With many other post-secondary institutions looking for the right fit, the UofM is also exploring how we can ensure all of our students graduate with a basic understanding of the importance and contributions of Indigenous peoples in Manitoba and Canada.

But what is the best way to do that? It is with an ICR or other method? Should the ICR be one single course or a series of courses tailored and relevant to the various faculties and subject areas? There are a lot of opinions on the topics, which we saw at the January 28th event.

When the discussion of an ICR or other integration method was posted on the UofM social media channels, it generated more comments and engagement than any other topic seen on Instagram or Facebook. It inspired intense discussions and strong feelings.

These are some of the comments you made on the subject:

It’s an awesome idea. It was a requirement in my degree and I’m glad it was because it led me to minor in the subject. It’s an imperative discussion that everyone needs to be a part of.

I’m sorry to say it but this creates resentment. You should not force people to pay for a course that they don’t want to take.

Cultural competency in any job and degree is worthwhile. You’ll likely be working with people in the future, therefore, you should understand at least one culture other than your own.

Teaching indigenous culture throughout all of elementary and high school would be 1000% more effective. Educate people while they’re young, while they’re still forming opinions of who they are as people.

I don’t think it’s a good or bad thing but if it’s irrelevant to someone’s area of study, then it should not be a mandatory class.

Having a music degree doesn’t make you a responsible citizen. A well rounded education does. 

In order to continue consulting with the student body on the best way to move forward, the University of Manitoba Aboriginal Students’ Association and the Office of Indigenous Achievement invite ALL students to participate in Sharing Circles to discuss the U of M’s strategic action: “Ensure every student graduates with a basic understanding of the importance and contributions of Indigenous peoples in Manitoba and Canada.”

These sessions will gather feedback provided by students:

• How do YOU think Indigenous knowledge can be incorporated in the university experience?
• Several universities across Canada are implementing an Indigenous Course Requirement. Should the U of M do the same?
• What other ways can we ensure that every student graduates with Indigenous awareness?

The Sharing Circles will take place:

Room 543/544 University Centre
12:30 PM – 2 PM
Thursday, February 4, 2016

William Norrie Centre
12:30 PM – 2 PM
Friday, March 18, 2016

Bannatyne Campus
Room TBD
12:30 PM – 2 PM
Wednesday, March 30, 2016

All U of M students are welcome and a free lunch will be provided. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact: Ruth Shead, Coordinator in Indigenous Achievement at ruth.shead@umanitoba.ca.

Interested in the learning more about the topic? Here is a recommended reading list:

Taking our Place: Strategic Plan 2015-2020
In its five-year strategic plan, under the priority area Inspiring Minds, the U of M lays out the goal: “Ensure every student graduates with a basic understanding of the importance and contributions of Indigenous peoples in Manitoba and Canada.” (page 13, bullet point e.)

Manitoba Collaborative Indigenous Education Blueprint
University of Manitoba

MOU between U of M and the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba
UM and TRCM

The U of W makes Indigenous course a requirement
CBC Manitoba

Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., to mandate Indigenous learning
CBC Thunder Bay

Lakehead University: Indigenous Content Requirement
Lakehead University

Paved with Good Intentions: Simply Requiring Indigenous Content is Not Enough
ActiveHistory.ca

Yukon College introduces First Nations core competency for all graduates
Yukon College

‘Indigenizing the Academy’ without Indigenous people: who can teach our stories?
MoontimeWarrior.com

Learning from Knowledge Keepers of Mi’kma’ki
Cape Breton University

A number of Canadian post-secondary institutions are introducing an Indigenous course requirement. But is making learning “mandatory” the best way to reach students? Is it a one-size-fits-all class? Or will several options be offered to suit students’ degree needs? Do universities and colleges have the capacity in order to make this happen? We’ll lay out the pros and cons of introducing an Indigenous course requirement, examine options for what an Indigenous course requirement could look like, and explore the logistics for making it happen.

