perpetrators of violence, there can be no genuine ‘transformative’ new relationship with Indigenous peoples … We cannot gloss over the darker aspects of our history nor should we ignore the complexity of our shared past that reveals paths we have denied and forgotten. [30]  

Unsettling provides the opportunity to challenge dogmatic ideologies and the national myths that in too many cases pass for and direct history teaching and presentation. [31]   As Day explains, “[t]o work a history in this way is to work against it, to refuse to accept the basic assumptions that allow it to function.  It is to move away from history as such, towards a genealogical account that offers new narratives with new kinds of social, political, and economic relations in mind.” [32]   This unsettling revisiting of history must stem from the teacher’s own personal unsettling experiences.  As Corntassel and Alfred note, decolonization and regeneration “are shifts in thinking and action that emanate from recommitments and reorientations at the level of the self.” [33]   Thus, it is not enough for a teacher to help create ‘unsettling’ moments for students; the teacher must be willing to be unsettled personally.

In addition, while uncomfortable, it is important to realise that in the Canadian context, socialized as we are into dominant colonial ideologies, “[n]one of us are immune from the grasp of patriarchy, racism, and homophobia” [34] and that believing at any point that we have completely overcome the implications of those pervasive ideologies can dangerously affect oppressed peoples with whom we interact, either personally, or in the classroom.  This, then, leads to the third point of this paper: a teacher of Indigenous-Settler relations must be relentlessly self-critical.

Section Three: The Necessity of Being Self-Critical

By focusing on the other, while exempting ourselves from critical analysis and reflection, Settlers cling to the comfortable notion that we know our past and that it is behind us.  With regard to our relationship with Indigenous peoples, nothing could be further from the truth. [35]

According to Deloria, “Education in the English-American context resembles indoctrination more than it does other forms of teaching because it insists on implanting a particular body of knowledge and a specific view of the world”. [36]   As discussed earlier, if that particular body of knowledge and way of seeing the world is rooted in colonialism and colonial assumptions, the teacher risks perpetuating harm by ‘implanting’ a colonial worldview when teaching from such a position.  Wildcat highlights a problem specific to educational institutions when he notes that “[t]he problem of professional expertise in institutions of higher education is that ‘expertise’ is thought of as culture-free or value-neutral.” [37]   However, it is clear that when considering the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada, we all have a position in the discussion, the history and the historical legacy, and therefore no discussion can be purely objective, and certainly cannot be culture- or value- neutral.  Therefore, hand-in-hand with engaging in unsettling dialogue and learning experiences comes the necessity of being relentlessly self-critical.  One of the problems with contemporary colonialism is that it changes shape, morphs and constantly seeks new ways and means of asserting control. [38]   So in order to maintain a critical eye to power structures, harmful national mythologies, and even simple complacency, one must remain self-critical to avoid falling back into damaging hegemonic patterns and ideas.  If colonialism as a present reality is to be taken seriously, teachers must be aware that they too can be targets of colonization (and re-colonization), and guard against this.  To teachers of Indigenous-Settler history, the call is clear: 

[s]cholars who study the links between historical consciousness and public history education as it relates to coming to terms with the past, call upon historians to become more critically engaged in order to expose the roots of racism, exclusion and oppression that shape North America’s past. [39]  

To be clear, though, the goal of relentless self-criticism is not to arrive at a point of absolute clarity, where everything is understood without ambiguity.  The lesson which Deloria shares is that “[i]t is permissible within the Indian context to admit that something mysterious remains after all is said and done.” [40]   Part of the process of self-decolonization and self-criticism is the understanding and acceptance that ambiguity, multiple interpretations and multiple truths are not signs of failure (as they could be conceived in the Western scientific paradigm) but instead, are desirable indicators of diversity, and confirmation that the teacher him/herself has reached the point of being comfortable with the limits of his/her own knowledge.

