Exploring Kiki-Inoomgugaewin: Anishnaabeg Youth Multilingualism & Technology~ a Participatory Narrative Inquiry

EXPLORING KIKI-INOOMGUGAEWIN: ANISHNAABEG YOUTH MULTILINGUALISM & TECHNOLOGY~ A PARTICIPATORY NARRATIVE INQUIRY

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Nogojiwanong (Peterborough), Ontario, Canada

Sustainability Studies M.A. Graduate Program

May 2019 ii

Abstract

Exploring Kiki-inoomgugaewin: Anishnaabeg Youth Multilingualism & Technology~ A Participatory Narrative Inquiry

Samantha Holly Cunningham

This case study contributes to scholarship surrounding the national conversation on

Indigenous language sustainability in North America. Much of this scholarship provides insight on structuring language programs and policies for youth, leaving a tremendous research gap regarding sociolinguistic and cultural research with youth. Youth appear disinterested or otherwise set apart in current research from the development of policies and curriculum concerned with heritage languages. Upon closer inspection; however, youth are engaged and using innovative and different tools than previous generations. This exploration is a foundational case study which builds upon research highlighting the nature of Indigenous language loss in the south1 as a time sensitive phenomenon as the application of cognitive imperialism and colonial tactics within mainstream schools continue to conceal a large scale cultural and linguistic genocide in Canada.

Although Indigenous language loss may seem of concern to only small groups of linguists and dialectic communities, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about reconciliation or closing the tremendous gap in accessing equitable education. The preservation of Indigenous languages and knowledge systems should also be of interest to those parties who seek to comprehensively understand the Natural World and whom have a vested interest in the survival of the planet and protection of the enviroment. Because of

1 This is not to say that Indigenous languages in the Northern Canada have not been affected; however, research and census data has shown that northern language health is in better shape than southern dialects. Vitality, fluency and usage of Indigenous language dialects especially in Canada’s more geographically isolated Northern regions is significant. (Coronel-Molina & McCarty)

iii

these realities, the viewpoints and experiences of all concerned parties are essential. It follows then, that the youth perspective is significant.

To address this gap, participatory narrative inquiry was used as a theoretical framework to conduct a foundational case study in which detailed consideration was given to exploring the lived narratives of three Anishnaabeg participants to establish the value of

Indigenous youth voice in alternative forms of sociolinguistic and culturally sustainable language learning in the 21st century, and, to strengthen the argument that more research is needed in the field of first-person youth studies.

The results of this case study will be useful, specifically, to localized communities of Anishnaabe youth with and for whom much of the research was conducted, and, more generally to youth resistance work focused on media and technology in globalized and contemporary language and cultural ecologies. Research outcomes indicated potential directions for future research in different contexts and localities by presenting commonalities within the fields of social and political engagement and their connection to language and new media in youth populations. It is hoped that this initial material pinpointing a research gap in Indigenous youth language studies will be used to investigate future research in this field.

Keywords: youth studies, youth resistance, Anishnaabe, sociolinguistics, identity, decolonization, ally-ship, technology Anishnaabemowin, Indigenous language, sustainability

N’miigwechwiwaag/Acknowledgements

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which Trent University sits, Nogojiwanong, is the traditional territory of the Michi Saagiig Anishnaabeg.

This territory is also covered by the Williams Treaties (1923).

Chi-miigwetch to the Anishnaabeg for the opportunity to reside in this territory and to the Anishnaabe youth, educators and professionals who shared their insights and knowledge(s) with me through their participation in this study.

It seems surreal to finally be writing the acknowledgements of this Masters’ work after a long journey to get to this point. It really takes a village, and, if not for a host of people and resources, this thesis would never have been realized.

First and foremost, I extend my gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Paula Sherman, Director,

Indigenous Studies Ph.D. program at Trent University. She consistently allowed this project to be my original work but would steer me in the right direction whenever she thought I needed it or I had a question about my research or protocol. I am appreciative of all of her support. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude to committee member and second reader of this thesis, Professor David Newhouse, Chair of the Department of Indigenous Studies and Associate Professor, School of Business at Trent University. I am grateful for his experience and valuable suggestions on this thesis. To the other experts at Trent University who were involved in the development and creation of this thesis I say thank you. Associate Professor, Michele

Lacombe, who provided support with my updated ethics proposal, as well as suggesting pertinent resources to consider. A thank you must also be extended to both Todd Barr and John Marris formerly of the Trent

Community Research Centre (TCRC) for all their support.

Within my broader community, to Charlene Greene and the women of the Nawewin

Anishnaabemowin Feasibility Study I am forever indebted to you all for the myriad of opportunities you afforded me by allowing me to work with you as your student researcher. To the communities of Alderville

First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Six Nations of the Grand River, and the urban Anishnaabeg population in the city of Peterborough who graciously shared and taught me valuable things that aided and changed me throughout this journey. To my coworkers at Anishnaabe Kwewag Gamig, Inc. Alderville Women’s Shelter for their unwavering support, pep talks and flexibility in accommodating my seemingly never-ending academic journey.

To my amazing participants who graciously allowed me to pick their brains and share their valuable insights with a broad audience. Hopefully this is just the beginning of what is going to be a lifelong and eventful journey into youth resistance work and policy innovation. I am forever in your debt.

To my family: my supportive parents who taught me the value of questioning the status quo and who passed on the understanding that people are made up of their stories. My brother, Spencer, for the moral support and for a place to crash. Chi-miigwetch and thank you to my in-law family for all their kindness and support in this journey. Thank you to my best friend, Katie, who steadfastly was there in the trenches with me.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my fiancé, Kristofer, for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. Kris—I could not have accomplished this milestone without you. You have been there every step of the way and I cannot even express how fortunate I feel for that. Miigwetch for keeping me caffeinated and above water. I love you for that, and for everything else.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract...………………………………………………………………………………...ii N’miigwechwiwaag/Acknowledgements...………………………………………….…..iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………..vi Glossary and Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………ix

Foreword: Exploring Kikiinoomgugaewin……………………………………………..x

Chapter 1: Aanii: Opening Words…..………………………………………………...... 1 Introduction to The Research Problem……………………………………………………1 Positionality Statement...……………………………………………………………….....8 Research Design: Researcher Language Background…………………………………...16 Research Design: Anishnaabeg Language Identity Development……………………….20 Research Design: Methodology and Methods…………………………………………...22 Situating The Research: Findings, Context and Limitations…………………………….24 Research Ethics…………………………………………………………………………..28

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….31 Chapter 2: Review of Indigenous Language Scholarship in Canada………...……...33 Preface……………………………………………………………………………………33 Introduction: The Study and Science Of Language In Academia……………………….34 Preliminary Observation of Language Beginnings and Connection to Place……………39 Indigeneity and Engagement: The Meaning Behind Pre-Colonial Indigenous Knowledge(s) & Place-Based Consciousness…………………………………………...44 A Contemporary Shift in Linguistic Research…………………………………………...52 Nishnaabemowin- The “Voice” of the Anishnaabeg…………………………………….56 Post-Contact Emerging Educational Policies: Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers/Peter Jones) & Zhingwaakoons (Little Pines/John Sunday)…………………………………...62 Broken Promises and the Indian Residential School Era………………………………...70 Developing an Indigenous Literary Tradition (1960-Present)…………………………...75 Contemporary Language Policy Development and Funding………………………….…80 The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996)…………………………………...80 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Language and Cultural Recommendations (2014)…………………………………………………………………………………….81

vii

The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act- Anishinabek Control of Education………………………………………………………………………………...83 Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement……………………………………………...85 Aboriginal Language Initiative Program & Canada-Territorial Language Accords…….87 Youth Presence in Indigenous Language Engagement: Trans-languaging, Technology & Innovation………………………………………………………………………………..89

Chapter 3: The Methodology & Research Methods……………………………….....98 The Methodology………………………………………………………………………...98 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………..98 The Research Question…………………………………………………………………100 Overview of Methodology and Research Design………………………………………101 Relational Qualitative Research………………………………………………………...101 Narrative Inquiry: The Limitations……………………………………………………..107 P.N.I..: Collection, Sense-Making: Mind-Mapping Technique………………………...112 Return…………………………………………………………………………………...115 The Methods…………………………………………………………………………...120 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..120 Participants……………………………………………………………………………...123 Instrumentation and Data Collection…………………………………………………...124 Interview Structure……………………………………………………………………...124 The Semi-Structured Interview Method…………………………………... …………..125 The Relational Interview Method: The Focused Life-Story……………………………127 Hybridized Interview Method: The Interview Relationship & Process………………...128 The Interview Process…………………………………………………………………..129 Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………………….132 Pseudonyms & Naming………………………………………………………………...134 Transcriptions…………………………………………………………………………..135 Evaluation of Data……………………………………………………………………...136 Analysis & Interpretation of Findings: Creating a Mind-Map…………………………136 Sources Gathered……………………………………………………………………….139

viii

Field Texts-The Raw Stories of Personal Experience…………………..…...…………139 Interim Texts- A Diversity of Perspectives & Experiences…………………………….140 Final Research Texts-Narrative Group Sense-Making…………………………………141 Article A. Hybridized Data Collection Method………………………………………...143 Chapter 4: The Findings & Discussion Chapter…………………………………….144 Findings- Introduction & Previous Research…………………………………………...144 Meeting the Participants………………………………………………………………..148 Participant #1…………………………………………………………………………...149 Kristofer………………………………………………………………………………...149 Thomas………………………………………………………………………………….151 Waabindaandebawewin/Marjolaine…………………………………………………….152 Findings: Collection Phase: Overview of Methodology & Research Design…………153 Analysis: The Sense-Making Phase……………………………………………………156 Sense-Making: Mind-Map Themes Established in Interviews……………...... 159 Article B. Sense-Making: Central Themes……………………………………………..160 Analysis: Sense-Making- Emergent Themes Weaving the Narrative…………………162 Article C. Triangulation of Meaning…………………………………………………...204 Discussion: The Return Phase………………………………………………………….220 Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………………...223 Chapter 5: Conclusion:………………………………………………………………..226 Recapitulation of Research Purpose & Findings……………………………………….226 Relationship with Previous Research…………………………………………………...227 Limitations & Obstacles Arising During the Research Journey………………………..228 Implication of the Findings……………………………………………………………..231 Recommendations (For Research; For Action/Policy/Change)………………………...232 Contributions……………………………………………………………………………233 Autobiographical Reflection……………………………………………………………236 Maziniaganan Gii Gindanaanan/Works Cited……………………………………...238 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………..254 A: Pre-Research Practicum Experience-Nawewin Board of Directors-Anishnaabemowin Feasibility Study………………………………………………………………………..254 B: Interview Consent Form……………………………………………………………..271

Glossary & Abbreviations Aboriginal: a legal term under Section 35 of the Constitutional Act of 1982. In Canada, “Aboriginal Peoples” consist of three groups—Indian (First Nations), Inuit and Métis.

Within the context of this thesis work the terms “Aboriginal” and “Indian” are only used in the context of Section 35 and the Indian Act of 1876.

Every effort was made to recognize the proper names of specific Nations as referred to by the community, often in the original languages. This was done in an effort to combat the widescale colonial erasure of pan- Indigenousness through the use of “collective” terms for distinct Nations.

Anishnaabe or Anishnaabeg (plural): is the autonym for a group of culturally related Indigenous Peoples in Canada and the United States that include the Odawa, Ojibwe, Potawatomi, Oji-Cree, Mississaugas, Chippewa and Algonquin Peoples.

The word Anishnaabeg translates to “people from whence lowered.”

Anishnaabemowin: the Ojibway language of which spelling, and pronunciation may vary territorially reflecting varying localities, territories, contacts, and, histories.

IK: Indigenous and/or traditional Knowledge

Indian Act (1876): post-confederation the principal statute through which the federal government administers Indian Status, local First Nations governments and the management of reserve land, wills, resources, education, and communal monies.

Indian Status: An individual recognized by the federal government as being registered under the Indian Act.

Michi Saagiig: the Mississauga Anishnaabe

Ojibway: commonly used term to refer to the Anishnaabe as a collective

RCAP: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is a Canadian Royal Commission established in 1991 to address many issues of Aboriginal status that had come to light in the 1990’s with recent events such as the Oka Crisis, and the Meech Lake Accord. The commission culminated in a final report of 4000 pages, published in 1996.

TRC: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2014) is a commission tasked with discovering and revealing governmental wrongdoings, in the hope of raising awareness of intergenerational trauma and addressing conflict and shortcomings.

Foreword: Exploring Kikiinoomgugaewin

Kiki- • contains KIKI which connects: • maashkiki (medicine) inoomgugaewin • aki (earth)

this word also • Kino contains • Kina "Everything"

• the verb for "teach," which is related to: • Gikendaan (to know); and, the core of the • Kinowaabmaa (to observe) • The win at the end of the word is a removeable part word is: in Anishnaabemowin often used to turn a verb into Kinomaage a noun. (Noodin 2014)

The chart above seeks to lay out visually one concept in the language, Anishnaabemowin, within whose structure, concepts and words, are entirely reflexive and action-oriented.

Within this language the signification of the sound/word occurs simultaneously to the meaning of the sound/word. Therefore, a thing can both “be” and also is “being” at the same time. Completely intertwined and in relationship to everything around it.

I have chosen to title this thesis, “Exploring Kiki-inoomgugaewin” to begin from the first words to lay out the core philosophy which runs throughout this work; the integral importance of a language to its people and to their understanding of the world and to lay out clearly the unambiguous difference of worldviews housed within this language in contrast to the English language.

For Anishnnabeg speakers, I feel that understanding this choice will come more easily, because what is lost in the translation of Anishnaabeg concepts, words and sounds

into English will be seen with a clarity. For non-speakers and for those coming to this thesis work from a different frame of reference and worldview, I do hope that the inclusion of juxtaposition between the English word “Knowledge” and the Anishnaabemowin concept of “kiki-inoomgugaewin,” will help to bridge the gap in understanding the vast difference in worldviews built into the bare bones of the language and will therefore bring into stark contrast the significance of this study, as well as acknowledge all the work and research which has come before and the unwavering dedication of language teachers, students,

Elders, community members and parents who are fighting this battle of language loss.

Knowledge comes to people by way of their experiences in life. Therefore, storying and narrative are fundamental to enriching both qualitative research and to experiencing life. Hearing another’s’ story is one of the solitary ways that you are truly afforded a small glimpse into their lived experience. First-person narratives and trust relationships which bring about these situations of sharing are fundamental to cross-cultural dialogues and understanding.

Lived experiences differ from person to person and culture to culture and no one holds the monopoly on “legitimate” knowledge. We acquire our knowledge of ourselves, of relationships and of the world around us through living life and obtaining guidance from role models, and from our communities. For many of us, even Settlers like me, our original understanding of education starts in the home or communities in which we live long before we enter an institutional setting of education. I have accepted as truth that we cannot truly acquire knowledge through second-hand accounts alone. It is our stories of acquiring knowledge through practice which make us who we are. It is how we can express our

xii

individual and collective knowledges to the world around us from a place of knowing or being in the process of knowing and learning.

Formal western systems of education are fashioned around the industrial revolution model. This is a model centered on standardized testing and cookie-cutter success based on prepping students to transition efficiently into careers and status-quo society. This type of knowledge is most often defined as a series of facts, information and skills developed by an individual through experience and education; both theoretical and practical understanding of the subject at hand. However, in my humble opinion this system of education lacks the ability to create and build critical thinkers who are empathetic and concerned about humanity. In this time of global crisis, the sustainability of the planet rests on our ability to choose empathy and relationship. We need to create human beings who are putting their collective brain power into dismantling archaic societal systems and into arresting the destruction of the planet, instead of holding firm to colonial systems which are not sustainable.

Many Indigenous cultures were and are sustainable cultures. Anishnaabeg linguist, scholar and storyteller the late Basil Johnston explores in many of his works an

Anishnaabeg way of being in the world (Noodin 111). It is to him that I turn to comprehensively unpack the word kiki-inoomgugaewin which is the word he offers to convey the Anishnaabe philosophy of knowing and being in the world; the acquisition of knowledge:

‘In English he explains that this word represents, “what men and women teach [to]

prepare the minds of their youth to look for and to see relationships between insects,

birds, animals, fish, the land and the seasons; their spirits to reach out to the spirits

xiii

and the Spirit World; their hearts to take up compassion, selflessness, courage, love,

respect, honesty, tenacity and all their kindred attributes; and their inner senses to

perceive things that are beyond the reach of their physical senses”’ (Noodin 112).

Johnston does not offer up as the English translation “knowledge” as most dictionaries do.

He breaks down the philosophy from an Anishnaabeg perspective of universal understanding that is essential for living as Anishnaabe people (Noodin 112).

In the spirit of decolonial learning I offer up the words of one of my primary

Anishnaabe participants and elementary school teacher, Marjolaine Lapointe, when speaking about Anishnaabemowin and Anishnaabe philosophy in combatting colonization and the colonial mindset, “…Until you understand the depth of that language, you don’t have access to, I suppose…to that…way of thinking that cannot be colonized, like it just can’t. Which is kind of cool, but also lends itself to understanding the enormity of what has happened with colonization.” With this I present the following Case study in the hopes of adding to the ongoing discussion.

Chapter One: Aanii: Opening Words Indigenous youth are survivors not victims. (Quispe)

Introduction to the Research Problem Globally, Indigenous communities have been forcefully engaged in efforts to combat linguicide by reclaiming and revitalizing their heritage languages. While the approaches and circumstances of these efforts differ per context, there exists a commonality to this fight—the goal of ensuring language and cultural sustainability for present and future generations of youth so that they may have access to language practices which have maintained distinct knowledge systems and connections to place and Nations inter- generationally since time immemorial (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). The purpose of this case study is to provide an overview of the research being conducted, as well as to add to the growing scholarship regarding language and cultural sustainability within the youth demographic.

