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

[Mia Kalish]

Hi, Annie, 

I appreciate your viewpoints, I really do. 

But I sit in classes here in the Southwest, and I hear people talk about how
there "used to be" Indians. They also talk about "how Columbus discovered
America," as if there were not hundreds of millions of people here. 

Not everyone has the opportunity to have contact with Indigenous people, but
they still vote, create ideas, write, learn and share. Without others to
write the books that these people will read, without people to make the
arguments, to point out the abuses and how they have hurt, these people Will
Never Know. And they will continue to believe that all the Indians are in
the Smithsonian. They will believe that the North American continent was
empty. They will believe that going to South America and taking the plant
materials, and the knowledge of the people there is "discovery," that they,
themselves have made it, and that those Indigenous people who shared their
knowledge are "less than" human, have been "discovered" and are therefore
not entitled to benefit from the efforts like they are. 

Without people writing, this is what we have. . . . Writing is how people
far away begin to learn what we are thinking, and seeing, and feeling. Do
you know for a long time people believed that animals didn't feel because
they couldn't/didn't communicate their feelings like humans? Do you know
some people still believe animals don't feel? 

Without writing, without sharing, without exchanging knowledge, this is what
we have. 

Without the Smiths, it is difficult for me to make an argument in some of my
classes, in some of my papers. To me, and others who fight the gatekeepers,
who fight for learning materials that reflect Indigenous knowledge, culture,
and ways of learning, without the Smiths, without Devon Mihesuah and Vine
Deloria, Jr., without Daniel Wildcat and others who struggle and write to
construct equity for Indigenous people, I would be lost. 

People do learn from books. People without hearts, without sensitivity,
people who are selfish, who are all about themselves, can learn from books.
They can learn by sharing the experiences of people who they will never meet
in person. 

I'll tell you a story. It's about "love". 
	Once upon a time, there was a person who very much wanted to learn
her language. She went to school and struggled to find ways of making
learning the language easy and fun for adults like her. She met some other
people and worked with them, and came up with some things she thought were
really wonderful. She went back to her Tribe, and said, Look at these
wonderful things I have. I want to share them with you so we adults can
learn our language and speak with our families. 
	And the Tribe had a linguist who "owned" them. And they went to him
and said, Look, someone is making things that move and make sounds so people
can learn. He convinced them this was bad, that they wouldn't get the money
if they let her share these things. . . 
	And so the Tribe turned against her, and wouldn't let her share her
beautiful materials, built with love and dedication, built with a sense of
Tribal belonging. 

	And so she went away, to find others who might be interested  . . . 

Mia

-----Original Message-----
From: Indigenous Languages and Technology [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
On Behalf Of annie ross
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:17 AM
To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ILAT] 'In', 'for', or 'with'? (was Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006)

re: conversations about in and out

hi everyone.	
i am not a linguist, but i appreciate your work.  and i learn by reading
your emails.	

i am a first nations person, and i work in diverse first nations communties.

you know, this whole conversation about in, out, whatever, doesn't help.
because it is all about hte artificial boundaries humans are so good at
creating in order to make chaos where none needs to exist.

it is all about love, dedication, hard work, and more love.  so that means a
person listens, takes care, and walks in the sacred path of learning and
teaching simultaneously.  academic life likes to teach us academics that we
are somehow different (smarter, more this or that), but we are not.  if we
all knew that, there would be fewer problems.

one can not learn this from any book or from any theorist.  so skip the darn
book and develop your compassion, develop and nurture the ability to see the
needs and desires of others and yourself. chop the firewood, cook the tea,
laugh, think together, be in community.
all of our work is about justice and equality. 

yes, abuses of the past are important to know.	that is called american
history.  we all should know that already.  and those horrible, beautiful,
and difficult things do not dictate my present actions.  love and hard work
do.

there is no 'insider' ther is no 'outsider'.  that is the big secret. 

ex:  harrington, the proverbial 'outsider', through his scribbles, his
scraps of paper, transcending the grave, is having a major impact in
communtiies right now.	he did not care if he was in, out, and all that.  he
was compelled. and it is not until now, that we see the sacredness of the
work transcribed on notebooks, cards, papers.

humans are very good at creating boundaries.  reject them.	
i believe we are all led from a sacred place to do good work.	
have faith, work hard, talk, listen, revise, but keep moving.

annie

	
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:42:13 -0700 ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU wrote:
> Hi, to Rudy . . . long time no hear. I was quoting you on Diné octagon vs.
> triangle yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, Daniel.
> 
> 
> 
> The Smiths: (there are two of them, you know :-) ). I have read
> Decolonizing
> Methodologies . . . although several years ago. The overarching theme is
> that Indigenous people have been abused muchly and long by people who come
> in, take their knowledge (in biology, botany, and healing as well as
> language), run off with it, publish or develop a lucrative drug, and never
> return much or anything to the people who shared their knowledge with
them.
> 
> 
> 
> The underlying understanding, although I don’t recall that Smith spends
too
> much time on this, is that the Indigenous people are considered “less
> than”,
> not quite human following the hierarchy of man that was socially devised
by
> Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. Darwin did not devise “survival of the
> fittest,” Spencer did. And it was Galton who mapped Darwin’s genetic
> component to Spencer’s idea. Galton coined the term “eugenics,” and
> the very
> first school of thought/discipline for which America became academically
> famous was the School of Eugenics at Harvard, headed by Louis Agassiz, who
> came to Harvard from Greece. Dalton envisioned “the development of a
strong
> `caste sense' among the naturally gifted members of each social class”
> (members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe15socl.html). This idea is an
> extension and
> “refinement,” if you can call it that, from Malthus (whom I haven’t
> read, as
> opposed to these other people here).
> 
> 
> 
> Smith recommends some best practices for working with Indigenous People.
> Here in America, there is a requirement in all NSF and NIH funded research
> that if any profit is made as a result of the work, it has to be
> shared with
> the community who participated in the development and exchange of
> knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith also says that the term “research” is anathema to Indigenous
> communities, because of the abuses. This is really something to think
> about,
> because people get all “oh I want to do research in your community,”
> thinking about themselves and their projected efforts in the context of
how
> research is viewed (with awe and respect) in the academic community.
> And the
> Indigenous People get all squinty-eyed and think, Oh you do, do you!
> 
> 
> 
> So you should reacquire the book. I can recommend Amazon.com.uk. Check out
> Devon Mihesuah, and Sandy Grande. I think both of these people, especially
> Grande, are very far from you field, but definitely worth reading to see
> what the abuses of Indigenous people in America have produced. The ruling
> class tried to make Native People go away: “Kill the Indian to save
> the Man”
> was a popular slogan in the 1800’s. Of course, the reason this movement
> started was in opposition to a plan the U.S. Government had to annihilate
> all the Indians, through disease, starvation, and plain, outright
> slaughter.
> ([Non-Indigenous] People like me who are Jewish, and people like me who
are
> Irish, we know a lot about this kind of technique.)
> 
> 
> 
> You could check out Colonizer’s View of the World, too. Forgot who
> wrote it.
> If you’re interested, I can go check my copy.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Mia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _____
> 
> From: Indigenous Languages and Technology
> [mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Cunliffe D J (Comp)
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:39 AM
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ILAT] "In", "for", or "with"? (was Re: [ILAT] LSA 2006)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
> Arriving at this from a different (computing) perspective, ”buy-in”,
> “ownership” (which I guess are “with”) and ultimately “empowerment”
> (which I
> guess is “without” – without us!) are all important and highly topical
> concepts and factors in successful systems. However it is not always clear
> how you put these fine principles into practice.
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering if anyone here has read “Decolonizing Methodologies:
> Research and Indigenous Peoples” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith? I borrowed it
very
> briefly from another library and never really had time to read it
properly.
> It looked like there might be some useful ideas in it, though a lot of the
> contextualising discussion went over my head somewhat :-)
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interesting in hearing other people’s opinions or any other
> recommendations along similar lines.
> 
> 
> 
> Be seeing you.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel.
> 
> 
> 


annie g. ross
First Nations Studies
School for the Contemporary Arts
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, British Columbia
V5A 1S6
annier at sfu.ca
Telephone:  604-291-3575  Facsimile:  604-291-5666