Offended by Offence

Below is a description of the research of Ghislaine Goudreau, a graduate student who was supervised by Cora Weber-Pillwax.  The article gives readers some idea of the kind of research that is being undertaken under the auspices of “Indigenous scholarship”.  Weber-Pillwax then collaborated with Goudreau in an article published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Aboriginal Health, which was entitled “Hand Drumming: Health-Promoting Experiences of Aboriginal Women from a Northern Ontario Urban Community”,  (www.naho.ca/jah/english/journal_V04_01.php).

FW

***

Gillian Osler, “Aboriginal researcher enhances cultural strength”, January 29, 2007 (http://www.publichealth.ualberta.ca/nav02.cfm?nav02=56031&nav01=44821)

Research shows that through the reintroduction of female hand drumming into an Aboriginal community, women are again finding their voices.

Ghislaine Goudreau, ‘06 MSc, originally derived the concept for her thesis, Exploring the Connection between Aboriginal Women’s Hand Drumming and Health Promotion (Mino-Bimaadiziwin), during orientation week for new students at the Centre for Health Promotion Studies (School of Public Health.) Participants were asked to draw how they saw themselves in five years time. Goudreau, who is an urban Aboriginal woman, drew herself holding a drum. She had a vision of what she needed to do for her research, and this involved drumming, a cultural tradition close to her heart.

Prior to the influx of Europeans into North America, it was common for Aboriginal people to engage in drumming. Western research related to Aboriginal communities violated the established ways of knowing, focused on negative issues rather than devising solutions. In the process, important traditions were lost. Using this history as a backdrop, Goudreau decided to contact her Aboriginal community and requested their involvement in a unique research project.

Goudreau designed a study with the collaborative efforts of her community and co-researchers, who are Aboriginal women hand drummers, to investigate the relationship between hand drumming and health promotion. She found that the participatory research approach – where the researcher becomes a facilitator who works collaboratively with research participants – and indigenous methods largely paralleled one another. “I have seen the connection between how Aboriginal people live traditionally and health promotion research methods,” says Goudreau. “Both methods apply the principle of working collectively with the community.” The Master of Science program in health promotion was, for Goudreau, a stepping stone to completing this research and increasing awareness and participation of her community.

Many sacred Aboriginal traditions were incorporated into the research process, including the use of sharing circles instead of focus groups. Customs such as starting meetings with prayer, using smudging ceremonies, presenting tobacco, working with the leadership of the Elders, and having the Creator bless each meeting – which became known as “thesis gatherings” – were used throughout Goudreau’s research. For instance, when she approached the Waabishki Mkwaa hand drumming circle and the women Elders, she presented them with tobacco as a sign of respect. This allowed her to involve them in a research process with a spiritual component. 

Aboriginal culture is an inherent part of Canadian history and so Aboriginal populations are a critical group to include in initiatives. This research is innovative as, to date, most health promotion research has focused on Canada’s mainstream population.

Goudreau’s thesis supervisor, Dr. Cora Weber-Pillwax, commented on the Aboriginal tradition of drumming explaining that, “Amongst many Aboriginal peoples, drumming is an act that is not supported as appropriate for women.” She praised Goudreau saying, “She moved forward in the face of such challenges, and accepted the teachings that took her back to her own ancestors who were women hand drummers. This shows a young Aboriginal woman who stands on the horizon of exceptional Indigenous scholarship and leads by action and example.”

Goudreau grounded her research and project in theory and knowledge that came from both the European and the Anishnaabe traditions. Through her research approach and writing, which was based on her experiences with women’s hand drumming circles, she created an opportunity for healing effects to flow between the Anishnaabe women in the hand drumming circle. Weber-Pillwax goes on to say that, “Their shared stories point to the wonderful healing benefits of the process and activities associated with hand drumming and singing.”

The results of Goudreau’s research have been very encouraging. “Aboriginal people need to know there are lots of gifts in the community. Research focuses mostly on alcohol, drugs, or diabetes in Indigenous societies, and this is largely negative. By focusing on positives in this project, the eyes of the women would light up. They felt as though they had something to offer and it was very good for them to hear that,” says Goudreau. She goes on to say that, “There has been a ripple effect. The women desire to get involved now, and they are finding their voices through singing and the opportunity to speak.”

The impact of her project has been vast. There is a heightened sense of culture and pride for the women who were involved and they have often been asked to be part of local conferences and events. The result has been a sense of being accepted by society and increasing self-confidence. Cultural awareness and social support networks are determinants of health that emerged as two key elements of Goudreau’s research.

In addition, there have been physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual benefits of Aboriginal women’s hand drumming demonstrated in this study. The women perceived that their overall health improved as a result of this hand drumming initiative.

The Aboriginal Women’s Hand Drumming (AWHD) Circle of Life framework, which is a modification of the traditional medicine wheel, is an outcome from the thesis work. This framework will aid in studying other traditional Aboriginal activities and will support Aboriginal researchers to continue to gather evidence of their merit.

Goudreau is pleased to have had her research accepted in academic circles. In fact, she is this year’s recipient of the Western Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) Distinguished Master’s Thesis Award that will be presented in March at WAGS Annual Meeting in Portland Oregon. This is the first time that a University of Alberta student has received a WAGS Award.

Goudreau is proud when other Aboriginal students ask to use her thesis as an example. It gives them some insight into how to conduct research in Aboriginal communities through the use of a very effective example of Indigenous research. There is a resulting sense of confidence in their research.

Goudreau’s research demonstrated that the health promotion concept of capacity building is very viable. When leadership is found within an Aboriginal community, it can help to enable other community members to enhance their research abilities and direct programs that are important to their region and culture. Lessons learned from Goudreau’s work will be helpful when developing other initiatives in both Aboriginal and other populations.

Goudreau entered new territory by successfully implementing a methodology that incorporates Aboriginal traditions. The impact of her work, including increasing cultural pride, is a distinguished example of community based health promotion and creative research.

This comment was posted on my Aboriginal Policy page, but it deserves a wider readership.  I will be contacting Dr. von Gernet, and hope that he will respond.

FW

***

Professor Widdowson:

I’m an aboriginal lawyer, grad student and a citizen of the Ojibwe Nation. I have read a number of articles condemning you. I do not agree with your various theories, but I think it is very important that your voice be heard. I do not think that you are a racist; however, I believe that you have very little knowledge about Aboriginal cultures, histories or aspirations.

It seems to me that your observations and opinions of aboriginal peoples are overwhelmingly negative. What are you objectives? Do you want to help aboriginal peoples?

Your colleagues Prof. von Gernet and Mr. Flanagan espouse an assimilationist agenda with regard to aboriginal peoples. Speaking of the aboriginal industry, according to the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty website, Prof. von Gernet was paid more that $321,000.00 Department of Indian and Northern Affairs between July 10th, 1999 and October 31st 2002. Prof. von Gernet has testified as an expert witness for the Crown no less than eleven times in Native Rights/Land Claims cases. In each instance his testimony has directly contradicted evidence brought by the First Nations band or individuals involved.

Residential schools were part of the assimilationist policy (explicitly and tacitly). Excuse me if I am wrong, but I read that you defended the residential school system. And now you are wondering why you are being attacked and censured! That’s just foolish. Your opinion regarding residential schools is tantamount of the opinions of Ernst Zundel and his ilk. As a child my aunt died in residential school and her body still lies in an overgrown graveyard in Chapleau, Ontario where the school used to be. My family has never been told how she died.

Canada’s aboriginal peoples are sovereign regardless of the view of the Canadian government. As far as the tax dollars of Canadian citizens are concerned, they can keep it. Aboriginal peoples want their fair share of the trillions of dollars of resources that are being extracted from our sovereign territories.

Sincerely,

Asinimanido (G. Deschamps, B.A., LL.B.)

There is an interesting story in The Globe and Mail about a sentencing hearing for the killer of Hunter Brown, an elderly man stabbed to death while delivering Christmas cards (Romina Maurino, “Outpouring of grief at killer’s sentencing hearing”, January 19, 2010, p. A7).  The article inadvertently raises questions about the nature of the Canadian justice system when it is noted that six relatives and neighbours gave Victim Impact Statements “to describe the anguish they have suffered since finding the beloved grandfather, described as a warm and gentle man, laying in a pool of blood, undelivered cards at his side”. 

According to the John Howard Society of Alberta, “Canadian legislation concerning Victim Impact Statements was proclaimed in force in October, 1988″.  This legislation, Bill C-41,  ”allows victims to describe in writing the harm done to them or the loss suffered as a result of the crime” and also requires the court ”to take statements into consideration for the purpose of determining sentence…” (http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C53.htm#impact).

While this legislation is justified under the guise that it attempts to “meet the needs and interests of crime victims” by allowing them to be involved in the process, the John Howard Society points out that Victim Impact Statements have been opposed by those who “argue that their use makes sentencing an arbitrary process, shifting the focus from the offender to the victim”.  Furthermore, critics argue that their use “creates classes of victims, leading to stiffer sanctions for those who offend against particularly eloquent, loved or upper class victims”.

What if Mr. Brown, for example, had not been a “beloved grandfather” and a “warm and gentle man”?  Would this mean that his murderer should receive a more lenient sentence?   By shifting the focus from the offender to the victim, sentencing becomes inconsistent with two principles that are fundamental to ensuring that there is equality under the law.  These principles, described by Julian Roberts and Carol LaPrairie, are “proportionality”  and “equity” – that “the severity of punishments should be directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes for which they are imposed” and “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.

It is perfectly reasonable to try to ensure that the victims of crime, such as the friends and family of Mr. Brown, receive whatever support they need to try to deal with the grief that they are experiencing.  Sensitivity to the suffering of others, however, should not be used to justify a two-tiered justice system.  The poor, orphaned and despised deserve the same legal treatment as the rich and popular.   Victims should be able to express their pain as much as is necessary, but public grieving should not subvert the essential goals of a justice system – impartiality and fairness.

The battle with certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association appears to be entering a new phase.  In a posting on the Women’s Caucus listserve, the distinguished political science professor from McMaster University, Janet Ajzenstat, weighed in with the following (for the full posting see “WC email – Janet Ajzenstat” on the Ethics page of this blog):

“In a recent contribution Jill Vickers speaks of “an issue” but doesn’t elaborate [see  "WC email - Jill Vickers" on the Ethics page of this blog]. She apparently wants to settle an issue. Let me suggest two issues the Caucus might discuss. Neither can be easily settled.

The first is that Kiera Ladner seems to have left herself open to a charge of unprofessionalism. I may not be in possession of all the facts. Correct me if I am wrong. It seems – a number of people may conclude – that Ladner rejected Frances Widdowson’s submission for a panel presentation at the CPSA this spring because it criticizes Ladner’s research.

I’m in touch with Widdowson. I read her Mount Royal University blog. I understand that she was offered a poster session. For goodness sakes! She could fill an auditorium. She should have been invited to address the Congress at large.

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry (with co-author Albert Howard) has attracted almost unprecedented attention in academe and in the public sphere. Widdowson and Howard are major contributors to what many see as the most important domestic problem in this country: the wretched poverty on some reserves, the appalling condition of housing, and aboriginal exclusion from Canadian political life. Not everyone agrees with the analysis in Disrobing, but the argument is extensive, well grounded, and must be addressed openly. A few panel presentations will not suffice. There will be – there should be – continuing exploration of Widdowson’s facts and arguments. She must be allowed to develop her argument and take it in new directions. We can expect years of fruitful debate.

