Exploring Ethnohistory and Indigenous Scholarship: What Is the Relevance to Educational Historians? Heather E

Home , Ethnohistory

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia] On: 23 July 2014, At: 08:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thed20 Exploring ethnohistory and Indigenous scholarship: what is the relevance to educational historians? Heather E. McGregora a Curriculum & Pedagogy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Published online: 22 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Heather E. McGregor (2014) Exploring ethnohistory and Indigenous scholarship: what is the relevance to educational historians?, History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 43:4, 431-449, DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2014.930184 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2014.930184

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions History of Education, 2014 Vol. 43, No. 4, 431–449, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2014.930184

Exploring ethnohistory and Indigenous scholarship: what is the relevance to educational historians? Heather E. McGregor*

Curriculum & Pedagogy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (Received 25 September 2013; accepted 27 May 2014)

For educational historians involved in the representation of Indigenous contexts and peoples, what is the relevance of ethnohistory as a discipline or methodology, and what is lost or gained in using it? This article reviews ethnohistorical literature, and brings it in conversation with literature by Indigenous scholars on research methodologies, as well as history and historiography. The inquiry raises questions for consideration by educational historians in conducting Indigenous educational histories. It is suggested that while ethnohistory as it is described in the literature may demonstrate limitations, turning towards Indigenous scholarship for guidance may extend and enhance research on the educational past that is responsive to the interests of Indigenous communities. Keywords: ethnohistory; Indigenous history; educational history; Indigenous research methods; historiography

Indigenous scholars and communities have levelled significant critiques regarding research methodologies in general, as well as specifically towards the discipline of history for its potential to represent their understanding of the past and their interests in the present. Non-Indigenous scholars have also problematised the relationship between disciplinary history and Indigenous knowledge systems. For example, exclusive reliance on documents as evidence in history has been found to constrain rather than facilitate historical claims by Indigenous groups in cases such as land- use disputes or experiences of students at residential schools. In the mid-twentieth century, scholars working with and for Indigenous populations turned toward combining historical methods with anthropology. They proceeded to define and distin- guish a methodology they called ethnohistory. For a non-Indigenous educational

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 historian, such as me, concerned with representation of a cross-cultural and Indige- nous context through research, is an ethnohistorical approach relevant? What is lost and what is gained by using ethnohistorical methodology?1 How does ethnohistory help to address the concerns raised by Indigenous communities regarding historiography?

*Email: [email protected] 1See: Wendy Luttrell, ‘“Good enough” Methods for Ethnographic Research’, Harvard Educa- tional Review 70, no. 4 (2000): 499–523. The idea for this question came from reading Luttrell, who argues that ethnographic research is largely mediated by the views and interests of the researcher, and that an ‘ideal’ methodology is an impossibility, so thinking through methodological questions in terms of what is lost and gained helps lead researchers in the direction of ‘good enough’ methodology, or situated methodological decisions.

I have examined these questions through a review of literature from the field of ethnohistory. I bring ethnohistorical approaches in conversation with critiques of research (in general and specifically in terms of history) by Indigenous scholars, to assess whether conversation between these two fields may extend and enhance respectful, relevant, reciprocal and responsible cross-cultural research about the past.2 Finally, I raise questions about methodology for consideration by educational historians working in and with Indigenous communities. The reasons I have taken up these questions are numerous and partly result from reflection on my prior work in the field of Inuit educational history.3 My own research is not substantially featured here, but who I am certainly informs the purposes and approaches I have taken to it. I identify myself as a white woman descended from Scottish, Irish and English families who participated in settlement on Indigenous lands in Canada and the United States. My parents relocated to Arctic Canada to work as teachers. I consider myself a Northerner, born North of 60° and raised in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada – a recognised Inuit homeland, and jurisdiction in which the Inuit population forms the majority. Evidently, I have also been educated as a historian. I am sometimes challenged by the feelings associated with identifying myself as a researcher and historian in my own home context. I am challenged by responding to the perception that history remains irrelevant to Indigenous communities.4 I am challenged by looking around at conferences or reading recent scholarship, and seeing few Indigenous colleagues who are interested in working in history. And yet, there are more who conduct educational research. What story might that difference tell? Does it relate to research methodology? I am looking for ways to approach Indigenous educational history with more openness and flexibility, responsibility and responsiveness, reciprocity and relevance, as a non-Indigenous scholar. I am an educational historian who still hopes that educators would have an interest in my work, and that conversations between history and education could be fruitful. I am looking to learn from those historians who have come before me, who may have grappled with these same questions. This led me to investigate and review literature on ethnohistory – would this be the scholarly and disciplinary home for my work? Could ethnohistory signal some distinction from historians who work in isolation from the present-day concerns and perspectives of the descendants of those they study? This essay proceeds on the premise that scholars working in Indigenous contexts – even historians, even those who study people dead and gone (though some of us are concerned with people who are still alive) – are called to relate the content, methods or implications of their research in some way to the contemporary communities descended from the events of the Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 past.

2Verna J. Kirkness and Ray Barnhardt, ‘First Nations and Higher Education: The Four Rs – Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility’, Journal of American Indian Education 30, no. 3 (1991): 9–16; Michael Marker, ‘Four R’s Revisited: Some Reﬂections on First Nations and Higher Education’,inStudent Affairs: Experiencing Higher Education, ed. L. Andres and F. Finlay (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004), 171–88. 3Heather E. McGregor, Inuit Education and Schools in the Eastern Arctic (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010). 4Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 2nd ed. (London and New York: Zed Books; distributed in the USA exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Smith argued that ‘research’ is a dirty word in Indigenous communities, and likewise she implies the same goes for ‘history’. History of Education 433

I am pursuing these questions partly following Michael Marker, an Indigenous scholar, who draws attention to the historiographic problems of writing Indigenous educational histories.5 The challenges he identifies include differing discursive categories of time and space, the importance of land, and the use of Indigenous autobi- ographies as historical evidence. Marker suggests that historians would be wise to incorporate anthropological approaches into research regarding the history of education, particularly as education involves cultural transmission. He emphasises two reasons ethnohistory and educational history should converge. The oral foundations of Indigenous knowledge about the past make it important to capture orality in history, which anthropological approaches have tended to do better than those of historians. Second, Indigenous interpretations of schooling ‘may have been founded on a completely separate paradigm of understanding’,6 which necessitates the epistemo- logical destabilising towards which anthropological approaches may contribute. More than a decade before Marker, David Adams’ book review of Indian Educa- tion in Canada Vol. 1 and 2 argues in favour of ethnohistorical approaches to documenting Indigenous educational history.7 He says, more than combining archival research with fieldwork, and more than being attentive to Indigenous viewpoints, ethnohistory: … requires the historian to reconstruct as much as possible the entire thoughtworld of the tribal universe, and in the case of educational historians, to give special attention to the multitude of ways in which tribal elders transmitted valued cultural knowledge across generations. It requires also that they make an effort to reconstruct the precise nature of the cataclysmic conflict that occurred when white and Indian worlds collided in the classroom. Only then will discussions of student responses take on real meaning. Only then will discussions on recent efforts to establish a bicultural identity for Indian children, or to use the school as an instrument for revitalizing Indian cultures, take on deeper historical significance.8 Is there a consensus about what ethnohistory is, and what it can offer educational history? Is ethnohistory methodologically distinctive or is it primarily a sort of ‘topic locator’ for historians and anthropologists who align themselves with North Ameri- can Indigenous histories (as environmental history refers to those studying the environment)? Does this reconcile with other, and more recent, developments in Indigenous perspectives on history, anthropology and research in general? Can ethnohistory guide historians into better educational histories of Indigenous peoples?

Terms and sources

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 Use of identity terms perpetually challenges scholars, warrants explanation and demands care. Identifying individuals or groups as Indigenous may sometimes be in accordance with their wishes. In other cases it serves to make more explicit historical and contemporary exclusions from socio-political and academic contexts, exclusions that warrant changes towards equity and self-representation. It also points to

5Michael Marker, ‘Review Essay: Ethnohistory and Indigenous Education: A Moment of Uncertainty’, History of Education 29, no. 1 (2000): 79–85. 6Ibid., 85. 7David W. Adams, ‘Before Canada: Toward an Ethnohistory of Indian Education (Review of Indian Education in Canada Vol. 1, the Legacy; Vol. 2, The Challenge)’, History of Educa- tion Quarterly 28, no. 1 (1988): 95–105. 8Ibid., 104. 434 H.E. McGregor

varying, constructed ‘necessities’ of identity markers (or rejection of them) resulting from ways of engaging with, and validating, knowledge(s) that operate differently within the academy and outside it.9 This is where danger arises, in several ways. The first is that identity terms become essentialising or totalising: individuals are attributed a simplified, singular essence that overrides or precludes other characteristics; all individuals associated with the category are assumed to be the same; or, it is prescribed that simultaneously being several different things in different spaces is impossible. Linda Smith argues: The desire for ‘pure,’ uncontaminated, and simple definitions of the native by the settler is often a desire to continue to know and define the Other, whereas the desire by the native to be self-defining and self-naming can be read as a desire to be free, to escape definition, to be complicated, to develop and change, and to be regarded as fully human. In between such desires are multiple and shifting identities and hybridities with much more nuanced positions about what constitutes native identities, native communities, and native knowledge in anti/postcolonial times.10 Another danger is the interpretation that only individuals of a particular ancestry, genetic composition or blood quantum can understand or engage with knowledge(s) associated with their place or group, and therefore are the only authorities warranted to make knowledge claims. This position does not address to what extent the individual making claims has been educated (meant in the broadest sense) in the relevant area of knowledge or tradition, or tried to understand such knowledge on its own terms.11 This approach tends to paralyse and shut down conversation, produc- ing rigidity that does little to advance ethical relations. I acknowledge the history of appropriation and misrepresentation in research to which Indigenous peoples have been disproportionately subject, and that certainly should not be swept under the rug.12 But rigid claims to authority take on even greater limitations for historians who are always bridging the gap of time. Historians must attempt to know those from whom they are distant (because of the gap of time), while remaining cognisant that it is impossible to fully know them. These skills could be extended to bridging the gap of culture. In my view, historians have a responsibility to identify measures that facilitate this better than our predecessors. With a high degree of transparency, reflexivity, humility and patience people of different origins can enter respectful ways of coming to know others, and in the process come to know themselves better. Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars have collaborated to invite such careful engagement, along the lines of Kirkness and Barnhardt’s ‘The Four R’s’. The

9 Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 These issues have been taken up in great depth in qualitative research, educational studies, and particularly feminist poststructural theorising, areas educational historians might consider in terms of the limits of the ‘knowable subject’. Attempting to recognise this but not digress completely, I have tried to succinctly note some of the most salient points with regard to the terms Indigenous and non-Indigenous, but certainly do not see myself as engaging these issues comprehensively here. 10Linda Tuhiwai Smith, ‘On Tricky Ground: Researching the Native in the Age of Uncer- tainty’,inThe Landscape of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008), 115. 11See: Angela Cavender Wilson, ‘Reclaiming our Humanity: Decolonization and the Recov- ery of Indigenous Knowledge’,inIndigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah and Angela Cavender Wilson, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004), 75–7. 12See: Celia Haig-Brown, ‘Indigenous Thought, Appropriation, and non-Aboriginal People’, Canadian Journal of Education 33, no. 4 (2010): 925–50. History of Education 435

purpose of making reference to identity is to better engage scholarship in the complexity, relationality and contestation that has always existed in human experience and yet not frequently been made visible in writing about the past. At the institution I am affiliated with and according to my experience, Indigenous is the preferred and common term when generally referring to: First Nations, Métis, Inuit, American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, or other groups who self-identify as Indigenous. Castagno and Brayboy’s explanation of the term provides additional detail: ‘those who have inhabited lands before colonization or annexation; have main- tained distinct, nuanced cultural and social organizing principles; and claim a nationhood status. Indigenous peoples are both self-identified and recognised by members of their community.’13 Tribal, ancestral or cultural affiliations that are more specific than the term Indigenous are often preferred when appropriate and possible, keeping in mind Smith’s points about fluidity. However, I do not view this essay as working towards educating readers about any specific Indigenous group. It is about encountering Indigeneity in research and methodology in much more general terms. It is likewise not intended to explicate my own research relationships or areas of study but to be useful to a broad spectrum of educational historians (and others), so I have not attempted to model how the specifics of historical research focusing on a particular context would warrant such place-based and nuanced detail concerning identity. Given the diversity of contexts this article works amongst, I have viewed it as most pragmatic to use the term non-Indigenous to refer to individuals and groups that are outside of the identifiers listed above, carrying with it the following considerations: (1) Many individuals identify across and between more than one affiliation, including across the Indigenous/non-Indigenous boundary that is artificially constructed here, so these terms may not adequately account for such ancestries or experiences; (2) The term non-Indigenous can obscure whiteness, histories of colonisation or settler-colonialism, power differentials, and other material and discursive forms of difference that have defined relations between peoples in the past and present; and, (3) Defining an individual or group in the negative (non-) hardly defines them at all. I use the term Euro-Western to refer to knowledges and conventions that draw on ways of knowing descended from European or Enlightenment traditions that are commonly and normatively taken up in the academy and outside it. Moving through the complexity and dangers of collapsing diversity within categories, I humbly ask that the reader indulge me in using this strategy for the purposes of this inquiry. In terms of my sources, some readers may view it as unacceptable to cite from both Shepard Krech III and the late Vine Deloria Jr. in the same essay without men- tioning the controversy they instigated at the intersection of environmental histories Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 and Indigenous histories. These issues – centred on methodology, research questions, evidence and informants – have been taken up by the scholars in question (with more said in publications by Krech than by Deloria) and others commenting on their work and respective positions.14 Such detail and depth are far beyond my purview. With awareness that the Indigenous scholarly community has responded critically to Krech’s own historical research in both content and method, I put

13Angelina E. Castagno and Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, ‘Culturally Responsive School- ing for Indigenous Youth: A Review of the Literature’, Review of Educational Research 78, no. 4 (2008): 941–93. 14See: Michael E. Harkin and David R. Lewis, eds, Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2007). 436 H.E. McGregor

Krech’s review of the literature on ethnohistory to use. To overlook his representation of the ﬁeld would be to leave out an important (historical) document in constructing this review, and potentially abandon the spirit of creating a dialectic around what ethnohistory should be and do. My purposes are to relate ethnohistory to educational history, an area to which Krech’s environmental research has less relevance, and this necessitates a few expedient choices. Also in terms of my choice of sources, this inquiry is not intended to represent the intricacies of how ethnohistory emerged or account for all the permutations it has since taken. Rather, for the sake of expediency, again, I offer a nod to these topics.15 My emphasis is on understanding enough about where and how ethnohistory emerged to bring it further in conversation with Indigenous research scholarship, and educational historiography. A more in-depth treatment of the tensions that drove the inauguration of ethnohistory may shine greater light on its potential as a methodology. However, such work would be unlikely to offer greater insight into the views of Indigenous communities or scholars, which is a central part of my pursuit here. As a Canadian scholar I have focused more on literature relevant to the Canadian context, with an eye to the US as well. Lastly, rather than documenting developments in the history of ethnohistory chronologically, I have combined scholarship from different time periods under several themes in order to present a dense accounting of traces and ideas. I acknowledge that this sometimes results in arguments being removed from their own historical context.

Origins and definitions Definitions of ethnohistory vary considerably. It has been described as a ‘marriage of convenience’ between history and anthropology.16 Another definition of the purpose of ethnohistory is: ‘to explain specific historical events and the processes of cultural change that have transformed individual cultures’.17 Some scholars have located ethnohistory inextricably with Indigenous history,18 whereas others have pointed out that any culture could be the subject of ethnohistory.19 Ethnohistory intersects with advocacy or ‘action anthropology’.20 It began as a methodological vehicle for those who held in common the intellectual, ethical and political interests of North American Indigenous communities. Land-use disputes in mid-twentieth century America that centred cultural differences in conceptions of the environment led ethnohistorians ‘to push back the horizon of what could be known historically’

15I would like to thank one of the reviewers for this essay, who suggested that by considering

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 more detail and depth in the history of ethnohistory, and range of literature associated with it, one would see how persistent and delimiting Eurocentrism has been to those attempting disciplinary innovations – certainly a line of inquiry I would like to see pursued. 16Michael E. Harkin, ‘Ethnohistory’s Ethnohistory: Creating a Discipline from the Ground Up’, Social Science History 34, no. 2 (2010): 113–28. 17Bruce G. Trigger, ‘Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects’, Ethnohistory 29, no. 1 (1982): 10. 18Ibid; John R. Wunder, ‘Native American History, Ethnohistory, and Context’, Ethnohistory 54, no. 4 (2007): 591–604. 19Shepard Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’, Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1991): 345–75; John S. Lutz, Makúk: A New History of Aboriginal–White Relations (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008). Krech is one of the only scholars to mention the international (i.e. beyond North America) scene for ethnohistory. 20Harkin, ‘Ethnohistory’s Ethnohistory’, 121; see also: Wunder, ‘Native American History, Ethnohistory and Context’. History of Education 437

using the ethnographic lens.21 Sheppard Krech explains the contributions of each discipline to the birth of ethnohistory as: ‘From history came “cautious accuracy,” from anthropology “imaginative theorization” as well as culture “deﬁned by ethno- logical concepts and categories,” ideally to fuse in the ethnohistorian.’22

Methodology and methods Ethnohistorical methods have been described as the combination of fieldwork and archival research to answer the ‘whys, hows, whens, and wheres of culture change’.23 Use of sources from other disciplines was viewed as a means to free history from the ethnocentric bias of documents created by Europeans.24 Whereas the use of archives by scholars coming from anthropology is generally agreed upon as a common method in ethnohistory, the extent to which any scholars (from anthropology or history) have used oral tradition and oral sources seems to be debated, with Krech asserting that ethnohistorians have only infrequently used oral sources and Trigger viewing it as more common.25 Ethnohistorians trained in history have remained challenged by the transition to fieldwork or anthropological methods and the incorporation of archaeological sources.26 The methodological procedures of ethnohistory receive little treatment in the literature although those mentioned include: validity driven by the use of historical data – evaluating sources and understanding their biases, rather than being driven by theory;27 taking into account sufficient evidence, including that which does not support the thesis; comparing accounts from different non-Indigenous sources which may be based upon different interests/motivations; taking a long period of time into account; and, an assumption that an ‘authoritative narrative’ can be ‘released’ from the evidence.28 John Lutz’s Makuk: A New History of Aboriginal–White Relations, located in the Pacific Northwest coast (British Columbia/Washington State), provides an example

21Harkin, ‘Ethnohistory’s Ethnohistory’, 117. 22Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’, 348. 23Wunder, ‘Native American History, Ethnohistory, and Context’, 591. 24Adams, ‘Before Canada: Toward an Ethnohistory of Indian Education’; Trigger, ‘Ethnohis- tory: Problems and Prospects’. 25Oral history receives passing mention in the literature on ethnohistorical methodology, but it is so brief and general that I could not enter into a more detailed analysis of where and how it ﬁts: as a method? as a methodology? a ‘country cousin’ to ethnohistory? I have noted, however, that Steven High argues Canadian historians have generally had a more negative impression of oral history (than, for example, American historians), and have frequently

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 reduced oral history to acts of ‘memory recovery’ or just another source to add some colour. He says: ‘Relatively few [Canadian historians] have taken the opportunity to think deeply about narrative voice, memory, authority, or the public’s role in the historical process.’ Steven High, ‘Sharing Authority in the Writing of Canadian History: The Case of Oral History’,in Contesting Clio’s Craft: New Directions and Debates in Canadian History ed. C. Dummitt and M. Dawson (London: Institute for the Study of the Americas, 2009), 110. 26Wunder, ‘Native American History, Ethnohistory, and Context’. 27Both here and in a quotation I use below there appears to be a dichotomy or distance between method and theory in the literature. I do not ascribe to that dichotomy and recognise that even when theory or method is not explicitly documented (such as in some narrative histories) there is still theory underlying the representation of knowledge. For the purposes of this essay I have not entered into detailed analysis on this point except to argue that both theoretical and methodological inﬂuences should generally be made clearer in histories of any kind. 28Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’; Trigger, ‘Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects’. 438 H.E. McGregor

of how ethnohistorical methodology is described in recent Canadian scholarship. He identifies his study as ethnohistory partly because of its central theme: ‘I use a simple, overarching methodology: dialogue. I sought examples of the thoughts and voices of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Peoples in historical records as well as among contemporary Aboriginal People who would engage with me “in an exchange about exchange”.’29 Lutz effectively foregrounds the extent to which scholarship is an interactive conversation that is always in construction, even after the narrative is released or published, and in this sense he models an open invitation to scholars, audiences and communities interested in his research. Lutz’sdefinition of ethnohistory is distinctive and extends the ideas of Adams and Marker: The method is ‘ethnohistorical’ in its fullest sense. I put both parties to a historic encounter under the same lens, treating the interpretations of the observer and the observed as equally factual and equally mytho-historical. (We are all somebody else’s ‘ethno,’ after all). This ‘expanded ethnohistory’ uses the traditional qualitative methods of the ethnohistorian, including interviewing and archival research, and quantitative methods including statistics.30 Unfortunately Lutz’s discussion of ethnohistory in this case is not supported by cita- tions or deeper analysis of differing, and conflicting, definitions or approaches. As such, qualities of ethnohistory such as ‘fullest sense’, ‘expanded’ and ‘traditional’ have little meaning to the reader. Interviewing or oral history is part of the ethnohistorian’s methods here, but no direct mention is made of other anthropological or ethnographic methods. Perhaps his emphasis on equality –‘equally factual and mytho- historical’–in evaluating sources (and the sources’ subjects) from Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies could be considered a nod to ethnography, but it is a vague description of a methodological move. Lastly, Lutz categorises his sources as qualitative and quantitative, which constitutes a difference from other literature reviewed. In suggesting that dialogue across cultural perspectives and about scholarship is important, I was left wondering if Lutz’s conversations have centred on content exclusively, or whether he has spoken to Indigenous scholars or community members about whether ethnohistory as a methodology is advantageous in their view? The description of an ethnohistory field school run by Keith Thor Carlson, John Lutz and David Schaepe with the Stó:lō Nation/Tribal Council (British Columbia, Canada) reveals somewhat more about how the methodology is being conceived in this region.31 Clearly the idea of a ‘field school’ itself is unusual to most historians. From this brief description of ‘a new form of ethnohistory’, it is said to necessitate: fi

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 a respectful relationship with an Indigenous community who participate in de ning and executing the research; exposure to critical interdisciplinary training and theoretical perspectives; and, negotiating the middle ground between academe and ‘mean- ingful community-based scholarship’. The authors emphasise accounting for differing world views, attention to cultural context, giving primacy to continuity as well as innovation in Indigenous societies, and ‘treat[ing] our western historic

29Lutz, Makúk: A New History of Aboriginal–White Relations, 16. 30Ibid. 31Keith Thor Carlson, John Lutz and David Schaepe, ‘Turning the Page: Ethnohistory from a New Generation’, The University of the Fraser Valley Research Review 2, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 1–8. I did not ﬁnd this article myself when searching for literature on ethnohistory, but I am grateful to John Lutz for pointing me towards it when I asked him (in the later stages of editing this work) for suggestions on places he has written about ethnohistory. History of Education 439

sources (both primary and secondary), and by implication our own inscriptions, as stories’.32 Carlson, Lutz and Schaepe say: The new ethnohistory is reflexive. This means it is both conscious of the role of the researcher in the community and the way in which research changes the subject of study, and self-aware (to the extent that is possible) of the cultural baggage the researcher brings to the project.33 I would have liked to see more specific references34 aligned with the authors’ conceptualisation of how these methods connect to, or are distinguished from, the ‘old’ ethnohistory, and more elaboration on the bases for distinctions and changes. I was left wondering: are these ‘new’ methods/methodological approaches important in the authors’ view or are they grounded in the literature? Are they approaches the Stó:lō Nation have suggested? What are some examples of methods or theories that represent a ‘contested middle ground’, or that address the ‘cultural baggage the researcher brings’ for the authors and for the Stó:lō community respectively? The authors describe working with the community to generate topics for research, but not methods or methodology. I did not find any identifiable Indigenous scholars or specific Indigenous critiques of historiography cited in their description, but, as will be seen below in terms of Indigenous scholarship on research, they do echo things being said by others. Harkin sums up the contributions of ethnohistory as primarily in terms of methodology rather than theoretical innovation: ‘the roots of the [ethnohistory] society in methodological but not theoretical innovation, pragmatism, applied study and expert testimony, and American Indian political activism must be acknowledged and reck- oned with’.35 From what I found in the literature concerning methods, Carlson, Lutz and Schaepe provide the best examples of differing approaches and yet it seems they may constitute an outlier in the field. How can ethnohistorians claim to be significantly or specifically different from ‘good’ historiography, as it might be conceived today? This ambiguity seems to perpetually haunt ethnohistory.36 And yet, it may not warrant rendering ethnohistory obsolete, but rather further defining and articulat- ing what ethnohistory could mean, and what ethnohistorians could do.

Theoretical frameworks A perpetual question in the ﬁeld of ethnohistory, which has signiﬁcance for deter- mining the role and proportion of ethnographic analysis in historical methodologies, is whether narrative histories remain the desired outcome. Or, are they to be used

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 ‘as a basis for trying to formulate broader generalizations about cultural organization and change’?37 This question leads into an exploration of the theoretical features of ethnohistory. Krech explains that some ethnohistorical works are revisionist, entering the realm of exploring different cultural ways of making meaning from the past,

32Carlson, Lutz and Schaepe, ‘Turning the Page’,2. 33Ibid., 3. 34Works by Bruce Trigger, Julie Cruikshank, John R. Wunder, Aletta Biersack and Jill Doerﬂer are brieﬂy mentioned. 35Harkin, ‘Ethnohistory’s Ethnohistory’, 125. 36Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’, 346. 37Trigger, ‘Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects’, 10. Despite frequent references to cultural change, commentary regarding the relationship between ethnohistory and sociology was vir- tually non-existent in the literature I reviewed. 440 H.E. McGregor

they: ‘explicitly (and sometimes reflexively) attempt to fathom the structure of history and/or the historiographic conventions of Indigenous historians’.38 Citing works by Sahlins, Rosaldo and Price, Krech says they feature: … indigenous historiography (and conceptions of time), inventions of culture, ideologi- cal hegemony, and relations between history and self-consciousness. The cultural speci- ficity of ways of ‘knowing’ or ‘making history’ and the cultural and historical constructions of presentist histories have been stressed.39 Posing challenging questions about cultural interpretation through ethnohistory is both controversial and important. According to Krech there is a basis to argue that ethnohistory has been used to investigate Indigenous historical consciousness, memory and cultural transmission or education. And yet in his review of the state of ethnohistory there is little evidence of Indigenous perspectives being considered on the topic of ethnohistory itself. Krech concludes: ‘The politics of ethnohistory cannot be denied; scholars who continue to think of themselves as ethnohistorians with a con- cern for moral criticism must embrace a reflexive historiography.’40 Reflexivity in ethnohistory is also raised by Marker when he argues that the infu- sion of ethnographic theory into history can ‘expose one’s biases and presumptions about reality and identity’, facilitating an unmasking of the self.41 The relationship of ethnohistory to contemporary Indigenous peoples (in other words, their involve- ment in construction and reaction to ethnohistories), and the question of whether ethnohistory turns the lens back on dominant, non-Indigenous societies, are underlying threads in several works included here such as in Carlson, Lutz, and Schaepe – though not the main focus of any. Ethnohistory may, as argued by Trigger and Marker, encourage historians to investigate further how and what Indigenous history can teach us about European history. Adams emphasises that ethnohistory requires double vision, ‘that allows [the historian] to explain how historical actors on both sides of the cultural chasm – Indians and whites alike – responded to one another from their culturally distinct “thoughtworlds”’.42 The ethnohistorical literature has identified – although only in a cursory manner – a question at the crux of this inquiry. Can the history of another culture, or of a cultural encounter, be dealt with through the theory, methodology and methods of a disciplinary tradition that emerges largely from one cultural origin (one that has had imperialist, colonising and assimilationist impacts on Indigenous cultures throughout the world)? How can ethnohistory be assessed in relationship to Indigenous critiques of research and Indigenous approaches to history? Put most simply, can history avoid Eurocentrism?

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 John Wunder has engaged enthusiastically with this question. He locates ethnohistory as intertwined with ‘good’ Indigenous history and characterises its future as fertile and profuse, tied to the increasing number of Indigenous scholars in the academy. Wunder says: Questions of agency, voice, sovereignty, nationhood, gender, marriage, status, class, intercultural connections, diplomatic mergers, race, and culture change abound. No indigenous people is too small to consider, too isolated to map, or too insigniﬁcant to

38Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’, 361. 39Ibid., 362. 40Ibid., 364. 41Marker, ‘Review Essay: Ethnohistory and Indigenous Education’, 84. 42Adams, ‘Before Canada: Toward an Ethnohistory of Indian Education’, 103. History of Education 441

analyze its foreign policy interests. No era is off limits to chronicle, whether it be pre- contact, early colonial relationships, or the 1990s. Native American history is here to stay, and it is irrevocably connected to ethnohistorical method.43 Wunder argues that Indigenous scholars such as Linda Smith have shown how the ethnohistorical legacy has grown in scope through initiatives to reclaim and return land, as well as returning research outcomes and education to Indigenous communities, and he recommends that the work of Indigenous scholars be read by non- Indigenous historians. While I support Wunder’s engagement with Indigenous scholarship, he goes both too far and not far enough. He offers an exaggerated conflation of ethnohistory with the broad, interdisciplinary (and sometimes extra- disciplinary), multifaceted and culturally grounded research interests of Indigenous peoples as articulated by Smith. And, he does not devote sufficient attention to the critiques of research methodology emanating from the work of Indigenous scholars. To take Smith seriously is to acknowledge that she is critiquing the entire academic institution. For example she argues: Decolonizing research, then, is not simply about challenging or making refinements to qualitative research. It is a much broader but still purposeful agenda for transforming the institution of research, the deep underlying structures and taken for granted ways of organizing, conducting, and disseminating research and knowledge.44 What more must we consider, in venturing into a new conversation?

In conversation with Indigenous scholars For deeper answers to this question I have reviewed work by Indigenous scholars who themselves have acted as bridges between the academy and their respective cultures, communities and histories. What follows is a summary of the numerous concerns raised by Indigenous scholars regarding the conduct of research in general (beyond historical research), but which is relevant to historians.45 In presenting this

43Wunder, ‘Native American History, Ethnohistory, and Context’, 602. 44Linda Tuhiwai Smith, ‘On Tricky Ground’, 117. 45Vine Deloria Jr., ‘If You Think about it, You Will See that it is True’,inSpirit and Reason: The Vine Deloria Jr. Reader (Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press, 1999), 40–60; Dwayne Donald, ‘Indigenous Metissage: A Decolonizing Research Sensibility’, International Journal of Quali- tative Studies in Education (2011): 1–23; W. Ermine, ‘The Ethical Space of Engagement’, Indigenous Law Journal 6, no. 1 (2007): 193–203; Jay Johnson, ‘Kitchen Table Discourse: Negotiating the “Tricky Ground” of Indigenous Research’, American Indian Culture and Research Journal 32, no. 3 (2008): 127–37; Margaret Kovach, Indigenous Methodologies:

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009); Michael Marker, ‘Indigenous Voice, Community, and Epistemic Violence: The Ethnographer’s “Interests” and what “Interests” the Ethnographer’, International Journal of Qualitative Stud- ies in Education 16, no. 3 (2003): 361–75; Michael Marker, ‘Theories and Disciplines as Sites of Struggle: The Reproduction of Colonial Dominance through the Controlling of Knowledge in the Academy’, Canadian Journal of Native Education 28, no. 1/2 (2004): 102; Michael Marker, ‘Sacred Mountains and Ivory Towers: Indigenous Pedagogies of Place and Invasions from Modernity’,inIndigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A Reader, ed. George J. Sefa Dei, Vol. 379 (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 197–211; Charles Menzies, ‘Reﬂections on Research with, for, and among Indigenous Peoples,’ Canadian Journal of Native Education 25, no. 1 (2001): 19–36; Susan Miller, ‘Native Historians Write Back: The Indigenous Para- digm in American Indian Historiography’, Wicazo Sa Review 24, no. 1 (2009): 25–45; Smith, ‘On Tricky Ground’,113–43; Dale Turner, ‘Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy’,inThis is Not a Peace Pipe: Towards a Critical Indigenous Philosophy (Toronto: University of Tor- onto Press, 2006), 94–121; Angela Cavender Wilson, ‘Reclaiming our Humanity’. 442 H.E. McGregor

summary I am cognisant of the risk of being read as appropriating the voices of the Indigenous scholars on which I draw. I do not intend to speak on their behalf, but rather to collect and synthesise ideas in ways that may make them more accessible – and potentially to send historians towards these sources for more direct study. For ease of reading I have categorised these into four sections, though several of them overlap, intersect and signiﬁcantly affect more than one section:

Methods and data analysis

Indigenous voices or data from Indigenous knowledges are not included frequently enough and/or are often treated as less reliable than other sources. Data from Indigenous sources are not represented within the tradition, practice or culture in which they have meaning – meaning that lives and changes – and disciplinary conventions dissect Indigenous knowledges in misrepresentative ways.

Ethics

Institutionally driven ‘universal’ research ethics are not usually responsive to the ways respect, responsibility and other principles are conceived in local cultures/communities. Researchers do not establish and maintain long-term reciprocal relations with the communities in/with which they work.

Theories and assumptions

Indigenous contexts for knowledge are treated as ‘culture’ and by extension exoticised, while mainstream/dominant institutions are taken for granted as the ‘norm’. Theories from Enlightenment and Euro-Western epistemologies are uncritically transplanted to increase the scholarly ‘purchase’ of research, whereas local scholars or Indigenous intellectuals are disregarded. Indigenous knowledge is represented as static, constrained by tradition, notions of ‘authenticity’ and without critical orientations. Research perspectives tend to emphasise and reinforce an Indigenous/non-

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 Indigenous binary rather than honouring distinctions and particularities amongst or between peoples.

Purposes and Findings

Too frequently research questions being pursued in Indigenous communities do not come from, or reflect relevant issues in, those Indigenous communities. Research findings may not benefit the Indigenous community, and yet inevita- bly benefit the scholar participating in the knowledge economy (expanding the power of dominant society at the expense of Indigenous society). Research results are not returned to the community or disseminated in an accessible way. History of Education 443

Research ﬁndings reinforce colonial relations or mask them as located in the past, rather than being part of ongoing processes. Research does not return the gaze towards dominant societies and therefore Indigenous alternatives to Euro-Western knowledges or practices remain isolated.

To further clarify these broad critiques, and refine what a historian might learn and apply from them, the following is a brief review of literature outlining some differences between academic histories and Indigenous histories. Robin Jarvis Brownlie argues that a large part of the reluctant reception of Indig- enous knowledge in academic history can be attributed to an attachment to rational foundationalism and normative epistemologies connected to Euro-Western and Enlightenment frameworks.46 This is the most significant challenge from which tensions integrating Indigenous knowledge flow and return, leading to ‘translation problems’.47 The narrative is an important feature of all histories, but narrative competence can differ substantially in encountering Indigenous traditions. Most Indigenous histories have some component of memory, that may (or may not) accompany other forms of evidence. Similar to the theorisation of memory in European traditions, memory work in Indigenous traditions is a practice often connected to place – that can facilitate recognition of the presence of the past, moral lessons for individuals, as well as collective, cultural continuity. However, the arrangement of evidence from the past within narratives can differ substantially, and this necessarily leads to changes in making sense from the tools of memory and historical consciousness. The temporal arrangement of Indigenous histories is not necessarily chronologi- cal, linear or progressive but rather tends to emphasise cycles or circles.48 Indige- nous knowledge relies on openness to, and the credibility of, orality for a continual (re)making of meaning in the present, including sharing memories, testimony and story.49 The land can be positioned as a source of knowledge in constructing

46Robin Jarvis Brownlie, ‘First Nations Perspectives and Historical Thinking in Canada’,in

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 First Nations, First Thoughts: The Impact of Indigenous Thought in Canada, ed. Annis May Timpson (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009), 21–50. 47Ibid; Wilson, ‘Reclaiming our Humanity’,69–87. 48See: Brownlie, ‘First Nations Perspectives and Historical Thinking in Canada’; Susan D. Dion, Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal Peoples’ Experiences and Perspectives (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009); Michael Marker, ‘Teaching History from an Indigenous Per- spective: Four Winding Paths Up the Mountain’,inNew Possibilities for the Past: Shaping History Education in Canada, ed. Penney Clark (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2011), 97–112. 49See: Jo-Ann Archibald, Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008); Donald Fixico, ‘Oral Tradition and Traditional Knowledge,’ in The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 2003), 21–39; Julie Cruikshank, ‘Oral History, Narrative Strategies, and Native American Historiography: Perspectives from the Yukon Territory, Can- ada’,inClearing a Path: Theorizing the Past in Native American Studies, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 2002), 3–27. 444 H.E. McGregor

memories and histories.50 The depiction of relationships (including with animals) is embedded in an ecological web where humans are not necessarily dominant, frequently mediated by spiritual understandings.51 There is a recognised approach in both oral and written practices amongst Indigenous communities (though this is not limited to Indigenous communities) for the speaker/author, from the outset, to position or locate themselves, acknowledge their ancestry or tradition, explain how they came to be doing this work, and how they fit into local understandings of identity politics.52 Many Indigenous scholars identify the processes and events of colonisation/decolonisation as a crucial context within which histories and memories should be acknowledged to reside, whereas non-Indigenous North America still frequently neglects this context.53 Recognition of the inconsistencies that come with different views of the tools and techniques for making meaning from history is imperative for historians working with Indigenous communities. I argue that this conversation will not proceed ethically unless the history, and ongoing structures, of colonisation are taken into account when inviting Indigenous knowledge holders into dialogue in the academy or outside of it.54 This must occur at systemic as well as individual levels. Individu- als who draw on Indigenous knowledge in the university can be expected to listen, share and learn alongside those who are just coming to know about Indigeneity, but they should not be expected to justify themselves by the measure of disciplinary or Eurocentric norms, protocols and precedents.55 Likewise, regardless of an individual’s specific ethnicity/affiliation, those who were trained in and continue to utilise Euro-Western, Enlightenment, modernist, disciplinary traditions and now wish to make space for knowledge that comes from Indigenous communities must be willing to attempt to understand Indigenous knowledge on its own terms. Particularly because the time, space and value attributed to Indigenous histories in academic institutions has not been equitable, commitments must be made to engage in this shared work.

50See: Keith Basso, ‘Stalking with Stories: Names, Places and Moral Narratives among the Western Apache’,inWisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western Apache (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996), 37–70; Julie Cruikshank, Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters and Social Imagination (Vancou- ver, BC: UBC Press, 2005); Cruikshank, ‘Oral History, Narrative Strategies, and Native American Historiography’,3–27. 51 Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 See: Brownlie, ‘First Nations Perspectives and Historical Thinking in Canada’,21–50; Marker, ‘Teaching History from an Indigenous Perspective’,97–112; Wilson, ‘Reclaiming our Humanity’,69–87. 52K. Absolon and C. Willett, ‘Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research’, in Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-Oppressive Approaches, ed. L. Brown and S. Strega (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2005), 255–86. 53Dwayne Donald, ‘Forts, Colonial Frontier Logics, and Aboriginal–Canadian Relations: Imagining Decolonizing Educational Philosophies in Canadian Contexts’,inDecolonizing Philosophies of Education, ed. A. A. Abdi (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2012), 91–111. 54See also: Wilson, ‘Reclaiming our Humanity’,76–7. 55Indeed, some would suggest it should be the other way round, given the longer history of Indigenous knowledge in this place and how the academy has been implicated in ‘cognitive imperialism’. Marie Battiste, ‘Maintaining Aboriginal Identity, Language, and Culture in Modern Society’,inReclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, ed. Marie Battiste (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000), 192–208. History of Education 445

Ethnohistory: What is lost and what is gained? The literature reviewed here suggests that ethnohistorians have practised mediating differing perspectives between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples earlier than scholars in other areas of history or other disciplines. By extension they have attempted to be flexible in the identification and use of sources toward that end, and in that sense it is an important area to consider for historians working with Indige- nous communities. However, the differences between disciplinary conventions in the areas of history and anthropology at the mid-twentieth-century birth of ethnohistory have softened as time has passed.56 Greater flexibility accepted in the study of history raises the question of whether an intermediary methodology of ethnohistory is still relevant. On the other hand, increased disciplinary flexibility has not simplified the theoretical and ethical ground that significantly influences methodological choices, especially in cross-cultural contexts. Overall, there is not a great deal of literature on how to do ethnohistory. A recent book entitled Decolonizing Native Histories has no mention of ethnohistory at all.57 Also, generally, in comparison with anthropologists and other qualitative researchers, historians devote less space to their methodologies within published works. Methodology or historiography sections of published histories are less common, less detailed and key methodological points are not frequently pulled through the text, and therefore not shown in relation to data analysis and conclusions. Partly because of this tendency, the potential of using ethnohistory alone to address the concerns of Indigenous communities and scholars is limited in my view. Scholars reviewed here demonstrate that to do ethnohistory well with the double lens of analysis towards both Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies, or a society that is deeply cross-cultural, will require continued theoretical and methodological innovation. Keith Thor Carlson emphasises the challenge and extent to which this work asks scholars to explore new avenues, to keep explicit the two-way encounter: Ethnohistory requires historians to explore not only the story of Natives in newcomer history, but also the saga of newcomers in multiple Aboriginal histories. It requires the construction of new chronologies and interpretive frameworks that go beyond the story of Aboriginal people in Canadian history; stories that are sensitive to, but not necessarily centred upon, the role and place of colonialism within Aboriginal history.58 Over time ethnohistorians have gone from suggesting that research ‘reconstruct as much as possible the entire thoughtworld of the tribal universe’,59 to proceed by ‘treating the interpretations of the observer and the observed as equally factual and equally mytho-historical’.60 Whether or not one feels confident that they could fulfil

Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 such imperatives, reconsidering the goals of historical research and their associated implications is crucial.

56Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory,’ 350. 57Florencia E. Mallon, ed., Decolonizing Native Histories: Collaboration, Knowledge, and Language in the Americas (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2012). An important theme raised in this collection that would warrant further discussion in relation to ethnohistory is the relationship between academic and activist forms of collaboration to document the past. 58Keith Thor Carlson, The Power of Place, the Problem of Time: Aboriginal Identity and His- torical Consciousness in the Cauldron of Colonialism (Toronto/Buffalo: University of Tor- onto Press, 2010), 29. 59Adams, ‘Before Canada: Toward an Ethnohistory of Indian Education’, 104. 60Lutz, Makúk: A New History of Aboriginal–White Relations, 16. 446 H.E. McGregor

Taking this literature into account, I suggest that a useful broad deﬁnition of ethnohistory moving forward may be: a methodology that endeavours to represent cultural encounter in the past, making explicit the necessary contribution of ethnographic evidence, methods and interpretation to examine differing epistemolog- ical (or other) foundations of the cultures in question, and how they affected each other. Having attempted to demonstrate a careful reading of ethnohistorical literature and ‘deep learning’ from Indigenous scholars on the topic of methodology,61 and in order to identify whether some of the complaints of Indigenous scholars are potentially mediated through ethnohistory, I will return to questions I posed in the intro- duction, such as: what is lost and gained through the use of an ethnohistorical methodology? The literature reviewed here indicates a basis for the following to be potentially gained through an ethnohistorical approach:

focusing on cultural continuity and change over time within/between two or more cultures that encounter one another and may produce a new culture; avoiding problematic representations of any culture as isolated or static; decreasing the likelihood of imposing Western or Eurocentric systems of making meaning through historical analysis; returning the gaze onto dominant societies so as to better understand, and cri- tique, them; incorporating the interests and perspectives of Indigenous people, including potentially their own research questions; contextualising data from Indigenous sources more thoroughly, decreasing the likelihood of extracting and dissecting them from cultural reference points; extending from narrative histories into conclusions regarding the nature of cultural exchange in societies, organisations and structures; examining closely the cultural construction of histories, and differing systems for understanding the past.

What may potentially be lost through an ethnohistorical approach? As it has been deﬁned through the literature reviewed, ethnohistory does not help the historian with:

documenting the past in greater depth and detail, made possible when only Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 one culture is featured; disrupting a cultural hierarchy that may (unintentionally or intentionally) result when cultures are placed in comparison with another and the Indigenous culture comes out looking ‘less than’; engaging in more transparent, complex, reﬂexive and sustained attention to how methodology shapes our understanding of the past, as this does not seem to be common or expected in the ethnohistory ﬁeld; deeply examining what is produced when we pursue processes of understanding the past using methods or evidence other than archives or historical documents;

61See: Haig-Brown, ‘Indigenous Thought, Appropriation, and Non-Aboriginal People’,925–50. History of Education 447

holding the larger fields of history and historiography accountable for the same flexibility, innovation and responsiveness to Indigenous concerns about methodology as are now expected from ethnohistorians; failing to reach some audiences if Indigenous histories are placed in a special category; it may echo a legacy of ‘Othering’, exoticising, ‘the Indian problem’, and isolating exceptionalism; participating in a rigorous conversation about ethics in historical practices and disciplines (again, because this has not been common and/or does not seem expected by the literature in the field, with the exception of Marker).

A ﬁnal comment about aligning oneself with ethnohistory concerns the use of the term in the communities with which one works. At a recent meeting I attended of Inuit education representatives (most of whom were Inuit and Inuktitut ﬁrst- language speakers) along with invited researchers,62 a non-Inuit participant frequently used the word ‘ethno’ in relation to research – ethno-science, ethno- research, ethno-methodology. This person had good intentions in attempting to give a label to what he thought the meeting participants were asking for, and to convey that there is terminology for what might otherwise be called ‘Indigenous research methods’. I was so preoccupied with the use of the word ‘ethno’ and watching the reactions of those around me, that I cannot remember whether his point was to say this was a good thing to ask for, or whether he was concerned that it would margina- lise Arctic research. In fact, I was physically uncomfortable as I recognised the baggage that arrived with the word ‘ethno’: ‘ethnic’, ‘Other’, ‘minorities’, ‘marginal’, ‘less than’, and perhaps worst of all, it conveyed ‘you are just another ethno that belongs in the category with all the other ethnos’. Of course, this may have only been my interpretation, but blank stares around the room and quiet after-hours conversations about this term reinforce that my reaction was felt and shared by others. A remaining tension in ethnohistory is the legacy of ‘Othering’, as Krech says: In theory, ethnohistory applies to the history of any ethnos. In practice it is exclusionary; in a way it has not shaken its ‘tribal’ (today one would add ‘minority’) referent, still con- noting the Other; the classical Greeks associated ‘ethnic’ features with the ‘barbarian’.63

Ethnohistory and educational history I will conclude this inquiry with questions, and an invitation, for further consideration. I ask educational historians working in Indigenous histories and with Indigenous Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 communities whether it is their role to push further than intermittently picking up ethnographic tools? How could educational historians revise their historiography, theoretical or interpretive frameworks, and ethical approaches in conversation with Indigenous scholars, local community members, and an understanding of the culture(s) with which they work? Could historians make more explicit the relationships between epistemology, ontology, theoretical paradigms, methodology, evidence and ethics throughout the presentation of their narratives about the past, or does that produce something that is no longer history? Echoing those who have already mentioned it, at

62Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ‘Future Directions in Research in Inuit Education: A Report Prepared from the Proceedings of the 1st Forum on Research in Inuit Education’, National Centre for Inuit Education, Amaujaq, February 19–21, 2013. 63Krech III, ‘The State of Ethnohistory’, 364. 448 H.E. McGregor

the very least I would encourage greater reﬂexivity, which conveys the context in which, and assumptions around, what one seeks to know and also conveys that knowing is tenuous.64 I view such questions as particularly relevant for educational historians because they investigate cultural transmission and interruption over time, often resulting from cross-cultural encounter and steeped in the history of colonisation. Educational historians and the stories they tell are themselves part of history, part of the cultural transmission and interruption, part of the encounter, part of the history of colonisation. I have tried to illuminate some of the implications and ways to mediate this more transparently, and one place to begin is with schools. Whereas schools have frequently provided the organising concepts and contexts for educational history, responsive Indigenous research must move the lens outside of school-based forms of education. Indigenous teaching and learning offers longer, more complex, and in some cases more continuous and tenacious histories than ﬁckle institutions and poli- cies. Reconsidering what counts as education, and reconsidering where it occurs, is a necessary part of this pursuit. Likewise, if we wish educators to read our work, we must show ourselves to be knowledgeable about their understanding of culture as it is expressed in and through scholarship. We must keep up. To say this a different way: there are conversations about respectful and responsive research practices with Indigenous communities and participants occurring in other disciplines, particularly in education journals and publications: should educational historians be aware of this and contribute to it? Do historians recognise the legacy of their craft, as well as the legacies of educational change, in contributing to colonising purposes in North America and around the world? Do they discuss what can be done to account for such legacies in present research practices? Through this work I have argued that the literature and conversations aligned with the term ethnohistory have some potential to guide historiography concerned with Indigenous societies, and for the purpose of representing Indigenous histories. I have also argued that the literature on ethnohistory does not provide enough insight into what scholars must ask themselves in embarking on historical research with Indigenous communities. For those considerations, I have turned attention towards Indigenous scholars – those who have critiqued research generally, as well as those who have worked towards identifying differences between disciplinary and Indige- nous approaches to the past. I have suggested that when research lies at the intersection of memory, historical consciousness, educational change, cross-cultural encounter and colonisation/decolonisation, it ought to take cues from Indigenous Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014 research methodologies, Indigenous representations and interpretations of culture,

64Wanda S. Pillow outlines reflexivity as a process of self-scrutiny regarding the production of knowledge, and one that conveys consciousness of an ‘other’. This may include demon- strating one’s awareness of research problems such as unequal power relations with research participants. Reflexivity is in no way guaranteed to transcend those problems or make a researcher’s data ‘more valid’, but pays attention to ways research/representation falter (as Indigenous communities have told us they do) and may warrant a ‘speaking back’. Pillow says: ‘This is a move to use reflexivity in a way that would continue to challenge the representations we come to while at the same time acknowledging the political need to represent and find meaning.’ Wanda S. Pillow, ‘Confession, Catharsis, Or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16, no. 2 (2003): 192. History of Education 449

and Indigenous historical consciousness. The synthesis I have offered here provides clues and signs as to the way forward, but there is much more to discuss and negotiate. As individual historians we must look to our own context, to our own questions for inquiry, to the implications of that inquiry in the present, and to the people affected by what we write. This is a clear move away from using the term ethnohistory primarily to indicate the topic of historical research, but rather to convey and compel more complex approaches. I call for historians to consult with Elders, lead- ers, intellectuals and scholars from the Indigenous peoples with whom they work, regarding perspectives on history and particularly on how history should be done. Turning the lens on ourselves – as historians interested in education – we must think, and think again, about how to conduct and share historical research in responsible and responsive ways.

Funding The author’s doctoral studies are funded by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier doctoral scholarship, from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Notes on contributor Heather E. McGregor is a PhD candidate afﬁliated with the Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia. Heather is from Nunavut, where she continues to work and research. In 2010 she published Inuit Education and Schools in the Eastern Arctic (UBC Press). She has also published in The Northern Review, McGill Journal of Education, Canadian Journal of Education and Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies. Her research interests include: Nunavut’s curriculum and educational policy history, residential schools history, Indigenous historical consciousness, history and social studies education, and decolonization. Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:19 23 July 2014