What: Panel discussion – Indigenous Course Requirement: Good or Bad?
When: Thursday, Jan. 28, Noon – 1:30
Where: Room 543/544 University Centre, Fort Garry campus

Should the University of Manitoba have a mandatory Indigenous course requirement?

• No (72%, 613 Votes)
• No, we should integrate knowledge in other ways (17%, 142 Votes)
• Yes (11%, 96 Votes)

The above data is from a website poll that has been archived.

Panelists:
James Wilson, Treaty Commissioner for Manitoba

Originally from Opaskwayak Cree Nation, he is an educator who is passionate about bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. James currently serves as an Advisor on the Mayor’s Indigenous Advisory Council and the University of Manitoba President’s Advisory Council. He is a columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press and is regularly called upon by local and national media for his views on a wide range of Treaty-related matters, education and business issues.

Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair, Acting head of the U of M’s Department of Native Studies

Sinclair is Anishinaabe from St. Peter’s/Little Peguis. He is a regular commentator on Indigenous issues on CBC, CTV, APTN and other media.

Ashley Richard, student

A proud Ojibway Métis, she is studying Aboriginal Business Studies at the U of M’s Asper School of Business. She is the president of the Association of Aboriginal Commerce Students and works for the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba.

Sadie-Phoenix Lavoie, student

Originally from Sagkeeng First Nation, she moved to Winnipeg in 2009 and is a fourth-year student at the University of Winnipeg, earning a BA with a double major in Indigenous Studies and Political Science. She is the female co-president of the University of Winnipeg Aboriginal Student Council, and is part of the committee that worked on the Indigenous Credit Requirement, which was approved by the U of W’s senate and will be implemented starting in 2016.

As Deborah Young, executive lead, Indigenous achievement, at the U of M notes that the week is in part about “building a consciousness in the university. And this is also what Treaties are all about — building a relationship.”

The key session, “What Are Treaties and Why Are Treaties Still Relevant?” takes place in Senate chambers on Monday, March 16, from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.

Two panelists in the Treaties session are Manitoba Treaty Commissioner James Wilson and Jean Friesen, a historian in the U of M’s history department in the Faculty of Arts who is also a member of the Treaty Commission of Manitoba’s Speakers Bureau.

UM Today spoke with both Friesen and Commissioner Wilson about Treaty 1 and the ongoing relevance of Treaties. Two illuminating interviews: we open with Friesen’s historical perspective and and wrap up with Commissioner Wilson’s succinct summary.

***

Jean Friesen, historian

UMT: What is your work and research about?

Jean Friesen.

Jean Friesen: My work has been on Treaty 1 in particular — it’s the first treaty that Canada made after Confederation, which why it’s called number 1. It doesn’t mean it’s the first treaty in Canada; it’s the first one that Canada made after 1867. It’s also includes the lands on which the University of Manitoba is located, and a portion of Southern Manitoba.

UMT: What is your role with the the Treaty Commission of Manitoba’s Speakers Bureau?

Friesen: I’ve worked with Commissioner Wilson as well as Elder Harry Bone [who is also on the panel] as part of the Treaty Commission’s Speakers Bureau. We’ve given talks to teachers and people who are developing curriculum, and church groups and public interest groups.

The Speakers Bureau is a mixed group — there are Elders, lawyers, some historians — and usually the Treaty Commission staff puts together a small group, depending on what the client group wants — and we might spend a couple of hours or workshop over a couple of days. It will normally include an Elder to open the sessions and to set us all on the right path.

Each of the prairie provinces has a treaty commission.Saskatchewan’s has been in existence the longest and both Manitoba and Saskatchewan treaty commissions have excellent websites that can be a great help in finding additional resources. Teachers, in particular, have found them very useful.

UMT: Why are Treaties are relevant today, and why you think it’s important that this topic is included in the panels?

Friesen: When I talk to public groups about Treaties, I usually start with the Treaty Commission’s phrase, “We are all Treaty people.” It’s intended to raise the question of Treaties in people’s minds … that sense that there were two peoples that negotiated the Treaties, who agreed upon them, who made a covenant.