The second – related -  issue is this: Widdowson is tackling the problem of cultural relativism. The book has additional gravity because it deals head on with one of the central philosophical themes of our age. The main outlines of the argument on cultural relativism are well established. I won’t rehearse them. “Aboriginal ways of knowing,” “women’s ways of knowing”: there is every reason to welcome discussion of the subject. Indeed it can’t be suppressed. It cannot be adequately pursued on a poster board.

Widdowson’s current research promises an investigation into the SSHRC’s insistence that research on aboriginal reserves be limited by respect for “aboriginal ways of knowing.” Let me urge the Women’s Caucus to endorse investigation of this topic. Widdowson writes (Mount Royal blog): ‘If the CPSA were really interested in open and vigorous debate, as it claims, it would organize a debate on aboriginal epistemologies in political science between Kiera Ladner and myself.’ I agree. I’d nominate Rhoda Hassmann as commentator/chair”.

Ajzenstat’s comments about cultural relativism are especially pertinent.  If it can be believed, it seems that the question “is criticism of cultural relativism racist?” is being answered in the affirmative by certain members of the Women’s Caucus of the Canadian Political Science Association.  Although there has been no substantiation of the anonymous allegations that “racist remarks” were made and “overt and blatant racism” was expressed in my presentation, a person attending the 2008 Women’s Caucus meeting inferred that it was my “critique of aboriginal epistemology which was racist and offensive” (see the “Email exchange between F and and L” on the Ethics page of this blog).  Because these members of the Women’s Caucus appear to assume that questioning the scholarly value of “aboriginal ways of knowing” is “racist”, they feel that it is appropriate to prevent this viewpoint from being discussed.

But does it make sense to argue that there are “aboriginal ways of knowing”?  To do so is to assume that ancestry (race?!) determines philosophy – a proposition that is actually racist.

This is not to argue the point, as Joanna Quinn has attributed to me (see Letter from Joanna Quinn on the Ethics page), that “aboriginal scholars have nothing to contribute simply because they are aboriginal”.  It is to state that all people, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must use rigorous methods if they are to make a meaningful contribution to political science.   As I pointed out in “Native Studies and Canadian Political Science: The Implications of ‘Decolonizing the Discipline” (see the Advocacy Studies page of this blog), what is referred to as “aboriginal ways of knowing” in the Native Studies literature does not really constitute “knowledge” at all, since it asserts that subjective opinions are fact and maintains that unsubstantiated supernatural forces shape the nature of the universe.

The community of Natuashish in northern Labrador is in the news once again (www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-red-flags-of-a-thriving-black-market/article1412287/.  It is noted that while the community voted to ban alcohol within its borders, this decision has only resulted in a black market for alcohol, where residents pay smugglers $350 for 60-ounce bottle of hard liquor.  The existence of the continuing demand in the face of the ban on alcohol shows that the deeply entrenched problems in the community continue.

Although the existence of alcohol smuggling in so-called dry aboriginal communities, and the continuing problem of substance abuse, would not be normally considered news, it is in the case of Natuashish because of its particular history.  For those unfamiliar with this community, its previous home was Davis Inlet – an area that became famous in 1993 when a police officer released a video of six children sniffing gas and screaming that they wanted to die.  To deal with these serious social problems, the federal government spent $200 million building a new town and moved the people of Davis Inlet to Natuashish 15 kilometres away.  And $200 million is only part of the funding that the community has received; this is because the social problems in the area continue, and $70 million between 2002-2005 was spent on a “Labrador Healing Strategy” to deal with the social dysfunction plaguing Natuashish and one other town (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/natuashish.html).  After 2005, the federal government approved millions more for the strategy.

The moving of the town of Davis Inlet is a classic example of aboriginal policy – throw money at a problem without considering its root causes, and hope that it will go away.  The money goes into the pockets of the “planners” of Natuashish, but nothing of substance has changed.  Although the housing conditions in Davis Inlet were substandard, these conditions were a symptom, not a cause, of the serious social problems plaguing this community.  These problems will continue, regardless of how “warm and cozy” the houses are, since the isolated nature of the community, both geographically and culturally, means that no one can make a meaningful contribution to the wider society and have the stimulation needed to feel comfortable in the world today.

