ECCU 400 - The Normative Narratives Haunting the Teaching of Treaty Education
In the classroom, Treaty Education can be an undermined concept from the misconceptions of relevance that it can bring to students. With many people having a closed mindset regarding Treaty Education, many individuals do not realize the importance of holistic values that it brings to students' learning. With that being said, incorporating Treaty Education into everyday teaching is critical because it is required throughout the Saskatchewan Curriculum. Although many educators believe in the importance and significance of teaching treaty education to students, many people view learning treaty education as not significant to other subjects such as math, English language arts or science. As a result of this, some current educators lack the knowledge towards teaching Treaty Education, which creates a barrier towards bringing Indigenous perspectives and understanding within the classroom. However, when it comes to breaking the barrier in teaching Treaty Education for these particular educators, it becomes a negative experience for them due to their lack of understanding of Treaty Education's importance.
The lack of understanding of the importance and significance of teaching Treaty Education over the years has resulted in a negative domino effect. This negative effect has created a variety of normative narratives from not teaching Treaty Education holistically throughout K-12. When Treaty Education is being taught in the classroom, ultimately, students have a closed mindset based on some normative narratives that they know about Indigenous learning. The first example is students see Treaty Education as something that needs to be taught only because it is a requirement in the curriculum. Another example is that some students view Treaty Education as a requirement due to having Indigenous classmates in their classes. However, in all reality, these examples of normative narratives have been created from society due to the lack of knowledge that they have been taught over their K-12 experience of previous generations. As a result of this, it is important to understand that these forms of normative narrative have been created from individuals' perspectives due to lack of receiving Treaty Education in schools.
This first normative narrative of Treaty Education, simply being a thing to teach, is very problematic. This narrative is problematic because it assumes Treaty Education is just knowledge to convey, as a set of facts that need to be received by students. This takes away from the idea of Treaty Education as pedagogy, a way of teaching, or conveying knowledge.
This ideal is troublesome because it relies on treaty education being about facts instead of an experience when in reality, Treaty Education “is not just teaching the “facts” of the numbered treaties; rather, it is about teaching through Indigenous worldviews and exploring the historical and contemporary relationship between First Nations and settlers” (Tupper, 2011, p.39). This normative narrative assumes that Treaty Education simply means teaching about the treaties or facts about Indigenous people instead of exploring the concepts of wâhkôhtowin (kinship) taught through Indigenous perspectives. Disrupting this harmful narrative means realizing that treaty is simply not a thing to be taught; instead, it is a way of viewing the world and integrating this thought line into our own pedagogical practices. When we accept that treaty is simply not a thing we are able to explore the w âhkôhtowin relationships Treaty Education promotes, “treaty is not a ‘thing’. It is a word that describes an active relational process that includes seeking continuous counsel and dialogue on matters that have a bearing on the parties it involves” (Kovach, 2013, p.112). When we do not adhere to the narrative of treaty being a thing, we are able to meaningfully interact with and learn from Treaty Education. Disrupting the normative narrative of Treaty Education being a thing means not teaching Treaty Education and instead of letting Treaty Education teach us.
The second normative narrative that Treaty Education is mainly for Indigenous students is also problematic. This narrative that Treaty Education should only be taught to Indigenous students or is only important for Indigenous students is extremely harmful. When this narrative is implemented in the classroom, there are severe gaps in knowledge being allowed within our schools. This is problematic because it continues the pattern of a lack of education regarding Indigenous knowledge and history. Treaty Education is mandatory in all classes. However, the main focus of Treaty Education and Indigenous knowledge is based on the social sciences. When these classes are not offered on a mandatory basis, because of this narrative, this valuable education is lost to many, “Amongst educators, there seems to be a perception that only those schools with a significant number of Aboriginal students, including First Nations schools, should offer Native studies as a choice” (Tupper & Cappello, 2008, p.562). However, the teaching and kinship (wâhkôhtowin) offered through Treaty Education is valuable for all, and the knowledge is important for every student, especially the students who are unaware of treaty history and knowledge, arguably, it is even more imperative to offer, and even require a Native studies course, in school populations that are mostly non-Aboriginal” (Tupper & Cappello, 2008, p.562). This normative narrative is problematic because it takes away Treaty Education to where, it is argued, it is needed the most. Treaty Education is in part trying to further Truth and Reconciliation as a part of the TRC calls to action. These calls to action speak to the importance of Treaty Education for ALL, and this normative narrative goes against the purpose of what Treaty Education stands for.
