Jump to content

User talk:Bohunk/Paper Phil333

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ive been checking this on a daily basis over the break, and I didnt want to send out a bunch of emails... but we should really be adding to this, or at least commenting. This could get done right now if we just committed ourselves to an edit a day... I sure hope you read this.

'It is VERY important that when copy-pasting, do not do this from the page itself but from the edit screen. This will ensure that any formatting is preserved.

It would be great if you guys could create more of an introduction that shows what this paper is, and what it's for -- I know it's under construction, but for such a fascinating project, a good framing device would help the reader interpret it as it takes shape! Kvcad (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper

[edit]

Structure

[edit]
  • Field work consists in visiting sites where the relevant activity is carried out in an exemplary way, and in talking to the best-placed experts within reach of UVic and Victoria about the issues under consideration. The results of field research should be explicitly discussed in your paper and presentation, and the value of your visit (What is the value of our visit?) for the development of your topic should be explained during the Class Presentation.
  • Papers should be between 6 and 8 pp. long, double-spaced, with a consistent style of giving references (Chicago or MLA, for example). The proportion of work carried out by each group member must be stated on the first page of the paper (for example, John 20%, Mary 40%, Peter 40%) because grades assigned to individuals will be weighted according to the group’s self-evaluation of members’ contributions. Deadline to hand in papers: 20 March.
  • Class Presentations of Group Research. Dates of presentations, according to the schedule agreed upon on 10 January, during one lecture date between: Mar 24th to Apr 4th.


Evaluation Criteria:

  1. Effective and correct use of the English language;
  2. Accurate and clear presentation of the views discussed;
  3. Presentation of valid arguments;
  4. Presentation of appropriate objections to the arguments noted;
  5. Evidence of reflection and analysis about the field work; and,
  6. Quality of written and oral presentation.

Topic

[edit]

Indigenous Environmental Stewardship

What can we learn about environmental stewardship from First Nations peoples?

Can non-Native people really learn something from Native people, given that:

  • Conceptions of the world (metaphysics); and,
  • Ways of knowing (epistemologies), of Native people often are very different from those of non-Natives?

Indicate clearly:

  1. Principles that on your view are transferable,
  2. Reasons for believing that they are transferable across cultures,
  3. Objections that your proposal would have to endure.
  4. Determine places in Victoria or nearby that exemplify worthwhile examples of indigenous environmental stewardship,
  • Beacon Hill Park
  • East Sooke Park -> pteroglyph on rocks about watersnake
  • Bear Mountain – sacred cave
  • Local Museum

General Comments

[edit]

Re: the struggle 'against' and 'with' nature and the 'affluence or subsistence' question

[edit]

See notes in body of paper. I am not clear about these two sections: is it important they be in the paper, and, do we even have space to put these in (considering the cases will be developed further to include the respective interviews and research). - MD

Re: your edits.

  • I think that the John Locke section is important as it sheds some light on the circumstances of colonialism, and a justification for the acquisition of FN lands. This section also allows us to reflect on the changes in Western attitudes since colonial/industrial times (1700's-mid 1900's, when most damage occurred).
  • I am going to revert the change to the executive summary, as this has already been handed in, and I think that this should remain in its submitted form.
  • I like the idea of focusing on these cases, however, I feel that the focus needs to be on their economic/industrial/social patterns, with the camas, potlach, and such being examples of these.
  • The argument for affluent vs sustenance is based on research of FN as 'affluent foragers' and is viewed as a credible anthropological theory for the agricultural surplus of FN in pre-contact society. This is to argue that surplus exists even outside of large-scale agriculture, and permits the stratification of skills, creating a diverse economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.2.126 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think we need to present the dominant western views, in order to clarify the obstacles to adoption. -Steffan (?)
'I spoke with Dr Heyd today and he said that any info about western views should be secondary, background info to the paper. The main focus should be on the cases, principles, and the question of how transferrable TEKW is. -MD