Language is a form of social practice, and all social practices are tied to specific historical contexts. Contemporary social relations in language have been both reproduced and resisted within Canada. The positioning of languages and texts directly relate to positions of power (Foucault; Cote-Meeks; Smith L. Decolonial Methodologies). This study provides the reader with a summary of the current state of language affairs in Canada and a lens through which to begin asking questions regarding power struggles and the reconstitution of colonialism by way of which languages and texts have been positioned as significant in Canada over the period since contact.

Although Foucault’s foundational work does not give any guidance on how to resist dominion of power, they are relevant to the discussion of power struggles and colonialism.

This is because his works do argue that power is artificially shaped and exercised by the source: the institution (Foucault). Post-colonial theorist, Edward W. Said’s, work both supports and expands upon the idea that power is created and formed by the institution, and further explains the need to analyze this power (Said). As decolonial scholars we must always be cognizant of this space of analysis of power as we are always functioning within these power structures. As it relates to this case study, it is important to note that languages become endangered when speakers are forced or encouraged to abandon their languages for a ‘dominant tongue’ (Harrison; Wyman; “Royal Commission on Aboriginal People”).

Within this study, whom is responsible for setting the standard pertaining to language dominance is investigated and clearly laid out.

During the settlement period on this continent, Indigenous languages and cultures were attacked by colonists who sought to eradicate Indigenous presence in this place forcing sociolinguistic shifts to what settlers viewed as the “dominant,” read European, languages and cultures, causing extensive community disruption for Indigenous Nations.

This is not to say that there were not many Indigenous leaders who saw the benefit of becoming multilingual; however, multilingualism was not only pursued in the interests of the survival of distinct Indigenous Nations through business, trade and military interests

(Smith, Mississauga Portraits; Sacred Feathers). The reality is that the majority of leaders and communities were forced to become bilingual and then stripped of their own languages by the colonial newcomers.

The pursuit of being multilingual was not a foreign concept to Indigenous Nations prior to contact as can be seen in the various regional dialectic differences of specific heritage languages according to territory, not to mention the nature of trade languages.

However, Indigenous accounts of the settlement period provide extensive proof that being strong in both traditional and western knowledge systems was the goal of Nations, not complete assimilation to a colonialist worldview nor language.

Indigenous Youth have been particularly affected by rapid sociolinguistic and cultural shifts as a result of the continuing effects of colonization and intergenerational disruption. When connecting cultural identity with Indigenous languages often, “pre-

Western lifestyles are focused on by the general [and settler] populations when assigning

Indigenous identity” (emphasis added Wilson & Kamanã 189). Often Indigenous youth pinpoint these internalized views as a barrier to developing their identities as autonomous and contemporary Indigenous Peoples. This insight is significant because there is an existence of a large research gap in the scholarship relating to “youth voice” concerning language loss, despite the fact, that Indigenous youth are arguably the main stakeholders in language resurgence and the future of Anishnaabemowin.

Youth studies regarding language revitalization suggest that we, “must overcome the ‘two worlds2’ philosophy of placing Indigenous languages and cultures solely in the past” (Wilson & Kamanã 191). Youth view outdated philosophies as limiting, to take a case in point, the “two worlds” philosophy often includes a, “rejection by elders and others of the creation of new vocabulary for the contemporary lifestyles of Indigenous youth”

2 “The close association of Indigenous language use with pre-contact—derived subsistence activities is part of a “two worlds” philosophy long promoted for Indigenous peoples in colonial schools…under this philosophy, one’s life is divided between participation in both a “culture-less” world of modernity and a “culture-based” Indigenous world tied to elders raised in the past” (Wilson & Kamanã 190). It follows, then that the promotion of this philosophy is promoted for rather than with Indigenous students in the colonial system and also perpetuates culture as only accessible in the distant past, rather than a mutable and evolving system—pitting Indigenous and Western worldviews as opposing, modern versus ancient, rather than existing in the same time and context.

(Wilson & Kamanã 191). The scant first-person youth voice research which exists focuses largely on modern youth methods of connecting with language and culture through social media and new communicative technologies (O'Connor & Brown 48-69; Wyman, McCarty

& Nicholas). All of these technological methods firmly established within the modern world of Anishnaabemowin and contemporary Anishnaabeg identity development.

Within the geographic and dialectic area in which this case study is grounded, there currently exists no primary research which centers first-person Anishnaabeg youth voice in the fight to engage with Anishnaabemowin as contemporary Anishnaabe people.

Accordingly, this study sought answers for the following research question: “How are

Anishnaabeg Youth engaging with Anishnaabemowin language and cultural learning in the early 21st century?”

We are currently at a crossroads in this country; addressing the stories that we live by is a way forward to a better future for tomorrow’s youth. The misconception that some cultures and their languages are “primitive,” is a delusion perpetuated by colonial whitewashing of histories and is damaging for contemporary youth. The perpetuation of language superiority by Europeans was just one of many tactics used in North America to justify the forced eradication of Indigenous languages on a massive scale. Government policies and the perpetuation of foreign social structures have shaped language choice and/or usage among contemporary Indigenous peoples (“Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada”). As sustenance author, Gary Holthaus reminds us, prior to contact in the Americas, “over millennia [Indigenous Nations had] developed sophisticated, complex, integrated, and meaningful cultures, yet in recent years their cultural integrity has

suffered enormous onslaughts” at the hands of European migration, eradication and assimilative policies, the Church and other state sanctioned institutions (Holthaus 18).

In Canada, the language portrayed as dominant in the public sphere has been

English, and, to a lesser extent French. The English language has been linked to power, financial gain, modernization, globalization, media and the Canadian government as the dominant language or the “language of success.” English has been strategically positioned as a privileged language and dominates life chances pertaining to social stratification, both ascribed-based and achievement-based status (Weber). This portrayal of English as a superior way to understand the world, is a social construct, much like the use of class, gender, sex, and race (Stoler). These social constructs perpetuate the colonial mindset which forms and preserves insidious structures meant to oppress, devalue and separate certain languages, cultures and groups of people from mainstream society through exercises of social and economic exclusion while enforcing continued attempts to realize the goals of forced assimilation.

Yet, English was not historically the dominant language on Turtle Island, even post- contact. Early explorers and traders learned the language of particular territories, in this case, Anishnaabemowin, in the interests of survival, trade and commerce (Kinew).

Holthaus points out the fallacy of the current colonial mindset; these binaries which are ingrained within our current settler structures are set- up as ‘naturalized,’ when the fact is that all cultures derived from cultures that were, at their foundation, sustainable.

Sustainable worldviews based as they are on relationships, especially with the land, and on the recognition of interconnectedness (Holthaus; Cajete; Absolon).

The federal government’s own 1996 report entitled the “Royal Commission on

Aboriginal People” clearly lays out this country’s imposition of a colonial relationship on

Indigenous Nations (Walia 241). In addition, the RCAP specifically addresses language ecology and what they describe as the, “eclipse of ‘marginal’ languages in favour of more

[politically and culturally] dominant languages” (RCAP, “2.3 Language Maintenance and

Identity”). An understanding of why a language shift may be occurring allows the situation of Indigenous language loss in Canada to be considered in a broader context and “avoids the perception that the decline in Aboriginal languages is unique in all respects” (RCAP,

“2.3 Language Maintenance and Identity”).

While there are many factors that contribute to the decline in language practice worldwide, the underlying reason for the decline of Indigenous language use in North

America is the result of linguistic and cultural genocide forcing transmission interruptions between older and younger speakers. Lower transmission and a lack of language proficiency is an active and lasting result of policies devised by the American and Canadian governments respectively and are enforced systematically. These policies directly prohibited and attacked Indigenous families by removing children from their communities and cultures, and, eliminating language from children’s minds in an attempt to abolish the world-view embodied in those languages (RCAP, “2.1 The Importance of Language”;

RCAP, “2.3 Language Maintenance and Identity”).

Contemporarily, many of the efforts surrounding Indigenous language and cultural resurgence are carried out within the mainstream school system; problematic because, historically, conventional classrooms have been primary locations for enforcing

Indigenous linguistic and cultural repression, particularly for youth (Wyman, McCarty &

Nicholas; Cote-Meek). By promoting western knowledge systems as the default within the school system; Indigenous students remain confronted by narratives of colonial violence such as erasure or devaluing within the classroom, while at the same time, navigating existences of neo-colonialism daily. Moreover, Eurocentric ideals are still entrenched within North American societal structures, the minds of non-Indigenous peoples and the pillars of colonial systems surrounding them (Cote-Meek).

Approximately 7,000 languages are spoken globally (Harrison, The Last Speakers).

Every one of these languages is tied intimately to its speakers’ cultural identity and the sustainability of their epistemology and ontology (Meyer; Cajete). Within Canada alone, there are eleven Indigenous language families, fifty-three languages, and over two-hundred dialects; and, many of these Indigenous languages on Turtle Island are disappearing at an alarming rate (Charleston & McDonald-Jacobs). Broadening our understanding of why language ecologies are shifting is one way to highlight and speak out against the power discrepancies within the current colonial systems.

The following research illustrates the history of both loss and continued survival and maintenance of Indigenous languages on Turtle Island (within the borders of the region known as Canada), with a special emphasis on Anishinaabemowin. We will examine the broad range of existing linguistic and Indigenous language studies and foci of those efforts, as well as highlight the research gap that exists when addressing youth agency and sociolinguistic innovation in the fight for intergenerational transfer and linguistic human rights, specific to individual lived experiences within the geographic location of southern

Ontario and regarding the Anishnaabemowin language (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas).

Positionality Statement

I enter this research as a non-Anishnaabe Settler Ally, a “zhaagnaashiikwe,” with strong ties to Anishnaabeg people and communities. My unique positionality within this research offers only one possibility for examining this topic. According to Sultana, “[i]t is critical to pay attention to positionality, reflexivity, the production of knowledge and the power relations that are inherent in the research process in order to undertake ethical research…”

(380). By extension, I feel that this statement is especially significant to recognize when research with Indigenous participants and concerning Indigenous Knowledge(s) is carried out by a non-Indigenous researcher. This carries with it ethical considerations that must be kept in mind at all times.

While admittedly, my worldview has been shaped by western colonial systems, by actively locating and analyzing these specific fixed aspects of my identity, the development of how I navigate my “self” in the world is not predisposed towards only a western perspective. In part, my identity has been informed by the embodied knowledge acquired from my personal history, my lived experiences and relationships I have developed with

Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous peoples. Through these relationships and associated contextual and subjective contexts, I work continuously to decolonize my ways of knowing and being in the world.

The favoring of western knowledge systems endures pervasively within mainstream research structures. This is because conventional Knowledge systems are built on controlling, appropriating and using knowledge(s) and developing their “meanings” to exercise power over other knowledge systems and the lands they emerge from, with little

to no regard for the histories, cultures or communities which developed them over millennia. In colonial contexts, the production of western knowledge continues to supersede or devalue different knowledge systems in academia.

When it comes to studying the phenomenon of cultural and language accessibility and sustainability for Anishnaabeg youth, this research is important to me not only academically or professionally, but also personally. Although some readers may object to a non-Anishnaabe researcher conducting this work, it is being done with the consent of

Anishinaabeg people and using ethical research principles and protocols. The case study furthers long-standing relationships with Anishnaabeg people and supports their ongoing work in the community.

As a Settler, it is specifically important to me to acknowledge and address ongoing colonial systems of oppression. Marie Battiste suggests, that one cannot be the global doctor if you are the colonial disease. According to Battiste, the perpetuation of,

“‘[g]lobalization’ continues patterns of imperialism privileging Eurocentric thought, [and]

Indigenous communities find themselves still locked in the continuing struggle to overcome the destructive effects of colonization” (Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision

121). I agree that cognitive imperialism, in addition to, a perpetuation of Canada as a

“gentle” and “ethical” nation gridlocks both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in a dominant narrative which perpetuates colonial violence, erasure and discrimination.

Likewise, adopting assimilative terms such as “universality” and “globalization” ignore the root of inequity and allow the colonial narrative to persist. I believe this because my experience as an educator and counsellor confirms it.

Within this research, I offer a lens which has been predetermined by my lived experience. In my professional work, I have been influenced by Indigenous and students of colour who have shared with me their frustrations and challenges in navigating a western colonial education system. In response to the trust that students have placed in me in sharing their stories I have a personal responsibility to guarantee that I am employing teaching practices which will promote the highest level of success for all of my students, hence, the experiences that they bring into the classroom with them must be considered and diverse perspectives must be celebrated (Nieto; Pleasants; Pollock; Emdin).

My personal and professional life are directly connected to the Michi Saagiig

Anishnaabe community of Alderville First Nation. Alderville is my partner’s home community and it is also the community in which I live and work. Within the community, extensive work is being done by community members to bring back culture, land stewardship, hunting and fishing practices, language and ceremony. It is my hope that my

Graduate research with youth will aid in furthering the goals of the community. As an insider-outsider, I understand that my position academically could potentially be used by the community as an ally for potential research and/or to aid with research proposals and funding opportunities. This research will offer a unique perspective of youth language ecology as a phenomenon which will hopefully provide insight for future Anishnaabe researchers from the community.

My extended in-law family and partner have backed me on this journey; confirming that it is appropriate for me to conduct this work as a non-Anishnaabe person because I am recognized as family and as a community member. They believe that I have built up necessary long-term relationships and that I am coming at the research from a good place

with a good mind and heart. That said, solidarity with a community or group as a non-

Indigenous researcher in Indigenous spaces translates to committing to building long-term relationships of accountability and to maintaining relationships of ongoing support and consent with the Indigenous community. Settler researchers must never assume or take for granted the personal or political trust of the Nation with whom they are working. These relationships are built over time and require constant dialoguing and mutual respect (Walia

243).

Collectively, my partner and I see the importance of retaining and passing down

Anishinaabemowin and as much Indigenous Knowledge as we can to our potential future children and children in the family. I chose to pursue this research because my work with youth is my calling and I am also committed to decolonizing my existence in the

Anishnaabe homeland through accountability, self-education, listening to communities who are affected, and by doing my part to educate other Settlers about our joint responsibility within Treaty agreements and within the movement towards reconciliation.

As Settler scholar Paulette Regan, states:

Telling the whole truth about the history [of Turtle Island] …means that settlers

must consider the possibility that our relationship with [Indigenous] people has

never been predominantly peaceful or reconciliatory. Deconstructing our identity

and history necessitates a rethinking of what constitutes as violence as well as a

closer investigation of its more nuanced forms (5).

It must be compulsory for Settler researchers working with Indigenous populations to think critically about our histories, our existence here in Indigenous homelands. There

is a requirement to address our “whiteness” and our constructed settler narratives to even attempt cross-cultural understanding. Colonization as a mindset has a long and problematic history of the cavalier appropriation of languages and cultures. Cross-cultural reading must be questioned in all cultures. When literature is separated from language much is lost in both the structural translation, in addition to the way that meaning is being construed

(Noodin 24). Noodin believes that, “[w]henever possible, the oldest Anishinaabe stories should be recorded by someone both fluent in Anishinaabemowin and acknowledged by the community as capable of telling stories…Only in the complex unaltered [I]ndigenous narratives are the richest deposits of knowledge found” (Noodin 24).

For many Settlers, perhaps drawing parallels between how our own ancestors alternately accommodated and resisted the cultural and economic assault of colonialism before our eventual dispossession and forced migration is critical to decolonizing our own existences in this place. There are many haunting parallels to be drawn between the

Highland Clearances and instances of Indigenous dispossession in the Americas, such as,

Indian Removal and the establishment of the reservation system (Calloway). Our histories are not the same, but within these histories there are aspects of colonialism and dispossession from which equivalents may be drawn. “[Settlers] are not descendants of a culture that was poisoned at the root…” (Holthaus 178). That said, “[t]here is no justifiable defense for the cultural devastation, ethnocide, and…genocide that Western institutions have wrought since Europeans’ arrival on these shores” (Holthaus 19). The simple fact is that we are still only beginning to have a conversation about reconciliation after over 500 years of genocide and trauma inflicted on Indigenous Nations. Therefore, it was critical for me to center Anishnaabeg voice within this study even though the current colonial system

guarantees that Anishnaabeg youth must continue to try and recover language and culture within the neo-colonial contexts which settlers have created. It is my belief that unless current colonial systems are entirely dismantled and rebuilt that limitations within institutional contexts will continue to exist.

One such pervasive colonial structure that perseveres has been the construction of whiteness as a system. Being an active and engaged Ally has made speaking about race a common occurrence in my everyday life. Part of my own personal self-education has been about naming the problem, explicitly that white people in general are uncomfortable dialoguing about the issue of race; furthermore, we are not at all skilled at naming the true nature of the problem—the social construction of “race” which has no biological reality

(Tochluk 3; Young). This anxiousness stems in part because, along the same lines as the social construction of race, whiteness as a concept is often uncertain. Skin colour being a poor indicator of whether someone is considered “white” (Tochluk 9).

I was raised to think critically about the world around me, as a result, I became aware that as a white European Settler, a lived experience of self-awareness which addresses, and questions structural and systemic oppression can be seen as an anomaly.

However, developing the ability to notice institutional racism allows one to expand their consciousness to address unintended individual racism such as ignorance of socially constructed privilege (Tochluk). I know in retrospect that as an aspect of intersectionality3 and White privilege our family did not have to talk about race and colonial violence at our dinner table because it was not a pervasive reality in our lives. Through the existence of

3 Intersectionality- A mode of thinking that intersects identities and systems of social oppression and domination.

intersectionality, we could have complied with systems set up to benefit whiteness as a construct while at the same time recognizing that we were affected by other factors of oppression, such as, gender, able-bodism and class, but instead we did talk about discrimination, accountability, privilege and relationships.

