Issues of Language Across the Cultural [and colonial] Divide

Archives

home > archives > 22/2 > Issues of Language Across the Cultural [

Issues of Language Across the Cultural [and colonial] Divide

Eileen Willis
Department of Palliative and Supportive Services, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA

Maria Rameka
Principal Lecturer, School of Nursing, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Vicki Smye
Assistant Professor, New Investigator, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Keywords

Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nation, nursing, health, international

Article Text

Bringing together thirteen articles on the contribution of the nursing profession to Indigenous health in an international context creates a number of issues around the use of language. We recognize that how people come to name themselves is an important act of identity. How others name them is a political act. For example, names used for 'First Nations' people may be an act of respect as they become more aware of the political meaning (and sometimes racist intention) embedded in language, or yet another form of neo-colonialism. In addition, what is appropriate 'naming' shifts over time. As an example, in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, this shift has in recent times been part of the struggle of many Indigenous peoples for self-determination and for the elimination of racism.

In addressing these issues, our brief has been twofold:

to alert readers to the fact that there are differences across the three countries that might cause offence, but are in fact appropriate in the country of origin; and
to point out to readers where authors have made judicious decisions about the use of language.

Some of these decisions remain controversial. However, the point we wish to make is that the authors have given the issue considerable thought.

Naming: convention or an act of identity?

Issues to do with the protocols of names may be simply a matter of convention, or they may arise out of deeper political processes that are part of the very struggle for self-determination and social justice. One example of a simple convention is the spelling of Aboriginal and Indigenous with a capital. It is not universal and its use varies, although readers will notice that it is the house style of Contemporary Nurse to capitalise both words, so that cross-national differences may not be evident. In Australia, the use of capitals is taken as a given. The term Aboriginal is usually written as Aboriginal people while Aborigines is no longer considered appropriate. It is acceptable in some parts of Australia to use the terms Aboriginal and Indigenous interchangeably, as in the paper by Charlotte de Crespigny and her colleagues from South Australia, but in other parts it denotes exclusion and inclusion. For example, Aboriginal does not embrace Torres Strait Islander (TI) people and it would be inappropriate to use it in those areas where TI people live. In such cases the word, Indigenous captures both groups. The term native is also no longer acceptable in Australia and would be considered racist.

Some obvious cross-national differences are evident. In Canada, Indigenous may be written with or without a capital. Other examples of differences on this issue include the paper by Pertice Moffatt and Ardene Vollman on Tlicho Women's Medical Travel for Childbirth. Here the authors refer to Tlicho women as First Nations women, in recognition of their identity within their respective nation. They use the term Aboriginal throughout their paper to include Indian (now usually replaced by the term First Nations), Métis and Inuit people. As they note:

In Canada this is considered a broader term than, for example, First Nations, to identify all Indigenous peoples (Royal Commission of Aboriginal People 1996). Aboriginal peoples represent approximately 4-5% of the populace in Canada and are a notably culturally diverse population.

Closely related to the above point is the very use of the terms Aboriginal, Indigenous and First Nations. As editors living in the countries of three different First Nations, we became aware of the nuanced differences in the appropriate terms. In Australia, Aboriginal and Indigenous are accepted terms. People may also refer to themselves as Nungas or Koories, although increasingly Indigenous people are returning to the more specific names of their traditional country, such as Narrindjeri and Bardi, rather than the generic names coined at the time of colonial contact. The naming of country has allowed the widespread development of the ritual of welcoming non-Indigenous people and Indigenous guests onto the land at conferences, meetings and other public events. Some authors in this issue have taken up the more generic terms of Yolungu and Anungu (Pitjantjatjara/Yunkanytjatjra). These terms were coined by the Indigenous people themselves from their own language and translate simply as the people.

In New Zealand, Maori call themselves tangata whenua or people of the land. They are referred to as indigenous (with or without the capital). Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori - the Maori Language Commission - expects that the macron is always used to signify the long 'a' sound when writing Maori (The Maori Language Commission 2006). This is to encourage the correct pronunciation of the word Maori for language learners. Using the correct name for a people does not appear to create the same problems in New Zealand where the Maori, while not a homogeneous group, share the same name and the language is universal throughout both islands, with dialectical differences. Terms such as Aboriginal, Indigenous and First Nations are never used in New Zealand.