Re:Introduction

[edit]
  • We should fit in TEKW somewhere in this paper as there is so much study being done on it and it fits in with the epistemology side of things.
  • How much of a focus should epistemology be? If it is the main focus, then we can look at TEKW pretty closely. This would move our study to the modern period mostly, and we would be looking historically for background purposes.
  • The focus could be a cross-cultural comparison. That would allow us to look at metaphysics and epistemology as they fit in with the cultures. I would want a model for cross-cultural comparison though, and we need to be very focused if we choose this, maybe a comparison on a specific aspect within culture, like `food, meals, and the environment`. -MD
  • We have to mention the coastal BC groups as a focus in the intro/thesis. -MD
    • I am looking back on what I've said and it seems I've made it all look more confusing that it needs to be- sorry! The focus I realize now shouldn't be a comparison of epistemologies and metaphysics per se, but a look at indigenous practices and traditions to derive principles for sustainable environmental stewardship. It is one-sided: what can we learn from them? (not vice-versa) and the question of epistemology and metaphysics comes in when we ask if and how these principles and practices are transferable. Then too we don't need a thorough comparison of epistemology and metaphysics but just some supported assumptions about how this impacts transferability. -MD

Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Wisdom (TEKW)

[edit]

This newpaper article talks about some interesting work being done to incorporate TEKW in the BC school curriculum. UVic grad students are doing some leading reasearch for it. http://communications.uvic.ca/edge/aboriginal-science.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.234.136 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Western Views

[edit]

If we are comparing colonial views with indigenous views on the environment, I think it would be most useful to do a direct analysis of colonial metaphysics and epistemology. I don't see how Aristotelian and Conservationist views would fit into a 'colonial-indigenous' comparison.

Also, how are we linking this comparison to the present? Our thesis should have something in it about our current metaphysics and epistemology being 'neocolonial' if we want to be able to extend this analysis to the current context. I think this would be wise, because we need to do field-work in the current context and have some way of drawing it into our paper. -MD


Field Work Proposals

[edit]

Mira:

So far I am interested in the Qu'Wutsun Indigenous Centre in Duncan: http://www.quwutsun.ca/. I am especially interested in visiting their Riverwalk Cafe and talking to the cooks there about "Traditional Foods, Harvesting and Preparation Methods".

Side thought: What if we make our focus on "Eating Locally" and we pull in the current trend to 'eat local' and the question of what kinds of things local indigenous groups have done regarding food (to what extent did they trade, to what extent did they live off this land, ocean, etc)- and see what might be transferable! What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.234.136 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... The Duncan FN might be a little far for me to go, but if you can manage than that sounds good. Keep in mind that there are FN offices closer to victoria than that, and I am planning on making a trip to a FN office too - so maybe we could plan this out together.
Also, the eat local thing sounds good. There is a lot of research involved if you want to account for different food sources. There is a significant difference from our eat local context, where the majority of the locally grown produce are not indigenous to the region. A misconception with the indigenous context may also be the idea that the environment was unaltered by the use of the indigenous group - this is not the case, as discussed earlier. In incorporating this idea, we should ask what the specific difference is in attitude. Clearly, indigenous groups did not have any moral objections to their behaviour towards the environment, they saw themselves as part of the picture not distinct from it. Maybe we only interpret our own destructiveness as being destructive due to our belief in ourselves as higher organisms...? SCmurky (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've asked. Why do we see our 'altering' of the natural environment as intrinsically destructive? Some questions that come to mind- I dont know how important they are-: "What would a local diet without 'imported food species' have looked like?" "Is it wrong to 'import' food to a region where it doesn't normally grow?" "What is the merit of returning to an 'indigenous diet', and is this even possible, considering the loss of TEKW and indigenous species?" "What constitutes 'indigenous' species, considering many species were 'imported' by wind, birds, and sometimes even the indigenous people themselves from other regions?"

I will comment and work on the exec summary you've started, on Monday afternoon. Tuesday and Wednesday will have to be a lot of wiki-checking and e-mailing back and forth to get this precis looking presentable. -MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.2.139 (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Harpreet:

I would like to work with Mira and interview the lady expert at UVIC, I think her name is Thomas. Because I do not have a car, I would have to pitch in gas money to head out to Duncan and catch a ride with a team member. I think taking a canoe to a remote island is not practical given our time constraints. I also am not sure as to how we will get around the island to find what we would need to document. Furthermore, documenting what we would need to would take further time. I think it would be more practical to stick to doing field work that is more easily accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.217.197 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_______ Thanks Harpreet. Yes, this part of the discussion didn't get updated with the discussion we had over e-mail. We aren't going to Duncan but will focus on Victoria. As Cheryl Bryce noted it is good to go to areas around here, even the spot she talked about on campus, at least for the camas bulbs. Dr Heyd said it would be good to have Cheryl take us to a camas site and show us what to look for. Also in the interview with Cheryl, Dr Heyd said it would be useful to ask "have you noticed any change in your perception and relationship to the environment since you've started the camas bulb restoration project, and how would you describe this change? What about other people who are part of the project?"

Maybe you could research some field work that can be done for the potlatch and eulachon in Victoria, Harpreet. Are there any places we could go to or people we could meet who have experience with the potlatch custom, or the eulachon fish trade/use?

- MD _______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.235.115 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think that the eulachon is a northern FN commodity more than in the south. But we could ask whether Eulachon was imported to these areas. What was the extent of trade, spatially and commodity wise? How many commodities were there that were actively sought after?

Questions for FN or UVic profs

[edit]

1)Were classes upwardly mobile? Did people have the opportunity or desire to improve their status from lower classes?
2)...

Help me type up some questions for an interview

The questions will have to be based on our thesis and be very pointed. If we go for a colonial vs. contact-era indigenous comparison, here are some possible questions:

1) Can you remember any stories that have been passed down to you about your peoples' first encounters with Europeans? What kinds of experiences did your people have in meeting the Europeans, and how was the Europeans' way of treating the environment seen by your people? (this could provide insights into how the epistemology of the colonizers was different than of the indigenous people)

2) How would you describe your peoples' relationship with the environment today, ideally? How does this ideal play out in the day-to-day reality?

3) What would you say is the most important thing non-indigenous people can learn from your peoples` history and way of interacting with the environment?

4) What would you say is the biggest problem with they way most people understand their relationship to the environment today? What would you say is the biggest problem with the way people are treating the environment today?

5) What modern environmental stewardship concepts are compatible with native stewardship? How do you think that Westerners and First Nations could collaborate? (Harpreet)

6) Do you believe that, if widely adopted, modern environmental principles still maintain facets that conflict with FN philosophies.

7) Is it fair to draw parallels between global trade and FN trade in Eulachon and other goods? What about between modern agriculture/aquaculture and the cultivation of camas and shellfish? While these practices may not have occurred at the same scale as in industrial society, they do display methods of environmental manipulation over such a time that the ecosystem was forced to adapt and evolve.

Proposed for Bibliography

[edit]

Dont add to this unless you intend to read the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.82.252 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Willems-Braun, B. (1997). Buried Epistemologies: The Politics of Nature in (Post)colonial British Columbia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(1), 3-31.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608%28199703%2987%3A1%3C3%3ABETPON%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

  • Sluyter, A. (1997). On Excavating and Burying Epistemologies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(4), 700-702.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608%28199712%2987%3A4%3C700%3AO%22ETPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Braun's response to Sluyter's commentary:


Here are a bunch of links that Harpreet has read and found below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish
http://www.coastalarts.net/site/culture/
http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/firstnations/paper/conservation.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/sa/Salish.html
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/aboriginals_salish.html
http://www.nativewiki.org/Salish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.2.161 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bohunk/Paper_Phil333&oldid=202163533"