Many people assume that, “the word racism is synonymous with the word prejudice. But racism is more than just discrimination based on skin color. It’s also about who has institutional power” (Picoult 460). Prejudice can also develop in the absence of personal and communal relationships with the group in question by pre-judging culture(s) and the issues faced by those communities without ever having met the community or having known them personally. A failure to create relationships to inform our ways of being and knowing in the world is perhaps the most damaging and avoidable aspect linked to forming biased opinions regarding that which we do not understand. I can identify with

Tochluk when she writes, “I talk about race quite a bit these days, with family, colleagues, students, friends, and new acquaintances. One of the most common responses I receive when beginning this dialogue with white people for the first time is a sigh, a deep breath, and some type of statement indicating that they are not really comfortable naming “white”

[or recognizing white privilege] as part of their personal identity” (5). And while, admittedly, white people often choose to ignore racial identity for some very understandable reasons, denial only guarantees that we do not have to enter spaces in which

“whiteness” may breed contention or the opportunity to have critical and often uncomfortable dialogues.

Being closed to these dialogues negates opportunities to listen to those living a different experience in the world. Being able to avoid spaces in which race is laid out is an

aspect of privilege. Having the choice as to whether we will talk about race is a choice not afforded to those who are not “white.” A fact which often gets overlooked because those who have been raised to comply with whiteness as a structure are not very good witnesses to our own whiteness; therefore, we leave our own personal relationship to race unexplored

(McIntosh; Tochluk).

For me, one illustration of this lack of an exploration occurs when asking white acquaintances how often they talked about race in everyday life—the majority admitted it was either never or only in a case of glaring racism. Often these discussions enter a space of the defensive where self-protective attitudes of a denial of ingrained biases or observations of difference surface. Rather than instigating productive discussions about the nature of systemic racism or witnessing our own whiteness within the power structures surrounding us, on the contrary, a majority of the discussion inevitably returns to a denial of racism and privilege on a personal level. To put it bluntly, this is the face of privilege and intersectionality, pointing a finger at overt racism while continuously downplaying acts of systematic racism because they do not affect you personally.

Ignoring institutional racism and neglecting conversations of race because of discomfort allows one to continue to develop a sense of “self” in the world which has unintended consequences that usually play out in maladaptive coping techniques such as

“colour-blindness” or the promotion of myths of “universality” at the expense of listening to voices who are most affected—thus creating unintended acts of individual racism

(Tochluk; Barker, “The Contemporary Reality” 325-351; Lowman and Barker).

Even more insidious is the intentional rejection of constructions of whiteness by

Settler people who are benefitting from the system with no regard for those who are discriminated against through that same system. Committing to decolonization should make the frequency of this individualistic and cavalier attitude unsettling and problematic.

Self-education and addressing ingrained behaviours, biases and systemic oppression must be at the forefront of the decolonial journey for Settlers.

I believe that most white settlers have a defining moment in our lives when suddenly “race” as a concept becomes clear and it is in that essential moment that you either begin your decolonial journey or you fall into complicity. My defining moments began to surface in literature and television when I first recognized that difference often equated to negativity in western literature and media. As well, I learned through personal relationships and friendships with those who lived a different experience in the world to mine and with white allies who are unafraid of having uncomfortable discussions in the interests of creating an equitable system which benefits all. Thankfully, my decolonizing education started early due to my mother’s teachings so that by the time I entered my formal schooling, I had built up the skills required to constantly ask questions, rather than follow blindly taking everything I was taught at surface value.

Research Design-Researcher Language Background I discovered my own language aptitude and appreciation of story at an early age. I have always loved language diversity both listening to languages and trying to make sense of them. Love of language was an aspect of my decolonial education which began as a small child. My mother instilled core values that taught me the importance of equity, respect, honouring differences and the dangers of discrimination. She always enforced the potential

to learn from everyone, even if they had a different view of the world. She taught me that by actively listening to another’s story and history, I would have a better chance of thinking and acting for myself and that I would have a greater respect for others and therefore more fulfilling and beneficial relationships. She taught me this through leading by example and by storytelling. She encouraged me to learn to live in truth, even in the face of adversity because I was only responsible and accountable for how I behaved not how other’s reacted.

My mother influenced me through teachings of kindness, reciprocity and because she never shied away from having the tough discussions. Leanne Simpson’s words although coming from a different context about preparing children for life in the world spoke to me because she stresses the importance of living and embodying our knowledge— a fundmental lesson which I think has been largely lost in western mainstream knowledge systems (Dancing on our Turtle’s 381). My mother embodies her knowledge through living and teaching and because of this I strive to do the same.

The research problem developed initially out of the marriage of my two life passions, working with teenagers (in both a teaching and counselling capacity) and my love of languages. My research purpose is rooted in a sense of social justice—a result of my foundational teachings about equity. Focusing on Anishnaabe youth developed out of a personal commitment to conducting research using anti-oppressive and humanist praxis, deconstructing my own identity and through a focus on relationship. The admiration I have for students I work with, be it past, present or future, and their ability to navigate the largely broken society that has been handed down to them is the driving force behind this research journey.

Personally, language has always played a large part in the development of my identity. I grew up semi-bilingual in a monolingual home- attending and completing the

Ontario’s late Immersion program in French (Grade 4-12). Pursuing bilingualism in school was meant to augment my life chances for success in the workplace. Two significant things that I learned during my time in Immersion was that only so much can be learned in the classroom environment, as well, not everything is translatable between languages- something is always lost. I could recognize that those who learned French outside of the classroom as either early Immersion students (K-12) or those who lived in bilingual homes had much more capacity for retention than I. It is a widely-held belief that as we age our capacity to learn a new language diminishes significantly. As well, a language is only as strong as a community who speaks it. At a micro-level this means within the home, retention is significantly improved if there are other speakers using the language. When I had the opportunity to go on exchange to Normandin, Québec, being immersed in the language had more of a dramatic impact on my language skills than years of conventional schooling.

I was privy to an immersion experience once again as a young adult. During my undergrad, I studied “modern” languages, and had the opportunity to pursue Spanish. Upon graduation, I was hired to work abroad for a summer in Barcelona, Spain. During this extended engagement, once again, I could immerse myself in culture and language.

Travelling to Spain with only a beginner’s knowledge of Spanish provided an experiential learning experience which was invaluable regarding my experience of language acquisition and retention. Being immersed in the landscape, I recognized that fluency came easier than in a conventional classroom setting. As well, in retrospect I understand that to maintain

fluency you require a community of speakers to keep your knowledge of the language strong. This is a sentiment which surfaces within this participatory narrative inquiry as well and is particularly significant when interacting with a minority language such as

Anishnaabemowin.

Early colonial Canadian government policies regarding language and cultural disruption pinpointed learning in the home and community as an obstacle which needed to be overcome in order for the assimilation of Indigenous Nations to succeed (RCAP) (Truth and Reconciliation of Canada). The residential school system is largely responsible for creating parents and grandparents who could not pass down language and culture to the following generations because assimilative tactics sought to promote illiteracy of

Indigenous Knowledge(s) and languages (RCAP; Truth and Reconciliation of Canada;

Milloy).

Furthermore, in Spain I experienced a practical lesson regarding the importance of place to identifying dialects versus different languages and their histories. The local dialect in Barcelona, where I was to spend most of my time abroad was not standard Spanish, as in Madrid, but the Catalan language. I could get by with standard Spanish, as well as

English, since most Spaniards in Barcelona spoke Spanish, but not all spoke Catalan.

Regardless of this fact, I was able to experience Catalan through those who spoke it.

Catalan is not, as many believe, a dialect of Spanish, but rather a byproduct of colonization.

Catalan is an entirely different language which developed independently out of the colloquial Latin spoken by the Romans who colonized the Tarragona area. Catalan has survived against all odds as one of the two recognized official languages spoken in the region of Catalonia, as well; it is also spoken as a minority language in France. Catalan is

seen as a language of resistance by locals. I found this language and historical diversity fascinating (Personal Correspondence).

Research Design- Anishnaabeg Language Identity Development

This process of connecting identity to language is one that is thoroughly spoken about and researched within Indigenous contexts too. Included in the anthology, “Reclaiming

Indigenous Voice and Vision,” is Battiste’s piece, “Maintaining Aboriginal Identity,

Language, and Culture in Modern Society,” in which she demonstrates that educational reforms have not gone far enough to address the inequity within mainstream educational systems. Battiste maintains that while, “the existing curriculum has given [Indigenous] people new knowledge to help them participate in Canadian society…it has not empowered

[Indigenous] identity by promoting an understanding of [Indigenous] worldviews, languages, and knowledge” (192). This lack of what Battiste calls a “clear, comprehensive, and consistent policy about [Indigenous] consciousness has resulted in modern educational acts that suppress these integral cultures and identities” (“Maintaining Aboriginal Identity”

192).

Battiste also observes that non-Indigenous scholars often avoid the root of the problem: cognitive imperialism or cognitive assimilation (“Maintaining Aboriginal

Identity” 193). The subjugation of the political, military and economic structures of

Indigenous Peoples, as well as the social, cultural and linguistic pressures faced by communities is well-documented; however, it is significant to note that no institutional power has been more effective at oppressing Indigenous languages or opposing Indigenous culture than the industrial education system (“Maintaining Aboriginal Identity” 193). It

follows, then, that the most affected demographic when it comes to cultural and linguistic genocide has always been youth who are enrolled and educated in the mainstream school system (Battiste, Reclaiming Indigenous Voice; Cote-Meek).

Within this case study, it was critical that we tapped into an understanding of decolonization, assimilation, resurgence and resistance from within a youth-centered

“Nishnaabeg perspective” in order to try and understand how youth are interacting with learning about language and culture outside of settler contexts (Simpson, Dancing on our

Turtle’s Back 49). Accordingly, Simpson states that “[t]he contestation of imperial domination becomes our collective and individual starting point, and the lens through which to view our own liberation” (Dancing on our Turtle’s 51). This awareness of

Indigenous resistance is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem faced by many youth who are trying to prevent the process of Zhaaganashiiyaadizi

(becoming colonized or assimilated) (Simpson, Dancing on our Turtle’s Back 53).

Within much of the Anishnaabeg literature and linguistic material that has already been written, a common theme for contemporary Anishnaabeg writers, and, I would argue also for youth, was the discovery and development of Anishnaabeg identity alongside the unavoidable mixture of western and European ideas and nationalities (Noodin 41). The late

Anishnaabeg Elder and scholar, Basil Johnston offers that Anishnaabeg worldview and language differs greatly from colonial ones. Johnston suggests that language and literature cannot be separated from one another as they are in kinship and also that children begin their learning at home before trained teachers and formal learning and that they learn about their cultural identity through intergenerational transfer and story (Think Indian 35-39).

Much of Johnston’s work returns to a time when the primary language of the Great Lakes

area was Anishnaabemowin (qtd. in Noodin). When examining the structure of this heritage language in contrast to that of a colonial language it becomes clear that this language is based on aki (land) and place-based knowledge and is a language which is “based on action, reinvention, and constant imaginative redefinition, Anishnaabe stories offer a view of life as conscious change” (Noodin 111).

Likewise, youth resistance work also centers on conscious change. Much of the youth-centered resistance work explores informal learning, collaboration, participation and power within an evolving and global digital media environment. Youth suggesting that modernization and contemporary methods of engagement with language and culture the integral pieces which will ensure that Indigenous language(s) and culture(s) survive into the future (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). What follows is a foundational study of sociolinguistics, resurgence tactics and a presentation of lived experiences through narrative as a storied phenomenon through which meaning can be created, knowledge can be built, and scholarship can emerge (Clandinin, Engaging with Narrative Inquiry; Tuck

& Yang, Youth Resistance Research).

Research Design- Methodology and Methods The research design is a qualitative case study utilizing a relational framework of participatory narrative inquiry to investigate Anishnaabeg youth perspectives on cultural and linguistic sustainability of Anishnaabemowin (Haydon, Maguire & van der Riet;

Clandinin, Engaging in Narrative Inquiry; Clandinin et al, Engaging in Narrative Inquiries with Children and Youth). Within that context, this case study employed a joint combination of participatory action research and participatory narrative inquiry methods to

establish youth voice in new media and communicative technology landscapes (Kurtz;

Gaudry; Chevalier & Buckles).

Data collection was achieved using multiple qualitative methods. A preliminary observation and textual analysis of the existing scholarship on loss and reclamation of

Indigenous language and current language teaching and learning practices via an extensive literature review was conducted. Following this, an experiential pre-research practicum grounded in insurgent research was pursued prior to my primary data collection with the purpose of developing my research experience and skills under the direction of experienced researchers. Lastly, the primary data collection method for this case study utilized a semi- structured relational interview with participants and research outcomes were interpreted via Kurtz’s participatory narrative inquiry structure and methods (Kurtz). A relationship mind map was also created by the researcher as a visual aid in preparation for my oral defence to pinpoint all of the thematic aspects uncovered by participants for the audience to facilitate discussion of the findings.

In short, this discussion addresses only a small aspect of the larger issue of combatting Indigenous language loss, and, I do not claim to speak for Indigenous Peoples or Nations, nor are the results to be applied to all Indigenous Nations. The research is grounded within the specific context of southern Ontario. The primary research findings were comprised using the data collected from interview transcripts, participant feedback, and, field texts and are intended to contribute to the emerging field of Indigenous youth scholarship.

Situating the Research- Findings, Context and Limitations It is imperative to recognize the context in which this research was conducted, regardless of our attention to decolonization, research is still conducted and evaluated largely within colonial academic contexts. Modern Anishnaabe authors such as Louise Erdrich expose the, “capitalist spirit of the ‘empire builders’ and the dangers of industrial greed” using a traditional Anishnaabe concept and being the Wiindigoo (qtd. in Noodin 45-46). Post- secondary western academic institutions continue to function on the commercialization of knowledge and academic accolades.

Wendigo as a character and concept has been continually appropriated by western-

European pop culture and to an English speaker the correct cultural context may be lost in translation; however, in Anishnaabemowin, wiindigoo is a verb, which means, “he is related to one who succumbed to selfishness and greed to the point of harming others”

(Noodin 66). As previously stated, the institution which has arguably been the most damaging for Indigenous Nations in North America since contact has been the educational system. Within this one word, wiindigoo an Anishnaabeg worldview is exemplified. An ontology and epistemology which is centered on interconnectedness and relationships and a differentiation is made between an Indigenous worldview and the individualistic and capitalistic epistemology of colonial empire. Working within colonial academic contexts was one of the limitations within this research.

Structural research limitations within the academy included time restraints, funding timelines and a smaller participant pool than was initially selected. The results in this study will be used to pursue a larger study including a talking circle method. As well, these research results are specific to Anishnaabe participants within a specific regional location

and the Anishnaabemowin language. Indigenous youth language loss and engagement is a much broader research issue which would benefit from numerous studies and cross- referencing of different locations, Nations and languages.

Another limitation to this research is that due to limited fluency, principally the result of assimilative policies, this study and research was conducted primarily in the

English language. In a study which is concerned with Anishnaabemowin engagement it is critical to consider the power dynamics inherent in the fact that the language in which the study is being conducted is the language of the colonizer and the language which, in this specific geographical context, is the most responsible for potential sociolinguistic shifts in the youth language ecology contemporarily.

By extension, a social evaluation of language supports the reality that language has been used as a tool to oppress and influence society at large worldwide since time immemorial. Taking a humanities approach allowed us to engage with the study of sociolinguistics which deals with the social life of language in its sociocultural context

(Edwards; Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson). Matters of differential social evaluations of languages and dialects; the use of dominant languages, assimilative policies, naming designations, hierarchal language structures such as class or gender, and the intertwining of language with politics, policy planning, constructed colonial histories and religion have all been known to subjugate and oppress certain cultures and groups of people for the benefit of others in the colonial worldview (Edwards; Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada; RCAP, 2. Language, “2.1 The Importance of Language”).

Indigenous Youth are utilizing new media technologies to navigate identities of

sovereignty and activism by providing counternarratives to our colonial legacy on Turtle

Island.

Another limitation and strength regarding fluency is connected to the fact that contemporary Anishnaabemowin as a language has a variety of regional dialects. As a strength, the linguistic history and the language structure itself ensures that many speakers understand each other across a vast amount of territory regardless of varying pronunciations, adopted written systems and orthography (Williams). As well, the mutability of the language via regional dialects guarantees that there are various pockets of language usage referred to by linguists and cultural preservationists as “language hotspots,” in which the language is strong (Harrison, The Last Speakers).

Granted, language hotspots can be considered a strength; the reality of having various dialects connected to specific communities and place/aki/land was identified as a fundamental feature because of its importance to formulating identity and place specific knowledges and histories. This mutability most certainly a factor in ensuring the survival of Anishnaabemowin throughout a long history of attempted linguicide. However, classifying the language under one umbrella term within mainstream language studies gives outsiders to the language ecology a false sense of the security of language health.

According to the 2011 census of the sixty-three Indigenous languages currently spoken in Canada, Anishnaabemowin is one of only three Indigenous languages in Canada projected to survive, the other two being Inuktitut and Cree4 (Government of Canada).

4 It is important to note that Kanien’kéha (Mohawk language) is currently classified as threatened; however, it has the largest number of speakers (greater than a thousand) among the Northern Iroquoian languages. During the pre-research practicum, I had the opportunity to visit an independent Mohawk immersion school.

While this may be true in some respects, certain regional vernaculars of Anishnaabemowin are on the verge of endangerment or extinction. The Michi Saagiig Anishnaabeg dialect which is used in this territory is gravely in danger of being lost and without the previous work of linguists and language speakers and preservationists in the community may well have been (Crowe; Clarke, Before the Silence; What We Hold Dear; Smoke).

Additionally, another limitation in this study was working with differing language structures and worldview(s) housed within heritage languages like Anishnaabemowin versus a colonial language like English when it came time to process and interpret the data collected. Anishnaabemowin is a verb-complex language in contrast to English which is noun-based. Anishnaabe linguist and scholar, Margaret Noodin in, Bawaajimo- A Dialect of Dreams in Anishinaabe Language and Literature, states that by looking at the grammatical structure of the language one is able to observe that the world of

Anishnaabemowin is, “a world of meaning shaped by action and addition rather than

[personal] presence and pronouns” (7). An observation mirrored in Simpson’s creative societies of doing and interconnectedness (Dancing on our Turtle’s Back 92). Noodin’s point is that, “it is clear that the way meaning is constructed differs from one culture to another, and ideas of possession, classification, positioning, and accuracy can differ greatly” (Noodin 7). The foreign structure of the English language to an Anishnaabeg worldview can be directly connected back to the necessity of having to connect this case study to colonial academic institutions. As well, being forced to use a language based in colonial structures such as individualism, heteronormality and patriarchy in the interest of

The fight to revitalize Kanien’kéha is strong with the implementation of various independent immersions schools and language immersion curriculum (Personal correspondence, Nawewin 2015).

accessibility for a broader audience clearly reveals that systemic power structures are present in the delegation of languages and that there are existing issues regarding authenticity in the creation of meaning within the findings. To put it bluntly, academia makes it difficult to engage with Simpson’s concept of focusing on “Nishnaabeg perspectives” and avoid the process of Zhaaganashiiyaadizi (becoming colonized or assimilated) for participants within this written work (Dancing on our Turtle’s Back 49-

53).

This research adds to this conversation and to emerging Indigenous youth scholarship on language sustainability and resurgence (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). The point being made within the situating of this research is that the relationship between language and identity—be it personal, familial, institutional or cultural—is strong and it is critical to the sustainability of distinct cultures and the vitality of languages. Youth are navigating these sociolinguistic ecologies in innovative ways through self-directed learning, intergenerational relationship building and through the use of new media technologies for globalized relationality (Crystal, Internet Linguistics; Wyman, McCarty

& Nicholas; Tuck & Yang, Youth Resistance Research).

Research Ethics Unethical research has been detrimental for both Indigenous communities and for moving forward with ally-ship work (Anderson). When a mutually beneficial and respectful relationship is not observed between participants and researchers, research findings are often invalid and past research has proven that these results can actually be damaging to those involved (Gaudry; Kovach, “Story as Indigenous Methodology;” Anderson). Ethical research conducted with Indigenous Peoples and communities must also abide by

Indigenous research protocols held by the communities and Nations with whom you are working for it to be deemed ethical, worthwhile or accurate. Significant research in this field must acknowledge a conversation which includes elements of interconnectedness, diversity, sustainability, reciprocity and relationship (Simpson, Dancing on Our Turtle’s

Back; Holthaus).

The intent of this research was not to hold an analytical or positivist view when engaging with narratives. Within the interpretation of the research findings the researcher was not concerned with traditional extraction methods to gather “data;” research outcomes were to remain as uninfluenced by the researcher as possible. Instead I was invested in recognizing individual stories, as well as thematic commonalities which emerged while interpreting the results. Participants and I agreed upon research methods that were primarily theoretical rather than empirical to be in keeping with my background in literature and languages, as well as positionality of the researcher and the participants allowing for participant “voice” to speak while also acknowledging that my lived experience existed within the stories produced within this research.

As part of my personalized curriculum of background education in preparation to conduct study, I pursued a pre-research practicum with an Indigenous organization who was conducting a feasibility study regarding an Anishnaabemowin Immersion School in

Peterborough and the Kawartha Lakes. The purpose of this pre-research practicum was to be in keeping with the works of Indigenous scholars and researchers who have stressed the importance of embodied knowledge, building upon previous knowledges and experiencing knowledge directly to gaining real wisdom continuously (Absolon; Simpson, Islands of

Decolonial Love; Green).

My involvement in a pre-research practicum allowed me to gain valuable experience developing research relationships with youth and parents who were committed to researching a specific region, community of speakers and regional language dialect. The research was carried out under the direction of Anishnaabeg peoples using Indigenous methodologies that were culturally relevant to their Nation. It is important to credit the

Nawewin Board of Directors and my host contact, Charlene Green, my faculty supervisor for the practicum, Dr. Nicole Bell, who provided important insight and guidance, as well as Todd Barr and John Marris from the Trent Community Research Centre. The support and guidance of these individuals over the three-year journey provided invaluable skills and experience that I applied directly to this case study.

Indigenous youth studies bring together scholars, activists, ethnographers, linguists, educators, Indigenous leaders, allies and Indigenous youth themselves to try and narrate the challenges that this population faces. The field also highlights the strengths through which youth are actively working towards resurgence and innovation. Youth mainstream research done for rather than with youth has historically attempted to, “domesticate youth resistance [and language innovations] under the banners of such terms as ‘empowerment’ or ‘civic participation,’” instead of deepening our understanding of youth cultural and literary sovereignty and decolonial acts (Tuck &Yang, Youth Resistance Research). Tuck

& Yang offer that, “youth resistance has become a pressing global phenomenon,” and although it has been the topic of much discussion and debate, it remains dramatically under- theorized” (Tuck & Yang, Youth Resistance Research). Youth continue to navigate sociolinguistic ecologies, which are multimodal and nuanced. Results of this case study will begin to present a broader picture of how Anishnaabeg youth are negotiating

intersectional themes of language identity, cultural conflict, sustainability, survivance, textual discourse, literary sovereignty and conflicting ideologies.

Conclusion The overall findings in the original research generated for this case study recognize thematic currents of identity, context and affect when conversing about aspects of a specific locational, cultural and institutional lived experience. The contextual framework of the case study is based on Kurtz’s relational and interpretive methodology of participatory narrative inquiry; which is a mixture of narrative inquiry and participatory action research methods (Kurtz). This case study would not have been possible without ongoing support from key communities, interview participants and the working relationship I was able to develop with the organization through which I conducted a preliminary research practicum.

This research required working closely in conjunction with students, community members and administration staff from Trent University, Alderville First Nation,

Roseneath Centennial Public School and the Nawewin Board of Directors. The research focus included speaking about sensitive subjects such as genocide, race and the continuing onslaught of colonialism and was researched on both a professional and academic level, but more importantly on a personal level. A self-evaluation of the positionality and reflexivity of the researcher played a vital role in how this research was approached. Once again, I do not claim to speak for Indigenous Nations or Anishnaabeg Youth and it would also be preposterous to claim that researcher bias and my own narrative did not play a part in the development of the finished product; however, it is my hope that this study presents

the most authentic and respectful account of our work together. So, bi-wiidibamshin5 and let’s get started.

5 “Come and sit with me” in Anishnaabemowin- Alderville

Chapter Two: Review of Indigenous Language Scholarship in Canada

“[Anishnaabemowin] [i]t belongs to you, as an Ojibway people it’s a part of you. To me, the language is a link to those Ancestors who have gone on before us. It ties us together, no matter how many generations a part we are. Every time we speak our language, it strengthens those ties. Our language and culture has survived a long history of oppression. I am thankful for its revitalization, and for those who have worked so hard for its preservation.” (Crowe) Preface The purpose of this literature review was to engage with existing teaching practices in

Canada surrounding heritage language learning and acquisition. As well, to provide an overview of historical research to analyze its potential for helping to answer the research question, “how are Anishnaabeg Youth engaging with Anishnaabemowin language and cultural learning in the early 21st century?” Historically, Indigenous languages were targeted directly by colonists for several reasons including: supposed connections to devil worship, paganist roots, perceived linguistic primitivism, and, because these languages included unfamiliar worldview(s) and systems (political, spiritual, familial, etc.) to those who were familiar with a colonial worldview. This disconnect in understanding, opposition to differing worldviews and subsequent lack of control left Europeans feeling powerless, a lack of control over the people and the “found” land an obvious obstacle in their pursuit of empire.

The devaluing and underfunding of Indigenous language programs ensures that a neocolonial structure is upheld through positioning Indigenous language and speakers outside of the mainstream, through speaking for Indigenous Nations, through the erasure of Indigenous histories and literary traditions, as well as objectifying people and languages with a lack of consideration of different contexts and different life experiences. Placing

anyone “outside of the West” in a world that exists for others. Others, in this case, being

White European Settlers. This outdated colonial worldview is detrimental to the future of

Anishnaabemowin regarding efforts to promote the normalization of the language being used and spoken outside of ceremony and/or in a classroom setting.

Introduction: The Study and Science of Language in Academia The academic study or science of language is called linguistics. Within the field of linguistics, the method of linguistic reconstruction, allows linguists to trace spoken languages with certainty back 10,000 years enabling the study of how language has evolved, diversified and changed over time. Linguists do not know whether spoken language existed before this time (Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson). However, currently environmental, linguistic and archeological studies are being conducted globally the findings of which support arguments for the existence of language and advanced civilizations even earlier than this. As an illustration, the case of Huanca Prieta in coastal

Peru6 (Florida Atlantic University).

Linguists do not know whether all modern spoken languages can be traced back to one original language. What they do know is that the development of complex spoken language created an environment of profound changes for human culture. Many researchers believe that the development of human language made socially shared meaning possible,

6 Recent findings of an archeological study in Huaca Prieta—home to one of the earliest and largest pyramids in South America, and the location of ancient ruins of a civilization inhabited by humans some 15,000 years ago—promote a decades old argument suggesting that early homo-sapiens in that region were a great deal more advanced than initially thought, by archeologists, and that they had very advanced complex social networks. Artifacts found demonstrate that this civilization had an extraordinary capacity to utilize different food resources, which leads to the belief that there existed a larger society. Findings regarding size are suggestive of an emergence of bureaucracy and a highly organized religion within this ancient nation of people (Dillehay; Florida Atlantic University).

or vise versa, that socially shared meaning gave rise to the development of language

(Harrison, The Last Speakers; Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson).

Tewa scholar Gregory Cajete’s work is a forerunner in the merging of Indigenous perspectives in sciences with a western academic setting. He adds to the discussion of the development of culture, the dimension of primarily understanding the natural order of things stating that, “Indigenous people are people of place, and the nature of place is embedded in their language” (Philosophy of Native Sciences 46). He goes on to expand upon the notion that the cognitive, physical and emotional orientation of a people is the

“map” that they carry for intergenerational transfer (Philosophy of Native Sciences 45-46).

His work argues that, “cosmology, a person’s deep-rooted, symbolically expressed understanding of ‘humanness’ predates all other human-structured expressions”

(Philosophy of Native Sciences 46). Likewise, Nelson and Shaw add the concept of socially shared symbolic systems to the discussion of language and communication; recognized symbolic systems which essentially serve as the means of communication within a community. The basic assumption being that language is made up of socially shared symbols that exist within the socially shared community system. Reality is constructed and understood by members of that community through its language, symbols, and the meanings attached (Nelson & Shaw).

Regardless of how and when language emerged and evolved, our ancestors’ aptitude for language meant that a drastic revolution occurred creating a new language ecology which ultimately set in motion the direction human culture took. All these creative changes were made possible using socially shared meaning and language. This form of higher thinking through communication and the process of creating shared meaning sets

human beings apart from other living beings (Holthaus). Within linguistic communities, shared meaning is our ability to have an ongoing conversation where you understand all the layers to the language, including what is being said linguistically, culturally, socially, communally and through physical cues.

Your own lived experiences and experiential knowledge also come into play to create meaning. When it comes to language or language learning this means that we must also be cognizant of the subtleties and nuances of what is being said instead of assuming that the words have the same meaning for each of us. These differences become more obvious when translating between your mother tongue and learning a new language. This is because the creation of a language community is a socially shared experience which often connects us with a shared history, shared moral code and shared traditions and social practices. Positioning language learning as an integral factor in creating feelings of belonging and in the development of distinct identities.

Plausibly, as is laid out in the field of sociolinguistics, countless cultural advancements were also connected distinctly to their language communities and to precise geographical landscapes; as with tool-driven technologies, art and storying, and the development of complex language lexicons explicitly linked to certain ecosystems, traditions and sustainable living skills, such as food sourcing and medicinal plants

(Holthaus; Absolon; Simpson, Dancing on our Turtle’s Back). Regardless of differing histories and contexts, a strong connection of language communities and the people to the land has been presented as significant across the scholarship for all Indigenous Nations on

Turtle Island (Cajete, Native Science).

It can be argued that creativity is one of the most significant aspects of what it means to be human. For Indigenous societies, creativity was a key aspect of every day modernisation. Aforementioned Michi Saagiig, Nishnaabeg, scholar Simpson writes that,

“[in] the pre-colonial lives of my ancestors, the most striking things about the way they lived is that they were constantly engaged in the act of creating…Creating was the base of our culture. Creating was regenerative and ensured more diversity, more innovation and more life” (Dancing on our Turtle’s Back 92).

A study of the landscapes and processes of Indigenous language reclamation and language sustainability also requires an engagement with historical Indigenous texts, languages and teachings from the time of pre-colonization, “in order to uncover the intellect, heart and spirit of a culture,” and to avoid a one-dimensional view of Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies (Johnston, Is That All 6). A concentrated effort was made on the part of the researcher to engage with and include Anishnaabemowin regardless of my limited language knowledge. The engagement with the historical texts of distinct nations counters the Pan-Indigenous national narrative that settlers are fed on a large scale.

Additionally, an emphasis on studying only the material, physical and sustenance aspects of Indigenous culture, as has been the standard for many Western scholars, historians and anthropologists, is a Eurocentric worldview which misses the multifaceted lens of a distinct Indigenous worldview and was something which I sought to avoid as much as possible (Holthaus; Meyers). Projecting a western lens on Indigenous histories and knowledge(s) neglects to engage with the socially shared meanings specific to Nations and landscapes. Indigenous perspectives housed within heritage languages and teachings maintain a, “continuity with the past, [which] affirms the value of behaviours and attitudes

shaped by…heritage culture... The nation or community in Aboriginal thought and morality, has responsibilities of a spiritual order,” and reciprocal relationship with the natural world both living and non-living beings (Johnston, Is That All; RCAP, “2.3

Language Maintenance and Identity”).

The “Royal Commission on Aboriginal People” defines language as the

“quintessence of a culture. It expresses a unique way of apprehending reality, capturing a world view specific to the culture…its presence and use in a community are symbolic of identity…group existence [and] is the ultimate symbol of belonging” (RCAP, “2.3

Language Maintenance and Identity”). Wide scale resocialization of Indigenous cultures through conversion and schooling created a culture shock which has reverberated for generations (Clarke, Before the Silence 76; The Truth and Reconciliation of Canada). “In deploring the loss of its ancestral language, an [Indigenous] group may be deploring the loss of a symbol of its identity rather than an instrument of communication,” a loss of language is not automatically synonymous with a redefinition of group adherence (RCAP,

“2.3 Language Maintenance and Identity”). In Canada, there are clear examples of

Indigenous Nations who due to a forced language shift have lost their language but retain their sense of group identity and their distinct Indigenous worldview (RCAP).

This understanding regarding fluency and illiteracy is extremely useful to this thesis work because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of identity development that

Indigenous youth are navigating within landscapes of forced or altered language ecologies.

Intergenerational language and cultural disruption will often affect youth connection to language or community due to fluency, location or intergenerational transfer issues; however, this study has uncovered that despite these shifts, a connection to culture, identity

and a distinct worldview is still strongly held and sought-after by today’s youth (Personal

Correspondence).

Preliminary Observation of Language Beginnings and Connection to Place

“History, since the beginning of written record, has been a blend of chronicle and myth, event and narrative: the human imagination attempting to make sense of the chaos of the past.” (Clarke, Before the Silence ix) Physical science has established that our ability to speak is linked to the biological evolutions of our ancestors, specifically, the augmentation of the brain, the development of a larger vocal tract and oral cavity and a descending of the larynx. These physical developments meant that humans acquired the ability to create a broader range of sounds

(Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson 205). Since this time, our ability to tell stories and to story the world around us has set us apart; therefore, it can be resolved that there is nothing more human than language.

Anthropological and linguistic studies into language phylogeny7 have attempted to trace human aptitude for language development and subsequent learning from the earliest homo-sapiens to current humans and the variety of languages that we see in modern society

(Strang, Déchaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson). There still exists ample mystery surrounding the universal human shift towards spoken language, but it is generally agreed upon that language is directly tied to one’s culture, geographical location and the development of

7 The distribution of individual traits of languages is in part the product of historical contingencies, as will be expanded upon in this Case Study within interview responses. Anishnaabemowin “dialects” are described as the result of territorial differences, chance happenings, events and possibilities in the life and development of the language which affected its transmission and use. Factors such as cyclical lifestyle, relationship and interactions with other Nations, colonization, oral transmission, and, inadequate western documentation of Indigenous languages among other factors have led to regional differences in Anishnaabemowin vocabulary. Encoding information for communication is fluid and complex; individual languages are much less clearly differentiated from each other, then say, the biological phylogenies found in the genetic code. Language is simultaneously a living organism which needs a community of speakers to maintain it, as well as a social phenomenon affected by external factors.

complex social societies and structures. Nativists believing that the human brain must be equal in its genetic preparedness to learn language regardless of the language community you are born into (Chomsky). Our ability to acquire language therefore implies that at some fundamental level the science of all languages and language acquisition is the same; however, there are differing scientific and anthropological opinions surrounding language acquisition in youth (Chomsky).

Dominant languages have always existed within diverse language communities.

Consequently, scientific study also centers on the nature versus nurture debate, specifically, the study of sociolinguistics observes that language acquisition cannot be accounted for exclusively “on the basis of [the] postnatal experience” (Edwards 1). A natural view secures its belief by suggesting that language is tightly constrained and guided biologically; focusing their studies on this Chomsky states the, “complex nature of human grammars, ambiguity of input that children receive, and the relatively limited cognitive abilities of infants” (qtd. in Sakai). In contrast some scholars, myself included, support the nurture debate suggesting that language acquisition is largely reflective of external sociolinguistic factors and our ability to learn and interact with others in our language communities.

Language diversity is apparent across the planet; which is why sociolinguists concern themselves with studying the environmental contexts of language. Sociolinguistic study provides a detailed look of the environmental “shaping” which directs a human being’s general genetic readiness into “specific language channels” (Edwards 1). Central to this is the study of morphology, syntax, semantics (meaning), phonology and the various lexicons of specific languages. Fundamental to this study of the “social life of language”

is the relationship between language and identity—language being predominantly a social phenomenon (Edwards 1).

Numerous scholars within the disciplines of Indigenous and language studies:

Noodin, Vizenor, Little Bear, Battiste, Blaeser, Johnston and Cajete, also augment the discussion by addressing aspects of place, community, cultural continuity and spirituality to the study of language regarding identity and a distinct Indigenous worldview. Cajete argues that language evolution is the result of thousands of years of relating to a particular place and that this evolution includes a spiritual context embedded within heritage languages and Indigenous worldview(s) that are missing from English. According to

Cajete:

Indigenous people are a people of Place, and the nature of Place is embedded in

their language. The physical, cognitive, and emotional orientation of a people is a

kind of map they carry in their heads and transfer from generation to generation.

This map is multi-dimensional and reflects the spiritual as well as the mythic

geography of a people (Native Science 74).

Plausibly, if language is affected by environmental contexts it is only fitting to view language through this broader lens which considers more than the physical language; connecting languages with the specific cultures, epistemologies, locations, communities and histories from which the language has emerged and evolved. Due to the social nature of language evolution it is not sufficient in language studies to rely solely on propositional knowledge. Researchers must engage at a community level with speakers living within

precise language ecologies in order to gain valuable insight into specific worldviews housed within the nuances of form, ritual, ideology and social aspects.

Understanding the unique relationship which exists within Indigenous Knowledge systems between the landscape and the people who inhabit it and the role of land to the creation of distinct communities, cultures and histories is essential to understanding the

Indigenous concept of Place and its role in IK systems. Similar to the works of Cajete,

Marie Battiste’s work explains that, “Indigenous knowledge is…inherently tied to land, not to land in general but to particular landscapes, landforms, and biomes where ceremonies are properly held, stories are properly recited, medicines are properly gathered, and transfers of knowledge properly authenticated” (“Indigenous Knowledge and

Pedagogy” 13).

Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair addresses this reality directly by stating that

Anishnaabe ideas should not be separated from their contexts, because this denies, “the important historical, political, and geographical locations they reside within.” (Sinclair 85)

As referenced in the “Royal Commission on Aboriginal People” Indigenous language loss is not solely about losing a communication instrument, it is also a “tangible emblem of group identity” (RCAP, “2.3 Language Maintenance and Identity”). Loss of language, therefore, could likewise be viewed as a loss of relationship with the Natural World, as well as a loss of the characteristics of those relationships (Cajete; Holthaus). Consequently, land or place within an Indigenous worldview cannot be viewed in isolation of other cultural aspects such as society, language, spirituality and other aspects of social organizations as they are all interconnected.

All human languages contain embedded concepts and contexts (often cultural) and are situated in place (Cajete; Basso; Little Bear). They all contain a system of symbols, a history of culture, social identity, as well as unique grammatical patterns (Chomsky)

(Miller). All languages contain, “…words, and sentences that can communicate the full range of concrete and abstract ideas;” (Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson 325) for this reason, linguists believe that all human languages are equally expressive, citing this as linguistic egalitarianism (Strang, Dechaine & Vatikiotis-Bateson). Damaging judgements of non-dominant languages are based on what is seen as ‘social value;’ which is subjective, and has no bearing on their linguistic expressiveness, complexity, nor their ability at innovation and modernization. Every language changes over time and every language community has the capacity to create new words. By this logic, there are no primitive languages nor deficient dialects. That said, not every linguist believes in the principle of linguistic egalitarianism. Notable cases of counter opinions include anthropological linguist Dan Everett’s study into the Pirahã language of Brazil, and linguist’s John

MacWhorther’s study of the grammatical patterns of Creole (Strang, Dechaine &

Vatikiotis-Bateson 326).

The literature review and the primary research within this case study uncovered extensive support that the logic of linguistic egalitarianism is solid, and that linguistic sovereignty and diversity are significant, especially as they pertain to the revitalisation of the Nishnaabemowin language, as well as to the study and sharing of culture, and to the existence of solidarity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

Indigeneity and Engagement: The Meaning Behind Pre-Colonial Indigenous Knowledge(s) & Place-Based Consciousness Consideration of the meaning behind texts prior to colonization is significant because these texts exemplify juxtaposition between the views of sustainable Indigenous cultures who creatively participated in nature concentrating on a relationship of reciprocity and North

American Settler cultures who continue to view the Natural World through a lens of commodification by focusing on extracting resources (Cajete, “Look to the mountain;”

Holthaus). For this research, this engagement to Anishnaabeg and Indigenous texts came about through attending numerous teaching events in which Elders and knowledge holders were brought into the community and to campus to discuss an Anishnaabeg or alternately

Indigenous ways of knowing and being in the world, and, by attending numerous relevant professional development conferences.

Further, I made a commitment to examine and engage extensively with Anishnaabe scholars and authors who placed their focus for developing and sharing knowledge based on Indigenous sources of information. These sources of information expanded to include: informants, pictographs, petroglyphs, birch bark scrolls, wampum agreements, medicine lodge teachings, sacred symbols and instruments, traditional life stage ceremonies and practices, legends on Anishnaabeg duties (i.e. how to relate to others and the Natural

World, how to address global and political crisis,’ etc.) and sacred teachings. This is because attention to texts surrounding heritage languages in essence, “speak to unremembered traditions that promote gender fluidity, [reciprocity, spirituality and relatedness] and environmental justice” (Briggs-Cloud 244). Briggs-Cloud states that,

“often [Indigenous people] do not take into account how much [their] Indigenous languages

have been transformed and stripped of their liberatory potential by colonial translations into English” (Briggs-Cloud 246).

Expanding upon Briggs-Cloud’s revelation I would suggest that Settler peoples are also guilty of engaging superficially with concepts embedded within Indigenous Thought and languages. We assume that Indigenous epistemologies are similar to those found in mainstream colonial discourse. It becomes glaringly obvious; however, through critical analysis and engagement with Indigenous languages that ideals surrounding the environment, commerce, community and ideas of hetero-normalcy are vastly different than those that have their origins in Europe. European imperialist systems are capitalist, colonialist and patriotic by nature (Briggs-Cloud; Holthaus). This reality of difference can lead to an inadequate grasp of Indigenous Knowledges and in the tendency for Settlers to ignore Indigeneity and the ongoing oppression of Indigenous Peoples in academia, in government, in media and in our neo-colonial society at large. This failure on our part is antithetical to the type of ally-ship work many of us are trying to do (Lawrence & Dua;

Holthaus; Pollock; Regan).

Briggs-Cloud suggests as an illustration of this inadequate grasp of Indigenous

Knowledges and languages is the lack of recognition of gender fluidity. Contrary to colonial languages many Indigenous languages in the Americas were largely gender fluid and recognized this variability and mutability of “gender roles” within their communities promoting relationship and sustainable lifestyles (Briggs-Cloud 243-256). Colonial languages in contrast, were used in the fields of post-colonialism, linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics to perpetuate ‘traditional’ gender roles in the pursuit of colonial power.

Post-colonial scholar, Laura Ann Stoler, expands upon this. She suggests that an Imperialist

system, as was practiced by Europeans in the expansion of the British Empire, promoted a dominant ideology and discourse of western patriarchal gender norms in language. White women, poor Whites, and minorities were viewed as separate categories, excluded from early colonial endeavors (Stoler). It must be remembered that the expansion of the British

Empire during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries created the greatest mass migration in human history and that this greatly affected existing Indigenous languages and systems on Turtle Island (Akenson).

We have arrived at a critical intersection in our National relationship. Within academic and political landscapes, a call to action for change can be observed especially within the youth demographic. Youth can see clearly that the old systems which we have depended upon are archaic and not functional. Many multi-generational settlers in Canada, like myself, have begun to question the validity and systemic racism undercutting these systems. As well, those on a decolonial journey have started to seek our histories and the roots of our own Indigeneity. For me, my ancestors were Scottish and Irish and therefore I am story-less in this place and speaking a language which is adopted and not ancestral. My ancestors would likely have spoken ancient Celtic dialects or Scottish Gàidhlig8. Gàidhlig is also a language which contains place-based consciousness and a connection to the

Natural World. Scots often self-identify as “people of the land” (Houston).

Addressing linguistic features such as gender fluidity offer new frames of reference which are based on Indigenous ways of knowing. This is particularly critical in contemporary society when addressing oppression linked to the naturalization of hetero-

8 Scottish Gaelic is also a Celtic language native to Scotland and ultimately derivative of Old Irish.

normalcy within Indigenous societies that were traditionally gender-fluid, as well as within neo-colonial society at large. Marcus Briggs-Cloud speaks of a deeper engagement with his own Maskoke language to think critically about sexism, homophobia and ecological destruction. He states that “while Indigenous peoples frequently appeal to the importance of tradition…many understandings of “tradition” mimic the colonial status quo, such as when gender violence and homophobia are defended as traditional…People mistakenly assume that Indigenous traditions are similar to those of the mainstream colonial society because we fail to account for how our memories…have been shaped… by colonization…Our languages speak to unremembered traditions that promote gender and environmental justice” (Briggs-Cloud 243-244).

Similarly, Margaret Noodin suggests that Nishnaabemowin as a verb-centered language by design creates the possibility to speak in the language with a complete lack of gender distinction. She states that in her opinion, “this leads to…the conclusion that [while]

Anishinaabe language and culture acknowledge gender difference, [it is] in a way that relies on choice and context rather than fixed and predictable rules” (Noodin 12). By investigating local language usage and renewal efforts, Noodin, reveals the subtle ways in which different conceptions and practices in communities variably affects not only the state of the language but also the understanding of a broader epistemology and ontology, such as gender fluidity or equity in language (Noodin).

Likewise, reclaiming Indigeneity and identity are also factors which surface frequently in the scholarship regarding Indigenous language revitalisation and sovereignty.

Basil H. Johnston speaks to devaluing of Indigenous literature, language and knowledge when he writes that, “[w]hat has prevented the acceptance of Indian literature as a serious

and legitimate expression of Native thought and experience has been indifferent and inferior translation, a lack of understanding and interest in the culture, and a notion that it has little of importance to offer the larger [W]hite culture” (Is That All 6). He argues that when scholars who are investigating and writing about Indigenous Nations lack proficiency in the language, they are confined to research of the material, sustenance and physical aspects of that culture.

Within the work, “Is That All There Is-Tribal Literature,” written in 1991, Johnston speaks to the damaging portrayals of “the Indian” within existing scholarship by authors and researchers who have no proficiency or interest in learning Indigenous languages.

These sources are meant to educate students and the public, yet they only provide a one- dimensional character sketch of the “Indian” as static, unchanging, and of the past. These portrayals also perpetuate a Eurocentric notion of pan-Indigenousness and do not reflect the wealth of diverse knowledges and Nations globally. Johnston states that these scholars and researchers are no better than their predecessors as they are unable to engage fully with the original texts in order to uncover the intellect, heart and spirit of a culture (5). These portrayals which were included in texts used within mainstream classrooms and in the media, are also a perpetuation of colonial violence. Within the literature surrounding decolonizing the classroom, many populations of marginalized youth have cited across the board that they have habitually not felt reflected or that they have been misrepresented within the curriculum (Cote-Meek; Emdin).

Place-based consciousness, another aspect of Indigenous Knowledge which surfaces continuously within the scholarship on language revitalization; Gregory Cajete addresses that colonial systems deprive people of the opportunity to participate in the world

or connect with place creatively in his book, “Native Science: Natural Laws of

Interdependence.” Cajete juxtaposes the worldview of early settlers to that of traditional

Indigenous epistemologies asserting that, “the first Europeans saw America as wilderness, an obstacle to be overcome through settlement and use of living and non-living resources.

The land was a material object, a commodity, something from which they could gain economically” (Native Science 179). Cajete’s works further develops this difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous views and use of land and resources. He states that, “[Indigenous] cultures have traditionally aspired to live in accordance with an ideal of reciprocity with the landscape, guided by cultural values, ethics, and spiritual practice.

Living a life of relationship through ethical participation with nature is the ideal behind the practice of Native science and its orientation to place” (Cajete, Native Science 183).

Cajete goes on to explain that the language of relationship and verb-complexity in

Indigenous languages also echo this interconnected worldview by stating that ancestral languages exemplify “the natural reality of a universe that is alive and creative” (Native

Science 184). He expands upon the unnatural state of Settler narratives and unsustainable lifestyles which separate people and culture from nature. Cajete argues that, equally unnatural, is that inherent to the discipline of western science the creation of, “discrete categories for viewing nature” (Cajete). The unsustainable nature of creating discrete categories in western science is reflected upon extensively in Holthaus and Barker and

Lowman’s works as well.

As previously noted, unpacking the importance of language and place-based consciousness more extensively the scholarship points out that Indigenous language communities are connected to precise geographical landscapes. The scholarship on

revitalization has uncovered that within Anishnaabemowin language there are numerous regional differences in the vocabulary of the language which are connected to place; however, language speakers and scholars hold that no “dialect” is held up as more valuable than any other (Williams). Johnston, in another of his many published works, “Think

Indian- Languages Are Beyond Price,” which focuses specifically on Anishnaabe language, suggests that the focus on Anishnaabemowin dialects is a fairly new phenomenon Johnston states:

It is only in recent years…that dialect, which is a really small matter in itself, has

become big, and I rather suspect it has something to do with the decrease in the

number of people speaking their mother tongues…[A]s the number of speakers of

Native languages grows less and less, the matter of preserving and extending

language grows greater and greater, each group naturally wants its dialect to be

preserved. Dialects have become bigger than the languages themselves, as if the

parts are more important than the whole (26).

Johnston’s declaration suggests that linguist egalitarianism was and is practised in the language, yet, dialects become significant when they are connected specifically to place and the Natural World. Housed within distinct regional dialects are Knowledges regarding ecosystems and specific histories. Once again, the subtle language and pronunciation cues, which are also expanded upon in Noodin’s work, are identified as present within the language pattern because of the connection to place/aki, and, therefore the historical, material and interactional conceptions and practices become relevant within those localized dialects and remembered or retained vocabulary (Noodin).

Linguists support that traditional Indigenous cultures were, and in many cases, continue to be sustainable cultures. Indigenous knowledges of sustainable living are crucial and relevant to the global crises that we see in the world today. Scholar, Leslie Ray, stating poignantly in her book, “Language of the Land: The Mapuche in Argentina and Chile” that, “[l]osing a language [of the land] and its cultural context is like burning a unique reference book of the natural world” (26). Anishnaabe stories specifically have been identified as “complex” and “multimodal.” This layering and use of multiple voices communicating more than one message at a time can be related in part to the primary features of Anishnaabemowin, which emphasize flexibility and change (Noodin 21).

Youth engagement with their languages is also multimodal in nature. Youth are engaging with their languages using new communicative repertories, new social media platforms, and new communicative technologies, as well as by trans-languaging9. The uses of innovative sociolinguistic choices are a result of external pressures in their surrounding language and social ecologies (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). The commodification of

Indigenous knowledge through processes of globalization, cultural appropriation and media sharing was an aspect which resurfaced often in my primary research with participants, especially as it pertained to sustainability as a concept. Therefore, engagement with Indigenous communities, speakers and Elders becomes important to healing on a national and global level.

9 Trans-languaging is the dynamic process whereby multilingual language users mediate complex social and cognitive activities through strategic employment of multiple semiotic (the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation) resources to act, to know and to be. It maximizes a youth’s bilingual ability and is being used extensively by Indigenous youth across the globe (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas).

Settlers could also learn from foundational teachings about communal responsibility. An attention to a time of pre-colonization is fundamental because the conception of tradition contemporarily, as pointed out by many Indigenous scholars and

Indigenous youth, is often defined narrowly and may be affected by aspects of European and White culture. Reconnection with Indigenous languages, and texts as a tool is imperative because teachings and the worldviews embedded within them remember a time prior to memories which are shaped by forms of colonization, such as forced relocation, religious conversions, residential schools (Briggs-Cloud 244). “Tradition, within a colonial discourse, generally signifies an exotic commodity offered up for consumption…Tradition is invoked by Natives and non-Natives alike to police Native behaviours, a process that can sometimes reconstitute colonialism itself” (Teves, Smith & Raheja 234). The hunt for the elusive “tradition” post-colonization misses a whole way of life and distinct history. It eludes the fact that all cultures change over time; it reinforces the colonial myth that

European epistemologies will inevitably supersede Indigenous traditions, positioning

Indigenous knowledges as static and of the past. This “two worlds” philosophy is a view which runs counter to the language and cultural work that Indigenous youth are currently involved with (Wilson & Kamanã 191; Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas).

A Contemporary Shift in Linguistic Research Language experts have identified that over the course of the past twenty years within the academic field of linguistics and the interdisciplinary study of all of linguistics’ sub categories including: sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and linguistic anthropology, as well as the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, Indigenous studies and education, that a development of new research methods and literature is emerging. The reality of language

communities and activist involvement has produced a shift in mainstream language research around the recognition of issues of human language rights and in documenting community-based views of their languages (Hinton x). This study and vested interest in the documentation and the social life of languages through advocacy and local practices, means that writers and readers are a variety of researchers, teachers, activists, youth, communities and families, which creates a positive shift to think further than within the academy

(Hinton x).

As the nature of language and cultural documentation becomes more interdisciplinary a more collaborative research environment has developed. The advance of new technologies has increased archival accessibility, as well as access to language communities that are limited or have been highly affected by intergenerational disruption

(Hinton x; Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas xvi). David Crystal’s pioneering work into the new field of Internet linguistics studies the increasing influence that the Internet is having on all aspects of language and language usage. Crystal’s work is still in its infancy and suggests further research into this new field of language, linguistics and new media

(Internet Linguistics 148). His studies are focused on the Internet’s effect on English; however, it briefly references the multilingual nature of the Internet; policies, technologies and the methodological issues which may arise with a less established language. Crystal’s work is significant to my research because this study is focused on the gap in Indigenous youth language engagement, specifically, as engagement pertains to the use of emerging media technologies (Language and the Internet; Internet Linguistics).

Understanding the history of linguicide and extensive attempts by Indigenous

Nations to counteract erasure is important because it clarifies the dire situation of many

Indigenous languages in Canada. Language transmission and retention is often difficult due to fewer large-scale opportunities to practice minority languages and fewer institutional opportunities to learn an Indigenous language in the mainstream (Statistics Canada). “The

Royal Commission on Aboriginal People” addresses language as a fundamental aspect of cultural survival. Between the issuing of the final RCAP report in 1996 and the subsequent

2001 National census it was discovered that several key indicators of Indigenous language strength were in decline for a majority of Indigenous languages. Therefore, research regarding youth language retention is vastly important for just this reason because youth are engaging with languages in innovative ways apart from what has been done before

(Statistics Canada).

Crystal’s issue of the difficulty of standardization of minority languages on the

Internet was relevant to my research problem because for languages that were traditionally oral i.e. Anishnaabemowin, standardization is a much less significant factor (Internet

Linguistics 68-69). While it is true that a written system has been developed for

Anishnaabemowin as a mechanism for teaching it in mainstream schools— adaptation was identified as required by preservationists and speakers to ensure transference and sustainability. However, we also see deviance from the written system in regional dialectic variation and youth vocabulary, and in the usage of new media tools; therefore, calling into question the notion that standardization is a mandatory requirement of language transfer, sharing or sustainability (Williams; Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). Youth studies in new sociolinguistic contexts tend to place less emphasis on mainstream standardization

(Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). Anishnaabemowin as a language seems to exist in a boundless realm of sound beyond any type of boundary, without being preoccupied by the

heavily bounded realm of text; which ironically makes perfect sense for a phonetic language (Cunningham, S. J. Informal feedback. 26 May 2018). In contrast, English has been standardized largely due to a colonial history of language superiority and a preoccupation with the validity of written syntax.

Collaboration with endangered language communities has also led to a shift of observing new ethical standards for linguistic documentation and with that comes a more clearly defined researcher responsibility to the demands and needs of the language communities with whom they work. As language research continues to become increasingly community-internal, Dwyer and Mato Ninpa as cited by Hinton identify that a shift naturally occurs in the researchers’ attitudes away from the “notion of speaker as subject to speaker as research partner” (Hinton). This becomes especially important in developing a process of language documentation, which is more nuanced and aware than past documentation of endangered languages.

Indigenous Youth are living in contradictory spaces navigating a multitude of ideologies, not the least of which being modernity and Indigeneity. They are being influenced by forces of globalization, self-determination, identity and worldviews, as well as even more challenging situations such as language endangerment, economic and educational success, racialized societal discourse and a myriad of other aspects stemming from deep societal inequalities that still exist (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas xvi). Wyman’s studies with Yup’ik Youth focus on a building of Vizenor’s concept of survivance (qtd. in

Wyman 91-110) to develop what she calls linguistic survivance in youth. She describes linguistic survivance as, the use of communicative practices to creatively connect to community knowledge, translanguaging across potential linguistic boundaries, forging

connections with peers and Elders, confronting challenging situations and an exercise of self- determination (Wyman xvii). She is effectively addressing literary sovereignty within the Youth population.

Language shift is a complex phenomenon. The literature review uncovered instances of detrimental binaries such as the Indigenous versus Western Knowledge dichotomy in linguistic studies. These existing studies uncovered that language shift does not have to be subtractive. Speaking a dominant tongue does not require an abandonment of heritage languages to a language ecology of mono-lingualism, as Canadian language policy has tried to enforce in the past. “To get ahead as Indigenous youth, cultural and language practices cannot be one or the other, or, as Wyman says, local or global,

Indigenous or English, traditional or modern” (García 212). Indigenous youth linguistic sovereignty, survivance and activism surfaces within the cultural and linguistic practices of youth in which dynamic trans-languaging methods are evident (Vizenor; García 212).

The belief that language shift does not need to be subtractive in nature has been a certainty for Indigenous Nations on Turtle Island since the time of contact.

Nishnaabemowin- The “Voice” of the Anishnaabeg Origin Stories: Pre-Contact

The Anishnaabe migration story is an example of how conjoining occurs and is reflected through adaptations of the Anishnaabemowin language which echo the places and times in which the Anishnaabe travelled and lived and the continuity of their distinct identity

(Sherman; Benton-Banai; Vizenor). Sherman states in her work, “Picking Up the Wampum

Belt as an Act of Protest,” that a relationship with the Natural World was also “reflected in cultural objects, ceremonies, and language of Indigenous communities” (Sherman 117).

Throughout the literature on the importance of Indigenous language preservation is the opinion that Origin or Creation stories as told in Indigenous languages can provide the listener access to foundational teachings, such as how relationships are understood between people and other living beings and with the Natural World (Briggs-Cloud 247) Traditional cultures recognized that ‘storying’ is a fundamental aspect of being human. (Archibald;

Absolon). Although we are all connected, each species has characteristics which set us apart from the rest of Creation.

For humans one of those characteristics is that we tell stories, and so far, as we can

tell, other creatures don’t. We may yet learn that animals tell stories too, but for

now it seems fair to say that one distinguishing characteristic is that humans are

storytelling creatures…and the stories [in mind] are both oral and written, with a

slight tilt towards the oral, for ours is still a far more oral culture than [some would]

like to admit (Holthaus 131).

Familiarity with the structural and grammatical patterns of an Indigenous language, as well as the foundational stories connected to the culture one is studying is fundamental to interacting with its literature. A culture’s literature is directly intertwined with the perceptions and interpretations of existence in that culture. Erdrich’s work also weighs in on this discussion and speaks to literary ancestry as ‘presence’ when asked to join the conversation within the anthology, “Centering Anishinaabeg Studies: Understanding the

World Through Stories.” Historically, Indigenous storying and literatures have been misappropriated by Western-European cultures in our writings and re-writings of

Indigenous presence. As previously noted, Erdrich suggests that, “when we read, we read from where we are, and from who we are” (Erdrich 13). She expands by explaining that

while Anishnaabeg people and places are diverse, there are similarities to be drawn when reading or writing as an Anishnaabe person within Anishnaabeg Studies. She states that,

[t]his is not some mystic tradition; it is simply how it is to be aware of where you are, who you are, and who your people are when they create with words” (Erdrich 14). As a Settler,

I understand this to mean being aware of individual and cultural positionality. Erdrich speaks of the importance of research into Anishinaabe-centered epistemology and a connection to place to reclaim the Ojibwe tradition of writing, in English, as an Anishnaabe person (Erdrich 14). She stresses the importance of being able to navigate who you are and where you are writing from in order to be able to present your histories and traditions self- representatively.

The migration story is a central component of Anishnaabe identity which ties directly into their Original Instructions about relatedness and sustainable living, as well as to sacred contexts through the Seven Fires Prophecies and the following and harvesting of the grain manoomin. “Like many of the seasonal activities of the Anishinaabeg people, ricing forges relatedness—to the family, to place, to tradition” (Blaeser 238). Benton-Banai explains the mapping of how, why and where the Anishinaabeg people travelled for hunting and gathering in the relaying of traditional stories. Benton-Banai relays that, ‘the third prophet said to the people, “In the Third Fire, the Anishinabe will find the path to their chosen ground, a land in the West to which they must move their families. This will be the land where food grows on water”’ (89). The migration story is especially relevant in a contemporary context, because not only is it connected directly with distinct identities, it is also a solid counter narrative to the colonial discourse of land ownership and settler

“claim” to land and resources. The migration story maps out how and where the people

used territory for hunting and gathering historically, as well as a commitment to responsibility, community and respect.

Anishnaabeg people have been involved in an ongoing and mandatory discourse since contact about validating ancestral presence and resistance. Yet, housed within

Indigenous languages and stories, are the counter-narratives which relate directly to defending and maintaining their way of life. While Canadians are beginning to see, the wisdom housed in heritage practices of sustainable living, the reality is that Indigenous peoples are still required in this country to defend their right to language and cultural practices.

Narratives of migration and rice knocking, dancing and harvesting are integral to cross-cultural understandings of a different way of life, a different identity and a different worldview. Blaeser states that “[t]he ceremonial and practical respect we pay to the land source also guarantees the continuance of community and the stability of food products.

We always leave a little behind…Certain customs limit harvest or accomplish renewal”

(Blaeser 214). Likewise, Benton-Banai expands upon the concepts of respect, continuity and ceremony in his retelling of the Anishnaabe migration story stating:

It was near Spirit Island that the words of the prophets were fulfilled. Here the

Anishinabe found ‘the food that grows on the water.’ Here they found Ma-no´-min

(wild rice). “Wild rice” has always been regarded by the Ojibway as the sacred gift

of their chosen ground. Any effort today to over-harvest or commercialize wild rice

has been met with failure. Wild rice has always been generous to those who gather

and use her in a respectful way (emphasis added 101-102).

Within the language and Anishnaabe stories there are many seasonal practices and examples of cyclical travel like the harvesting of the sacred manoomin. Noodin states,

“[l]ong ago the Anishinaabeg moved around and left a presence while transporting things; they travelled for three to five years at a time and always kept in mind the places they have been” (Noodin 36-37). In Anishnaabemowin there is a word for this practice which has been loosely framed by settler narratives as a nomadic lifestyle. The practice is called nametwaawaa, “which is a verb [that is used to describe] a relationship with a place, not random wandering, but enlightened stewardship that allowed people to circle a vast homeland, learning when to be where,” and can be applied to ideas of places, “beyond where we are,” such as visioning or dreaming of places (Noodin 37).

This language of relationship is reflected as well in Blaeser’s text when she speaks of storying a cultural narrative into existence. “The reciprocity involved in seasonal rituals is woven by the similar reciprocity of story…our telling and retelling of story teaches appropriate processes, enriches our experiences, and builds communal connections…tribal continuance. When we invoke teachings and tell ourselves into communities we build a genealogy of story” (Blaeser 241). This building of communal connections and embodied knowledge through knowing your history and learning by doing and creating is an identity which is present in youth language studies (Wyman, McCarty & Nicholas). Youth are in the process of storying themselves into existence through historical connections, as well as through building their own innovative language practices and behaviours that will work for them within the context of their complex local and global linguistic and cultural environments.

Local Michi Saagiig Anishnaabe Histories

During the settlement period, the Michi Saagiig Anishnaabe were gravely affected by a forced shift to farming. My partner’s community of Alderville underwent a conversion to

Methodism and a forced move to stationary living which was meant to replace traditional spirituality, as well as hunting and fishing practices, as the means of physical and spiritual sustenance. Decolonial community work has produced a shift within the last thirty years to reclaim and return to traditional ceremonies and practices (Clarke, Before the Silence;

Longwell). Local author and reporter, Ruth Clarke’s10 research and documentation within our community maps out a snapshot of part of this journey. Using a variety of sources, interviews, transcripts, photographs, archival materials, as well as recent material she tried to paint as complete a history as possible in her semi-fictional stories based in truths of the fifty years between 1825-1875. A time which she felt reflected a significant period that has shaped and affected how Alderville has since evolved (Clarke, Before the Silence xiii).

Vizenor directly references this blending of survival, history and endurance in language, community, story and culture in his concept of survivance. In his work, “The

People Named the Chippewa,” he writes, “[t]he tribal past lived as an event in visual memories and oratorical gestures; woodlands identities turned on dreams and visions”

10 As an extended community member and writer, Clarke was approached by the Alderville community to pull together local stories and histories. Author of five non-fiction books, her works, Before the Silence, fictionalizes the Indigenous migration from the historical Methodist mission at Grape Island, Bay of Quinte to Alderville First Nation.

As well, What We Hold Dear, written with the help and contribution of community members pulls together treasured Alderville lore, photographs and informant accounts in a comprehensive text of these community memories and histories.

Clarke also collaborated with local artist/wildlife biologist and partner, Rick Beaver, (AFN) to create a field guide for Alderville’s Black Oak Savanna which locates the flora and fauna of that particular and specific landscape.

(Blaeser 237). There are no absolute truths, as Clarke suggests, history is always a blending of, “chronical and myth” (Clarke, Before the Silence).

Post-Contact Emerging Educational Policies- Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers/Peter Jones) & Zhingwaakoons (Little Pines/John Sunday)

An investigation of local language history and policy uncovered the stories of two prominent Anishnaabeg leaders of the early settlement period. The inclusion of the stories of Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers) and Zhingwaakoons (Little Pines) are noteworthy because both men were multilingual and invested in protecting the cultural and linguistic integrity of their communities while simultaneously developing a positive relationship with settlers by learning about their cultures and language. Both were involved in holding traditional knowledge, as well as being key players in the initial goal of what conventional education could look like for Indigenous youth strong in both knowledge systems. These types of copasetic and shared agreements with other Nations were not uncommon for the

Anishnaabeg pre-contact.

It is important to note that historically most First Nations in Canada sought to include some form of “the right to education” as a provision within negotiated treaties. Two prominent 19th century figures who played a large part shaping Anishnaabe histories regarding education and religion were Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers) also known as the Reverend Peter Jones (c. 1802-1856) and Zhingwaakoons11 (Little Pines) Methodist minister and Ojibwa chief also known as, John Sunday (c. 1795-1875) who served as a minister at Alderville, Rice Lake, Mount Elgin and Muncey for twenty years and toured to

11 Fiero spelling of Shawundais or Shingwauk.

northern missions (Alderville First Nation; Smith, Mississauga Portraits; Sacred

Feathers).

Both men lived in a time of great change for the Anishnaabe and they were both deeply committed leaders of the Anishnaabe people who played key roles in shaping the survival of the Mississaugas, as well as their interactions with European culture. Both men also understood because of their experiential knowledge regarding Settler/Indigenous relations in their communities, and from stories of their relatives in neighbouring United

States, the importance of bilingualism. English was needed to be able to participate in the political sphere, especially as politics related to land and territorial use. Anishnaabemowin on the other hand was integral to their individual and community identity.

Anishnaabemowin was connected to the flora and fauna and the land on which they lived.

It was also vital to maintaining their teachings and narratives. Both men were converted but lived a dual identity in which they respected both aspects of their significant position and identity in their respective communities (Smith, Mississauga Portraits; Sacred

Feathers).

Kahkewaquonaby grew up understanding the need for diligence in the preservation of land and rights for his people, aware as he was of the countless stories of treacherous land negotiations between colonial settlements and Indigenous Nations (Smith,

Mississauga Portraits; Sacred Feathers). He lived in a time of cultural collision in which

Anishnaabe lifestyles, spiritual beings, traditional medicines and narratives were colliding with settler narratives, religious leaders, colonial governments and lifestyles.

Kahkewaquonaby walked between two worlds. Within his writings, he includes traditional spiritual beings regardless of his adopted Methodist faith Jones writes:

Unlike the friendly Mamagwasewug, the Indians feared the Waindegoos, the most

dreaded of all the supernatural beings. As a boy, Sacred Feathers learned of these

monsters…[t]he terrifying giants in their travels pulled down and pushed aside

dense forests…Invulnerable to bullets or arrows, in the winter the monsters

devoured Indians. People known to have eaten human flesh were also called

Waindegoos (qtd. in Smith, Sacred Feathers 12-13).

By including the Anishnaabe terms for those unhuman or half-human characters,

Jones, much like author Erdrich, as cited by Noodin, transfers these distinctly Anishnaabe concepts that often do not translate to English, to readers intact (Noodin 62-63).

Kahkewaquonaby lived in a time when manidoog, wiindigoog, Nanabozho and michibizhew lived alongside of stories of demons, spirits and transplanted European religions. Copway agrees when he writes,

Underwater monsters were an ever- present menace. These great serpents had an

awful power, particularly in the Great Lakes. Once Sacred Feathers witnessed the

sacrifice of a black dog to the water serpent, the dog being the greatest sacrifice of

all…with the prayer that the water monster would grant the Indians smooth water

and fair winds (qtd. in Smith, Sacred Feathers 13).

As Gregory Cajete points out the cosmology and the language of a community develops out of a people’s understanding of the world and predates all other human- structured expressions including social, political and religious orders (Native Science; Look at the Mountain). Kahkewaquonaby’s understanding of the world was “born of a lived and storied participation with the natural landscape and reality…cultural concepts of time,

space, relationships and linguistic form are rooted in this precultural biological awareness”

(Native Science 46). This fundamental worldview is likely how Kahkewaquonaby was able to walk the line between two often contesting lifestyles and worldviews while staying true to his positionality.

Ancient Anishnaabe narratives of presence and survival like the ones Jones passes down in letters, diary entries and sermons are relevant to the culture today, and to our cross- cultural understanding of joint and diverse histories in this place. Johnston’s 1981 publication of traditional stories in, “Tales the Elder’s Told: Ojibway Legends,” likewise tells of the primary Anishinaabeg characters of the Great Lakes; the same emblematic creatures of Jones’ time have come to define the region and have survived many generations and are now included as part of modern Anishnaabe literatures. Even the simplest stories, serve as examples of how, “Anishinaabe natural history, etymology, and spirituality come together in traditional tales” (Noodin 116; Johnston, Tale’s the Elder’s).

“Images of the michibizhew (the underwater lynx) for instance, are among the ancient petroglyphs along Lake Superior’s shores, on medicine bags from the eighteenth century…in the stories still told by the Anishinaabe today” (Noodin 117). “[The

Anishnaabe] also left carvings on the rocks along the southern shore of Lake Superior”

(Benton-Banai 101). Increasingly engagement with these traditional literatures begins to demonstrate that for the Anishnaabe the story is the, “practical, logical description of how reality can become a metaphor” (Noodin 62-63). Johnston even using the Anishnaabe character of the wiindigo to critique the current culture of capitalism by combining early

Anishnaabe narrative with modern literacy and cultural criticism stating that, “the

weendigoes did not die out or disappear; they have only been assimilated and reincarnated as corporations, conglomerates, and multinationals” (qtd. in Noodin 137).

Kahkewaquonaby was concerned with the welfare and survival of his people. The early lessons which Kahkewaquonaby had as a boy in relation to his Nation and interactions with the British are what shaped him as a leader. “The trauma the Mississaugas experienced around 1800 cannot be overemphasized: the entry of thousands of foreigners, the introduction of frightening new diseases like smallpox, measles, and tuberculosis, the decline in the game population,” had rendered the Mississauga landscape almost unrecognizable (Smith, Sacred Feathers 38). It was a troubling time in which leaders such as John Cameron a convert and Golden Eagle a traditionalist were at odds with each other.

White settlers outnumbering Mississaugas nearly ten to one (Smith, Sacred Feathers 36-

38).

In 1816, Sacred Feathers became Peter Jones, his decision says a great deal about his understanding of his special identity (Smith, Sacred Feathers 41). Jones believing that he belonged to both his mother who had raised him Anishinaabeg and who also knew his father from their Band’s visits to his farm understood the importance of being strong in both traditional and conventional knowledge systems. In 1816, Jones’ father, Augustus

Jones, a retired surveyor returned to the family with stories of disappearing Indigenous communities in the surrounding area (Smith, Sacred Feathers 41).

Jones made the decision to pursue a Western education by learning English, living with settlers to learn White customs and Methodism to ensure survival of his Nation and the success of future generations. His choice to learn English was not subtractive in nature

and he maintained his fluency in both languages. Jones is an interesting and significant historical figure because he was able throughout his life to walk the line between

Anishnaabe and Settler spaces, his hereditary lineage a reflection of this identity and his later marriage to an English wife (Smith, Sacred Feathers; Mississauga Portraits).

Zhingwaakoons12 (Little Pines) known in English as John Sunday was a Michi

Saagiig Ojibwa chief and Methodist minister who was ordained in 1836 and became one of sixteen Michi Saagiig Ojibwa men from Grape Island who became missionaries to

Northern Nations, Nations in Central Canada and later Western Canada (Alderville First

Nation; Clarke, Before the Silence xii). Zhingwaakoons is buried at Alderville First Nation, where a monument to his name and Christian service can be seen to this day (Alderville

First Nation). Zhingwaakoons fought in the War of 1812 and was at the Battle of Crysler’s

Farm in 1813; in defense of Upper Canada, along with the British and Canadians

(Alderville First Nation; Clarke, Before the Silence). Zhingwaakoons’ part in this battle which repelled the Americans ensured that his name was recorded prominently in Canadian history along with other Kanien’kéha: ka (Mohawk) and Michi Saagiig warriors (Alderville

First Nation; Clarke, Before the Silence; What We Hold Dear). Post-war Zhingwaakoons was forced out of his birthplace in New York State to resettle in Upper Canada (Clarke,

Before the Silence xii).

Like Peter Jones, Zhingwaakoons, was also concerned with the welfare and survival of his people. At the time of conversion, “[Zhingwaakoons had] already seen the effects of encroaching settlements, the subjugation his people were suffering, and wanted them to

12 Fiero spelling of Shawundais or Shingwauk.

feel empowered like him, and his new-found saviour” (Clarke, Before the Silence xii). The church groomed the Michi Saagiig Nations and attempted a forced sociolinguistic and cultural shift with promises of a better life for their children (Clarke, Before the Silence xii). In 1837, authorized by his people to speak on their behalf, Sunday even travelled to

England to plead the cause of the Indian missions, as well as Aboriginal land title, to Queen

Victoria (Alderville First Nation).

In 1828, the Reverend William Case, established a very small residential school at

Grape Island in the Bay of Quinte (MacLean 97). Education in Anishnaabeg leadership and strong knowledge in both Western and traditional knowledge were the inspiration behind initial Anishnaabe goal and support of schooling (MacLean 98). Zhingwaakoons a supporter of education for the betterment of his people relocated to the Rice Lake area.

Clarke suggests that:

While I could find no reference to the reasoning behind

[Zhingwaakoons]…decision to relocate to the Rice Lake area, it seemed most

logical and appropriate, since historically, the lake had been a healing place… [The

Michi Saagiig Anishnaabeg] had gone there to fish in the summer, to gather

[maanoomin] at the summer’s end and to hunt waterfowl that fed on the rice beds

in the fall. [As well,] soil samples taken on East Sugar Island by Alderville students

during an archeological dig for the Royal Ontario Museum in 1973 revealed that

their ancestors had been growing wild rice there for more than 9,000 years (Before

the Silence xii-xiii).

By 1850, two pre-Confederation Methodist residential sister schools, the Alnwick

Industrial School at Alderville, and the Mount Elgin Indian Residential School at

Munceytown, were erected and originally had Anishnaabe support. Leaders such as Peter

Jones and John Sunday had even petitioned for and helped to fund their creation because initially it was believed that the Church, the government and the Nations had similar goals for students and staff of the schools (Smith, Mississauga Portraits; Scared Feathers;

MacLean; Jones; Clarke, Before the Silence; What We Hold Dear).

Had the schools been established as Indigenous Nations had previously lobbied for, the history of Indigenous education in Canada may have been very different. It was believed that the schools would provide to Indigenous children both practical manual skills, as well as an advanced education for students interested in becoming doctors, lawyers and teachers (MacLean). The betterment of life for Indigenous children was always the goal of

Indigenous Nations when establishing the “right to education” within Treaty rights.

However, the colonial government had other plans for the government sponsored religious schools which had nothing to do with the betterment of Indigenous children. The schools were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture while at the same time creating trade laborers. The Alnwick Industrial School at Alderville began the prototype for federally run residential schools in Canada.

Indigenous leaders, such as Jones and Sunday, believed that schools were the answer to subjugation of Indigenous People. It was believed by Anishnaabe Nations that the schools would ultimately be directed by an Indigenous person from the community in which it was situated, and eventually as a long-term goal that the schools would be staffed by Anishnaabe teachers and staff. The vision was that eventually communities would be

running their own independent school system (MacLean). Anishnaabek control of

Anishnaabek education was a vision from the start of our paralleled Indigenous and Settler histories in Canada.

It is a widely held belief that both the colonial government and the Methodists knew by 1860 that these schools were destined to fail, yet they were permitted to continue to run even post-Confederation after our departure from British rule (MacLean). Problems with residential schooling were identified by Indigenous Nations and leaders, as well, who withdrew their support. These identified issues were supported by findings in an official government inquiry (MacLean).

Broken Promises and the Indian Residential School Era There can be no doubt that the founders of Canada somehow lost their moral compass in their relations with the people who occupied and possessed the land…While we cannot change history, we can learn from it and we can use it to shape our common future…This effort is crucial in realizing the vision of creating a compassionate and humanitarian society, the society that our ancestors, the Aboriginal, the French and the English peoples, envisioned so many years ago—our home, Canada. (St. Germain, Gerry, as cited in, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 184) The Eurocentric historical relationship between the colonizers and the colonized in Canada has had a lasting effect on our national relationship into the present day, especially, within the mainstream educational system in regard to Indigenous linguistic and cultural repression in the classroom.

Marie Battiste, examines at length aspects of cognitive imperialism or cognitive colonialism through deconstructing processes of privileging certain knowledges and cultures and pointing out the detriment of advancing a one size fits all education for all students ("You Can't Be the Global Doctor" 121-133). In regard to North America, postmodern realizations of the effects of the residential school system and subsequent

social conditions within knowledge generation in academia question a normalized

Eurocentric perspective. Battiste interrogates this normalization within her work, as well, drawing attention to the colonial roots of these policies ("You Can't Be the Global Doctor"

121-133).

During the settlement period, linguistic intolerance became even more evident through the implementation of the Indian Residential School System; especially, beginning in the 1920’s by firmly establishing that the goal and purpose of the schools was complete assimilation of Indigenous citizens into the ‘body politic’ and a large-scale cultural genocide championed by the Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs of the time, Duncan

Campbell Scott (Scott). Scott and the Canadian government, as well as other state- sanctioned institutions such as Churches and schools attempted to solve Canada’s

‘problem’ with cultural and language diversity by the forced modification of localized sociolinguistic, political, economic and social aspects of Indigenous communities instead of developing appropriate methods and concepts about bilingual language instruction or about language itself. Rather than celebrating language diversity, Canada authorized instead that Indigenous children be removed in large numbers from their familial homes and communities and “educated” in State schools, and that the instruction should only be in English, or French-dependant on the location of the school.

Language policy by definition is a framework of rules, regulations and practices which are intended to achieve a planned language change within a society, system or group

(Kaplan & Baldauf). Language policy also expresses what is to be enforced to motivate a systematic linguistic shift within the classroom. A specific case study which was relevant to informing this aspect of the literature review was included in Cahnmann’s expansion

upon Foster’s three categories of language use in the classroom (control, curriculum and critique) to try and understand the role of culturally-specific discourse in the classroom within a specific setting and case study. Foster uses her research with an urban Puerto Rican teacher who used forms of repetition with African and African-American origins to critique the favouring of standard English within the classroom (qtd. in Cahnmann).

In Canada, the large scale attempted linguicide of Indigenous languages within the

Indian Residential School system and notorious intergenerational trauma which followed demonstrates how the nature of the method of language policy provokes feelings of resistance and unrest. It’s apparent that English dominant instruction within schools has eroded languages, knowledge(s) and cultures ("You Can't Be the Global Doctor" 121-133).

The incorporation of regimes of universalism, cultural racism and cultural incompatibility within mainstream academia has been disastrous for Indigenous languages and knowledge systems. These views were based on hegemonic norms of education, on assuming

European superiority of Knowledge, and on ignoring diversity in favor of “universality”

(Blaut; Battiste).

The “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada,” points out, “[i]f the preservation of [Indigenous] languages [do] not become a priority both for governments and for [Indigenous] communities, then what the residential schools failed to accomplish will come about through a process of systematic neglect” (Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada 155). The creation of Reservation System, the Indian Residential

School System and the Sixties Scoop, as well, as the foundational pieces of Canada’s governmental Indian Policy: “The Gradual Civilization Act 1857,” and “The Gradual

Enfranchisement Act 1869”—precursors to “The Indian Act 1876,” which is still in use today; ensured that cultural and biological genocide was practiced as standard in Canada.

This history has had profound and intergenerational effects on Indigenous languages, communities and individuals. During the period between 1820-1830 the initial experimental schools ran mostly as manual labour schools and became a focus in the 1840s

(MacLean). The Government of Canada used the state’s two nationally recognized languages, English and to a lesser extent, French, within these and other state-sanctioned institutions to attempt to force a youth language shift within Indigenous communities to a dominant tongue under the guise of providing education and better lifestyle prospects to

Indigenous children.

In practice, Indigenous children were stolen from their homes and communities, people were displaced, and lands were stolen, finite resources were raped; histories, ways of life, and identities were either stolen or appropriated to serve a colonial agenda. Duncan

Campbell Scott’s infamous quotation of “Kill the Indian, save the child,” leaves no room for argument that genocidal acts were covered under the guise of providing an education.

Those who created the destructive policies, just as the colonizers who came before them, most certainly recognized the importance of language to identity. They were unquestionably aware that destructive policies of assimilation would eventually ensure that the colonial government would no longer have to uphold their financial, military, or legal obligations to distinct Indigenous Nations. Basil Johnston states, regarding Anishnaabe histories, that:

Within a few years, the colonial government directing Canada’s affairs turned on

the Indians, took their lands, and herded them onto reserves, and they were no

longer free to come and go as they were once accustomed to do, for they no longer

had anywhere to go. They now had Indian agents as masters. Missionaries came

among them to tell them what was right and what was not. [Anishinaabeg] were

now no better off than the Pequot or Narragansett. In fighting for the White man’s

freedom, the Indians lost theirs. The old Anishinaubae prophecy was fulfilled (Our

Story: Aboriginal 99-100).

In addition to the previous complaints put forth during the formative years by

Indigenous leaders and communities regarding these manual labour schools, well into the

1900’s, the government was aware of the mistreatment of Indigenous children in the system. Infamously, Dr. Peter Bryce, was commissioned by the Indian Affairs Department in Ottawa to report on the deplorable conditions in the schools in Western Canada and

British Columbia (Bryce). A report which Bryce researched and submitted in his role as an official of the Ontario Health Department, which was never published as a report; and, in

1922, Bryce took it upon himself to publish the results as a book (Milloy; Bryce).

MacLean suggests as concluding thoughts that, “[I]t is a pity that the type of program [Anishnaabeg leaders] envisioned [for education] was not implemented. Instead

Canada let pass a chance for residential schools which could have been a building block for Aboriginal autonomy” (MacLean 131). I would propose that far from being “a pity” that allowing this vision of a chance for equitable education and life chances for Indigenous youth to pass by, Settler Canada and the Canadian government intentionally committed what Milloy defined as a “national crime” (Milloy).

This heinous crime has had intergenerational impacts that are still influencing another generation of Indigenous youth. Within Peterborough and the Kawartha Lakes area, speakers, teachers and parents have taken matters into their own hands over the decades by creating “language nests,” running community language classes, and tirelessly fighting for Anishnaabemowin to be included as part of the curricula in mainstream schools. As Settlers, upholding the “right to education,” is an agreement and a promise that is part of our obligations sworn by Canada under the authority of the Crown.

By way of this agreement, Settler Canada made certain promises to Indigenous

Nations such as maintaining schools on Reserves or providing teachers or educational assistance to any First Nation named within a treaty. Despite the early relationships established between sovereign and distinct Indigenous Nations and Europeans, Settler

Canada has collectively disregarded its own foundational heritage, by historically turning towards policies of assimilation and disregarding Treaty agreements, as well as an inherent

Indigenous right to an education which is culturally relevant including but not limited to the right to language.

Developing an Indigenous Literary Tradition (1960-Present) For the Anishnaabeg, developing language was as much about being able to express relationships verbally as it was about responsibilities in maintaining their Original

Instructions (Sherman). The Anishnaabe developed distinct Anishnaabemowin dialects in relation to the land and waterscapes in their homelands and to the spiritual beings who lived there to safeguard the survival and sustainability of their Nations and the Natural World

(Sherman). Blaeser adds to this discussion noting that, “[a]s Native people, we often partake in a complex cycle of belonging in which the aesthetic sensibility—here, our

awareness of ancestral acts, natural beauty, or the spirit of place—and the path to survival have been conjoined” (Blaeser 240-250).

In attempts to combat cognitive imperialism of knowledge systems, Indigenous scholars are developing a contemporary Indigenous literary tradition through the reclamation of their languages and literature which reflect these distinct literary traditions and reflect the vast diversity of Indigenous Nations, languages and histories worldwide.

Jane H. Hill in the fields of anthropology and linguistics also addresses the importance of

Indigenous languages to the concepts of Indigenous knowledges and epistemologies, suggesting that Indigenous languages are evidence of the importance of the diversity that is housed within these languages. Hill engages with people who speak languages of the

Uto-Aztecan language family, as well as the Mexica and the Tlaxcalteca. She states that:

[Indigenous] languages are irrevocably particular and local…Languages work by

their own regularities and are shaped by unique histories of human communities,

even when we understand these within larger typological and cognitive-

psychological or ethnological frameworks. [However,] [h]istorical linguistic

method permits us to transcend the local and begin to explore deeper time and wider

geographical connections, revealing “Native American knowledges” not as a set of

dots…but as a kaleidoscopic web of human connection that may provide a richer

expression of unity than do the labels now available to us (Hill 322).

The importance of language transference to younger generations to ensure the survival of this human connection was laid out at length by language researchers for the

1996 “Royal Commission on Aboriginal People,” which states that, “[l]anguage is the principle instrument by which culture is transmitted from one generation to another, by

which members of a culture communicate meaning and make sense of their shared experience” (RCAP, “2.1 The Importance of Language”).

Noodin speaks of Anishinaabebiige13 as both ancient and evolving to ensure linguistic and epistemological survival. She states that contemporary Anishnaabe authors must move from one language to another by choice and necessity and that even though the language of original stories is often endangered, the translations and contemporary renditions still reflect Indigenous Anishnaabe literary patterns (Noodin 19). Specific to the development of Anishnaabe literary tradition Heid E. Erdrich’s work, in which she speaks to the struggle of becoming a reader and writer of Indigenous literature in the 1970s. She cites, Warrior, in Tribal Secrets, when he situates the 1960s-1990s as an important time for the rise of Indigenous literature. She explains that when she began her education into

Ojibwe14 literary history, that much of the literature was still buried or was just being written (qtd. in Erdrich 15).

Indigenous orature prior to European contact, connected histories between

Indigenous Nations in the transference process. The disruption of this process by the colonial state created an environment of buried, and hidden histories, as well as a generation of Indigenous scholars working towards reconnecting and reconstructing a relationship with their literary ancestors. Erdrich juxtaposes the experience of the work of early contemporary Native American scholars in the 1960s, like Warrior, who retrieved work from the past and began the process of aligning works across tribes and cultures to create what Erdrich calls the “appearance of one ethnic literature called Native American

13 Anishnaabe Literature (Noodin 2014) 14 Anishnaabe

literature” (Erdrich 15). Erdrich speaks to the pioneering spirit of these early scholars but also to the problematic nature of a gathering together of books written by authors of similar backgrounds under the umbrella term of “Native American Literature.” She suggests that when comparing this grouping of books with a rich English literary tradition it becomes clear that conversant Indigenous literature was not present as it is within the English literary tradition. English literary works speak to each other across generations and can draw from other authors within the literary tradition to create new works to resonate years later. She suggests that at the time the rich English literary tradition had no parallel in Native

American literature (Erdrich 15).

Erdrich states that “experiences as Anishnaabe people are vastly varied, but we still read others like us with a distinct understanding of our shared place, particularly our place in land and language” (Erdrich 13-14). She speaks of the reality that when we read, we read from who we are and from where we are. Within ancient Anishnaabe literary tradition a distinct understanding of place and shared place is present. She suggests that in order to connect with her literary ancestors she chooses to be, “guided by a metaphor that involves a play between the notion of early landmark literary works and the pictographic marks/signs/presence that Anishnaabe people left/leave/find on rock and elsewhere”

(Erdrich 14). Anishnaabe-centered epistemology relates writing with landmark and marking with an ongoing presence in place. This specific relationship is significant, especially when nations have been forcibly relocated and had their languages attacked through acts of imperialism.

Connecting the more recent work of Noodin with Erdrich’s earlier findings, Noodin suggests that in order to advance the study of Indigenous literature as a broad field, as well

as the Anishnaabe literary canon proper, the work of Kim Blaeser is significant. Blaeser looks at the concept of ‘tribal-centered’ criticism. According to Noodin, Blaeser calls on

Indigenous authors to focus on one nation but also to reach, when required, beyond national boundaries and in an interdisciplinary fashion to provide a ‘tribal’ view of literature (qtd. in Noodin 19). This suggests to me a method of developing conversant literature as is found in the English literary tradition, while also respecting diversities across Nations and not just commonalities.

Noodin states that, “[t]he point is less about revealing the details of one tribe that fit the current framework than about understanding how to view literature and language from a tribal perspective that involves creating new frames of reference based on

[I]ndigenous ways of knowing” (14). Indigenous Nations have always found new ways of telling their stories through adaptability and survivance. As the late Basil Johnston stated,

“[t]here is, fortunately, enough literature, both oral and written, available for scholarly study; [however, tribal literature] has for the most part been neglected [until now]” (Is That

All 5).

As tribal literature is reclaimed and shared more broadly, society can begin to move towards the post-colonial consciousness which has been stifled by the goals of assimilation in the past. Directly linking this shift to the youth demographic allows for clarity because this populous is displaying plainly within the mainstream every day acts of resistance and solidarity using new media technologies which allow for self-representation and the ability to reach a broader audience without alteration. The concepts of “presence” and “place” take on a new meaning and creative life by using these platforms. The growing Indigenous literary canon and documentation of Indigenous histories, oral narratives and recovering of

literature by Indigenous scholars, storytellers and communities provides knowledge that is distinct to specific nations, as well as transcending the local by exploring Indigenous

Knowledge as a web of human connection (Hill 322).

Contemporary Language Policy Development and Funding The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996)

Starting a conversation regarding contemporary language legislation policies must commence with an acknowledgement of a founding piece of legislation the 1996 “Royal

Commission on Aboriginal People.” The RCAP is a Canadian Royal Commission which was established in 1991 to address matters of Aboriginal status which had come to light during the time in response to recent events i.e. the Oka “crisis” or Kanesatake (1990) and the Meech Lake Accord (1987-1990) (Erasmus & Dussault; Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada 55). The RCAP brought forth a twenty-nine year agenda for the creation of a new relationship of reconciliation heading forward between Indigenous

Peoples and Settler Canada. The RCAP based this relationship of co-existence on inherent treaty principles of respect, mutual acknowledgement and sharing (Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada 55). Initiatives housed within the RCAP final report which was issued in November of 1996 included recommendations to address educational, social, and health needs and the establishment of an Aboriginal peoples’ university

(Erasmus & Dussault). Of these initiatives and recognizable rights, the RCAP stated that the revitalization of traditional languages is a key component in the creation of healthy individuals and communities (RCAP 163).

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Language and Cultural Recommendations

(2014)

Building upon the work of previous activists and policy makers The Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of 2014 was born. The general consensus of the Commission is that a multi-pronged approach to Aboriginal language preservation is needed. An approach which would require Canada to recognize that Indigenous communities have the necessary knowledge to preserve their own languages and culture, but that further support is needed, especially regarding funding for resource creation.

Among the Truth and Reconciliation recommendations, Calls to Action: 14 through

17 deals specifically with language preservation and revitalization. The outcome of these

Calls is geared towards creating policies and legislation which affirm the importance of

Canada’s Indigenous languages, allocating adequate funding which reflects that, and which ensures their preservation. Call to Action 14, as follows: “We call upon the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act…” (Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada). This Act would enforce that Indigenous languages are a fundamental and valued component of Canadian society. That Indigenous languages are, as previously discussed, reinforced by the Treaties; and therefore, the federal government has a responsibility and obligation to provide adequate funding for their revitalization and preservation. That the preservation and revitalization of Indigenous languages and culture are best managed by Indigenous communities and individuals, and finally that Indigenous language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Indigenous languages (Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada).

Call to Action 15 is the appointment of, in consultation with Indigenous groups, an

Aboriginal Languages Commissioner. The Commissioner would help to promote

Indigenous languages and to report on whether the federal funding of Indigenous-language initiatives is sufficient. The Commissioner would present the case that Indigenous language instruction requires innovative approaches, including the use of immersion programs, the knowledge and use of Elders, and that more formal training opportunities are also required for teachers in order to facilitate the teaching and transmission of Indigenous languages.

Call to Action 16 is particularly relevant to the discourse surrounding Indigenous language loss and the creation of new speakers in the youth demographic in Canada, it states: “We call upon post-secondary institutions to create university and college degree and diploma programs in Aboriginal languages” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada). When attending the first working meeting for the Project Advisory Council-

Indigenous Bachelor of Education Program in May of 2015, it was brought to the attention of the group that one requirement of this cutting-edge program should be a mandatory

Indigenous language credit for teacher candidates who wish to apply to the program. The logic is simple and decolonial—one does not major in any other second language program, without being required to study the language (Project Advisory Council Meeting). This recommendation was moved unanimously and therefore all Indigenous Bachelor of

Education teacher candidates are required to complete one of the Indigenous language courses available at Trent University as part of their required course work.

Call to Action 17 addresses the reclaiming of names. As a result of the Residential

School experience, many survivors were re-named by school officials. Survivors and their families disclosed to the Commission that the reclaiming of their names post-residential

school has been a long, difficult and expensive process. The Truth and Reconciliation

Commission believes that measures need to be established by all levels of government to reduce the burden on survivors and to help those who seek to reclaim this significant portion of their heritage by waiving administrative costs for a period of five years for the legal name-change process and subsequent revision of official identity documents (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 158). Individual names and place names have been proven to be a critical aspect to distinct identity.

The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act- Anishinabek Control of

Education

Here I would like to address the April 10th, 2014 passing of Bill C-33— “The First Nations

Control of First Nations Education Act.” This “proposed legislation is [to be] a transformative step in [the] efforts to close the gap in education[al] outcomes for First

Nations on reserve” (Government of Canada-Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada).

Bill C-33 clarifies roles and responsibilities, provides for stable and predictable educational funding, as well as establishes First Nations control of First Nations education as a central principle (Government of Canada-Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada).

In theory, Bill C-33 may sound fair to the average non-Indigenous Canadian with limited knowledge surrounding educational funding on reserve; however, Bill C-33 was created with no consultation of Indigenous populations according to many Indigenous leaders (CBC Indigenous- The Canadian Press). It also addresses, specifically, educational outcomes on reserve and is viewed as placing too much control of Indigenous youth education into the federal government’s hands (Bellegarde; CBC Indigenous- The

Canadian Press).

First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples are also covered under Section 35 of the

Constitutional Act of 1982. This section states that the Crown has a duty to consult and honor Indigenous populations and visa-versa. In the case of Bill C-33 in 2014, with the lack of consultation, once again the right to education was being managed by third party management under the government making The Bill itself contradictory in nature as

Indigenous and Northern Affairs (formerly known as, Aboriginal Affairs or Indian Affairs) once again refused to relinquish control. Noticeably, this attitude does nothing to honour

“establish[ing] First Nations control of First Nations education” (Government of Canada-

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada). The right to culturally relevant education for

Indigenous Youth which includes language and culture should be a given. Odawa scholar

Shirley Williams in reference to education, “[w]e want to take back our education and teach our history, our language and our culture. We have begun to tell our own story-our history- and we want to tell it in our own words to the world…” (qtd. in 100 Years of Loss).

Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement

Specific to the Anishinaabe control of Anishinabek Education, this past year and this coming year are critical ones. The participating twenty-nine Anishinabek First Nations have been in negotiations with Canada for two decades to ratify the Anishinabek Nation

Education Agreement. The ratification of this agreement would mean that First Nations who are a part of the agreement would have control over First Nations education for their communities. The purpose of the negotiated good Education agreement between the

Anishinabek Nation and Canada is to ensure that Anishnaabe parents, educators and

communities are able to provide the best education for their children, as well as to exercise their jurisdiction (Anishinabek Nation). Priorities range from improved attendance and graduation rates to teaching methods which ensure that students are learning about their cultural heritage, language and Anishnaabe history in the school system.

Throughout its twenty years in the making, numerous factors were addressed at length by the working groups and communities involved in its creation. Factors including but not limited to: funding gaps to Anishnaabe schools, inclusion of non-core programs, addressing the high cost of special education funding needs and ensuring sufficient funding for the Anishinabek Education System. Studies, proposals and reports were conducted at length to develop the draft which communities received in 2016.

Twenty-nine Anishinabek First Nations took a ratification vote on the Anishinabek

Nation Education Agreement late last year (2016) at various on-reserve and off-reserve sites. Thirteen First Nations voted “yes” by meeting the 25%+1 threshold on their first vote, two First Nations voted “no” and fourteen First Nations, including Alderville First Nation, did not meet the 25%+1 threshold but found that an overwhelming majority of voters who turned out voted “yes.” Within Alderville, specifically, 192 eligible voters voted in favor of the agreement; within this community, 252 members (85%) had to vote in favor of the agreement in order for the Agreement to be binding within Alderville (Nation 2017;

Macdonald 2017). Within a community with only approximately 300 on-reserve Status members the voter turnout and “yes” votes are significant.

This agreement was an important step in asserting First Nations jurisdiction, as well as important to the process of language and cultural reclamation and reconciliation

(Anishinabek Nation). General meetings are ongoing locally, Chief Marsden explained to the local newspaper that, “Alderville wouldn’t see much of a difference at all initially (with the new Education Agreement) because there are good relations with both the local school boards;” however, in future as it relates to language, for example, the local First Nation could, “set up our own rules and regulations” (MacDonald).

According to the First Nations Educational Landscape presentation included in the information package the educational reality is that graduation rates between Canada and

First Nations students show a marked gap in the mainstream system. Between the years of

2004-2009 the high school graduation rate for Canada was at seventy-two percent, while in contrast the rate drops to thirty-six percent for First Nations students. Numerous factors account for this, not the least of which being that many First Nations students are bused or ferried out of the community for high school. In contrast in the Mi’kimaq education system which is governed under the Mi’Kmaq Education Act (S.C. 1998, c. 24), amended in 2014-

05-29, the average graduation rate raised to ninety-percent (The Government of Canada;

Anishinabek Nation 2016). Further, high school graduation rates reached the one-hundred percent success rate for Membertou First Nation in Membertou Nova Scotia between those same years of 2004-2009 (Anishinabek Nation).

The high school graduation rate is significant for obvious reasons. National AFN

Chief, Perry Bellegarde, has discussed the importance of closing the educational and economic gap for First Nations children publicly numerous times. As education rises, so does the employment rate. Studies show that Indigenous students who secure a university degree have the same employment probability as their non-Indigenous counterparts at seventy-five percent and up (Bellegarde; Anishinabek Nation). Acts which are specific to

Nations such as the proposed Anishinabek Education Act and the Mi’kmaq Education Act are so important because they are grassroots legislation made in collaboration with the communities that are affected and are inclusive of aspects which Indigenous communities are highlighting as fundamental to education for their children. These specific Acts will ensure that the government is held accountable to their promises to specific Nations.

While researching Bill C-33, I began to recognize what seems to be a common trend in our failed national relationship- that policy that includes little to no consultation with

Indigenous Nations and which is connected to the federal government in Canada has not in the past, and probably would not uphold commitments previously made to fund Indigenous educational programs solely under federal policies such as Bill C-33. I say this assuredly due to the continued vague nature of governmental promises regarding Indigenous language programming and funding. For English and French language funding, the intent is clear; meanwhile, the promise of Indigenous language funding is unpredictable and blurred. Sillet M. states that, “I cannot see the federal government putting out the money that’s necessary for full restitution, you know… I can’t bring back my language; I lost that.

I lost my culture, you know” (qtd. in Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

156).

Aboriginal Language Initiative Program & Canada-Territorial Language Accords

On top of the vague nature of legislation regarding Indigenous education in “…2002 the federal government promised $160 million for the creation of a centre for Aboriginal languages and culture,” as well as, the creation and implementation of a national language strategy; however, in 2006 the Harper government retreated from that promise, instead

vowing to provide permanent annual funding to the Aboriginal Language Initiative program. The ALI program, established in 1998, runs on government-administered heritage subsidies and does not provide Indigenous peoples with the opportunity to make decisions about the allocation of the scarce resources or a say in how to administer language and cultural programs (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 155). Once again, the Crown and the government is assuming a Eurocentric role of the dominant by suggesting that Canada, and not communities and individuals, know best how to educate

Indigenous youth.

In Canada, the only other significant programs for Indigenous language preservation that I uncovered in my research are the Canada-Territorial Language

Accords. The Canada-Territorial Language Accords have an annual budget of 4.1 million to support territorial government-directed Aboriginal language services, supports, and community projects in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories (Truth and Reconciliation

Commission of Canada 156). In the Yukon territories, language revitalization efforts and preservation projects are sustained through transfer agreements with ten of the eleven self- governing Yukon First Nations. Combined the total budget for these Indigenous language programs is $9.1 million annually. To recap, within Canada alone there are eleven

Indigenous language families, fifty-three languages, and over two-hundred dialects

(Charleston & McDonald-Jacobs). By way of comparison, the Official Language Program for English and French was projected to receive $348.2 million in the 2014-2015 year

(Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 156). The Truth and Reconciliation

Commission points out that the resources which are committed to Indigenous language programs are far fewer than those that are committed to French in areas where

Francophones are in the minority. As a localized illustration, the TRC provides the example of Francophone minorities in Nunavut. The federal government provides $4000 per individual annually to the small minority of French speakers. In contrast, it is estimated that funding to support Inuit-language initiatives is $44 per Inuk annually (Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of Canada 156).

Youth Presence in Indigenous Language Engagement: Trans -languaging, Technology & Innovation As this literature review illustrates, there exists a broad and varied plethora of scholarly literature and research available regarding the importance of language diversity, endangerment, intergenerational disruption, shifting language ideologies and revitalization methods. Much of the existing literature looks at overarching topics of cultural identity, literary sovereignty, counter-narratives, localized knowledges, tradition and language policy-planning processes. The preliminary review of the scholarship has also revealed that youth are often the focus of these studies; however, their perspectives and proper voices have been noticeably absent from the academic literature and often from the language planning process.

Within the literature, language has been established as a living and mutable mechanism which needs a community of speakers to preserve and modernize it. Studies of innovative youth language forms or practices are beneficial because their success lends credence to the belief that healthy languages will develop and change over time naturally and that tradition and identity are not static concepts.

Along the same lines, Ofelia Garcìa’s work states that, “we can no longer hold static views of American Indigenous languages as autonomous languages completely separate

from English or Spanish, or other languages (Garcìa 209). David Crystal’s work in Internet

Linguistics fortifies Garcìa’s findings as he too points out that standardization seems a much less substantial factor for minority languages on the Internet (68-69).

The concept of trans-languaging or engaging in bilingual or multilingual discourse practices is an approach developed by Ofelia Garcìa in her commentary on encountering or countering Indigenous bi/multilingualism. This approach to bilingualism is, “centered not on the constructed notion of standard languages, but on the practices of bilinguals that are readily observable” (Garcìa 209). Translanguaging is the typical mode of communication which, except in rare monolingual enclaves, characterizes communities worldwide, especially with the rise of communicative technologies and globalization of knowledge (Garcìa 209).

Garcìa argues for, “[considering] the perspective of young Indigenous speakers themselves, and not of separate languages [youth language practices have shown that] youth language or rather youth ‘trans-language’ is being created by integrating language practices from different communities with distinct language ideologies, as they draw from different semiotic systems and modes of meaning” (Garcìa 209). As well, existing studies support that youth loyalties lie with, “their Indigenous cultural and linguistic practices,

[and] their fluidities, complexities and ambiguities” (Garcìa 209). Ofelia Garcìa’s work notes young people’s natural tendencies towards unique linguistic strategies by highlighting two forms of such innovation, that of, “recursive bilingualism” and “dynamic bilingualism.”

In recursive bilingualism, “speakers take pieces of past language practices to reconstitute new practices that will serve them well in a bilingual future” (Garcìa 7).

Recursive bilingualism was an aspect of language adaptation that became more thought- provoking when applying an Anishnaabeg lens to the practice. Leanne Simpson has spoken at length about the importance of “embodied knowledge” to the development of an

Anishnaabe worldview. Building on the knowledge(s) of the ancestors for success in contemporary society (Simpson). Indigenous youth are growing up acutely aware that their heritage languages are in danger of being lost. Many youth language practices such as the hybridity’s found in translanguaging exemplify recursive bilingualism in practice. Youth are expressing a desire to connect with their Indigenous languages, but this engagement is shaped by sociolinguistic contexts and Indigenous identities which are exclusive to the youth demographic.

The second innovative practice which Garcìa describes is that of “dynamic bilingualism” in which speakers are, “ever adjusting to the multilingual multimodal terrain of the communicative act” (Garcìa 7). Dynamic bilingualism is evident in practices such as youth engagement with contemporary linguistic forms such as texting and code switching to create a new vocabulary. As well, dynamic bilingualism can be seen in Internet as a mixed medium. Within several studies of applied linguistic domains, it becomes evident that Internet language varies when pertaining to speech versus writing (Internet

Linguistics 17).

Speech being “t