Chapter 1
Anishinaabe Philosophy and What It Means
Traditional Education and the Academy
Primary Experiential Knowledge and Research
To see beauty is to seek the truth with an open/not empty mind.
To hear beauty is to share in the creation of harmony.
To feel beauty is to experience the world with a kind heart.
To taste and smell beauty is to touch the joy of life.
To speak and act in beauty embraces the mysteries of light into darkness and darkness into light.
To walk in beauty is to dream/dance on the road of the heart.
Washashkong, 1998
The recognition of Aboriginal worldviews as philosophical systems is a very recent progress in the academic environment. There is a slow but gradual movement within academic circles to include the knowledge and worldviews of Aboriginal peoples in conversations; particularly concerning the environment. Nevertheless, we must also remember that there is currently only one Native Studies Ph.D. program in North America (U. Arizona (1996)) with a second beginning at Trent University in 1999.[1] There is still a long way to go before Aboriginal philosophies are academically and socially recognized as valid and valuable sources of knowledge.
In the past (and in some cases even today) discussions concerning Aboriginal cultures were relegated to the sphere of anthropology and by relation, ethnology. This, in part, was due to ethno-centric beliefs held by the dominant societies of North America with regards to Aboriginal peoples. As a result of systematic governmental policies of genocide and assimilation, the late 19th century saw a vast army of anthropologists and ethnologists enter into ‘Indian Country’. They recorded and catalogued the cultures and rituals of what were then considered the ‘vanishing Indians’ of the Americas. Anthropological and ethnological research of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was mainly concerned with the collection of the material culture of Aboriginal peoples. The vast number of Aboriginal artefacts found today in public and private collections all over the world attest to this fact. There was also a fascination with various Aboriginal ceremonies, rituals, music, cultural stories, scrolls and sacred objects (e.g., Barnouw 1944; Densmore 1907, 1910, 1932; Chamberlain 1913; Hallowell 1926; Hoffman 1888, 1889, 1891; Mallery 1894; Michelson 1892; Radin 1928; Raudot 1770; Reagan 1914, 1927, 1933; Schoolcraft 1860; Waugh, 1919). Non-Aboriginal anthropologists and ethnologists, with varying degrees of accuracy, described the ceremonies and rituals they witnessed or even those they only learned of second-hand.
There was also an early tradition of publication by Aboriginal authors with the best examples being William W. Warren’s Oral Traditions Respecting the History of the Ojibwa Nation (1860) and History of the Ojibways, Based Upon Traditions and Oral Statements (1885), A. J. Blackbird’s History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan (1887) and Arthur C. Parker’s The Indian How Book (1927).
The latter part of the 20th century has seen Aboriginal writers begin to publish work in areas of philosophy, politics, culture and spirituality, to name a few (e.g., Benton-Banai, 1988; Cardinal, 1991; Colorado, 1988; Couture, 1972, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1997; Deleary, 1990; Deloria Jr., 1973, 1979, 1995; Dockstator, 1993; Dumont, 1976; Johnston, 1992; King, 1983; Loucks, 1990; Mohawk, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994; Momaday, 1968; Sinclair, 1994; Williams, 1991; Warrior, 1992). Modern Aboriginal writers strike me as ‘Indian and shameless’[2] while early Aboriginal writers tended to mask their identity or have only a limited tie to the Aboriginal people they wrote about. Perhaps they were trying to be ‘objective’ in their study. Today it seems that many Aboriginal writers are saying what they do because they have a genuine knowledge of their respective culture and language — such perspectives only possible to actual insiders.