What is also evident from the papers from New Zealand is the way in which non-Maori authors use familiar Maori words and phrases to express concepts not easily translated into English. Unfortunately, in Australia, most non-Indigenous Australians are not familiar with the intricacies of translation or the subtleties of Indigenous meanings. This is partly because there are over 500 Aboriginal language groups. The same holds true in Canada where there are 11 Aboriginal language families (Frideres & Gadacz 2001: 23) and 53 Aboriginal languages (Fleras & Elliott 1992: 22). As a consequence, naming First Nation people in Australia as Aboriginal has a more generic and distancing meaning than the nomenclature, Maori for New Zealand indigenous people.

Readers will note a footnote in the paper from Canada by Annette Browne and Colleen Varcoe outlining the current understanding of the term Native and Aboriginal peoples in Canada where the terms delineate one people from another, or are maintained as enshrined in government legislation. They write-

'Aboriginal' refers generally to the indigenous inhabitants of Canada including First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996: p.xii). 'These three groups reflect organic political and cultural entities that stem historically from the original peoples of North America, rather than collections of individuals united by so-called 'racial' characteristics' (p.xii). Specifically, the term 'First Nation' replaces the term 'Indian', 'Inuit' replaces the term 'Eskimo', and 'Métis' refers to people of mixed European and Aboriginal ancestry. The labels 'Native' or 'Indian,' however, continue to be used in federal legislation and policy enshrined in the Indian Act, and in statistical reports and wider public discourses. Under the Indian Act, First Nations peoples are categorized as 'status Indians' or' non-status Indians', which distinguishes those who receive legal recognition by the state and those who do not.

This point is picked up by all Canadian authors as worthy of comment. As Browne and Varcoe also indicate, they use the term Aboriginal peoples to capture the historical and political diversity of Indigenous peoples, and presumably to embrace all Indians, status or otherwise. They also note that the participants in their studies described themselves as First Nations, a term that reminds the reader of their political status as the original inhabitants of the land.

To insert another layer of complexity, according to Frideres and Gadacz (2001: 22), some Métis in Canada regard themselves as the only true 'Aboriginal' or 'original' peoples since they alone emerged as a new group in North America. In addition, there are First Nations, Métis and Inuit people who prefer to be described by these terms, rather than more broadly as Aboriginal people, as recognition of their respective identities. These allocations are of particular importance as Aboriginal peoples work through treaty and fishing and land right issues attached to their identities, with Canadian governing bodies.

In contrast, in Australia, the terms used in the 1960s for legal and welfare purposes such as native or half-caste are now considered offensive and no longer used. The 1968 Commonwealth of Australia definition defines an Aboriginal person as a person of whole or partial Aboriginal descent, who claims to be an Aboriginal and is accepted as such by the community with which he [sic] is associated. This definition was endorsed in 1978 and Torres Strait Islanders were included in 1972 (ABS 1998).

Incorporating diversity into the nomenclature

Readers will also note the consistent use of the word peoples across papers from all three countries. Behind this pluralising of people is the claim to diversity within First Nations. In most cases, the authors take care to identify the language, tribal or family group with which they have worked or collaborated. This is in recognition of the fact that while people may be grouped together for the purposes of health or welfare legislation, we should not presume that cultural beliefs, practices, customs and rituals are the same. What this pluralising also denotes is the mixed fortunes of Indigenous groups: it heralds the fact that not all have achieved justice in land, sea and water rights. This point is of particular importance in Section 2 where the authors make claim to representing Aboriginal peoples views' of pain, cancer, child-birth or long-term illness. In these papers, authors have been careful to situate the projects with particular groups, the Tlicho women, or Dogrib, members of the Tlicho Nation, the largest tribe of Dene Indian people of Canada; the Arrente women of Central Australia, the more generic Yolungu of Arnhem Land, Australia; and the Maori of New Zealand.

We have also insisted on the correct spelling for tribal, family or place names of importance to Indigenous people. If we have erred at all, our apologies are extended to those concerned. Using the correct spelling is not as simple as it seems and we are aware of the conflict this may cause. We have followed the principle that the official orthography used by linguists, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, should be employed, rather than the spelling of early 20^th Century missionaries. This is a difficult decision given that some older Indigenous people may be more familiar with orthographies developed by 19^th Century missionaries. One example is the spelling of the word Arrente, rather than the more popular Aranda to denote the traditional owners of Central Australia.

Language and authority to speak

One of the issues lightly touched on by Indigenous authors in this issue, and closely related to the concept of diversity, is the idea of 'authority to speak.' This point is raised by Juanita Sherwood and Tahnia Edwards in their paper on decolonising processes. They note that 'locating [their] position is vital as [they] can only write about themselves;...we are not speaking for all Aboriginal people' (Absolon & Willett 2004). For non-Indigenous researchers. this dilemma has in some instances led to more collaborative research ventures where it is clearly articulated that the voice of the Aboriginal person constituted Indigenous intellectual property. Commenting on this process, Andrea Corbett and colleagues quote Smith (1992b: 10) who notes that-

My findings that are relevant to Maori do not belong to me for my individual use, nor do they belong to any institution or employing authority. My research belongs to the whanau and the Maori community, it should empower the community to develop strategies that enable it to survive and flourish.

What language to use?

A further point related to language deals with the authenticity of the Indigenous text. In the papers in this issue, some authors have modified the text of Indigenous informants in order to bring it into line with standard English. This is particularly so for papers from Australian researchers. This is a controversial action. At one level it strips the Aboriginal voice of all its poetry, masking their way of articulating the problem or point. However, putting the text into standard English reduces the risk of trivalising the Indigenous voice. An example in this issue is the paper from Pam McGrath et al on Aboriginal responses to cancer. McGrath and her colleagues have modified the text to bring it into line with standard English and acknowledge that this is what they have done-

For some interviews, an interpreter was used. Hence, many of the language texts were influenced by a combination of English and the Indigenous language. As a compromise to readability, some of the texts required additional words in parenthesis to improve clarity. It was considered important not to change the texts further than this to stay true to the participant voice and so the reader still has a sense of the original meaning.

There are obvious difficulties here with authenticity, but this action was taken to give the Aboriginal voice the authority it deserves in a milieu where few non-Indigenous health professionals have any deep knowledge of contemporary Indigenous cultural worldviews.

Added to this is the difficulty of taking at face value what Indigenous and non-Indigenous people say without critical or explanatory comment. This is particularly so if what is said is contrary to the bio-medical model of health care. In some cases authors make little comment on the text leaving the reader to form their own value judgements. The difficulty here for the authors has been to remain true to the trust extended to them by their Indigenous colleagues. The paper by McGrath et al demonstrates a decision to remain true to the participant's words, despite problematic terminology. They note that the aim was to represent as accurately as possible the Indigenous definition of the situation.

In a related vein, terms such as black magic have negative connotations for many Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian, Canadian and New Zealanders who bring Christian cosmology or skeptical scientific rationalism to their understanding of these words. These texts must be read with sensitivity to the fact that Indigenous participants often endeavour to enter into the world of the researcher. In doing so, they risk sacrificing the sacredness of the Indigenous understandings. The irony here is that the very fact of speaking in English, or interspersing English words into their conversation may be done out of empathy for the non-Indigenous researcher. Given this, research with speakers of English as a second (or third) language will always be problematic. We point the reader to the inadequacy of English to express Indigenous ideas about the metaphysical world and to the dilemma confronting researchers such as McGrath and her colleagues to maintain authenticity.

On the positive side, the strong use of Indigenous language by Maori and non-Maori nurse researchers appears to be done with ease and a lack of self-consciousness. New Zealand Maori represent 15.5 per cent of the population, although a number of other cultural groups have migrated to New Zealand. The homogeneity of Maori has provided opportunity for a wider understanding within New Zealand society of the meanings and nuances of language that has allowed Victoria Simon, and Andrea Corbett and her colleagues, to intersperse their text with Maori words. As a consequence even the most ignorant reader begins to get a 'feel' for the metaphysical world of the Maori peoples.

Conclusion

While we are aware that there may be other issues related to the use of language and its complexities within the area of Indigenous health and health care, it has been our goal to elucidate some of the issues with which we, as editors of this issue, have grappled in bringing together these papers from a wide range of perspectives and geographies.

Toggle references

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1998) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia - Census counts, concepts and questions in the 20^th century, ABS Year Book, accessed at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/
1301.0Feature%20Article151998?opendocument&tabname=
Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=1998&num=&view= on 18 April 2006.

Fleras A and Elliott JL (1992) The nations within: Aboriginal-state relations in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, Don Mills, Oxford Press, Canada.

Frideres JS and Gadacz RR (2001) Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Contemporary conflicts 6^th edn. Pearson Education, Canada.

Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori, The Maori Language Commission (2006) accessed at http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/ on 28 March 2006.

Navigate: Archives | Contents | Top of page