Day, in discussing the need to constantly reassess the shifting power relations confronting radical activists, cites Foucault’s concept of anarchaeology as a particularly useful personal ethic.  Simply, Foucault argues that in any situation – even between two aware, unsettled, decolonizing individuals – there will be unavoidable power relations.  Foucault argues that the point is not to destroy or escape all power relations, but to relentlessly interrogate them, to understand ones own place in them, and to be honest about them both personally and in realtions with others. [41]   This ethic of anarchaeology is especially important to teachers, who are inherently asked to take on a position of both authority and responsibility with respect to their students, their subject matter, and the broader society beyond the classroom that is affected by how and what they teach.  This is doubly important for teachers of Indigenous-Settler history who are not only entangled in power relationship in their immediate position, but also in their decisions on how to treat complicated issues of power in their historical investigations.

This relentless self-criticism with an eye to the dynamics of power is important if a teacher is to attempt to alter the ‘personality’ of institutions which have long been neglectful of -or openly hostile to- Indigenous interests.  Deloria asserts that power and place together create personality.  Wildcat interprets this insight to mean, “Deloria’s idea of personality [is] the substantive embodiment, the unique realization, of all the relations and power we embody.” [42]   What is truly at stake when we question who should teach the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada, is the personality which this history will embody.  We have already noted that the specific form and role of Indigenous voice is both crucial and difficult to balance effectively with other histories; we have also noted that challenging deeply held Settler myths requires being personally unsettled by those things which teaching of this kind will inevitably dredge up (in both the teacher and the students).  For a teacher, fulfilling these two requirements will most likely bring a teacher into contact, and potentially conflict, with the existing personality – the power relations embodied in the place – of an educational institution.  Because of this, a teacher of the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada must be willing to constantly re-examine his or her own beliefs, attitudes and opinions in a distinctly anarchaeological manner, to ensure that the relations and power which they embody are those which seek to create a balanced and just relationship between Settlers and Indigenous peoples and interests.  The alternative is to risk being overpowered by the personality of the institution, with the result of a slow decline back into colonial practice and an undoing of previous efforts to include Indigenous voice and personal unsettling in the teaching process.

Conclusion: The Insurgent Educator

After five centuries of contact, it does not seem too much to ask non-Indian educators and institutions to come to grips with the reality that is the American-Indian. [43]

In combining the three qualities discussed in this paper –an understanding of the Indigenous voice, the willingness to be ‘unsettled’, and a relentless self-criticism- we arrive at an elaboration of the concept which Regan has titled the “insurgent educator.” [44]   The insurgent educator is a teacher who intentionally engages in transformative education; and not just transformative for the students, but for his/her own self.  An insurgent educator is explicitly political, clear and honest about their view, biases and place in Indigenous-Settler relations, and actively engaged in a struggle against the dominant paradigm (in this case, of history as both the colonizers’ story and a potential tool of further colonization).  The goal is not to assimilate students into one established mode of thinking, but rather to break the assimilation power of current educational practices.  As Wildcat notes, “[t]hat education is an assimilation process ought to be intrinsically troubling for anyone with democratic values.” [45]

Ideas and understanding of the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada “have great impact on how non-Indians view the claims for justice made by Indians,” [46] and for that reason if no other, what is taught and the way it is taught in post-secondary educational institutions in Canada is absolutely critical to true justice and recognition for Indigenous and Settler peoples.  As Regan expands, “[i]f reconciliation in the 21^st century is to be something more than the falsely benevolent  peacemaking of our ancestors, then Settlers must become unsettled enough to step onto transformative pathways – to dislodge the Western delusions of cultural and moral superiority.” [47]   To do so, unsettling dialogue, engaging in relentless self-critical and anarcheological processes, and working to more deeply understand and appreciate the Indigenous voice are all critical in the person of the teacher of history.  The teacher, learning and applying these ideas and qualities, will have the potential to teach in such a way as to be an agent of positive change, of amelioration of Indigenous-Settler relations, and to become a responsible and conscientious actor in Indigenous-Settler relations.  A teacher of Indigenous-Settler relations must understand, as put forward by Leroy Little Bear, a Blackfoot scholar and philosopher, that we have all been changed in some way by colonization -historical and contemporary- and the clashes between Indigenous and Settler peoples:

No one has a pure worldview that is 100 percent Indigenous or Eurocentric; rather, everyone has an integrated mind, a fluxing and ambidextrous consciousness, a precolonized consciousness that flows into a colonized consciousness and back again.  It is this clash of worldviews that is at the heart of many current difficulties with effective means of social control in postcolonial North America.  It is also this clash that suppresses diversity in choices and denies Aboriginal people harmony in their daily lives. [48]

It is only by accepting that, regardless of personal want or desire, the teacher is already part of a struggle around oppression -either for or against- that a teacher can take a class in the history of Indigenous-Settler relations in Canada and transform it, as well as his or her own position, from conscious or unconscious ignorance to a person who is able to open themselves to new ideas, and to fight against the personality of an oppressive and powerful institution for an alternative history of and alternative, and brighter, future for Indigenous- Settler relations.

Epilogue: Answering the “Why?”

Preparing this essay has been an important and challenging experience in my own personal unsettling, self-criticism, anarcheological investigation, and interaction with the Indigenous voice.  Because of that, I feel it is necessary to a personal reflection to the end of such an academic piece of work.  First, this paper is not intended to be a discussion, indictment, or ‘deification’ of any one person or persons.  Dialogues or discourses of this kind can be an uncomfortable experience, an affirmation, or a necessary refresher on what needs to happen, and how vigilant we must be when spending the majority of our time in contact with harmful hegemonic ideologies.  Second, I am indebted to a number of people for taking the time to discuss these issues and give feedback on my ideas and feelings regarding this kind of process.  Finally, one of the things that makes writing a paper like this possible is the excellent example of “insurgent educators” from who not only teach but also learn with their students.  I am excited by the hope that soon they will no longer seem to be the exception within the academy.

Bibliography

Alfred, Taiaiake. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005.

Alfred, Taiaiake and Jeff Corntassel, “Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism.” Government and Opposition (2005): 597-614.

Barker, Adam. “Being Colonial: Colonial Mentalities in Canada’s Settler Peoples.” Presented at the Re-Envisioning Relationships Conferece 2006, Trent University.

Day, Richard J.F.. Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press, 2005.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. “Higher Education and Self-Determination.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat, Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001, 123-133.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. “Knowing and Understanding.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat. Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001, 41-46.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. Spirit & Reason. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 1999.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. “The Perpetual Education Report.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat, Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001, 151-161.

Deloria, Jr., Vine. “Transitional Education.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat, Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001,  79-86.

Fanon, Franz . The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1963.

Fixico, Donald L. “Ethics and Responsibilities in Writing American Indian History.” In Natives and Academics: Researching and Writing about American Indians. ed. byDevon A. Mihesuah. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1998, 84-99.

Foucault, Michel. “Gouvernement des Vivants.” Lecture delivered January 30^th, 1980 at Collège de France.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Empire. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Lawson, M.D. and R.C. Petersen. Progressive Education: An Introduction. Sydney: Angus and Robinson, 1972.

Little Bear, Leroy. “Jagged Worldviews Colliding.” In Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, ed. by Marie Battiste, 77-85. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000.

Regan, Paulette Yvonne Lynette. “Unsettling the Settler Within: Canada’s Peacemaker Myth, Reconciliation, and Transformative Pathways to Decolonization.” Ph.D. diss., University of Victoria, 2006.

Van Maanen, John. "Realist Tales." In Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography.  University of Chicago Press, 1988. In UVic Coursepack for History 358, section F01, 2006.

Wildcat, Daniel R.. “Practical Professional Indigenous Education.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat, Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001, 113-121.

Wildcat, Daniel R. “The Question of Self-Determination.” In Vine Deloria, Jr. and Daniel R. Wildcat, Power and Place: Indian Education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Resources, 2001, 135-150.

Wise, Tim. White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son. Brooklyn, NY: Softskull Press, 2005.