Even though there is an increasing inclusion and recognition of Aboriginal philosophies in academic circles, this alone does not characterize these systems as distinctly or predominantly philosophical. Philosophical thought has been at the heart of Aboriginal societies since time immemorial. There have always been philosophers amongst the people. The Anishinaabeg have a tradition of intellectuals called the Chinshinabe. They are the Elders and traditional Teachers who are the caretakers of cultural and sacred knowledge. They take on the responsibility of maintaining the flow of Nebwakawin (wisdom) that passes from generation to generation. As Joseph Couture (Cree/Métis) states:
I’m of the opinion that Elders are superb embodiments of highly developed human potential. They exemplify the kind of person which a traditional, culturally based learning environment can and does form and mould. Elders are evidence that Indians know a way to high human development, to a degree greater than generally observable in prevailing Western society. Their qualities of mind (intuition, intellect, memory, imagination), and emotion, their profound and refined moral sense, together with a high level of spiritual/psychic attainment, are perceived as clear behavioral indicators, deserving careful attention and possible emulation.[3]
Anishinaabe Philosophy and What It Means
This book, to put it simply, is concerned with Anishinaabe philosophy. In particular, I am concerned with the axiological aspects of this philosophical system; in other words, values, ethics and to a lesser extent, aesthetics. Concerning Anishinaabe philosophy as a whole, it is, I believe, important that I indicate some of the central foundational ideas of this system so that there is a general context to work from with regard to the content of this work. I do not mean to suggest that it is possible to summarize all aspects of Anishinaabe metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc. into a few sentences, but there are some key philosophical tenets that must be expressed so that this work can have contextual integrity.
First and foremost, as Paul Bourgeois (Ojibwe) writes, is the understanding that:
The Anishinaabeg have no term for [the separation of] man/nature, or [this] subject/object dichotomy in their language, because there is no nature, or environment, as such, understood to be separate from the self. In my initial research in the [Anishinaabemowin] dictionaries I did not find words for art, philosophy, mind, and knowledge. There certainly is religion, art and philosophy in Anishinaabe life. However, they exist as abstract nouns. What I am talking about is a completely different worldview, a worldview where we relate and interconnect everything with a manido (spirit) dwelling within everything.[4]
A belief in Gzhe-mnidoo[5] is also fundamental to Anishinaabe philosophy. Existence is Creation and the Creation Story of the Anishinaabeg sets out the process and purpose of this physical reality. In Basil Johnston’s (Odawa) words:
Because Kitchi-Manitou[6] [is] a being existing in the supernatural sphere, this spirit [is] super-ordinate to human experience, knowledge and description. But it [is] taken for granted and accepted as true that Kitchi-Manitou created the universe, the world and the beings upon, above, and below, both corporeal and incorporeal, from a vision or dream. Creation, by which the mystical vision was brought into the realm of physical reality, [is] seen as an act of generosity and a sharing of the manitou’s goods with those in need.[7]
The Anishinaabeg have received Original Instructions from Gzhe-mnidoo, instructions that are used to guide the people through life. Anishinaabe oral history speaks of the creation and lowering of the first human being to this Earth and a migration from the East (Atlantic Ocean) to the Great Lakes region (and not a west to east migration over the Bering Straight)[8]. Humans were the last beings created and placed on Earth, and we are referred to as the weakest and most dependent in Creation.[9]
There are ancestral prophecies that foretold of the coming of Europeans and the conflict that would arise with the arrival of this ‘new visitor’.[10] There are also strong prescriptions for the Way of a Good Life and how we as humans should behave toward our relations. This relationship is based on the view that all life is related; whether mineral, plant, animal and/or spirit. There are detailed Teachings about the Clan system and one’s role in life depending on one’s name, sex, age, experience, and about family structures.[11]
Anishinaabe philosophy is a philosophy of interconnection. Creation is understood as both the source and unity in movement of all life. This holistic perspective is at the very heart of my system of inquiry and explanation. This book aims to isolate and explain some of the philosophical aspects of this system, despite the recognition that such divisions are artificial to the perceived understanding of the Anishinaabeg.
There are detailed oral Teachings about all these subjects, and the skin of an onion metaphorically symbolizes them. When we look at the onion we see it as whole; but, in fact, we are only looking at the surface. If we remove this skin we find another deeper down. Remove this one and another is below, and so on. Anishinaabe philosophy is very much like the onion. The more one learns the more one finds, and the process continues, going deeper and deeper, all through one’s life.[12]
Traditional Education and the Academy
Anishinaabe tradition already has an educational method as part of its structure. In traditional and contemporary times the Elders and the traditional Teachers are the ones who guide the apprentice on his or her path of learning since the education of an Anishinaabe person happens throughout the lived-experience of that person. Joseph Couture (Cree/Métis) explains this when he states that:
The doing that characterizes the Native Way is a doing that concerns itself with being and becoming a unique person, one fully responsible for one’s own life and actions within family and community. Finding one’s path and following it is a characteristic Native enterprise which leads to or makes for the attainment of inner and outer balance.[13]
The Elders and traditional Teachers are the embodiment of the traditional education system used by the Anishinaabeg. They are the teachers in the school of life.
When reflecting on these aspects of traditional education and learning I become aware that a possible difficulty with my method of Primary Experiential Knowledge within the framework of a Western academic system is, as has been remarked on by Vine Deloria, Jr. (Sioux), that:
Regardless of what Indians have said concerning their origins, their migrations, their experiences with birds, animals, lands, water, mountains, and other peoples, the scientists [i.e., Western academics] have maintained a stranglehold on the definitions of what respectable and reliable human experiences are. The Indian explanation is always cast aside as a superstition ….[14]
I believe that it all comes down to a misunderstanding of the Anishinaabeg’s conception of the inter-subjective nature of Creation. In the West it is generally taught that there must be a detachment from the research in order that the work be objective. Understandably, this caution is based on a general fear of research becoming relativistic and purely subjective.
The West has already been exposed to relativists like Protagoras (fl. 450 B.C.E.), an ancient Greek philosopher, who defined knowledge as that which is relevant and more so only relevant to one person’s individual tastes.[15] Protagoras stated, “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, of those that are not that they are not.”[16] He is referring to the individual with all the qualities, negative and positive, pertaining to that person. Thus, as far as Protagoras was concerned, what one knows is not some objective reality that is the same for all people; it is a reality particular (relatively speaking) to only one person at a given moment. One perceives something and its significance changes from moment to moment as one’s own tastes change. As such, relativism is the view that truths and values vary from context to context, and person to person.[17]
In comparing the differences between Western and Aboriginal methods of research, Vine Deloria, Jr. (Sioux) explains that:
The major difference between American Indian views of the physical world and Western science lies in the premise accepted by Indians and rejected by scientists: the world in which we live is alive. Many scientists believe this idea to be primitive superstition and consequently the scientific explanation rejects any nuance of interpretation which would credit the existence of activities as having partial intelligence or sentience. American Indians look at events to determine the spiritual activity supporting or undergirding them. Science insists, albeit at a great price in understanding, that the observer be as detached as possible from the event he or she is observing. Indians thus obtain information from birds, animals, rivers, and mountains which is inaccessible to modern science. Indians also know that human beings must participate in events, not isolate themselves from occurrences in the physical world.[18]
This difference is also apparent when we examine the structures of universities. Couture (Cree/Métis) characterizes universities as places where people strive for success in the eyes of their peers. This success is based on a “rule-and-conquer syndrome”[19] which affirms that: “You meet academic standards, as we define them. You meet these standards via the strategies which we also define. That is the road to success.”[20] It is an “ethos [that] is essentially colonizing, subjugating, controlling.”[21] Couture (Cree/Métis) concludes that this process is understandable due to the “mechanistic rationalism”[22] that prevails in universities.
Conversely, my method entails a personal inter-subjective exploration of the physical-spiritual world. “It is difficult,” Couture (Cree/Métis) states, “for many intellectuals, so encased in their academic egos to perceive what is extraordinary reality [the physical-spiritual world] — in this case, that “what” which traditional Indians see, and that “how” whereby they arrive at seeing the “what.”[i.e., extraordinary reality.][23] The “how” is often not so disturbing to “academic intellectuals” as is the “what.” It is the “what” which always seems so completely impossible and illogical because it is outside the realm of the quantifiable.
A purely rational or analytic approach itself is “half-brained”[24] as Couture (Cree/Métis) puts it. The framework chosen for my study asserts that it is essential that the pursuit of knowledge happen from the perspective of a whole person. “[The analytic approach] needs to be complemented by the intuitive faculty.”[25] This is what Couture (Cree/Métis) calls “full-mindedness”[26], the union of mind and heart, of intellect and intuition.
