Saturday, March 26, 2016

Indigenous perspectives in education. The complex idea of 'Place' and its relation to the truth and reconciliation.

Blog 9
In my opinion indigenous perspectives in education is a complex topic for curriculum scholars. This is what I concluded at the end of reading Johnston’s (2014) Not “As Canadian as Possible under the Circumstances”: The Struggle to be Visible in Canadian Curriculum Studies. To tell the truth and reconcile with indigenous people we need to make the indigenous perspectives visible in the curriculum. So that, we can start with ‘listening’ Chambers(2012) to understand and reconcile with indigenous people. But from Haig-Brown (2008) I take that, just listening can result in dormant knowledge and it is useful only if we take a thoughtful action. Haig-Brown (2008) also tells about what is the correct form of listening by stating that we need to take the knowledge into our own context and consider its meaning for us. Perhaps then the curriculum scholars can speak for indigenous voices.
As an international student the topic of Indigenous people of Canada has always interested me.   The history of European colonization of Canada reminds me of British colonization of India. Therefore, it gets easier for me to understand how indigenous people feel after being marginalized. Being from a minority class in India, I also become aware of the marginalization of minorities in India. How history of minorities in India has been taken out of the curriculum to emphasize the role of majority in the freedom of India. And now we hear a distorted truth about the minorities in India with is influenced by majority class of India.
Cynthia Chambers (2012) as always takes the idea of ‘place’ Chambers (2003) to signify “how we all are treaty people”. This idea of place also connects with Haig-Brown’s (2008) view of Indigenous thought as a deep understanding that we all live in relation to land.
As attractive as the idea of place by Chambers (2012) and Haig-Brown (2008) may sound, its definition gets more complicated to be defined for the curriculum scholars. This is explained in Chambers (2003) where she says, that Canada is a global village and has one of the highest multitudes of pluralism. For Haig-Brown (2008) Canada is an overlay of multiple existing nations. What I am trying to say is that, if the curriculum scholars succeed in defining place or land in a curriculum then they may be able to define what truth is. We as curriculum scholars can only reconcile if we have the correct knowledge of truth to tell in the curriculum.
The effect of incorrect knowledge in the name of truth can be seen in Tupper(2012) where few students in spite of expressing the important of treaty were not able to see themselves as treaty people and maybe that’s why were not able to comprehend the FNUC crisis correctly.
This complication of defining place can also be seen in India with Kashmiri crisis and their ongoing struggle for freedom and rights. What is the history of Kashmir? What is the treaty of India with the people of Kashmir? Do people of Kashmir in India see themselves as treaty people and vice-versa? I don’t recall any of the knowledge I have received regarding this matter in my school. Even when asked about it from one of my kashmiri friend I came to know that my friend has no knowledge about the history but my friend confirmed that Kashmiris are being ill-treated by Indian government. So is it because of the distorted truth that my friend has which makes my friend so negative about India. These readings have made me curious to search for the matters of my own country. But I wonder will I be able to find the correct knowledge. Or will I suffer from what Haig- Brown (2008) states a little learning which a dangerous thing is.
These reading have made me curious to know how the truth should be defined. Because as a listener I must say that we hear a lot in the name of truth regarding indigenous perspectives. I believe that only the truth can help to reconcile with indigenous people.
References:
Haig-Brown, C. (2009).  Taking Indigenous thought seriously: A rant on globalization with some cautionary notes. Journal of Canadian Curriculum Studies.  6(2), pp. 8-24
Chambers, C. (2012). “We are all treaty people”: The contemporary countenance of Canadian curriculum studies.  In N. Ng-A-Fook & J. Rottmann (Eds). Reconsidering Canadian curriculum studies: Provoking historical, present, and future perspectives. Pp. 23-38
Tupper, J. (2012). Treaty education for ethically engaged citizenship: Settler identities, historical consciousness and the need for reconciliation.  Citizenship Teaching & Learning. 7(2), pp. 143-156
Johnson, I. (2014. Fall). Not “As Canadian As Possible Under the Circumstances”: The Struggle
 to Be Visible in Canadian Curriculum Studies. Journal of the Canadian Association for
Curriculum Studies, 12 (1), 6975.





No comments: