Word Warriors

This is the latest in my shots at Dale Turner, so feel free to grab some yogurt, it has saskatoon berries in it, and enjoy the fire and some light reading.

Dale Turner’s book This is not a Peace Pipe contains a very interesting concept in a type of indigenous academic called a word warrior. While the intention is very admirable and there are some very interesting aspects to the role the author envisions for word warriors Turner fails to create a philosophical argument for both the restrictions and validity of who can be a word warrior. On top of that he completely ignores indigenous spirituality to create this concept and despite his desire to have his philosophy seen as being outside Eurocentric ideals that he pigeon holes who may or may not be a word warrior and what knowledge they may share outside of indigenous culture shows that despite his claim Turner is still heavily affected by post-colonial thought and attitudes. Turner may be attempting to create a new way for First Nations to engage the dominant culture and refute what he refers to as White Paper philosophy through out the book but instead all he has done is create new ways to segregate First Nations from the rest of Canada as well as show a complete lack of understanding of the values that unite First Nations culture as a whole.

The concept of a word warrior is a fantastic idea. An individual who is knowledgeable in
both First Nations history and philosophy, as well as trained in European styled academics who is responsible for both defending and asserting First Nations rights and national sovereignty is an admirable and important job. To recognize that for First Nations to engage the dominant culture they must do so both in their own way but on the battlefields of law and academia is not necessarily a new concept but to lay out a plan that may encourage people to take up verbal arms is. Turner recognizes that both forms are important for the overall success of future negotiations. It is the implementation of this plan that requires a great deal more work as well as fully recognizing the importance of traditional values.

While First Nations have become more panistic it is important to recognize that even though there may be significant language and value system differences there are still recognizable and verifiable similarities that identify First Nations thought and philosophy. The most recognizable being that of the interconnectedness and inclusion of all things. While this may be represented by some philosophies as the Sacred Circle it is important to remember that this is merely a representation and not an entirely accurate one at that. It is helpful for ritual and symbolism but does not describe this concept as well as it might. The best analogy that I can think if that actually encompasses this philosophy would better be described as a globule of liquid in zero gravity. While it may mostly retain a circular shape it by no means is entirely spherical, nor does it have a particular point of power or importance. The whole is important, not any one facet. So to translate this to the world view of First Nations it means things such as spirituality are not a separate or ignorable part of existence. The spirit world is not a separate one from this, but in fact an active and vital part.

Turner does not address spirituality, and his reasons for avoiding it until just a few pages before the conclusion. His reason behind this is somehow privileging the spiritual knowledge yet for First Nations all acts are spiritual acts. Spirituality is not the sole province of a select few but the very ways in which an individual must live. Turner explains on page 115, “I am indigenous, yet I am not an indigenous philosopher; and therefore I ought not to place myself in the privileged position of explaining the meaning of indigenous spirituality.” This statement itself shows Turner’s lack of understanding that even without being an indigenous philosopher, that if he is engaging the role of creating a coherent and lasting Indigenous Philosophy then he is partaking of that spirituality as well.

To explain this let’s turn to Jordan Paper’s book Native North American Religious Traditions. In the introduction he speaks of many things that may be seen as general components of these practices but the one line that is most profound in this introduction is this from page 4: “These are religions of doing, of spontaneity, of taking active responsibility for one’s spiritual life and of encountering the spirits with one’s entire being.” Simply put, if you are to engage in Native philosophy you must also engage it from a spiritual, a holistic, point of view. To fail to do this will ultimately cause the entire theory to fail as it is not dealing with the entire issue. Turner fails to do this and offers up the excuse that since he does not have the specialized knowledge he cannot explain it. While there is specialized knowledge in certain aspects of ritual and knowledge, spiritual actions are not in of themselves limited to these specific times. On this principle Turner fails to recognize the importance of this central tenant of First Nations ideology.

To compound this error Turner then goes on to place qualifiers that eliminate a great many individuals from the role of a word warrior. The first qualifier is that “Aboriginal intellectuals must develop a community of practitioners within the existing dominant legal and political intellectual communities, while remaining an essential part of a thriving indigenous intellectual community.” (Turner 90) Essentially the claim is that to be a word warrior there has to be an outward representation of being wholly “Indian.” I use this term because the claim is one that does not resonate with the central tenant of a holistic approach. Many intellectuals who are from urban communities, from mixed race, or European descent are fully capable of the task of understanding and embracing a First Nations philosophy as well as creating an intellectual community without being purely indigenous. By eliminating these forms of discourse Turner is doing a disservice to those both inside and outside of indigenous communities who are attempting to forward the goals of First Nation sovereignty and rights.

This stance is doubled by Turner’s claim that certain types of knowledge must be privileged and held to only indigenous communities. He suggests that only by protecting and keeping traditional values from European culture can they retain their purity. This again flies in the face of the central tenant of inclusion. By creating a separation that does not invite equal participation how can an indigenous philosophy grounded in ideals from both societies ever be understood without the application of both dialogues. If word warriors are to be the bridge between worlds then it requires that they share the knowledge of their own culture so that it can be understood. While there will be difficulties in translation between both world views it is impossible to create a space of negotiation without at least finding a common ground from which to work.

In answer to these failures by Turner I would instead suggest merely two qualifiers for word warriors and how these would implement best in Turner’s goal of creating a new indigenous philosophy. First is the knowledge of both worlds. Here I agree with Turner; the only way in which First Nations will be able to address the dominant culture is by understanding both it and how First Nations world views can be used within these frame works. Already this is being accomplished as many First Nation professionals inhabit areas where these two worlds are at play. Specific examples would include professors, lawyers, and creative writers. While art may not hold the key to an exact problem the creation of art that focuses on indigenous issues still allows the beginning and the sustainability of fruitful dialogues.

The second qualifier has more to do with intent than anything else. A respectful and complete understanding of First Nation goals and ideals and the willingness to participate in those same ideals as both an individual and a member of the community. This can be anything from fully living in an indigenous community to participating in those ceremonies that would engender a feeling of community between various parties. The reason for this lack of strict definition yet still having this component has more to do with the nature of First Nations interaction than any exacting need for word warriors to be held to a certain ideal.

The name of Turner’s book alludes to the practice of initial Europeans using the pipes they were given as carte blanche means to invade and manipulate First Nation people and customs. This practice came about both from misunderstanding of the importance of those pipes but also a need to gain an advantage over the First Nations. By dispelling the myths and misunderstandings First Nations culture may eventually be able to overcome the prejudices and cultural means through which they are dominated. Recognition of the ideals and world views that are apparent in the dominant culture by sharing the ritual and spiritual knowledge may help to overcome a great deal of the adverse situations that currently afflict both the First Nations people and the continued negotiation and settlement of treaty claims and rights.

Turner’s definition of word warriors is flawed and dangerous to the overall health of First Nations culture and its relationship to the dominant culture. When he ignores the spiritual aspect he undermines the central tenant of the First Nation world view and devalues the culture. By allowing the definition of word warriors to be expanded beyond Turner’s flawed view and disseminating a world view that would encompass more than what is currently viewed would greatly increase the chance for a renewed and rewarding relationship between First Nations and the dominant culture.