Ok slow the brain down.

Come on into the den and let me ramble on for a bit about a few things, this and that and the other. Try not to get to close to the fire as it may be a little hot under these circumstances.

I have just finished reading This Is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy by Dale Turner. The object of the book is to place a new understanding on how Aboriginal people in Canadian society might best become a part of the process when dealing with Aboriginal rights in Canada in regard to both the treaties and self-government. The guy has some pretty neat ideas about the overall landscape and what might be done to improve it but damn it he pisses me off on a couple of very important points.

First off, it is not until the end of the book that he genuinely makes a case about the essence of First Nations thought in regards to spirituality. Since both are intrinsically tied it bothers me that he would leave it to so small of a point. And maybe this is my misunderstanding of it so perhaps I'll have to talk to a few of my professors and some of the elders to see if maybe I'm off my nut but it boils down to a fairly simple point.

Native thought is holistic. It infuses the idea that all things are important to the overall health of the individual and the community around the individual. It is a individual out concept yet paradoxically the overall health of the community is of a greater importance than any one individual. I have done a little bit of writing on my own concept of egalitarianism and how this is tied to First Nations philosophy so it frustrates me to see this point ignored.

The second part that boggles my mind is Turner does a great job of deconstructing what he calls White Paper liberalism and European philosophies in regards to it's colonial treatment of First Nations people, but then he goes on to use those EXACT same ideas to separate up his 'work load' of what is needed to defend First Nations rights in Canada. He has a concept known as word warriors and these would be individuals who are First Nations who engage the dominant society both from within as accepted intellectuals in the legal and philosophical realms but also from without as distinctly aboriginal people. I like this idea however he goes on to qualify it question who can legitimately do this work.

He also seems to defend the segregation of First Nations and non-First Nations when it comes to the understanding of First Nation philosophy. He calls it 'Crazy Horse' segregation as a way to keep the philosophy pure and protected from the dominant culture's colonialism.

Well bad news for you Turner but that is A) against the overall philosophy that I understand of First Nations, and B) a left over thought process from colonial impact. The reason for the keeping of knowledge away from the white folks was because they were abusing it to get the better of us and then enacted laws that made it illegal to BE a First Nations person. Those laws were repealed and now these things can be open and inf act are mostly supported by the government so that they may regain their overall strength and impact within the communities. Because they work. To fall back on that is to succumb to the colonial mindset rather than to embrace his idea of 'indigenity.'

So at this point it appears his boiling it down to a chess match where we match intellectual wits and see who can come out on top, while also bemoaning the fact that he fails to see how it might work because the folks that control the end result are still non-First Nations. The overall argument left me feeling that he's spoiling for a fight yet is too chicken to get his hands dirty with a little brawl.

I do believe that for my final project for this class I am going to engage this book on the idea of spirituality and the holistic approach of First Nations. Of course, where do I start with the research on THAT one.