Teaching Treaties encompasses so much more than just what the treaties were, what they mean now. It means teaching a way of learning and thinking that the Canadian government has attempted to dismantle for the past 100 years. With all this being said, I believe that it is through the history curriculum where the most damage has been done. Through history, stories can be told, the truth can come to light, or lies can be made into truths, with half-truths and myths being the new common knowledge. For the curriculum critique, the History 10 to 30 curriculums would provide an interesting study into where Indigenous people's histories were allowed to fit into Canada's history. It is important to point out that these curriculums are some of the oldest in Saskatchewan, with the most recent history curriculum being the 30 level from 1997. Re-shaping the social curriculums has been a long-fought battle with no end in sight. The curriculum critique goes as follows; who’s story is being told, and from who’s perspective? What truths are included, and which ones are left untold? How do the treaty education outcomes connect to the history curriculums? Lastly, how as a treaty relative to address this curriculum?
Descriptions of interactions between Indigenous peoples and colonizers are always told through the lens of the writer of the curriculum. This being the government, interactions of devastation, assimilation, and deception are often told with language that lessens the severity of the true situation. In the History 20 curriculum, under content. There is a section labelled as “Impacts on Indigenous People” it goes on to outline a small selection of tragedies that occurred during the colonization of Turtle Island. For example, “The European impact on the Indigenous people was not confined to their assumption of political and economic control of a region. The introduction of new diseases such as smallpox decimated people who possessed no inherent resistance to these foreign diseases” (pg.18). The wording of this implies that the death resulted from the Indigenous people’s inability to fight off the new diseases. From a colonizer's perspective, yes, that was how it was viewed. The reality is, the blame should be landing on who brought the infection to Turtle island. When reading a curriculum that focuses on historical events, it is always important to ask, “what would the oppressed say to this retelling of history. Tupper and Cappello agree with this thought, “Curriculum is itself a "white box," created by and for the dominant group to solidify and sustain privilege” (2008, p.562). Throughout the three curriculums analyzed, there was evidence of manipulating the truth throughout, bending of truths into myths. One line that summarizes this was from History 30 in Unit 1, "The ending of the Hudson's Bay trade monopoly opened the fur trade to fierce competition. A number of traders used liquor and deception to get furs." (pg.244).The implication that surrounds this content piece is embarrassing and disheartening. Information like this being deemed acceptable to be taught while real information was being left out is an inditement on Saskatchewan Education.
When it comes to content or knowledge objectives that focus on assimilation and the Canadian government's tactics, they are hard to come by. There is mention of the Indian Act and just how controlling the act is in concern to Indigenous people's lives. There was no mention of Residential schools other than in unit 1 of the history 30 curriculum, where it says, “"First Nations peoples were to be collected and settled in villages on lands set aside for them. The government would provide for their educations and instruction in agriculture- related activities, and support the work of the missionaries." (pg.244). Throughout the history curriculums, there was no mention of what exactly the education was that the Canadian government was providing for the Indigenous communities. This a way of controlling the narrative of the cultural genocide the Canadian government committed against the Indigenous people. The aim of the social curriculums as a whole is to churn out civic citizens. The education system needs to produce democratic citizens who see the good in their country and understand where it has gone wrong historically and move to correct those wrongs and not make them in the future.
Of the three History curriculums analyzed, the one that was the closest to aligning itself to the treaty outcomes and indicators was the History 10 curriculum. This was because it had the most information concerning to Indigenous peoples of the three. The curriculum is able to hit on the four treaty ed outcomes by including sections that look at the Iroquois Confederacy (pg.120). This allows for a look into how the Indigenous peoples operated their own system of self-government. Depending on how this information is taught, it can be used to show Indigenous independence. This strays from the idea that Indigenous peoples needed Euro-Western intervention. With all this said, the curriculum lacks much mention of treaties and their implications, conveniently leaving them out.
How, as a treaty relative, do I look to interact with the curriculum? It means that I take advantage of the vagueness that is embedded within the curriculum. There are essintial understandings required; what is up to me, though, is the content I choose to teach it through and what voices I choose to allow into the classroom. As Tupper and Cappello explain, “The telling of other stories, particularly from the perspective of non whites, is necessary if we are to interrupt the commonsense understanding” (2008, p.570). I need to use the vagueness to the advantage of the voices that have been quieted for years in the education system, and I need to capitalize on moments within the curriculum where the Indigenous voice is allowed. In those moments, I need to be speaking their truths, no more colonial myths and lies. The truth of the people I am speaking about.
The lack of understanding of the importance and significance of teaching Treaty Education over the years has resulted in a negative domino effect. This negative effect has created a variety of normative narratives from not teaching Treaty Education holistically throughout K-12. When Treaty Education is being taught in the classroom, ultimately, students have a closed mindset based on some normative narratives that they know about Indigenous learning. The first example is students see Treaty Education as something that needs to be taught only because it is a requirement in the curriculum. Another example is that some students view Treaty Education as a requirement due to having Indigenous classmates in their classes. However, in all reality, these examples of normative narratives have been created from society due to the lack of knowledge that they have been taught over their K-12 experience of previous generations. As a result of this, it is important to understand that these forms of normative narrative have been created from individuals' perspectives due to lack of receiving Treaty Education in schools.