Natuashish is very similar to all the other isolated aboriginal communities in Canada.  There is no future for these places, and they are an extremely harmful environment for youth, who have “nothing to do” since they lack an attachment to the old way of life that some of the more traditionally minded still retain.  The solution for these communities is not to move people; it is to create a cultural development strategy so that people will have the skills, values and attitudes to make the transition to modernity sometime in the future.

In case anyone was wondering, the malevolent forces in the universe temporarily caused all the pages and posts to disappear on Sunday.  Jonathan, the IT guy, seems to have fixed the problem, and so more posts are on the way!

FW

Today’s episode (December 11, 2009) of CBC’s The Current, featured an interview with Nicholas Wade (www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200912/20091211.html), a Science Reporter for The New York Times  and author of The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures.  Wade raises some very important questions about the evolution of religion.  Somewhat controversially, he argues that faith provides evolutionary advantages for the human species, and therefore we are genetically hardwired to embrace religion.

In the interview, Wade is somewhat critical of Richard Dawkins’ view that we are not necessarily genetically programmed for faith, but for obedience.  Dawkins argues that an evolutionary advantage is provided by “listening to our elders” and this tendency manifests itself in supplicating oneself before religious spokespeople.  Wade counters Dawkins’ position by arguing  that the survival of religion over a long period of time indicates that it is not just an accidental outgrowth of deference to authority; for religion to be selected by evolutionary processes, asserts Wade, it must be beneficial for humanity.  Dawkins’ failure to recognize this, in Wade’s view, is due to his prejudicial attitude that religion is detrimental to society.

The benefit that religion offers for humanity, according to Wade, is that a conjuration of spiritual forces leads people to emotionally involve themselves in a group and to defend it, even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. People need (want?) to believe in something “bigger than themselves”, and, as a result, faith in the supernatural helps to increase the size of social formations beyond what would have been possible without religion, enhancing reproductive success.  Furthermore, religion enables certain values that encourage social integration to be enforced and greater cohesion and group survival becomes possible.

While I find Wade’s arguments fascinating, there are two main problems with them that can be identified.  First of all, there is a difference between the social effects of a religious belief and the belief itself.  Just because a religion embraces principles that are beneficial for society (thou shall not kill, for example), this does not mean that the opposition to killing, in itself, is religious.  The essence of religion is the belief in the supernatural, and this might prohibit or encourage killing depending upon the context (Islam, for example, maintains that adulterers should be stoned to death),  Wade’s assumption that religion is “beneficial” leads him to neglect one of its major characteristics – its use by those in power to con people into accepting their subordinate position. Shamans, one of the earliest religious figures, for example, use their ”spiritual status” to extract ”gifts” from their followers. 

The second problem with Wade’s arguments is the fallacy that because religion has existed for a long period of time, it will always exist.  This is an anti-evolutionary viewpoint.  To examine religion from an evolutionary perspective, one has to look at historical trends, and how one form of consciousness emerges out of another.  Although religious belief continues to exist, it is becoming much weaker than in the past (even expressing sentiments like I am today, for  example, would have been punishable by death in the past).  It is highly likely, in fact, that religion provided a survival advantage in the past, but that scientific progress has now made it detrimental to our survival.  Wade misleadingly makes the comparison between language and religion; while language is obviously a necessity for survival, belief in the supernatural appears to be superfluous to existence. 

It is important to recognize that, just because something existed for a long period of time, and therefore provided a survival advantage, this will not always be the case.   Slavery and feudal relations, for example, existed for thousands of years, but today they are either completely rejected (slavery) or regarded as an archaic historical relic (the British aristocracy).  Religious beliefs, because they cannot provide any evidence to support their existence, are gradually being rejected.  If one also accepts that there is a connection between economic exploitation and religion, it is likely that once class relations disappear, so will religion.