For those people who are not Indigenous … I think there should be an understanding of the context of the negotiations and the agreements that were made.

Friesen: When I talk to public groups about Treaties, I usually start with the Treaty Commission’s phrase, “We are all Treaty people.” 

Because — and here’s the reason why — for the presence of non-Indigenous people in Manitoba or the Prairies where the major Treaties exist — is that this is the basis of our wealth. Many people have come here and made comfortable livings, whether they own property or a business, or whether they are a major corporation — and that wealth has come from the land and the resources.

This formed part of the subject of the negotiation: The permission for peaceful settlement and the use of some of these resources comes from those treaties. So in that sense, it’s an obligation we all have. To understand them and to understand that we’re all Treaty people in that sense. I often say that I wish I’d had that phrase when I began teaching, because it’s a very good encapsulation of the issues and of helping people to think about it.

UMT: Is there anything else we should know about Treaties?

One of the ways that I talk about it — and I do this in my university classes as well — is to try and get across to non-Indigenous people that Indigenous people always made Treaties. They made Treaties with each other long before Europeans came here. They made Treaties for various reasons — for resource sharing, for rights of passage across their lands — and this Indigenous political thought carries over into the Treaties of the late 19th century. So again, it’s trying to get across that sense of two people negotiating over the future.

I guess the second point I always try to make is [that] a lot of people in … 20th century Canada have thought about Treaties as something in the past. A long time ago. And indeed Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien tried to get rid of the Treaties in 1969. I don’t know how much you know about the White Paper, but that was an attempt to get rid of Treaties. A single stroke, by a non-Indigenous government, to get rid of negotiations and Treaty agreements that were arrived at by two parties.

And so I think, even though this failed, it contributed to a general sense that these [Treaties] were in the past, something to be left behind.

I go back to the language of the Treaties and speeches that were made [at Lower Fort Garry] at the time of the Treaties. Both sides — but particularly on the Indigenous side, if you look at the speeches, the Indigenous leaders in Southern Manitoba [for] Treaty 1 — made the point over and over again that they were thinking about the future.

And some of the speeches that they make are very evocative… Here’s something from one of the speeches [by an Indigenous leader]: “We must find ways to feed our children.”

“We must find ways to feed our children.”

 

And the second speech that always resonates with me is “Grant us wherewith to make our living.” We’re going to have to live in this land with you; make sure that by this Treaty, we have enough to make a living and that we are able to feed our children.

That sense of an economic future is what comes through at the time of the making of the Treaty.

So that sense that they are about the past and it’s all over — no. It’s about ensuring that we are true to the spirit of those Treaties, and I sometimes define that as a continuing obligation, to each other.

***

Commissioner James Wilson

Treaty Commissioner Jamie Wilson.

UMT: Can you tell us about your role as Commissioner in relation to Treaties?

Commissioner James Wilson:  My role is to restrengthen, rebuild and enhance the Treaty relationship. To get away from the [1876] Indian Act relationship, and we do that through education, research and facilitation. We’ve got a major education program, where we are bringing Treaty education into the schools in Manitoba, Kindergarten to Grade 12. We are in 400 schools so far; we’ve trained just over 1,000 teachers — who’ve done two days of training, where they hear from Elders, historians, legal experts. And then they get a kit, with about $500 of resources, for their school.

Commissioner Wilson: “My role is to restrengthen, rebuild and enhance the Treaty relationship, to get away from the Indian Act relationship.”

 

In research, we have two big projects on the go — an atlas and an oral history project. That’s been about eight years of research going into those. With facilitation, our job is to facilitate a dialogue between first nations and the federal government, provincial government and business. And there has been the most interest in the area between First Nations and business. Because there’s not a lot of opportunities for First Nations to engage with the business community-at-large. We are helping to foster that.

UMT: So it’s both education within the public school system and the wider community as well.

Commissioner James Wilson: Yes, for sure. An example of why [education about Treaties] is relevant would be … an issue like Kapyong [Barracks, the former military base on Kenaston Boulevard still tangled in a court battle; six First Nations groups are hoping to turn the site into an urban reserve based on a Treaty land entitlement process].

Kapyong exemplifies the misunderstanding and lack of context in the relationship right now. So we can come in and say, so what is the context? … Why do First Nations in Manitoba have land titles that is owed to them? What are urban reserves that have happened elsewhere, what are the success stories? And then we can bring together the business communities with First Nations leaders, and say, okay, how can we work together?

So, there are a lot of contemporary issues that work with that.

UMT: Can you explain more about the importance of, as you say, getting away from the Indian Act relationship and enhancing the Treaty relationship?

The Treaty Medal commemorated Treaties with dates and Treaty numbers.

Commissioner Wilson: Initially the relationship between First Nations and Canada, or non-First Nations, was codified through Treaty. In essence, the best way I’ve heard the Treaties described is by Jean Friesen, as “enduring relationships that lead to mutual obligations.”

Both sides are saying, okay, if we want to work together, and we want to create opportunities, here’s what we have to do. And First Nations had a long history of signing Treaties and negotiating Treaties. And so they said, here’s what we do, tere’s certain opportunities we want — we want education, we want training in certain things, like agriculture and farming. We want to be able to hunt and fish and trap — so the Treaties are about creating opportunities to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

And not to say that they were perfect, but they were pretty solid agreements — two people with very different world views coming together.

But since then, the Indian Act was introduced [in 1876] and the dysfunction in the relationship stems from the Indian Act, which created a hierarchy, created dependency within First Nations. It outlawed a vast amount of things, from travel to working off reserves to selling goods off reserves, tools, ceremonies, it brought in residential schools — it really disempowered First Nations.

UMT: That’s a very succinct way of showing the need for bringing back the Treaty relationship.

Commissioner Wilson: Yes, and that’s something that both the federal government and First Nations agree with. They both think that’s how we can move ahead.

UMT: So the Treaties were already in place, already a negotiation, rather than a law-based, restrictions-based regime like the Indian Act. The Treaties are kind of like an ongoing, living agreement.

Commissioner Wilson: Yes, it’s kind of like a marriage, right? People use the analogy of a marriage. The ceremony itself is just the beginning, the beginning of the work.

But you are saying, ‘we’re going to work together.’

— Mariianne Mays Wiebe

>> See story on Indigenous Awareness Week here and more on individual panels here.

The closing day will include opening ceremonies at Migizii Agamik and will feature a full day of dialogue with Elders and Knowledge Holders about relationship-building. See our story about Indigenous Awareness Week, including the full schedule of events here.

The key session, “What Are Treaties and Why Are Treaties Still Relevant?” opens the week and takes place in Senate chambers.

A video of proceedings will be posted on the Indigenous Connect website.

 ***

What Are Treaties and Why Are Treaties Still Relevant?

Location: Senate Chambers, 262 Engineering Information and Technology Complex

Date and time: Monday, Mar. 16, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

By definition, Treaties are negotiated agreements that clearly spell out the rights, responsibilities and relationships of First Nations and non-First Nations. But in practice, they are far more complex and often lead to animosity and exhaustive court cases. We Are All Treaty People and it is essential that we understand their origins, as well as how they will play a role in shaping the future of Canada.

Panelists
Elder Harry Bone
Jean Friesen, associate professor, history, Faculty of Arts
Ovide Mercredi, Special Advisor to U of M
James Wilson, Treaty Commissioner of Manitoba

Relationship Building

Land, Resources, and People: Elders’ and Knowledge Holders’ Perspectives

Location: Migizii Agamik and Marshall McLuhan Hall, University Centre

Date and time: Friday, Mar. 20, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Join us at 8:00 a.m. to open the day with traditional pipe, water, and fire ceremonies* at Migizii Agamik – Bald Eagle Lodge. This will be followed by two sessions in Marshall McLuhan (10 a.m. – Noon and 1:00 p.m. – 3 p.m.) when Elders and Knowledge Holders from across the country will share their perspectives on treaties, land, and resources.

