"In", "for", or "with"? (was Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006)

[David Gene Lewis]

Ilat members,
As a constant lurker I thank you all for what you are doing for your
communities. Not that you all need my thanks, but I am personnally
benefitting from your leadership on how to help revive your languages.


I am a peripheral member because my work is in historic ethnographic
archives, specifically the Southwest Oregon Research Project. I have
worked with Scott DeLancey, and Phil Cash Cash in the past. I do not
work specifically in linguistics, althought thanks to Scott's great
teaching, I can understand the lingo pretty well. I am in cultural
anthropology/ethnohistory and my work overlaps with linguistic and
native language issues quite a bit. 

My work with the SWORP collection here at the University of Oregon,
where I archivally organized it and created the finding aid. The
collection has an overlap with language revitalization as at least 75%
of the collection contains historic language materials from Oregon
Indians and other surrounding Tribes. As part of the history of SWORP,
the collection has been gifted to all of the Tribes in Oregon, and
many surrounding Tribes in California and Washington State. 

My interest in the questions of working "for" or "with" the tribe are
really a part of everything I do. As a Tribal member and a cultural
anthropologist I feel responsibility in two realms, to academia and to
the Tribal communities in Oregon. In short I am an "insider" and an
"outsider" according to what has been posted previously. I suspect
that many on this list are in a similar situation... 

This difference was part of my decision process when I was
reorganizing the SWORP collection for the library here at UO. I wanted
the collection to be accessible to Indian people as well as academic
researchers of any level of research experience. I knew that the
collection would be given to the tribes in the future and so I created
titles for the files that resonnated with Indian people and academic
researchers. At that time, abt 1999, there was not a lot of direction
from my tribe or really any tribes in Oregon about what they needed
and so I had to think about it fresh and go with my instincts. I think
it was successful. Many tribes and Tribal researchers have expressed
an appreciation for the way the collection is arranged and the ease as
to which they can do research within it. 

Not that my experience or actions are the answer, but it has worked
here in Oregon. I would like to see a similar effort taken by other
repositories of Native ethnohistory so that similar collections are
made more accessible to Native communities. 

So what Scott is saying is incredibly important. In 1998 I took a trip
to Australia, and the approach the Arrente (sp?) people were taking
involved intentionally placing community members and students  with
university professors to learn their methods, so that they may return
to Alice Springs with that knowledge and use it in their community. I
saw some amazing language resources being developed for communities
that did not have ready access to computers and associated
technologies. 

But I also think we can explore further the role of the native scholar
working within academia and their community. These scholars,
manytimes, have a completey different motivation for their work, and
different responsibilities and expectations on them than non-native
academics and scholars. In the past 30 years, anthropology and
linguistics scholars have changed their methods and products to
reflect the needs of the native communities but really it is the
native scholars that can truly represent those communities in both
worlds. 


Thanks for listening,

David Lewis
University of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde