September 1, 2023 • 53 mins
Have you ever paused to think about how language can shape our relationship with the world around us? Jerry Fontaine and Don McCaskill, authors of the illuminating book 'To Own Ourselves: Embodying Ojibwe Anishinaabe Ways', join us to share a deep dive into this profound understanding.
In the first part of our conversation, we learn about the duo's journey in creating the book, starting with a significant pipe ceremony and a unique relationship with their publisher. We also gain insights on Jerry's background, hailing from a lineage of active political resistance, particularly his grandmother, who was a trailblazer as one of the first Anishinaabe women elected under the Indian Act to council. This segment also illuminates the richness of the Ojibwe language, values, and ceremonial practices, which are all fundamental aspects of their work. Plus, we delve into the art of performing land acknowledgments in a way that truly honors the land being remembered.
The second part of our discussion ventures into the world of Indigenous Science and Spirituality. Highlighting the profound understanding that the First Nations of North America had regarding science and its relation to the world. We explore their intricate understanding of the environment, medicinal plants, measurements, and the connection between science and spirit. The final note of our conversation is a contemplation of the status of Indigenous people in Canada, discussing what could be done to improve their lives. This episode is an invaluable journey, giving you a deeper appreciation of the Ojibwe Anishinaabe ways and a more profound understanding of indigenous science and spirituality. Listen in and expand your knowledge.
In the first part of our conversation, we learn about the duo's journey in creating the book, starting with a significant pipe ceremony and a unique relationship with their publisher. We also gain insights on Jerry's background, hailing from a lineage of active political resistance, particularly his grandmother, who was a trailblazer as one of the first Anishinaabe women elected under the Indian Act to council. This segment also illuminates the richness of the Ojibwe language, values, and ceremonial practices, which are all fundamental aspects of their work. Plus, we delve into the art of performing land acknowledgments in a way that truly honors the land being remembered.
The second part of our discussion ventures into the world of Indigenous Science and Spirituality. Highlighting the profound understanding that the First Nations of North America had regarding science and its relation to the world. We explore their intricate understanding of the environment, medicinal plants, measurements, and the connection between science and spirit. The final note of our conversation is a contemplation of the status of Indigenous people in Canada, discussing what could be done to improve their lives. This episode is an invaluable journey, giving you a deeper appreciation of the Ojibwe Anishinaabe ways and a more profound understanding of indigenous science and spirituality. Listen in and expand your knowledge.
If you liked this podcast
- please tell your friends about it,
- subscribe to this podcast wherever you listen to podcasts and/or write a brief note on apple podcasts,
- check out my blogs on Psychology Today at
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/thomas-r-verny-md
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thank you, a warm welcome to Pushing Boundaries, a
podcast about pioneeringresearch, breakthrough
discoveries and unconventionalideas.
I'm your host, dr Thomas RBruny.
My guests today are JerryFontaine and Don McCaskill.
(00:20):
I will briefly tell you alittle bit about both of these
good people.
Jerry Fontaine, also known asMakwa Ogima, is Ojibwe
Anishinaabe from the OjibweAnishinaabe community in Sakig,
manitoba.
He was chief during the period1987 to 1998.
(00:44):
So that's about 11 or 12 years,I guess, and has been an
advisor to the Anishinaabecommunities and industry.
Jerry currently teaches in theDepartment of Indigenous Studies
at the University of Winnipeg.
He recently moved from TraviusBay, manitoba, to Toronto.
(01:05):
Have I got that right, jerry?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Yes, you do sir.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
OK so well.
Thank you.
So we'll go over to Don.
Don McCaskill, also known asKapita Acht, is Professor
Emeritus in the Department ofIndigenous Studies at Trent
University, where he taught for47 years Well that's really
something and served as chairfor 13 years.
(01:32):
He has edited seven books inthe fields of Anishinaabe
culture, education, communitydevelopment and urbanization.
Don lives in Toronto, ok, well,welcome.
Welcome to this little podcast.
You are the authors of therecently published book and I
(01:56):
can read the English translationquite easily.
I may have a little bit oftrouble with the Ojibwe.
The English translation is toown ourselves, embodying Ojibwe
Anishinaabe ways, and I guess inOjibwe it is the Bayan DZ win
(02:21):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
OK, welcome.
So please tell me, let's startby you guys telling me how the
two of you got together that ledto the writing of this book.
A little bit of your background, either one of you.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
OK, go ahead, Don, I'll follow your lead OK.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Well, I think you should talk about it in the
beginning of the book.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
OK, the.
I've known Don for a little bitof time, you know he was.
I went to try to complete myPhD and Don, as luck would have
it, became my supervisor and youknow, I've known, I knew of him
(03:08):
for a long time Because youknow he knew, he knew my, he and
his father knew my uncle, philFontaine, for quite some time,
from Winnipeg.
Actually, one of Phil's firstjobs was working with Don, you
know, with, I guess, with thecorrections system.
(03:32):
So anyways, that's how I knewof Don and that's how I came to
know him.
The book itself I was approached, Don and I both spoke at a
conference, a CAUT conference inOttawa, and you know we were on
different panels.
(03:54):
By chance, you know, I sat on apanel that explored
indigenization or talked ofindigenization within the
Academy by, you know, usingteaching approaches, having a
First Nation, métis Anywood,peoples involved or recognized
(04:22):
within various departmentsacross the country.
So I was asked, following thatpresentation, I was asked by one
of the publishing companies tosee if I would want to talk
about that further, to writeabout it.
And I always saw myself as onetrick pony with respect to the
(04:45):
Academy, because I come to theAcademy rather late and my
involvement in everything thatI've done has been about
resistance.
You know so, I think, what thepublishing company wanted.
They wanted something moredetailed in terms of the Academy
.
So I went to the person Ithought knew the most and knew
(05:11):
the best, and I was DonMcCaskill.
So I asked Don if he would want, if he was interested in
co-authoring this book with me.
And the rest says they saySister, and here we are.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
And here you are All right and Don, I should say that
Jerry's presentation that hemade at the conference was quite
provocative and was very wellreceived because it went against
the kind of grain aboutindigenizing the Academy, and so
that, I think, is what sparkedthe interest of the publishers.
(05:49):
They wanted something, adifferent approach, more cutting
edge approach to the wholeissue of reconciliation and
indigenizing the Academy andthose kinds of things.
So at the beginning of the bookwe talk about how we wanted to
start the book in a ceremonialway, in a traditional Anashtabbe
way, and so we did a pipeceremony with the publisher.
(06:15):
They came up to TrentUniversity and we did a pipe
ceremony, we did an eaglefeather teaching and we
established a relationship withthe publisher in a traditional
way, and so that, I think, wasan important way of getting
things started and they reallyappreciated that, and so the
relationship since then has beenvery good in terms of working
(06:37):
through the publication of thebook.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So, jerry, you mentioned a few minutes ago that
your strengths has always beentalking about resistance.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, my family.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
What do you mean by that?
What does that entail?
Resistance.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I was born and raised the Sagin first nation.
It's an Ojibwe-Indian communityin Manitoba.
I come from a political familyquite actively involved in
reserve politics, provincialissues and national issues.
Actually, my grandmother, mydad and my dad's mother was the
(07:25):
first Anishinaabe woman to beelected under the Indian Act to
counsel.
Up until 1952, a woman weren'tallowed to be involved in
anything political, so she wasthe first elected counsel.
(07:46):
So my world has always beenabout resistance, beginning with
my cook and with my grandmother.
She pushed issues that weren'tpopular recognition of women's
rights, recognition of familyrights.
(08:08):
She pushed all of these issuesand then in 1952, this is such a
long time ago and that wasbefore I was born she was
pushing for change and she also,in terms of residential school,
all of her children and some ofher grandchildren went to
(08:29):
residential school.
So at that time she was pushingagainst the old guard, so to
speak, challenging the church,the Catholic church, and trying
to create a safe space for herchildren and other parents'
children within the residentialschool.
So that was resistance at itsfinest.
(08:52):
And my dad was involved in FirstNation politics as well and in
fact, as one of the first, Ialways say his time in counsel
was the time when we, or whenthe community, broke free from
the shackles of the Indian agent, because up until that time the
(09:16):
Indian agent controlledeverything.
So in terms of meetings theIndian agent would share, and
one of the first meetings my dadwent and told the Indian agents
you're sitting in my chair.
The Indian agent thought he wasjoking.
My dad said you're sitting inmy chair.
(09:40):
And the Indian agent didn'tmove and then started laughing
and my dad said again you'resitting in my chair.
And then the Indian agent thenasked oh, where do you want me
to sit, my dad?
And then my dad pointed to thecorner and said that's where you
sit from now on.
And in my mind that broke likethe control the Indian agent had
(10:08):
.
And up until that time too,education has been pretty
important for my familyspecifically, and it wasn't
popular to talk of schoolcommittees, to talk of taking
control of education.
(10:30):
So this young council of menand this was in the early 60s
and I wasn't like, I was justjust a- baby.
But they pushed to take control.
And then I remember later, aswe caught the tail end of
(10:52):
residential school, and Iremember one telling me one time
what makes your dad think thathe understands education, what
makes you think that the othermembers, the other men, know?
Because they're nothing butdrunks, they're nothing but well
(11:16):
, you live on welfare and it'syou should be thankful that
we're here to give you education.
So that was the beginning of it.
It's been sequential in termsof the movement or the focus on
residential school and education.
So Phil Fontaine gets electedchief, takes control of the
(11:43):
education system, full controlaffairs, all of the Indian
affairs, hire teachers and thenuses our own people to start
teaching and creates aneducation program for teachers
or works relationship with andthis was unheard of at the time
(12:07):
established a relationship withBrandon University to train men
and women and become teachers,get teaching certificates,
education degrees.
So that was the beginning,actually, and so that again is
resistance.
And then, of course, philcontinued his trajectory by
(12:30):
talking about residential schooland the issues of abuse that
took place in residential schooland the challenges that a lot
of our people faced.
So that's what I mean, you know, when I stand on the shoulders
of resistance.
You know I was born into the, aresistant movement, so to speak
(12:54):
, within my own family.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Well, I find it interesting.
I find it interesting that youequate the word resistance with
advocating for active change.
I'm wondering.
I mean, to me the wordresistance is kind of passive,
whereas advocating for change isso much more active.
I wonder why you have chosensuch a Passive weird for what
(13:23):
you're trying to do.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
For me, resistance is really it's about being active.
It's about in your face, youknow, challenging the government
, the powers that be.
You know it's in your face,it's aggressive.
You know we've been involved inarm resistance, you know
(13:48):
there's.
I see advocacy.
I see it the other way.
I see advocacy as more of afriendly way of posing your eyes
.
But resistance, in my mind, isreally active and very
aggressive.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Okay, so we have established that.
Now that's another way thatboth of you are using is
indigenization Indigenizationwithin the academy.
What do you mean by that?
Do you want to have that, donDon?
Why don't you try that?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Sure, yeah, probably back in about 10 years ago,
particularly with thepublication of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, therewas a mushrooming of awareness
of indigenous issues,particularly, of course, of the
abuses that took place in theresidential schools.
(14:42):
But generally the situationwith regard to indigenous people
generally.
And the universities, amongmany, many other institutions,
recognize that they're needed tobe.
They become much more welcoming, much more friendly, much more
reflective of indigenous people,and so they, and universities,
(15:04):
kind of led the way in thisprocess.
They called indigenizing theacademy and so what you have is
things like the landacknowledgement.
Now that is said before everymeeting that is held.
They put indigenous art on thewalls.
There have already been a lot ofindigenous studies departments
(15:25):
out there that you could arguehave been indigenizing the
academy for many years.
But they did try and expandsome of the indigenous programs
to other faculties.
They sometimes they hired anadministrator.
Maybe even at the vicepresident level there was an
indigenous person with a mandateto indigenize the academy.
(15:46):
And so the universities haverecognized there needs to be a
movement towards being morereflective of indigenous culture
, indigenous politics,indigenous academics.
But what we argue in the book isthat that really doesn't go far
(16:08):
enough and in many cases it'sfairly token because it doesn't
involve the shift of any kind ofpower, any kind of authority in
terms of decision making, andit doesn't really reflect the
university involving indigenouspeople in any kind of
significant way or changing thenature of the institution in
(16:30):
terms of how decisions are made,in terms of many of the kinds
of things that you see asindigenous people are working
with and I should not be peopleare working with regard to self
government, decision makingauthority, that kind of thing.
So we're fairly critical of theconcept in the, in the book,
but certainly university wouldsee themselves as really being
(16:54):
on the vanguard of trying toreflect indigenous culture and
in their in their institutions.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
You mentioned land acknowledgement.
I live in Stratford, where wehave lots of theater, as you
know, and before everyperformance, every lecture,
there is this expression ofgratitude to the first nations
for taking such good care ofthis land.
And do you, apart from the factthat people are getting really
(17:29):
tired of it, Really, really, doyou see any good coming out of
that?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Well, I think it's the first step, but it's not
particularly significant becauseit's so easy to say and it
doesn't really get into some ofthe key issues, like this
doesn't get into acknowledgingthe treaty and the treaty rights
that indigenous people have,which implies that some kind of
action needs to be taken.
It's more of a feeling goodabout the fact that now we can
(18:03):
raise the awareness andacknowledge indigenous people in
some ways in their, in their,in their being on the land.
But it's fairly token as far asI'm concerned.
Jerry, you may want to say whatyou say.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I agree with Don.
It's a lot of this aperformative, and I think it's a
point in the book that it'sstrange with all these land
acknowledgments and so on, theonly place I can exercise my my
treaty right as a treaty firstnation person or as a treaty
with jibway Anishinaabe, iseither on my own reserve or
(18:37):
other reserves throughout Canada.
That's the only place I canthat my treaty rights are
respected.
The land acknowledgement doabsolutely nothing for me.
They mean nothing and moreoften than not they're spoken in
English and the land thatthey're supposed to be
(18:58):
acknowledging has has a certainmemory of a language that was
first spoken.
So if you're going to do a planacknowledgement, you should use
it, speak in the language thatthe land remembers, because the
land and language are one of thesame.
And so for me, like I'm,probably like a lot of the
(19:21):
people that are just plain tired, we, you know.
Again, it's performative.
I'll just use this example of.
So there's these two youngOjibwe nation of his sisters.
They're at the university, oneimpact.
So they asked the oldest.
She was in a higher, she was asenior, so they asked her to do
(19:45):
the land acknowledgement.
So she did it in English, eventhough she's a phone speak
Ojibwe, ojibwe wind speaker.
So she did it in English.
And then the guy that the nextguy that followed was a he's a
white guy, he was the dean andhe spoke an Ojibwe one.
And then, when this young girlwent to sit with her sister, she
(20:08):
said Jesus Christ, they've beenout and digitizing us.
Now you know, she made that,she made it.
She just found it hilariousthat, yes, yes and all he
bastardized the language.
He made that, that attempt.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Right, that's right At least.
At least he tried.
So in your book you suggestthat the Ojibwe ways of doing
and knowing, as well as OjibweAnishinaabe values, language and
ceremonial practices canprovide an alternative to
western political and academicinstitutions.
(20:48):
Could you, could you justunpack that for me?
So?
Speaker 2 (20:53):
for me, ojibwe, anishinaabe, jujuge, winsukuk
and Dasun for me, that'sfoundational for me and anything
that I do, because it's our wayof doing, or to come to know
things, and and it's really inthe book.
In the book it's subjective andit's so personal to a fault.
(21:18):
You can't take yourself outsideof this idea or outside of this
.
I don't know if the approachthe Academy.
On the other hand, I find it'sthorough.
You're told to be objective.
(21:42):
You're told to be neutral.
One of the first problems I hadin writing anything about
myself or my nation was that Ididn't know how to write outside
of the circle, so to speak,because for me, I'm so immersed
(22:08):
in everything that we do in thelanguage, in the ceremony, I
just couldn't write outside ofthat.
I couldn't see myself separatefrom anything or everything that
we do to come to this place ofknowing.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Can you be more specific?
How does your outlook differfrom Canadian Western values and
doing things?
What are some specificdifferences?
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Well, there's plenty, I guess.
First and foremost, I don't seemyself as Canadian.
I don't see myself as part ofthe Academy, because I think I'm
an outlier in many instances,on the other side of the line or
the boundary or in the othercanoe.
(23:10):
I'm more immersed in mylanguage.
I know, for example, that whenI speak with Jabweemwan, for
example, and the Maman in Odoi,it's my mom.
I hear, it's my mom's voice, Ihear, I know when I speak with
Jabweemwan, the land on which Istand remembers me.
(23:36):
This is one of the reasons.
Before I begin anything, I saywell, this is who I am Makwao,
gemma and Dishnika.
So the land remembers my nameand also remembers my clan.
So there's an immediateconnection between the land and
myself.
I can't detach myself from that.
(23:57):
Also, in terms of when we talkceremony, the ceremony connects
us to a different place.
It's spiritual.
Obviously, ceremonies are alsowith the, so the sound can maybe
speak to this as well.
(24:19):
It takes you to a differentrealm because the voices that
you hear it's not like a crazymoment when I say that, but the
voices that come to you, theteachings that come to you from
another dimension you can say,well, hi, how does that happen?
Speaker 1 (24:39):
That's fine.
That's not my question, go on.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, so ceremonies are really, for me, pretty
foundational in anything that Ido.
And the other thing in terms oflanguage ceremony and worldview
in Endemwan, everything that Iam and how I view the world
(25:09):
comes from a very specific placein the universe, and that's
Sagatong, where the river widens.
My family rests there andperhaps that, maybe that's where
I'll rest too when I leave thisphysical world.
So it's really For me, myworldview is really specific to
(25:38):
a specific place, specificteaching, specific ceremonies,
language and so on, and so Ican't make that connection
between you.
Asked about the Canadianperspective, I can't because I
don't see myself as Canadian.
Yeah, I speak English, I livein this place they call Canada,
(25:58):
but I don't really recognize itand I don't think Canada as a
physical place doesn't recognizeme either.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
If you take in terms of the different worldview.
If you take language for anexample and putting it kind of
in a Western analysis on this,english is very much a
noun-based language and when youestablish the ground, the
language, in a noun, you createconcepts and there's a gap
(26:30):
between you and the conceptbecause, as Jerry says, you
objectify your understanding ofthe world and so because you're
talking about it in terms of athing, a noun, and that has
implications in terms of yourworldview, in terms of how you
understand the world, how youperceive it within the
particular cultural context,because language is so
(26:51):
fundamental in expressing theculture Absolutely.
So if you see, for example, theland as a thing, you can see it
.
The next step could easilybecome seeing the land as a
commodity.
And if you see the land as acommodity, then you can exploit
it for economic purposes and isbased to some degree on the
(27:13):
Judeo-Christian concept ofhumans man has dominion over the
earth.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
And it's not way when indigenous languages tend to be
much more verb-based, andverb-based implies a closer
relationship, especially whenyou're talking about the land,
and implies action.
It implies having to dosomething, and so that when you
talk about the land andceremonies and everything is
(27:43):
interconnected.
And so you need to take care ofthe land because, as they see
it as their mother, literallytheir mother provides for them,
the land takes care of you andyou have to take care of the
land and the reciprocalrelationship.
And so it's a very differentway of approaching understanding
the land through the vehicle ofthe language.
(28:06):
And then, of course, theceremonies emerge from the
language as well, and so itstarts with the fundamental
belief, as Jerry says, that allthings are spiritual, that the
trees, the land, the water, theyall have spirits.
So that when we went fasting outin Alberta for many years in
(28:31):
the 80s, we would always taketobacco or sema and put it in
the.
When we were cutting, forexample, willows for making the
sweat lodge or the fasting lodge, we would always present
tobacco and ask the spirit ofthe willow to allow us to take
part of their tree and use it ina good way as part of a
(28:58):
ceremony, and so, again, all ofthese things are connected and
ceremonies were conducted in thelanguage and it reinforced the
worldview that everything isalive and has a spirit and you
need to take care of it.
And it's all expressed withinthe language and in the book.
We try to use the language andexplain these different ideas to
(29:19):
a non-indigenous audience aswell as an indigenous audience.
As Jerry says, it's difficultto explain these things in
English in a book, but that'swhat we're trying to do, because
we want the book to be appealedto a non-indigenous audience as
well as an indigenous audience.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Right, okay, that's very helpful, very good.
So my next question followsthis so is that the reason that
First Nations in North Americasort of avoided sort of any
exploration of science like theway the Greeks did, the
(29:59):
Egyptians did, the Babyloniansdid, south America, the Incas,
they all got into prettycomplicated scientific
explorations, particularly interms of mathematics, but also
in terms of physics, chemistry.
Very little of that hashappened here.
(30:19):
What is the reason for that?
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I would disagree.
Actually, there was a lot ofexploration of science because
we understood the world.
We knew, for example, that theworld wasn't flat, because we
knew that the sun rises in theeast, sets in the west every day
.
Yes, we know that the seasonschange as well.
(30:49):
You have winter, you havespring, you have summer, you
have fall.
We also knew, for example, thatyou talk about mathematics.
We also understood people wereof the belief that we didn't
have math, but we have numbers.
We have very sophisticated andcomplicated numbers.
(31:10):
That understands the relationbetween mathematics and the
world.
We also knew, for example, thatwell, I mean, you have, I look
the Einstein as an example.
You know Einstein came to this.
(31:32):
So we have the understanding ofthe world one millisecond
before the Big Bang.
And we know, for example, thatone millisecond before the big
band there was a sound.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
What sound?
The sound of a shaker Like?
If you I don't know, I don'thave a shaker, I'm sure Don does
and I want if you shakesomething.
Yes, so we knew what the worldwas before the big bang.
We have explanations of whatwas taking place at that time,
(32:12):
one millisecond before the bigband.
And when we, when I've heardelders talk about this man
called Einstein, they say, well,he came to this door, he didn't
go beyond that door because hewas.
He didn't understand what wasbehind that door.
(32:33):
And the elders will say, well,what was behind that door was
spirit.
So in many ways we make well,we make that connection between
science and spirit that there's.
They're one of the same.
You look at, for example, thebook talks about shape shifting.
(32:55):
How was that?
How was that physicallypossible?
How was that scientificallypossible?
But there are explanations tothat.
Also, the idea of time travel.
You have.
The book references, or makesmention of a shingwok who was
able to travel from the 1800s tothe point of first contact.
(33:20):
And people try to reason thisWell, there must have been two
shingwoks.
So how could shingwok live inthe 18th century and then go
back to the point of firstcontact with the first people
that set foot on Manitouke andshingwok describes, he writes
(33:41):
about the ability to travel intime, to go from this place to
this one place, and he recordshis.
He records his stories at AgawaCanyon, I mean, I say Agawa
Canyon's just west of Bawitigong, or.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
Sousa and Marine.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So he writes of those things, the scrolls as well,
also describes DNA.
You know, don, and I havetalked about that.
I've showed them the scrolls,our scrolls, that speak of this
DNA.
So, yeah, we understood the, weunderstood science, but we just
(34:26):
didn't call it that.
We call it the jichigei.
Again, it's a way of kikendaasuin.
You know, it's this knowing,and I, in a lot of my language,
I, for example, I never use theword knowledge.
(34:48):
Don made the point that you knowwe're verb based, so for me,
everything is about knowingthings.
Knowledge has no place in mylanguage.
So, anyways, but that's, youknow, that's our understanding
of science.
And you mentioned the Greek,for example, aristotle and Plato
(35:10):
, and stories.
We had, you know, we made useof stories as well At Tsukhanak,
a way to give a non-departement.
You know we, yeah, so we really, I think, in terms of what the,
the ancient people such, arementioning, you know, we, I
(35:37):
think we had something verysimilar.
I would ask you, you know, ifyou know, if you look at a
scroll, for example, like toexplain that it's pretty
detailed, it's prettycomplicated and it speaks to all
things, all things that existin science.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Yeah, I think there's a misnomer to think that
indigenous people didn't have asophisticated science.
Obviously, the most obviousexample are the Mayans, who had
an incredible understanding ofthe heavens, the stars, the
solstices and all of that.
But in addition, they mean eventhe Anishinaabe people.
For example, if you're going tomake maple syrup, if you're
(36:21):
going to understand themedicinal properties of the
plants, if you're going tounderstand the dimensions and
how to measure to make a canoeand the materials that have to
go into it, there was asophisticated system of
mathematics.
As a matter of fact, we we in aproject that was a national
project called NCCIE, nationalNational Collaboration in
(36:47):
Indigenous Peoples, indigenousEducation we developed a series
of curriculum that is based onindigenous understandings of all
of the different disciplines.
Obviously, environmentalism andis something that is clearly
related you can see theconnection with indigenous
(37:08):
people.
An environmentalist, of courseare recognizing more and more
the fact that the worldview ofthe indigenous people had a lot
to say in terms of taking careof Mother Earth, much more
effective than the way we havedone it.
But we also developed amathematical curriculum that
talked about measurement, thattalked about concepts of using
(37:30):
materials in particular ways andconstructing them, and all that
.
So so I think there's more andmore people are beginning to
recognize that there was asophisticated understanding,
including a scientificunderstanding, of the world.
I mean so many of the medicines,for example, that we use.
Now, if you look at pharmacopia, you know about 70% of all of
(37:51):
the medicines that are now weuse, including aspirin, and all
those things were based onindigenous medicinal plants in
the past.
I remember going to with anelder through the woods in
Northern Ontario and I wasthinking, well, if I ever got
lost here I would be in bigtrouble, or if I got injured.
And he said, well, it'd becrazy, because you know 70% of
(38:14):
the plants all around you youcan either eat or you know use
for medicine.
And I had no idea most urbanpeople don't have that.
So.
So there is actually more andmore being recognized and
sophisticated understanding ofscience.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
I would just start as well.
You know, don remind me interms of like we have.
We have words for every part ofour body.
So we know, for example, if youhad a, if you have a kidney
ailment, you know what medicinesto use.
If you have a liver issue, weknow what medicine to use for
that.
And if you're like, if you'rebleeding, to suppress the
(38:54):
bleeding, you know, we know.
You know what medicines or whatplants or what herbs will help
with that.
And the I come Makua NetutenI'm a baroclan People will tell
you that if you follow Makua inthe wild, a bear and the forest,
(39:18):
any plant, herb or root treebarked at the bear eats are all
medicinal and they each haveeach of the roots, bark and so
on.
Leaves, you know, are, yeah,are helpful from a medical
(39:43):
perspective.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I tell a story in the book about an elder and I and
when we were out in the fastingcamp in Alberta he wanted to go
in to get some medicine and sohe asked me to come with him and
I brought a big bag, thinkingit was going to be a lot of
herbs and plants and things likethat, and we went.
We drove to maybe 20, 30 milesin the mountains and very
(40:07):
isolated place and he startedwalking up the mountain and this
way and that way and this way,looking for this particular
medicine, and he turned to meand he said they're trying to
fool me.
And I said what?
There's nobody within 25 milesof here who's trying to fool you
.
Well, it was the spirits thatwas trying to fool him because
he was connected to it.
(40:28):
And eventually, after quite along time, he pointed up onto a
cliff.
There was a cave there and hesaid that's where the medicine
is.
And he went up there and hescraped some of this medicine
from his kind of a tar likesubstances came out of the rock
and put it you know this much,and he half for me and half for
him, and it was bear medicine,one of the most important
(40:51):
medicines of all, and that cavewas where the bear hibernated
who knows how long ago, and thatmedicine I used when I had
prostate cancer to help with theprostate cancer, along with
Western medicine as well.
And so you know, that's thekind of understanding of the.
(41:12):
Mother Earth that theAnishinaabe people have and the
connection between science andspirit is so important, but that
because we've secularized ourunderstanding of science, we
don't make that connection,although Einstein in a way did
make those connections with hisabstract.
It did Right.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
What is the percentage in Canada of
indigenous people?
What percentage of thepopulation?
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Well, in the prairies , I don't know.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
In the prairies Manitoba, saskatchewan.
Alberta it's around 10%.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
About 10%.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
And then in other places because of the larger
population, ontario.
Ontario actually has thelargest number of Indigenous
people, but percentage-wise it'sless.
But if you go to Thunder Bay orSudbury, of course it's higher.
But even within the city ofToronto there's probably they
estimate between 60 and 80,000Indigenous people.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
So if you could do anything to improve the lives of
Indigenous people, what wouldit be?
Speaker 2 (42:20):
For me, the first thing would be to respect and
honour the treaties that aregoing to an end, the treaties.
It's interesting that we don'thave a word, you know, just way,
for treaty.
You know it's a Europeanconstruct, it's a word or
(42:42):
concept that Europeans broughtto these talks with our people.
So our understanding of thetreaty relationship is very
different.
You know, we say, for example,that the first relationship, the
first relationship of sharing,was between Kitshe Manitoba and
(43:03):
Anishinaabe, the creator andhuman being.
And the creator gave life tothe human being.
The human being agreed that hewill live according to the
teachings this isNizhwas-Sul-Kinama Gewanen.
So that's the firstrelationship.
And then the secondrelationship of sharing that was
(43:25):
established was between WoySi'aq, the animals, and
Anishinaabe, you know, the humanbeing.
Again, the Woy Si'aq agreed incounsel that they would give
their lives to make sure thathuman being would live, would
(43:45):
have some sustenance, and humanbeing, again in terms of a
reciprocal relationship, agreedthat you know, we would honour
Woy Si'aq, the animals, and wewould feast them annually.
And Ma'quannu Tuuteim, I'm abear clan, so I honour the bear
(44:07):
for what he's done for me.
And then the third sharingrelationship was between the
European and Anishinaabe, wherewe agreed to share all of the
bounty of Manitoba-Keh, and sothat's land, that's sustenance,
(44:29):
that's whatever Manitoba-Keh orMother Earth agrees to, agreed
to provide to human beingsgenerally speaking, and
unfortunately, you know, therehasn't been really been.
You know we've disrespectedManitoba-Keh, the spirit of the
(44:50):
land, you know, at every step.
So for me that's the firstthing, and the second thing is
to understand the value ofseparation.
Yeah, Canada sees itself asthis great has, this great
(45:12):
country.
You know our people on theother end don't see it in that
way and for our survival we needsome separation and the book
speaks to that.
So those things, in my mind,are the two most important
things.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
So what sort of separation do you have in mind?
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Well, you know, when we first point of contact, you
know there's a tool, rwampum.
You know that told the story ofthese two things, the story of
these two nations, these twopeoples that travel down the
same river side by side,separate from one another, each
(45:58):
one respecting the values andthe world view and the
organization of society, oftheir society.
These two boats go down thesame stream and never do we,
(46:20):
never does one human being andthe other canoe interfere with
the other.
So there's that, there's thatrespective separation, and the
book also talks about now, okay,the middle ground.
And the middle ground is where,you know, when I talk of
separation, the middle ground iswhere these, these two nations
(46:44):
come together to talk aboutissues regarding whatever the
issues might be.
You know, you look at, you lookacross the country, our people
are the poorest of the poor.
You know there's there's issueswith homelessness, there's
issues with housing.
Actually, you know, when I walkto City Hall in Toronto, I see
(47:06):
homeless people.
So it's just not a, it's justnot a First Nation issue.
Now, so we have, you know, we,we have a common issue here.
So how do we resolve that?
Yeah, that's how I seeseparation.
I use housing as an examplethat you know, there's
commonalities that we we canaddress in, in in this place.
(47:31):
I see as the middle ground andthat might be, that could be
Parliament, that could be someplace else the legislative
assembly, but the, the twopeoples, have to come together
at some point to talk aboutthese issues so that this idea
of separation can can berespected and fulfilled.
Speaker 1 (47:53):
So would you like to have your own state?
Who is in Canada?
Speaker 2 (47:59):
Yes of, oh yeah.
Yeah your very own country.
Yeah, well, I'm, I'm.
I come from Sagitton Dungi, I'mfrom this place that I call the
River Wines, which is part ofthe Ojibwe-Initian Aave Nation
and the Ojibwe-Initian AaveNation, which is part of the
three fires Nishwesh Keteikan,nishnabeg Odush Keteikan, the
(48:22):
three fires Confederacy, whichis made up of the Ojibwe, yudawa
and the Potawatomi.
So that's for me, that's mycommunity.
For me, that's my nation.
Speaker 1 (48:38):
And Don do you?
Do you agree with?
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Yes for sure.
Right now there's a majorinitiative, you know, which is
termed reconciliation betweenthe non-Nishnabeg people and the
Nishnabeg people, and the wholepurpose of the book, to some
degree, is to try to educate thenon-indigenous people as to how
(49:03):
a true reconciliation mighthappen, and that is to first of
all come to an understanding andan honoring of indigenous
culture.
And we talk about threeprocesses, one of which is a
kind of environmental ethic thatyou have to first of all
understand, and we talk about itas one dish and one spoon.
There's only one dish, and thatis the land, and there's only
(49:25):
one spoon, that's human beings,and we are all eating from the
same place and we're sharing ameal together, which is a very
much an indigenous concept andidea of any kind of relationship
being established, and it's notjust, of course, it's the same
in many cultures.
We share a meal together, firstof all to establish a
relationship, and then, secondly, we talk about coming into each
(49:49):
other's camps.
Traditionally, even traditionalenemies, like, for example, two
different indigenous groups,would come together in the
wintertime to the other person'scamp and live there together
and share meals and shareceremonies, even though they
would then go back in the summerand maybe you know, come back
(50:10):
again.
And then the third.
There was the one that Jerrytalked about, the middle ground,
where the indigenous people andthe non-indigenous people came
together.
But the key is that thenon-indigenous people needed to
come in sort of halfway and havean understanding of, as Jerry
says, what's in the other canoeand honor that and to agree to
(50:32):
that.
So we argued that if thosethree different phenomenon are
together we can have some kindof true reconciliation, an
understanding of both sides insome kind of degree of equality,
because right now indigenouspeople are almost always on the
(50:54):
turf of the non-indigenouspeople.
They're speaking English,they're in parliament with
western institutions oruniversities or whatever.
And now there needs to be a kindof a moving more towards the
center, as Jerry says, andhonoring the treaties, and a lot
of that is happening.
I mean, there is a.
The courts have insisted, forexample, recently that the
(51:18):
Robinson Treaty that was signed150 years ago be honored and it
wasn't honored.
And so now there's been asubstantial financial
compensation to the FirstNations communities that were
not honored.
The treaty where the treatieswasn't honored.
The federal government and theprovincial government have
(51:39):
provided financial resources nowin that.
And of course there's.
You know there is to somedegree some level of
independence and self-governmentin all of the First Nations
communities, where they controlthe municipal services, they
control the education system,they control.
So in that sense the concept ofnationhood is somewhat
(52:00):
different, but it's there andmore and more the Canadian
government and institutions arerecognizing that.
But there's still a long way togo to be able to come to the
court.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
Thank, you, thank you , that's.
That's a positive note on whichwe shall conclude our
discussion.
My guests today have been JerryFontaine and Don McCaskill.
Their book to own ourselvesembodying Ojibwe Anishinaabe
ways has been published and Ihighly recommend it.
(52:34):
You will find a lot ofinformation, as we have found it
right here, that you're notfamiliar with and that may be,
you know, very new and veryinfluential in terms of which
way we live our lives in thefuture.
So I just want to say, jerry,don, thank you very much and
(52:56):
until we meet again, take care,bye, bye, miigwech, thank you.
Thank you, a warm welcome to Pushing Boundaries, a
podcast about pioneeringresearch, breakthrough
discoveries and unconventionalideas.
I'm your host, dr Thomas RBruny.
My guests today are JerryFontaine and Don McCaskill.
(00:20):
I will briefly tell you alittle bit about both of these
good people.
Jerry Fontaine, also known asMakwa Ogima, is Ojibwe
Anishinaabe from the OjibweAnishinaabe community in Sakig,
manitoba.
He was chief during the period1987 to 1998.
(00:44):
So that's about 11 or 12 years,I guess, and has been an
advisor to the Anishinaabecommunities and industry.
Jerry currently teaches in theDepartment of Indigenous Studies
at the University of Winnipeg.
He recently moved from TraviusBay, manitoba, to Toronto.
(01:05):
Have I got that right, jerry?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Yes, you do sir.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
OK so well.
Thank you.
So we'll go over to Don.
Don McCaskill, also known asKapita Acht, is Professor
Emeritus in the Department ofIndigenous Studies at Trent
University, where he taught for47 years Well that's really
something and served as chairfor 13 years.
(01:32):
He has edited seven books inthe fields of Anishinaabe
culture, education, communitydevelopment and urbanization.
Don lives in Toronto, ok, well,welcome.
Welcome to this little podcast.
You are the authors of therecently published book and I
(01:56):
can read the English translationquite easily.
I may have a little bit oftrouble with the Ojibwe.
The English translation is toown ourselves, embodying Ojibwe
Anishinaabe ways, and I guess inOjibwe it is the Bayan DZ win
(02:21):
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
OK, welcome.
So please tell me, let's startby you guys telling me how the
two of you got together that ledto the writing of this book.
A little bit of your background, either one of you.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
OK, go ahead, Don, I'll follow your lead OK.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Well, I think you should talk about it in the
beginning of the book.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
OK, the.
I've known Don for a little bitof time, you know he was.
I went to try to complete myPhD and Don, as luck would have
it, became my supervisor and youknow, I've known, I knew of him
(03:08):
for a long time Because youknow he knew, he knew my, he and
his father knew my uncle, philFontaine, for quite some time,
from Winnipeg.
Actually, one of Phil's firstjobs was working with Don, you
know, with, I guess, with thecorrections system.
(03:32):
So anyways, that's how I knewof Don and that's how I came to
know him.
The book itself I was approached, Don and I both spoke at a
conference, a CAUT conference inOttawa, and you know we were on
different panels.
(03:54):
By chance, you know, I sat on apanel that explored
indigenization or talked ofindigenization within the
Academy by, you know, usingteaching approaches, having a
First Nation, métis Anywood,peoples involved or recognized
(04:22):
within various departmentsacross the country.
So I was asked, following thatpresentation, I was asked by one
of the publishing companies tosee if I would want to talk
about that further, to writeabout it.
And I always saw myself as onetrick pony with respect to the
(04:45):
Academy, because I come to theAcademy rather late and my
involvement in everything thatI've done has been about
resistance.
You know so, I think, what thepublishing company wanted.
They wanted something moredetailed in terms of the Academy
.
So I went to the person Ithought knew the most and knew
(05:11):
the best, and I was DonMcCaskill.
So I asked Don if he would want, if he was interested in
co-authoring this book with me.
And the rest says they saySister, and here we are.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
And here you are All right and Don, I should say that
Jerry's presentation that hemade at the conference was quite
provocative and was very wellreceived because it went against
the kind of grain aboutindigenizing the Academy, and so
that, I think, is what sparkedthe interest of the publishers.
(05:49):
They wanted something, adifferent approach, more cutting
edge approach to the wholeissue of reconciliation and
indigenizing the Academy andthose kinds of things.
So at the beginning of the bookwe talk about how we wanted to
start the book in a ceremonialway, in a traditional Anashtabbe
way, and so we did a pipeceremony with the publisher.
(06:15):
They came up to TrentUniversity and we did a pipe
ceremony, we did an eaglefeather teaching and we
established a relationship withthe publisher in a traditional
way, and so that, I think, wasan important way of getting
things started and they reallyappreciated that, and so the
relationship since then has beenvery good in terms of working
(06:37):
through the publication of thebook.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
So, jerry, you mentioned a few minutes ago that
your strengths has always beentalking about resistance.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, my family.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
What do you mean by that?
What does that entail?
Resistance.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I was born and raised the Sagin first nation.
It's an Ojibwe-Indian communityin Manitoba.
I come from a political familyquite actively involved in
reserve politics, provincialissues and national issues.
Actually, my grandmother, mydad and my dad's mother was the
(07:25):
first Anishinaabe woman to beelected under the Indian Act to
counsel.
Up until 1952, a woman weren'tallowed to be involved in
anything political, so she wasthe first elected counsel.
(07:46):
So my world has always beenabout resistance, beginning with
my cook and with my grandmother.
She pushed issues that weren'tpopular recognition of women's
rights, recognition of familyrights.
(08:08):
She pushed all of these issuesand then in 1952, this is such a
long time ago and that wasbefore I was born she was
pushing for change and she also,in terms of residential school,
all of her children and some ofher grandchildren went to
(08:29):
residential school.
So at that time she was pushingagainst the old guard, so to
speak, challenging the church,the Catholic church, and trying
to create a safe space for herchildren and other parents'
children within the residentialschool.
So that was resistance at itsfinest.
(08:52):
And my dad was involved in FirstNation politics as well and in
fact, as one of the first, Ialways say his time in counsel
was the time when we, or whenthe community, broke free from
the shackles of the Indian agent, because up until that time the
(09:16):
Indian agent controlledeverything.
So in terms of meetings theIndian agent would share, and
one of the first meetings my dadwent and told the Indian agents
you're sitting in my chair.
The Indian agent thought he wasjoking.
My dad said you're sitting inmy chair.
(09:40):
And the Indian agent didn'tmove and then started laughing
and my dad said again you'resitting in my chair.
And then the Indian agent thenasked oh, where do you want me
to sit, my dad?
And then my dad pointed to thecorner and said that's where you
sit from now on.
And in my mind that broke likethe control the Indian agent had
(10:08):
.
And up until that time too,education has been pretty
important for my familyspecifically, and it wasn't
popular to talk of schoolcommittees, to talk of taking
control of education.
(10:30):
So this young council of menand this was in the early 60s
and I wasn't like, I was justjust a- baby.
But they pushed to take control.
And then I remember later, aswe caught the tail end of
(10:52):
residential school, and Iremember one telling me one time
what makes your dad think thathe understands education, what
makes you think that the othermembers, the other men, know?
Because they're nothing butdrunks, they're nothing but well
(11:16):
, you live on welfare and it'syou should be thankful that
we're here to give you education.
So that was the beginning of it.
It's been sequential in termsof the movement or the focus on
residential school and education.
So Phil Fontaine gets electedchief, takes control of the
(11:43):
education system, full controlaffairs, all of the Indian
affairs, hire teachers and thenuses our own people to start
teaching and creates aneducation program for teachers
or works relationship with andthis was unheard of at the time
(12:07):
established a relationship withBrandon University to train men
and women and become teachers,get teaching certificates,
education degrees.
So that was the beginning,actually, and so that again is
resistance.
And then, of course, philcontinued his trajectory by
(12:30):
talking about residential schooland the issues of abuse that
took place in residential schooland the challenges that a lot
of our people faced.
So that's what I mean, you know, when I stand on the shoulders
of resistance.
You know I was born into the, aresistant movement, so to speak
(12:54):
, within my own family.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Well, I find it interesting.
I find it interesting that youequate the word resistance with
advocating for active change.
I'm wondering.
I mean, to me the wordresistance is kind of passive,
whereas advocating for change isso much more active.
I wonder why you have chosensuch a Passive weird for what
(13:23):
you're trying to do.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
For me, resistance is really it's about being active.
It's about in your face, youknow, challenging the government
, the powers that be.
You know it's in your face,it's aggressive.
You know we've been involved inarm resistance, you know
(13:48):
there's.
I see advocacy.
I see it the other way.
I see advocacy as more of afriendly way of posing your eyes
.
But resistance, in my mind, isreally active and very
aggressive.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Okay, so we have established that.
Now that's another way thatboth of you are using is
indigenization Indigenizationwithin the academy.
What do you mean by that?
Do you want to have that, donDon?
Why don't you try that?
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Sure, yeah, probably back in about 10 years ago,
particularly with thepublication of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, therewas a mushrooming of awareness
of indigenous issues,particularly, of course, of the
abuses that took place in theresidential schools.
(14:42):
But generally the situationwith regard to indigenous people
generally.
And the universities, amongmany, many other institutions,
recognize that they're needed tobe.
They become much more welcoming, much more friendly, much more
reflective of indigenous people,and so they, and universities,
(15:04):
kind of led the way in thisprocess.
They called indigenizing theacademy and so what you have is
things like the landacknowledgement.
Now that is said before everymeeting that is held.
They put indigenous art on thewalls.
There have already been a lot ofindigenous studies departments
(15:25):
out there that you could arguehave been indigenizing the
academy for many years.
But they did try and expandsome of the indigenous programs
to other faculties.
They sometimes they hired anadministrator.
Maybe even at the vicepresident level there was an
indigenous person with a mandateto indigenize the academy.
(15:46):
And so the universities haverecognized there needs to be a
movement towards being morereflective of indigenous culture
, indigenous politics,indigenous academics.
But what we argue in the book isthat that really doesn't go far
(16:08):
enough and in many cases it'sfairly token because it doesn't
involve the shift of any kind ofpower, any kind of authority in
terms of decision making, andit doesn't really reflect the
university involving indigenouspeople in any kind of
significant way or changing thenature of the institution in
(16:30):
terms of how decisions are made,in terms of many of the kinds
of things that you see asindigenous people are working
with and I should not be peopleare working with regard to self
government, decision makingauthority, that kind of thing.
So we're fairly critical of theconcept in the, in the book,
but certainly university wouldsee themselves as really being
(16:54):
on the vanguard of trying toreflect indigenous culture and
in their in their institutions.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
You mentioned land acknowledgement.
I live in Stratford, where wehave lots of theater, as you
know, and before everyperformance, every lecture,
there is this expression ofgratitude to the first nations
for taking such good care ofthis land.
And do you, apart from the factthat people are getting really
(17:29):
tired of it, Really, really, doyou see any good coming out of
that?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
Well, I think it's the first step, but it's not
particularly significant becauseit's so easy to say and it
doesn't really get into some ofthe key issues, like this
doesn't get into acknowledgingthe treaty and the treaty rights
that indigenous people have,which implies that some kind of
action needs to be taken.
It's more of a feeling goodabout the fact that now we can
(18:03):
raise the awareness andacknowledge indigenous people in
some ways in their, in their,in their being on the land.
But it's fairly token as far asI'm concerned.
Jerry, you may want to say whatyou say.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I agree with Don.
It's a lot of this aperformative, and I think it's a
point in the book that it'sstrange with all these land
acknowledgments and so on, theonly place I can exercise my my
treaty right as a treaty firstnation person or as a treaty
with jibway Anishinaabe, iseither on my own reserve or
(18:37):
other reserves throughout Canada.
That's the only place I canthat my treaty rights are
respected.
The land acknowledgement doabsolutely nothing for me.
They mean nothing and moreoften than not they're spoken in
English and the land thatthey're supposed to be
(18:58):
acknowledging has has a certainmemory of a language that was
first spoken.
So if you're going to do a planacknowledgement, you should use
it, speak in the language thatthe land remembers, because the
land and language are one of thesame.
And so for me, like I'm,probably like a lot of the
(19:21):
people that are just plain tired, we, you know.
Again, it's performative.
I'll just use this example of.
So there's these two youngOjibwe nation of his sisters.
They're at the university, oneimpact.
So they asked the oldest.
She was in a higher, she was asenior, so they asked her to do
(19:45):
the land acknowledgement.
So she did it in English, eventhough she's a phone speak
Ojibwe, ojibwe wind speaker.
So she did it in English.
And then the guy that the nextguy that followed was a he's a
white guy, he was the dean andhe spoke an Ojibwe one.
And then, when this young girlwent to sit with her sister, she
(20:08):
said Jesus Christ, they've beenout and digitizing us.
Now you know, she made that,she made it.
She just found it hilariousthat, yes, yes and all he
bastardized the language.
He made that, that attempt.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
Right, that's right At least.
At least he tried.
So in your book you suggestthat the Ojibwe ways of doing
and knowing, as well as OjibweAnishinaabe values, language and
ceremonial practices canprovide an alternative to
western political and academicinstitutions.
(20:48):
Could you, could you justunpack that for me?
So?
Speaker 2 (20:53):
for me, ojibwe, anishinaabe, jujuge, winsukuk
and Dasun for me, that'sfoundational for me and anything
that I do, because it's our wayof doing, or to come to know
things, and and it's really inthe book.
In the book it's subjective andit's so personal to a fault.
(21:18):
You can't take yourself outsideof this idea or outside of this
.
I don't know if the approachthe Academy.
On the other hand, I find it'sthorough.
You're told to be objective.
(21:42):
You're told to be neutral.
One of the first problems I hadin writing anything about
myself or my nation was that Ididn't know how to write outside
of the circle, so to speak,because for me, I'm so immersed
(22:08):
in everything that we do in thelanguage, in the ceremony, I
just couldn't write outside ofthat.
I couldn't see myself separatefrom anything or everything that
we do to come to this place ofknowing.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
Can you be more specific?
How does your outlook differfrom Canadian Western values and
doing things?
What are some specificdifferences?
Speaker 2 (22:48):
Well, there's plenty, I guess.
First and foremost, I don't seemyself as Canadian.
I don't see myself as part ofthe Academy, because I think I'm
an outlier in many instances,on the other side of the line or
the boundary or in the othercanoe.
(23:10):
I'm more immersed in mylanguage.
I know, for example, that whenI speak with Jabweemwan, for
example, and the Maman in Odoi,it's my mom.
I hear, it's my mom's voice, Ihear, I know when I speak with
Jabweemwan, the land on which Istand remembers me.
(23:36):
This is one of the reasons.
Before I begin anything, I saywell, this is who I am Makwao,
gemma and Dishnika.
So the land remembers my nameand also remembers my clan.
So there's an immediateconnection between the land and
myself.
I can't detach myself from that.
(23:57):
Also, in terms of when we talkceremony, the ceremony connects
us to a different place.
It's spiritual.
Obviously, ceremonies are alsowith the, so the sound can maybe
speak to this as well.
(24:19):
It takes you to a differentrealm because the voices that
you hear it's not like a crazymoment when I say that, but the
voices that come to you, theteachings that come to you from
another dimension you can say,well, hi, how does that happen?
Speaker 1 (24:39):
That's fine.
That's not my question, go on.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, so ceremonies are really, for me, pretty
foundational in anything that Ido.
And the other thing in terms oflanguage ceremony and worldview
in Endemwan, everything that Iam and how I view the world
(25:09):
comes from a very specific placein the universe, and that's
Sagatong, where the river widens.
My family rests there andperhaps that, maybe that's where
I'll rest too when I leave thisphysical world.
So it's really For me, myworldview is really specific to
(25:38):
a specific place, specificteaching, specific ceremonies,
language and so on, and so Ican't make that connection
between you.
Asked about the Canadianperspective, I can't because I
don't see myself as Canadian.
Yeah, I speak English, I livein this place they call Canada,
(25:58):
but I don't really recognize itand I don't think Canada as a
physical place doesn't recognizeme either.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
If you take in terms of the different worldview.
If you take language for anexample and putting it kind of
in a Western analysis on this,english is very much a
noun-based language and when youestablish the ground, the
language, in a noun, you createconcepts and there's a gap
(26:30):
between you and the conceptbecause, as Jerry says, you
objectify your understanding ofthe world and so because you're
talking about it in terms of athing, a noun, and that has
implications in terms of yourworldview, in terms of how you
understand the world, how youperceive it within the
particular cultural context,because language is so
(26:51):
fundamental in expressing theculture Absolutely.
So if you see, for example, theland as a thing, you can see it
.
The next step could easilybecome seeing the land as a
commodity.
And if you see the land as acommodity, then you can exploit
it for economic purposes and isbased to some degree on the
(27:13):
Judeo-Christian concept ofhumans man has dominion over the
earth.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
And it's not way when indigenous languages tend to be
much more verb-based, andverb-based implies a closer
relationship, especially whenyou're talking about the land,
and implies action.
It implies having to dosomething, and so that when you
talk about the land andceremonies and everything is
(27:43):
interconnected.
And so you need to take care ofthe land because, as they see
it as their mother, literallytheir mother provides for them,
the land takes care of you andyou have to take care of the
land and the reciprocalrelationship.
And so it's a very differentway of approaching understanding
the land through the vehicle ofthe language.
(28:06):
And then, of course, theceremonies emerge from the
language as well, and so itstarts with the fundamental
belief, as Jerry says, that allthings are spiritual, that the
trees, the land, the water, theyall have spirits.
So that when we went fasting outin Alberta for many years in
(28:31):
the 80s, we would always taketobacco or sema and put it in
the.
When we were cutting, forexample, willows for making the
sweat lodge or the fasting lodge, we would always present
tobacco and ask the spirit ofthe willow to allow us to take
part of their tree and use it ina good way as part of a
(28:58):
ceremony, and so, again, all ofthese things are connected and
ceremonies were conducted in thelanguage and it reinforced the
worldview that everything isalive and has a spirit and you
need to take care of it.
And it's all expressed withinthe language and in the book.
We try to use the language andexplain these different ideas to
(29:19):
a non-indigenous audience aswell as an indigenous audience.
As Jerry says, it's difficultto explain these things in
English in a book, but that'swhat we're trying to do, because
we want the book to be appealedto a non-indigenous audience as
well as an indigenous audience.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Right, okay, that's very helpful, very good.
So my next question followsthis so is that the reason that
First Nations in North Americasort of avoided sort of any
exploration of science like theway the Greeks did, the
(29:59):
Egyptians did, the Babyloniansdid, south America, the Incas,
they all got into prettycomplicated scientific
explorations, particularly interms of mathematics, but also
in terms of physics, chemistry.
Very little of that hashappened here.
(30:19):
What is the reason for that?
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I would disagree.
Actually, there was a lot ofexploration of science because
we understood the world.
We knew, for example, that theworld wasn't flat, because we
knew that the sun rises in theeast, sets in the west every day
.
Yes, we know that the seasonschange as well.
(30:49):
You have winter, you havespring, you have summer, you
have fall.
We also knew, for example, thatyou talk about mathematics.
We also understood people wereof the belief that we didn't
have math, but we have numbers.
We have very sophisticated andcomplicated numbers.
(31:10):
That understands the relationbetween mathematics and the
world.
We also knew, for example, thatwell, I mean, you have, I look
the Einstein as an example.
You know Einstein came to this.
(31:32):
So we have the understanding ofthe world one millisecond
before the Big Bang.
And we know, for example, thatone millisecond before the big
band there was a sound.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
What sound?
The sound of a shaker Like?
If you I don't know, I don'thave a shaker, I'm sure Don does
and I want if you shakesomething.
Yes, so we knew what the worldwas before the big bang.
We have explanations of whatwas taking place at that time,
(32:12):
one millisecond before the bigband.
And when we, when I've heardelders talk about this man
called Einstein, they say, well,he came to this door, he didn't
go beyond that door because hewas.
He didn't understand what wasbehind that door.
(32:33):
And the elders will say, well,what was behind that door was
spirit.
So in many ways we make well,we make that connection between
science and spirit that there's.
They're one of the same.
You look at, for example, thebook talks about shape shifting.
(32:55):
How was that?
How was that physicallypossible?
How was that scientificallypossible?
But there are explanations tothat.
Also, the idea of time travel.
You have.
The book references, or makesmention of a shingwok who was
able to travel from the 1800s tothe point of first contact.
(33:20):
And people try to reason thisWell, there must have been two
shingwoks.
So how could shingwok live inthe 18th century and then go
back to the point of firstcontact with the first people
that set foot on Manitouke andshingwok describes, he writes
(33:41):
about the ability to travel intime, to go from this place to
this one place, and he recordshis.
He records his stories at AgawaCanyon, I mean, I say Agawa
Canyon's just west of Bawitigong, or.
Speaker 3 (33:59):
Sousa and Marine.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
So he writes of those things, the scrolls as well,
also describes DNA.
You know, don, and I havetalked about that.
I've showed them the scrolls,our scrolls, that speak of this
DNA.
So, yeah, we understood the, weunderstood science, but we just
(34:26):
didn't call it that.
We call it the jichigei.
Again, it's a way of kikendaasuin.
You know, it's this knowing,and I, in a lot of my language,
I, for example, I never use theword knowledge.
(34:48):
Don made the point that you knowwe're verb based, so for me,
everything is about knowingthings.
Knowledge has no place in mylanguage.
So, anyways, but that's, youknow, that's our understanding
of science.
And you mentioned the Greek,for example, aristotle and Plato
(35:10):
, and stories.
We had, you know, we made useof stories as well At Tsukhanak,
a way to give a non-departement.
You know we, yeah, so we really, I think, in terms of what the,
the ancient people such, arementioning, you know, we, I
(35:37):
think we had something verysimilar.
I would ask you, you know, ifyou know, if you look at a
scroll, for example, like toexplain that it's pretty
detailed, it's prettycomplicated and it speaks to all
things, all things that existin science.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Yeah, I think there's a misnomer to think that
indigenous people didn't have asophisticated science.
Obviously, the most obviousexample are the Mayans, who had
an incredible understanding ofthe heavens, the stars, the
solstices and all of that.
But in addition, they mean eventhe Anishinaabe people.
For example, if you're going tomake maple syrup, if you're
(36:21):
going to understand themedicinal properties of the
plants, if you're going tounderstand the dimensions and
how to measure to make a canoeand the materials that have to
go into it, there was asophisticated system of
mathematics.
As a matter of fact, we we in aproject that was a national
project called NCCIE, nationalNational Collaboration in
(36:47):
Indigenous Peoples, indigenousEducation we developed a series
of curriculum that is based onindigenous understandings of all
of the different disciplines.
Obviously, environmentalism andis something that is clearly
related you can see theconnection with indigenous
(37:08):
people.
An environmentalist, of courseare recognizing more and more
the fact that the worldview ofthe indigenous people had a lot
to say in terms of taking careof Mother Earth, much more
effective than the way we havedone it.
But we also developed amathematical curriculum that
talked about measurement, thattalked about concepts of using
(37:30):
materials in particular ways andconstructing them, and all that
.
So so I think there's more andmore people are beginning to
recognize that there was asophisticated understanding,
including a scientificunderstanding, of the world.
I mean so many of the medicines,for example, that we use.
Now, if you look at pharmacopia, you know about 70% of all of
(37:51):
the medicines that are now weuse, including aspirin, and all
those things were based onindigenous medicinal plants in
the past.
I remember going to with anelder through the woods in
Northern Ontario and I wasthinking, well, if I ever got
lost here I would be in bigtrouble, or if I got injured.
And he said, well, it'd becrazy, because you know 70% of
(38:14):
the plants all around you youcan either eat or you know use
for medicine.
And I had no idea most urbanpeople don't have that.
So.
So there is actually more andmore being recognized and
sophisticated understanding ofscience.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
I would just start as well.
You know, don remind me interms of like we have.
We have words for every part ofour body.
So we know, for example, if youhad a, if you have a kidney
ailment, you know what medicinesto use.
If you have a liver issue, weknow what medicine to use for
that.
And if you're like, if you'rebleeding, to suppress the
(38:54):
bleeding, you know, we know.
You know what medicines or whatplants or what herbs will help
with that.
And the I come Makua NetutenI'm a baroclan People will tell
you that if you follow Makua inthe wild, a bear and the forest,
(39:18):
any plant, herb or root treebarked at the bear eats are all
medicinal and they each haveeach of the roots, bark and so
on.
Leaves, you know, are, yeah,are helpful from a medical
(39:43):
perspective.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
I tell a story in the book about an elder and I and
when we were out in the fastingcamp in Alberta he wanted to go
in to get some medicine and sohe asked me to come with him and
I brought a big bag, thinkingit was going to be a lot of
herbs and plants and things likethat, and we went.
We drove to maybe 20, 30 milesin the mountains and very
(40:07):
isolated place and he startedwalking up the mountain and this
way and that way and this way,looking for this particular
medicine, and he turned to meand he said they're trying to
fool me.
And I said what?
There's nobody within 25 milesof here who's trying to fool you
.
Well, it was the spirits thatwas trying to fool him because
he was connected to it.
(40:28):
And eventually, after quite along time, he pointed up onto a
cliff.
There was a cave there and hesaid that's where the medicine
is.
And he went up there and hescraped some of this medicine
from his kind of a tar likesubstances came out of the rock
and put it you know this much,and he half for me and half for
him, and it was bear medicine,one of the most important
(40:51):
medicines of all, and that cavewas where the bear hibernated
who knows how long ago, and thatmedicine I used when I had
prostate cancer to help with theprostate cancer, along with
Western medicine as well.
And so you know, that's thekind of understanding of the.
(41:12):
Mother Earth that theAnishinaabe people have and the
connection between science andspirit is so important, but that
because we've secularized ourunderstanding of science, we
don't make that connection,although Einstein in a way did
make those connections with hisabstract.
It did Right.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
What is the percentage in Canada of
indigenous people?
What percentage of thepopulation?
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Well, in the prairies , I don't know.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
In the prairies Manitoba, saskatchewan.
Alberta it's around 10%.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
About 10%.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
And then in other places because of the larger
population, ontario.
Ontario actually has thelargest number of Indigenous
people, but percentage-wise it'sless.
But if you go to Thunder Bay orSudbury, of course it's higher.
But even within the city ofToronto there's probably they
estimate between 60 and 80,000Indigenous people.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
So if you could do anything to improve the lives of
Indigenous people, what wouldit be?
Speaker 2 (42:20):
For me, the first thing would be to respect and
honour the treaties that aregoing to an end, the treaties.
It's interesting that we don'thave a word, you know, just way,
for treaty.
You know it's a Europeanconstruct, it's a word or
(42:42):
concept that Europeans broughtto these talks with our people.
So our understanding of thetreaty relationship is very
different.
You know, we say, for example,that the first relationship, the
first relationship of sharing,was between Kitshe Manitoba and
(43:03):
Anishinaabe, the creator andhuman being.
And the creator gave life tothe human being.
The human being agreed that hewill live according to the
teachings this isNizhwas-Sul-Kinama Gewanen.
So that's the firstrelationship.
And then the secondrelationship of sharing that was
(43:25):
established was between WoySi'aq, the animals, and
Anishinaabe, you know, the humanbeing.
Again, the Woy Si'aq agreed incounsel that they would give
their lives to make sure thathuman being would live, would
(43:45):
have some sustenance, and humanbeing, again in terms of a
reciprocal relationship, agreedthat you know, we would honour
Woy Si'aq, the animals, and wewould feast them annually.
And Ma'quannu Tuuteim, I'm abear clan, so I honour the bear
(44:07):
for what he's done for me.
And then the third sharingrelationship was between the
European and Anishinaabe, wherewe agreed to share all of the
bounty of Manitoba-Keh, and sothat's land, that's sustenance,
(44:29):
that's whatever Manitoba-Keh orMother Earth agrees to, agreed
to provide to human beingsgenerally speaking, and
unfortunately, you know, therehasn't been really been.
You know we've disrespectedManitoba-Keh, the spirit of the
(44:50):
land, you know, at every step.
So for me that's the firstthing, and the second thing is
to understand the value ofseparation.
Yeah, Canada sees itself asthis great has, this great
(45:12):
country.
You know our people on theother end don't see it in that
way and for our survival we needsome separation and the book
speaks to that.
So those things, in my mind,are the two most important
things.
Speaker 1 (45:30):
So what sort of separation do you have in mind?
Speaker 2 (45:33):
Well, you know, when we first point of contact, you
know there's a tool, rwampum.
You know that told the story ofthese two things, the story of
these two nations, these twopeoples that travel down the
same river side by side,separate from one another, each
(45:58):
one respecting the values andthe world view and the
organization of society, oftheir society.
These two boats go down thesame stream and never do we,
(46:20):
never does one human being andthe other canoe interfere with
the other.
So there's that, there's thatrespective separation, and the
book also talks about now, okay,the middle ground.
And the middle ground is where,you know, when I talk of
separation, the middle ground iswhere these, these two nations
(46:44):
come together to talk aboutissues regarding whatever the
issues might be.
You know, you look at, you lookacross the country, our people
are the poorest of the poor.
You know there's there's issueswith homelessness, there's
issues with housing.
Actually, you know, when I walkto City Hall in Toronto, I see
(47:06):
homeless people.
So it's just not a, it's justnot a First Nation issue.
Now, so we have, you know, we,we have a common issue here.
So how do we resolve that?
Yeah, that's how I seeseparation.
I use housing as an examplethat you know, there's
commonalities that we we canaddress in, in in this place.
(47:31):
I see as the middle ground andthat might be, that could be
Parliament, that could be someplace else the legislative
assembly, but the, the twopeoples, have to come together
at some point to talk aboutthese issues so that this idea
of separation can can berespected and fulfilled.
Speaker 1 (47:53):
So would you like to have your own state?
Who is in Canada?
Speaker 2 (47:59):
Yes of, oh yeah.
Yeah your very own country.
Yeah, well, I'm, I'm.
I come from Sagitton Dungi, I'mfrom this place that I call the
River Wines, which is part ofthe Ojibwe-Initian Aave Nation
and the Ojibwe-Initian AaveNation, which is part of the
three fires Nishwesh Keteikan,nishnabeg Odush Keteikan, the
(48:22):
three fires Confederacy, whichis made up of the Ojibwe, yudawa
and the Potawatomi.
So that's for me, that's mycommunity.
For me, that's my nation.
Speaker 1 (48:38):
And Don do you?
Do you agree with?
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Yes for sure.
Right now there's a majorinitiative, you know, which is
termed reconciliation betweenthe non-Nishnabeg people and the
Nishnabeg people, and the wholepurpose of the book, to some
degree, is to try to educate thenon-indigenous people as to how
(49:03):
a true reconciliation mighthappen, and that is to first of
all come to an understanding andan honoring of indigenous
culture.
And we talk about threeprocesses, one of which is a
kind of environmental ethic thatyou have to first of all
understand, and we talk about itas one dish and one spoon.
There's only one dish, and thatis the land, and there's only
(49:25):
one spoon, that's human beings,and we are all eating from the
same place and we're sharing ameal together, which is a very
much an indigenous concept andidea of any kind of relationship
being established, and it's notjust, of course, it's the same
in many cultures.
We share a meal together, firstof all to establish a
relationship, and then, secondly, we talk about coming into each
(49:49):
other's camps.
Traditionally, even traditionalenemies, like, for example, two
different indigenous groups,would come together in the
wintertime to the other person'scamp and live there together
and share meals and shareceremonies, even though they
would then go back in the summerand maybe you know, come back
(50:10):
again.
And then the third.
There was the one that Jerrytalked about, the middle ground,
where the indigenous people andthe non-indigenous people came
together.
But the key is that thenon-indigenous people needed to
come in sort of halfway and havean understanding of, as Jerry
says, what's in the other canoeand honor that and to agree to
(50:32):
that.
So we argued that if thosethree different phenomenon are
together we can have some kindof true reconciliation, an
understanding of both sides insome kind of degree of equality,
because right now indigenouspeople are almost always on the
(50:54):
turf of the non-indigenouspeople.
They're speaking English,they're in parliament with
western institutions oruniversities or whatever.
And now there needs to be a kindof a moving more towards the
center, as Jerry says, andhonoring the treaties, and a lot
of that is happening.
I mean, there is a.
The courts have insisted, forexample, recently that the
(51:18):
Robinson Treaty that was signed150 years ago be honored and it
wasn't honored.
And so now there's been asubstantial financial
compensation to the FirstNations communities that were
not honored.
The treaty where the treatieswasn't honored.
The federal government and theprovincial government have
(51:39):
provided financial resources nowin that.
And of course there's.
You know there is to somedegree some level of
independence and self-governmentin all of the First Nations
communities, where they controlthe municipal services, they
control the education system,they control.
So in that sense the concept ofnationhood is somewhat
(52:00):
different, but it's there andmore and more the Canadian
government and institutions arerecognizing that.
But there's still a long way togo to be able to come to the
court.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
Thank, you, thank you , that's.
That's a positive note on whichwe shall conclude our
discussion.
My guests today have been JerryFontaine and Don McCaskill.
Their book to own ourselvesembodying Ojibwe Anishinaabe
ways has been published and Ihighly recommend it.
(52:34):
You will find a lot ofinformation, as we have found it
right here, that you're notfamiliar with and that may be,
you know, very new and veryinfluential in terms of which
way we live our lives in thefuture.
So I just want to say, jerry,don, thank you very much and
(52:56):
until we meet again, take care,bye, bye, miigwech, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.