This first normative narrative of Treaty Education, simply being a thing to teach, is very problematic. This narrative is problematic because it assumes Treaty Education is just knowledge to convey, as a set of facts that need to be received by students. This takes away from the idea of Treaty Education as pedagogy, a way of teaching, or conveying knowledge.
This ideal is troublesome because it relies on treaty education being about facts instead of an experience when in reality, Treaty Education “is not just teaching the “facts” of the numbered treaties; rather, it is about teaching through Indigenous worldviews and exploring the historical and contemporary relationship between First Nations and settlers” (Tupper, 2011, p.39). This normative narrative assumes that Treaty Education simply means teaching about the treaties or facts about Indigenous people instead of exploring the concepts of wâhkôhtowin (kinship) taught through Indigenous perspectives. Disrupting this harmful narrative means realizing that treaty is simply not a thing to be taught; instead, it is a way of viewing the world and integrating this thought line into our own pedagogical practices. When we accept that treaty is simply not a thing we are able to explore the w âhkôhtowin relationships Treaty Education promotes, “treaty is not a ‘thing’. It is a word that describes an active relational process that includes seeking continuous counsel and dialogue on matters that have a bearing on the parties it involves” (Kovach, 2013, p.112). When we do not adhere to the narrative of treaty being a thing, we are able to meaningfully interact with and learn from Treaty Education. Disrupting the normative narrative of Treaty Education being a thing means not teaching Treaty Education and instead of letting Treaty Education teach us.
The second normative narrative that Treaty Education is mainly for Indigenous students is also problematic. This narrative that Treaty Education should only be taught to Indigenous students or is only important for Indigenous students is extremely harmful. When this narrative is implemented in the classroom, there are severe gaps in knowledge being allowed within our schools. This is problematic because it continues the pattern of a lack of education regarding Indigenous knowledge and history. Treaty Education is mandatory in all classes. However, the main focus of Treaty Education and Indigenous knowledge is based on the social sciences. When these classes are not offered on a mandatory basis, because of this narrative, this valuable education is lost to many, “Amongst educators, there seems to be a perception that only those schools with a significant number of Aboriginal students, including First Nations schools, should offer Native studies as a choice” (Tupper & Cappello, 2008, p.562). However, the teaching and kinship (wâhkôhtowin) offered through Treaty Education is valuable for all, and the knowledge is important for every student, especially the students who are unaware of treaty history and knowledge, arguably, it is even more imperative to offer, and even require a Native studies course, in school populations that are mostly non-Aboriginal” (Tupper & Cappello, 2008, p.562). This normative narrative is problematic because it takes away Treaty Education to where, it is argued, it is needed the most. Treaty Education is in part trying to further Truth and Reconciliation as a part of the TRC calls to action. These calls to action speak to the importance of Treaty Education for ALL, and this normative narrative goes against the purpose of what Treaty Education stands for.
Teaching Treaties encompasses so much more than just what the treaties were, what they mean now. It means teaching a way of learning and thinking that the Canadian government has attempted to dismantle for the past 100 years. With all this being said, I believe that it is through the history curriculum where the most damage has been done. Through history, stories can be told, the truth can come to light, or lies can be made into truths, with half-truths and myths being the new common knowledge. For the curriculum critique, the History 10 to 30 curriculums would provide an interesting study into where Indigenous people's histories were allowed to fit into Canada's history. It is important to point out that these curriculums are some of the oldest in Saskatchewan, with the most recent history curriculum being the 30 level from 1997. Re-shaping the social curriculums has been a long-fought battle with no end in sight. The curriculum critique goes as follows; who’s story is being told, and from who’s perspective? What truths are included, and which ones are left untold? How do the treaty education outcomes connect to the history curriculums? Lastly, how as a treaty relative to address this curriculum?
Descriptions of interactions between Indigenous peoples and colonizers are always told through the lens of the writer of the curriculum. This being the government, interactions of devastation, assimilation, and deception are often told with language that lessens the severity of the true situation. In the History 20 curriculum, under content. There is a section labelled as “Impacts on Indigenous People” it goes on to outline a small selection of tragedies that occurred during the colonization of Turtle Island. For example, “The European impact on the Indigenous people was not confined to their assumption of political and economic control of a region. The introduction of new diseases such as smallpox decimated people who possessed no inherent resistance to these foreign diseases” (pg.18). The wording of this implies that the death resulted from the Indigenous people’s inability to fight off the new diseases. From a colonizer's perspective, yes, that was how it was viewed. The reality is, the blame should be landing on who brought the infection to Turtle island. When reading a curriculum that focuses on historical events, it is always important to ask, “what would the oppressed say to this retelling of history. Tupper and Cappello agree with this thought, “Curriculum is itself a "white box," created by and for the dominant group to solidify and sustain privilege” (2008, p.562). Throughout the three curriculums analyzed, there was evidence of manipulating the truth throughout, bending of truths into myths. One line that summarizes this was from History 30 in Unit 1, "The ending of the Hudson's Bay trade monopoly opened the fur trade to fierce competition. A number of traders used liquor and deception to get furs." (pg.244).The implication that surrounds this content piece is embarrassing and disheartening. Information like this being deemed acceptable to be taught while real information was being left out is an inditement on Saskatchewan Education.
When it comes to content or knowledge objectives that focus on assimilation and the Canadian government's tactics, they are hard to come by. There is mention of the Indian Act and just how controlling the act is in concern to Indigenous people's lives. There was no mention of Residential schools other than in unit 1 of the history 30 curriculum, where it says, “"First Nations peoples were to be collected and settled in villages on lands set aside for them. The government would provide for their educations and instruction in agriculture- related activities, and support the work of the missionaries." (pg.244). Throughout the history curriculums, there was no mention of what exactly the education was that the Canadian government was providing for the Indigenous communities. This a way of controlling the narrative of the cultural genocide the Canadian government committed against the Indigenous people. The aim of the social curriculums as a whole is to churn out civic citizens. The education system needs to produce democratic citizens who see the good in their country and understand where it has gone wrong historically and move to correct those wrongs and not make them in the future.
Of the three History curriculums analyzed, the one that was the closest to aligning itself to the treaty outcomes and indicators was the History 10 curriculum. This was because it had the most information concerning to Indigenous peoples of the three. The curriculum is able to hit on the four treaty ed outcomes by including sections that look at the Iroquois Confederacy (pg.120). This allows for a look into how the Indigenous peoples operated their own system of self-government. Depending on how this information is taught, it can be used to show Indigenous independence. This strays from the idea that Indigenous peoples needed Euro-Western intervention. With all this said, the curriculum lacks much mention of treaties and their implications, conveniently leaving them out.
How, as a treaty relative, do I look to interact with the curriculum? It means that I take advantage of the vagueness that is embedded within the curriculum. There are essintial understandings required; what is up to me, though, is the content I choose to teach it through and what voices I choose to allow into the classroom. As Tupper and Cappello explain, “The telling of other stories, particularly from the perspective of non whites, is necessary if we are to interrupt the commonsense understanding” (2008, p.570). I need to use the vagueness to the advantage of the voices that have been quieted for years in the education system, and I need to capitalize on moments within the curriculum where the Indigenous voice is allowed. In those moments, I need to be speaking their truths, no more colonial myths and lies. The truth of the people I am speaking about.
Resources
Kovach, M. (2013). Treaties, truths and transgressive pedagogies: Re-imagining Indigenous presence in the classroom. Socialist Studies/Études socialistes.
Saskatchewan Education. (1992). History 10: Social Organizations. Retrieved from the Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum
-BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=186
Saskatchewan Education. (1994). History 20: World Issues. Retrieved from the
Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum -BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=185
Saskatchewan Education. (1997). History 30: Canadian Studies. Retrieved from the Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum
-BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=182
Tupper, J. (2011). Disrupting ignorance and settler identities: The challenges of preparing beginning teachers for treaty education. In Education, 17(3).
Tupper, J., & Cappello, M. (2008). Teaching treaties as (un) usual narratives: Disrupting the curricular commonsense. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(5), 559-578.
Kovach, M. (2013). Treaties, truths and transgressive pedagogies: Re-imagining Indigenous presence in the classroom. Socialist Studies/Études socialistes.
Saskatchewan Education. (1992). History 10: Social Organizations. Retrieved from the Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum
-BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=186
Saskatchewan Education. (1994). History 20: World Issues. Retrieved from the
Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum -BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=185
Saskatchewan Education. (1997). History 30: Canadian Studies. Retrieved from the Saskatchewan Curriculum website: https://www.edonline.sk.ca/webapps/moe-curriculum
-BB5f208b6da4613/CurriculumHome?id=182
Tupper, J. (2011). Disrupting ignorance and settler identities: The challenges of preparing beginning teachers for treaty education. In Education, 17(3).
Tupper, J., & Cappello, M. (2008). Teaching treaties as (un) usual narratives: Disrupting the curricular commonsense. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(5), 559-578.