Going Beyond Content

First of all, as Claire clearly stated, treaty education is a mandatory component of the curricula of each grade. Many teachers view treaty education as optional and unimportant, but that is not correct. Every student can benefit from treaty education, regardless of whether or not they are First Nations, Metis, or Inuit. I think many people forget that the treaties were signed by two parties: First Nation, Metis, and Inuit peoples and colonizing Europeans; the treaties are as pertinent to non-Indigenous people as they are to Indigenous people. Treaty education encourages students to adopt a sense of responsibility towards upholding the agreements made in the treaties, as well as a responsibility towards establishing good relationships between Europeans and First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people. Treaty education is also a way for the First Nation, Metis, and Inuit ways of knowing to be remembered. Unless these ways of knowing are actively acknowledged and taught, it is very easy for them to disappear in our Eurocentric country. Including treaty education in the curriculum is a display of respect for First Nation, Metis, and Inuit peoples, as well as a way to show that their ways of knowing have importance and significance. 

I found Dwayne’s quote about how many Canadians with ancestors from European countries believe that they do not have a culture to be interesting. In my Sociology of Mental Illness class, we have been talking about what it means to be “normal”, and I think this concept can be applied in this circumstance. Canada is one of the most powerful countries in the world right now, and with this status may come feelings of superiority. Culture is often thought of in racialized terms; culture is often associated with people of colour. So, because people of colour are seen as inferior in the organization of our society, White Canadians like to believe that they do not have a culture to maintain their superiority. Therefore, making having no culture “normal”. Kumashiro’s ideas surrounding common sense can also be applied in this circumstance. White Canadians are never explicitly told that they have no culture, but it is an underlying idea that exists in everyone’s mind that is perpetuated by the social standings of each race in society. I believe that when students learn and identify the existence of their culture, it will make the concept of First Nation, Metis, and Inuit cultures less foreign and more “normal”. 

I also really appreciated what Mike was saying about how treaty education goes beyond simply content. For treaty education to have a full effect on the students who are learning it, they must experience a personal connection to the material. In many other subject areas, teachers can strictly teach the material and students can write the test and forget all of the knowledge that they just learned, but treaty education should not be like this. Treaty education goes deeper than this superficial level and leaves an imprint on the students. I think about Claire’s story of the girl that was still thinking about the horrors that many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people were exposed to in residential schools during a Terry Fox Run. Claire was able to engage with this material on a deeper level than the typical product model that occurs in many classrooms and connect with her students emotionally. This emotional response is what will help propel these students into forming better relationships between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people and Europeans. This emotional response is what will forge a sense of respect in students for both Indigenous and European people. This emotional response is what will prove the importance and relevance that students can get out of the curriculum.

After listening and reading all of the material that was posted this week, I feel like I finally understand what the statement, “we are all treaty people”, means. I now understand that treaties are just as pertinent to Europeans as they are to First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people. I have also gained a greater understanding of why treaty education is included in the curriculum. Treaties are agreements that are meant to last forever, so the next generation constantly must uphold the agreements. It is a major responsibility, so it makes sense why treaty education is a mandatory component of each grade level’s curriculum. I also think about the importance of this statement within the hidden curriculum. Even if we, as teachers, are teaching the content included in the curriculum, our students are going to unconsciously acknowledge the attitudes we hold towards the content and begin to adopt them as well. If we present the material in a fun, engaging way, and we look excited about it, this is going to instill excitement in our students. However, if we present the material in a bland, monotonous way, and look annoyed about it, it is going to instill an unbothered attitude in our students. How we teach the content is just as important as what the content is.