Aboriginal Studies ... minus the Aboriginal part
Here's a thought that takes me back to previous spins 'round university. As many of you know, many North American universities offer Aboriginal/Native studies courses; some even have entire faculties devoted to such things. And they're not without their critics. Some accuse these programs and courses of not really being all that Aboriginal, either in design or purpose. It's a fair question: are such fields of study more about than by Aboriginal peoples?
It's also a pretty big question, so let me just offer a partial answer by way of a wee story. A few years back, I took a 7-week intensive Cree language course at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, which shares a campus with the First Nations University of Canada. It was during that Cree course that FNUC professor Neal Mcleod encouraged me to attend the annual conference of the Canadian Indigenous and Native Studies Association (aka CINSA) in nearby Saskatoon.
And it was something Dr. Mcleod said at one of those CINSA sessions that has stayed with me to this day. In fact, I would now say at least a fair portion of my decision to persist with language-learning dates back to those words of wisdom.
In a room full of mostly non-aboriginal scholars, Mcleod put this fundamental question to all of us: Why is it, that while everyone accepts the validity and necessity of requiring students of the ancient classics of Rome and Athens to understand Latin and Greek, not one school anywhere in North America expects the same of any 'advanced' scholar of Aboriginal studies — i.e., to be fluent in an indigenous language?
Would we take any expert on Japan seriously if they didn't know one single word of Japanese? You know the answer. So why should I care about what 99% of 'Aboriginal' experts have to say?
(And, by the way, isn't saying you're an expert on Aboriginal peoples about as specific as saying you're an expert on 'Europeans?' It's about as useful...)
Just asking, people, just asking. Anyway, when Cree studies is hopefully and finally taught in Cree — nehiyawewinihk — across the country, then I know we'll have gotten somewhere.
ekosi,
Rick
It's also a pretty big question, so let me just offer a partial answer by way of a wee story. A few years back, I took a 7-week intensive Cree language course at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, which shares a campus with the First Nations University of Canada. It was during that Cree course that FNUC professor Neal Mcleod encouraged me to attend the annual conference of the Canadian Indigenous and Native Studies Association (aka CINSA) in nearby Saskatoon.
And it was something Dr. Mcleod said at one of those CINSA sessions that has stayed with me to this day. In fact, I would now say at least a fair portion of my decision to persist with language-learning dates back to those words of wisdom.
In a room full of mostly non-aboriginal scholars, Mcleod put this fundamental question to all of us: Why is it, that while everyone accepts the validity and necessity of requiring students of the ancient classics of Rome and Athens to understand Latin and Greek, not one school anywhere in North America expects the same of any 'advanced' scholar of Aboriginal studies — i.e., to be fluent in an indigenous language?
Would we take any expert on Japan seriously if they didn't know one single word of Japanese? You know the answer. So why should I care about what 99% of 'Aboriginal' experts have to say?
(And, by the way, isn't saying you're an expert on Aboriginal peoples about as specific as saying you're an expert on 'Europeans?' It's about as useful...)
Just asking, people, just asking. Anyway, when Cree studies is hopefully and finally taught in Cree — nehiyawewinihk — across the country, then I know we'll have gotten somewhere.
ekosi,
Rick
posted by Rick Harp at 4:51 PM
3 Comments:
Posilutely agreed, on the prefer to have Aboriginal languages an integral part -- if not a requirement for -- native studies. Question though? Do you mean for those who teach? Or for those who study?
Another question: Which of the many Aboriginal languages would you designate as preferred or required?
Final question: Which of the many specific (as in national or tribal) histories or cultural lenses would you prefer? (needed to provide a framework for interpretation and understanding)
Just wondering.
signed:
an old friend who shares your birthday
You raise excellent questions, ones that get to the heart of the practicality of what I say.
And, perhaps speaking more out of frustration than anything, I did not acknowledge that aspect of achieving this ideal.
But I would never presume to say which languages should be taught (or which historical/cultural lens might be adopted), only that it would make sense for a student of Haida culture, for example, to know Haida.
Ay ay for your excellent questions.
Rick
Hi Rick!
It really is astonishing that people can complete Aboriginal/Native Studies programs in university without at least some attempt to master the language. It would seem to be a basic enough requirement.
Back when I was studying medieval history at the ol' University of Manitoba, it was a bit daunting to consider the expertise of the medievalists of a generation or two ago, all of whom might be presumed to know Latin and Greek, at least, not to mention various varieties of old and middle German, English and other European languages, and also modern English, French and German (for the academic literature). Arabic and Hebrew wouldn't hurt either. I think standards have slipped nowadays.
In Native Studies programs, which are so much newer, likely those standards haven't so much slipped -- they were just never imposed.
Like you say, how anyone can study the Haida without speaking Haida -- without even attempting it -- is beyond me.
BTW, I'll be in The Wicked Peg this summer from June 20 to July 16. Any chance you'll be around? Maybe we can hook up for a fiendishly greasy breakfast, or something?
Hope all is well!
Ed
Post a Comment
<< Home