The traditional system of education for the Anishinaabeg has always been one of apprenticeship (with human and non-human beings). The knowledge that is received through apprenticeship is not relative to the opinions and tastes of the receiver, but is verified and acknowledged by a system of Elders, traditional Teachers and Enadizewin (Natural Law). But this is not a repudiation of the place of individual perspective[27]. The Anishinaabe system of knowledge is a vastly complex system, with built-in protocols and processes that one must follow in order that one places oneself within an appropriate and valid epistemic context. Couture (Cree/Métis) notes the nature of such apprenticeship in describing the system as one which is:
¼ comprehensive in scope — its focus is health, (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual) — balance and harmony within and without with all things, life forms, Nature and the Cosmos. Through apprenticeship the laws of Nature are learned; it facilitates entrance to other levels of consciousness, to additional ways of knowing.[28]
This is, for all intents and purposes, scientific knowledge[29]. Pam Colorado (Oneida) explains that:
For a Western-educated audience the notion of a tree with spirit is a difficult concept to grasp … [i.e.,] the universe is alive. Therefore, to see a Native speaking with a tree does not carry the message of mental instability; on the contrary, this is a scientist engaged in research![30]
This Primary Experiential Knowledge method strives to achieve exactly this kind of research: metaphysical certainty through already existing structures of Anishinaabe metaphysics, ontology, axiology and epistemology. It is, as Couture (Cree/Métis) notes:
… a question of discovering through direct experience that there are entities on other planes, entities which are not of the realm of illusion, or hallucination. It is learning to become quiet, “attentive” as Black Elk says. It is a question of entering into Indian psychic areas, and of learning to live by Indian rules of time and space, such rules are none other than universal, cosmic or “natural” laws.[31]
The Role of Native Studies
Native Studies is in itself an academic discipline, yet it is one that is characteristically meta-disciplinary. As Joseph Couture (Cree/Métis) states in his discussion paper, “Native Studies, Some Comments”:
Native Studies strives as responsibly as it can to present a way of perceiving and expressing these relationships (self, others, family, community and to the Cosmos), in fresh and novel ways perhaps, always congruent with authentic traditional processes and values. This demanding responsibility stipulates equally an able and sure grasp of contemporary conditions, together with a conscious experiential sense of the core or characteristic spiritual dynamic of Native life philosophy, in order to render, intentionally and systematically, a valid translation of culture-based knowledge, skills, and attitude. In other words, Native Studies seeks to develop a culture-rooted sense of both worlds in all their dimensions, in time and space, and to do so today in a bicultural mode.[32]
Couture (Cree/Métis) continues by explaining that the ‘ground’ of Native Studies can be better appreciated when certain key assumption are presented and explained. The assumptions that he outlines are first that “it is believed that Native Studies, because of its roots in Aboriginal world view, can and does present a philosophy that unifies learning,…”[33]; i.e., that it is meta-disciplinary. Corollary to this is the fact that Native Studies seeks to “demonstrate the inherent validity and usefulness of a heritage and philosophy … which images visions, and voices “And all our relations, …””[34] Second it “can and does bring an ancient understanding that learning leads to development of mind and attitude, and adaptation in conduct.”[35] Native Studies as one facet of “North American Aboriginal Tradition, seeks to express a deep, comprehensive perception of all reality as sacred, and hence sacralized, …”[36]
A contemporary Aboriginal person, even of mixed heritage like myself, must, as Couture (Cree/Métis) tells us:
… consider certain insights and skills as necessary to successfully function in a bi-socio-cultural system. It is imperative then that such a person be or become intuned insightfully both to the spiritual and psycho-cultural nature and requirements of traditional survival and enrichment, as well as to the exigencies and shaping influences of the dominant, director culture(s).[37]
Further to this, this new culture-based reality is producing a new breed of Aboriginal intellectuals. Paul Bourgeois (Ojibwe) and Dan Longboat (Kanienkehaka) explain that the academic world is gradually seeing the emergence of what they call the “Indigenist” [38]:
An Indigenist is an Indigenous person (although not exclusively) who combines the abstract and theoretical thinking involved in the creation and transmission of Indigenous knowledge. However, the conceptual and sometimes ethereal qualities of Indigenous thought for the Indigenist does not remain in the mind, but is lived on a daily basis. The Indigenist is clearly a thinker and practitioner of Indigenous knowledge. I have heard this expressed by many different Elders that this was our culture, something that had to be lived. In Anishinaabe society there have always been the metaphysicians and philosophers who concerned themselves with mental activity, and they were usually the medicine people, prophets, and spiritual leaders. This tradition of intellectual/spiritual activity has not easily transferred itself into the current way of doing things in western society. Learning by doing, in many Indigenous societies is the basic tenet of learning. Experiential learning is the key aspect of Original Experiential Research. Discovering what was already known as true is an essential principle for acquiring knowledge in Anishinaabe life. Therefore, we learn by doing and discovering what we have come to know to be true for ourselves.[39]
The discovery of what was already known as true is a system of affirmation and revelation. Different aspects and degrees of what is true are revealed to each person, each seeker. Paul Bourgeois (Ojibwe) goes on to explain that:
Indigenists are needed to review and analyze what has been written about us, to clear the mind of inaccurate representations made in these texts. The Indigenist is also needed to write their own-stories regarding their origins, migrations, and cosmological understandings of the universe.[40]
Absolutes and Reality
When I explain the role of insights and knowledge from a spiritual source, I am, of course, assuming that that spiritual realm is real and approachable. My understanding of Creation and Gzhe-mnidoo is one that speaks of the absolute oneness of reality. Indeed, I am speaking of absolute truths and an absolute reality. Traditional Teachings and traditional Teachers have been quite clear on this point, and through the development and growth of my Primary Experiential Knowledge, I not only believe, but know with certainty that the truth, as evident in the way of the action of Creation, is absolute. I share this same view with other traditional Anishinaabeg who follow the traditional protocols that I use. Not exactly the usual words and sentiments of an old academic philosophy major, but this does bring us to one of the fundamental problems of discussing the appropriateness and validity of my approach: academia’s apprehension of absolutes. According to Couture (Cree/Métis):
Universities are apprehensive of absolutes, and become very nervous about the intellectual vice of absolutism, for its experience, in the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences, is with the ambiguous, the tentativeness of theory, the shortcomings of method and inquiry.
Universities are wary — their task is to question assumptions. Indeed, it is vital to a university’s sense of fulfillment of mission that it can question assumptions. Because of that, from this relationship to and with each other, i.e., Native Studies and the University, a standing and necessary tension ensues — the inclination to verbal articulation and restraint vs. an ancient and intractable world-view that is silent, energetic and generous, that experiences all reality as sacralizing, that prized metaphor, intuitive imaging, together with higher order mental prowess. In a sense therefore, of both parties is required an ecumenical approach to each other, a willingness to find in traditions other than its own, other subsets of learning, other understandings, other valid interpretive systems.[41]
I believe that I am an example of this ecumenical approach. As a person of Ojibwe and French-Canadian ancestry, a traditional person and an academic, I straddle both worlds, able to gain and express from both. We are witness to a unique time when the old is becoming new; we are rediscovering the underlying texture of Anishinaabe and other Aboriginal philosophies. As Couture (Cree/Métis) explains:
… at present, Tradition, manifest in its many tribal expressions, is being rediscovered, investigated and reclaimed, and Native Studies is one of the key players in that pursuit.[42]
Without repeating what has already been stated, I think that identity, traditional knowledge, cultural revitalization, and education are at the very core of the method that I use in my work. Edward Benton-Banai (Ojibwe), the Grand Chief of the Niswi-Ishkodeng Midewigaan, explains that at present we are beginning to see the results of a movement by Aboriginal peoples to reclaim their self-identity and to revitalize Aboriginal cultures. Edna Manitowabi (Odawa) has called this a “Spiritual Renaissance”[43]. Chief Benton-Banai (Ojibwe), in The Mishomis Book, The Voice of the Ojibway, states that:
The prophet of the Seventh Fire of the Ojibway spoke of an Osh-ki-bi-ma-di-zeeg’ (New People) that would emerge to retrace their steps to find what was left by the trail. There are Indian people today who believe that the New People are with us in the form of our youngest generation. This young generation is searching for their Native Language. They are seeking out the few elders who have not forgotten the old ways. They are not finding meaning to their lives in the Teachings of the American society. They are searching for an understanding of the Earth as Mother of all things. They are finding their way to the Sweat Lodges, Spirit Ceremonies, Drum Societies, Midewiwin Lodges, Pipe Ceremonies, Longhouse Meetings, Sun Dances and Kivas that have survived to this day. This younger generation is discovering the common thread that is interwoven among the traditional Teachings of all natural people.[44]
This approach allows Aboriginal people, who are sensitive to complex traditional knowledge systems, to investigate the world in a more complete manner. By exploring a traditional method of learning and ultimately using it in research, the identity of a person is expanded and expressed in a traditional way. Rather than using only a Western system of research, we must use an Anishinaabe system for Anishinaabe worldview, an Ongwehónwe system for Ongwehónwe worldview, a Lakota system for Lakota worldview, etc.
In the end we must realize that the assumption that Aboriginal worldviews can be adequately explained by a totally alien western worldview is the essence of imperialism. As Benton-Banai (Ojibwe) explains, there are still Elders and traditional Teachers out there who are well learned in traditional knowledge systems. In order that this method, or any Aboriginal method of research, is comprehensive and rigorous it is imperative that the Elders and traditional Teachers be sought out and learned from. It is with their guidance that today’s Aboriginal peoples will be able to retrace those steps necessary to find what was left by past generations on the side of the trail; that is, learning about, and actualizing traditional education, identity, knowledge and ultimately, cultural revitalization. Couture (Cree/Métis) explains that:
In that way, once again, Elders and Tradition are primal givens. Our perceptions and grasp thereof can and do shape and influence our response to contemporary realities. This knowledge elicits an ethical attitude and response. Traditional viewpoint claims a “right” vision as conditional to seeing and understanding life in the “right” way.[45]
Using such a method, Aboriginal peoples will then be able to examine and base their lives on the traditional Teachings of their respective cultures, rather than only the teachings of the dominant society. There is no doubt that Aboriginal peoples will continue to share this land with Euro-Americans and other immigrants, but we are now beginning to realize that we do not have to base our lives on the values and structures of that dominant society. This method allows a process that is rooted in tradition and traditional learning, a process that allows a development of identity, traditional knowledge and cultural revitalization, as well as a model for a more inclusive system of education.
Primary Experiential Knowledge and Research
I do not advocate a separation of Aboriginal peoples from the university environment. I am in agreement with Joseph Couture’s (Cree/Métis) opinion that we can find a balance between academic methods and traditional methods, thus developing a system of education that is equitable and valuable to all.
At a minimum, I think that the education of students in Native Studies must involve a very personal, critical reflection not only on one’s knowledge, but also upon one’s experience of self, others, and social contexts, for these are necessary to the fullest possible participation in a bicultural life context.[46]
I believe that this approach is appropriate in relation to research in Native Studies since it expands on the initial aim of Native Studies: the study of Aboriginal peoples. Moreover, Native Studies is not limited to an objective study of Aboriginal peoples as separate objects of study. Native Studies also includes Aboriginal people as active researchers. I also believe that this method can and should be used in all academic disciplines so that a broader investigation of the world can take place. As we have seen, research for some Aboriginal people includes more than an investigation of the external world. It can, and many times is, a personal journey of self-discovery of what it means to be Aboriginal. When I first entered Paul Bourgeois’ course on Anishinaabe Identity in 1994, I knew very little about my Anishinaabe heritage. It is through this academic university course that I first discovered a part of myself that until then was unclear, and it is through this experience that I found my traditional Teachers. When I began to learn about Anishinaabe tradition, unlike an anthropologist or ethnologist, I did not distance myself objectively from the ceremonies and their Teachings, I embraced those Teachings and made them part of my life. Only in this way was I able to discover and internalize the necessary basis for this kind of examination.