*PROTOCOLS: All traditional protocol will be followed. For female guests please wear a long skirt. If anyone is unsure about traditional protocols, please contact the Aboriginal Student Centre at 204-474-8850.  Please note that all cell phones must be turned off. Recording of the ceremonies in any way is not permitted (no photos, videos, audio recording or social media posts).

Thank you for respecting these protocols.

Traditional teachings and reflections by:
Elder Harry Bone
Margaret Lavallee, Elder-in-residence at U of M
Mel Chartrand, co-founder/co-director/lead behavioural health specialist, Eyaa-Keen Healing Centre
Shirley Chartrand, co-founder/co-director/lead behavioural health specialist, Eyaa-Keen Healing Centre
Elder Levinia Brown
Norman Meade, Elder-in-residence at U of M
Elder Garry Robson
Elder Florence Paynter
Ken Young, lawyer
Elder Charlie Nelson
Elder Dave Courchene Jr.

UM Today spoke with panelist Aimée Craft, an Indigenous lawyer in Manitoba and assistant professor in Faculty of Law.

Two systems of law confronting each other

Aimée Craft. // Photo by Malachi Griffith

In addition to working in Treaty and Aboriginal rights for over a decade, Craft says she’s tries to understand the role of Anishinabe tradition in daily life.

“We often don’t talk about Indigenous philosophy; we talk about a way of life,” she explains. “That’s very important for me in my personal life and also translates into some of my academic work.”

Her recent book, Breathing Life Into the Stone Fort Treaty – an Anishinabe Understanding of Treaty One focuses on understanding and interpreting Treaty in terms of underlying principles of the Anishinaabe inaakonigewin (legal) perspective.

As she notes, the foundation for the understanding of Treaty 1 was based in the law of the land at the time and “Anishinabe law was alive and well” in 1871.

Breathing Life Into the Stone Fort Treaty – an Anishinabe Understanding of Treaty One by Aimée Craft.

In her work, Craft looks at the Anishinabe understanding of “Mother Earth — and Earth as a Mother.” It leads, she says, “to the understanding of the ability we have to share in the bounty of Earth, but not make decisions for the Earth and not to sell the Earth —  but to live in relationship with it.”

The mother-child relationship is also the basis for Treaty with the Queen. Craft points out that through the Treaty process, both English commissioners and the Anishinabe spoke about the relationship with the Queen as a mother.

However, understanding diverged in “those underlying legal and normative value systems,” she says.

“When the commissioners with their English law background are coming to the table and talking about the Queen as a mother, they are thinking in terms of child labour in England, hierarchy amongst children from oldest to youngest, differences between male and female children, children not having any legal identity.”

This is contrasted with an Anishinabe understanding of the mother-child relationship, founded on “love, kindness and caring and fostering of autonomy,” shes says.

“You are a person from the moment you are born — even prior to being born — you exist as a person in Anishinabe law, and you have that ability to make your own decisions and to have your autonomy fostered by both parents.”

Though there’s no disagreement about the terminology used in the Treaty, she points out, “it results in a substantive misunderstanding, that is different on both sides.”

“It’s two systems of law, really, that are confronting each other,” she says.

 Reclaiming the role of women

So often, says Craft, “we either blend roles of male and female in our understanding of governance and Treaties — or we absent the role of women.”

There are important principles — and historical precedent — for the integral role of women in governance, she says.

For example, “the Anishinaabe work in a clan system and structure highly influenced by clan grandmothers — and women have strong roles in terms of leading the direction of decision making and action in our communities.”

These traditions and underlying principles have been been overshadowed. “It’s an important awareness piece in exploring historically what women’s roles were in governing our nations and family units,” she explains. Craft is interested in exploring how that governance role — both on a micro and macro level — can be reclaimed and better understood today.

Treaties, governance and Indigenous women

The integral role of women is not always reflected in modern politics, she notes.

Says Craft, “The Treaties are a marking point in time, where it’s necessary on the commissioners’ part to deal with male counterparts and maybe not a recognition of the underlying system of governance that incorporates the governance of women and the jurisdiction of women over water and land.”

It’s key in the Western misunderstanding of Treaty, she notes.

“First of all, that the ability to make decisions belongs to the collectivity and not the individual and the refusal of the commissioners to deal with the whole body of people, but rather the selection of certain individuals to represent — it somewhat defies the governance structures at the time. And it certainly is the beginning of patriarchy in structure and governance.”

Patriarchy was further reinforced through the Indian Act, says Craft, with registration provisions based on discrimination between male and female members, as well as band election structures that didn’t allow for women to be elected.

Craft calls it “a procedural beginning of the imposition of patriarchy.”

Some of it was effected through the fur trade as well, she explains. And though the spokesmen were male, it’s important to remember that Indigenous camps “were run by women. And there where over a 1,000 people at the Treaty 1 negotiations. And they were going back into discussion with family and community clans and trying to understand and collectively make those decisions in camp.”’

She clarifies that the governance structure was taking place, “but maybe not as visibly in the eyes of the commissioners and those who are reporting on the historical record.”

“It’s not by accident that everyone comes together to the Treaty negotiations. It’s not just a group of men who arrive together to negotiate. It’s everyone that is there.”

***

Craft’s desire is that the panel will achieve further learning about the role of Indigenous women in governance both within the university, and within Indigenous communities. She sees a need for some of these difficult questions to be faced head on, citing the current lack of Indigenous women in leadership — only four of 56 Indigenous Chiefs in Manitoba are women, as she points out.

“My hope is that there will be a lot of people that attend the entire [Indigenous Awareness Week], and that we won’t have this panel and have only women show up. I think that there needs to be a balance of Indigenous and non-Indigenous men and women that come to hear and participate in the discussion.”

The session, “The Role of Indigenous Women in Treaties and Traditional Governance” takes place in 543-544 University Centre on Tuesday, March 17 from noon until 2 p.m.

 –Mariianne Mays Wiebe

>> See story on Indigenous Awareness Week here and more on individual panels here.

 ***

The Role of Indigenous Women in Treaties and Traditional Governance

Indigenous women played a central role in determining the contents of the Treaties. What was this role? And how has it been interpreted over history? We’ll look at how Indigenous women are looking to the past and re-imagining themselves in governance roles today and in the future.

Location: 543-544 University Centre
Date and time: Tuesday, March 17, noon to 2 p.m.

Panelists
Aimée Craft, assistant professor, Faculty of Law
Kiera Ladner, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Politics and Governance
Janice Bone, U of M graduate student, department of Native studies
Margaret Lavallee, Elder-in-residence, U of M

“And as a Cree woman, that’s very meaningful and significant,” says Deborah Young, executive lead, Indigenous achievement.

“But I often wondered if people understood the reason why we do that.”

This was partly the impetus for a focus on Treaties, Traditional Knowledge and Elders during the inaugural Indigenous Awareness Week, which takes place Mar. 16 to 21.  Indigenous achievement, along with the Aboriginal Student Centre, and the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba are bringing together Elders, Knowledge Keepers, academics, students and community members to bring awareness to Treaties and their relevance for Canada, Manitoba and the University of Manitoba.

The list of panel topics and people for the week is impressive. “I’m really, really excited about the week, covering a lot of different topics, says Young. “We tried to get our Knowledge Holders in, our Elders, [and] to get a good mixture including student perspectives coming in with our scholars.”

UPDATE: Below are photos from events that took place throughout the week.

‘an interactive opportunity for community’

Young says, “We had an amazing discussion with Ralph Stern, dean of the Faculty of Architecture, and the members of the panel, during our planning session for “Honouring Indigenous Identity Through Spaces and Names” [next Wednesday].

“We’re hoping to have students involved and really have a deep discussion about what are the obligations and the opportunities, as future architects, to respond to Indigenous need and Indigenous culture — and how can they go about [becoming] more informed about what that requires. We are going to ask Elder Charlie Nelson about what it means to create culturally affirming space, from an Elder’s perspective. He was involved with some of the initial planning around Migizii Agamik…. And Mike [Robertson] will speak about relationship-building and what is our obligation, for both architects and non-architects, to develop that relationship. Destiny [Seymour] will be providing images on what Indigenous space looks like — and how do you integrate that into your overall planning?”

The sessions take place in different rooms across campus, in order to encourage participation from a broad spectrum of the university community. Sessions will also allow substantial Q+A time.

“We want this to be an interactive opportunity for community,” emphasizes Young.

One session focuses the Métis people and another on the role of Indigenous women “not only in the treaty-making process but also in governance,” she says. “We have some great scholars and a couple elders and a student coming to speak, and I think that’s going to be a very interesting discussion.”

Partnering with Treaty Commissioner James Wilson (Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba) was natural, says Young, given Indigenous achievement’s previous partnerships with the Commission. “Commissioner Wilson and I have partnered on a few events now, and he seemed like a perfect partner to come on board for Indigenous Awareness Week.”

The key session, “What Are Treaties and Why Are Treaties Still Relevant?” opens the week and takes place in Senate chambers. A video of proceedings will be posted on the Indigenous Connect website.

The closing day will include opening ceremonies at Migizii Agamik and will feature a full day of dialogue with Elders and Knowledge Holders about relationship-building.

The closing day will include opening ceremonies at Migizii Agamik and will feature a full day of dialogue with Elders and Knowledge Holders about relationship-building. “Carl Stone [student advisor at the Aboriginal Student Centre], will be MCing that one. And what we’re hoping for is just allowing our Knowledge Holders and Elders to come together and have a conversation. Carl will start the conversation going with a couple of questions and then we’re hoping that our Elders will take over that conversation and talk about relationship-building and what it means to them. That’s not going to be a Q+A session. Our job as observers is to listen.”

“Taking Our Place” and the emphasis on Indigenous achievement and pathways

It’s a step towards embedding Indigenous perspectives into the university. “In November ,we released our [U of M] Strategic Plan called ‘Taking Our Place,’ and there’s a major emphasis on Indigenous achievement and pathways,” explains Young.

“Indigenous perspectives are interwoven throughout the entire plan, and one of our commitments is to increase our collective awareness around Indigenous issues. You know, I’ve hosted a number of events during the three years [I’ve been at the U of M] to foster that greater awareness. And I think that by putting it all in one week and allowing people to come and to listen and observe and to participate in dialogue is one way to start embedding Indigenous knowledge and traditions within the fabric of our university.”

Since she took the role of executive lead, Indigenous achievement three years ago, Young has focused on creating welcoming educational events and dialogues.

“I want to be able to bring people into the dialogue, and doing so in a way that is safe for them to do so,” she says. “Especially our non-Indigenous friends and allies, right? Because they are the ones who are going to help us make the change within the university — and in fact, I would say, within our society. So, we have to be able to give people a better understanding of who we are as Indigenous peoples, what our contributions are — why do we acknowledge traditional land, why are Treaties important to us, and why is it so important that we engage our Elders and Knowledge Holders in this process? So, a lot of the dialogue [during Indigenous Awareness Week] is going to be lead by Indigenous people,” she says.

“We have [history professor] Jean Friesen coming in, and she’s not Indigenous, but she’s a real ally to us,” continues Young. “She’s going to be talking about the role of the historian in this process. I think she’s going to provide us with some good suggestions for how to work together, and how to collaborate together and walk hand-in-hand. Each of us has a role; each of us has a responsibility.”

As Young notes, “Indigenous Awareness Week will start providing some of those tools; it’s one step forward. This is part of it, building a consciousness in the university. And this is also what Treaties are all about — building a relationship.”

Admission is free and open to the public.

 — Mariianne Mays Wiebe