Last week talk entitled “Key Indigenous Women Leader in Environmental Scholarship, Stewardship and Activism”, which was an event of Inspiring Women Among Us Initiative Program, impressed me about qualified indigenous women who addressed their insight on climate change and environment. I had have seen that how proud of themselves in leading or participating in the program as a role model for future generation. Great! Well, on the other side, how can I interpret myself on “Inspiring women”? I am always hearing the words in Canada; multi-culture, discrimination, equality, etc., those are really a great words.
In the discussion, they mostly emphasized the approaches that they are dealing with the nature, and highlighted the vital role of relationship with the nature. By referencing to colonial practices in treating nature was only meant to be taking, not really be managing. With those ripple effects, indigenous people are finally impacted and suffered from the consequences of poor management. They also mentioned with the example (how to design the house in extremely cold region or storm region) about indigenous way of knowing to nature and the unique of those knowledge to apply for their survival. Moreover, they also addressed about their language and culture comparing to colonialist specifically to English language and western culture. I can clearly see the differences. The reality is none of them are perfect. For example, when they were presenting about the indigenous culture; they live the whole family together in the same house while this modern western culture was living in separate room or separate location from the family, in this way, people are isolating themselves from the family or community or connecting more in the family? Isolate or connect, the most important thing is not to be self-centered or must be human-centered. One additional thing was mentioned that indigenous/traditional knowledge? These days we discussed a lot about research methods between qualitative and quantitative or ontology vs epistemology. To me, it is generally the same only differences are different ways of seeking/acquiring knowledge. They have their own pros and cons. For example, Indigenous community, they live in simple life and with family, literally sharing more than modern western culture. Let’s say something about studying water. What do you think about what Indigenous vs. Western Science findings? The answer will be subjective and objective, right? As once the root is different, it will never ever come up with the same vision. That is why some applications used hybrid methods (qualitative and quantitative) esp. for type of socio-economic or impact assessment survey. In here, would it be any better to adopt the best/strength from both sides, and supporting each other’s. Otherwise, reconciliation process will not be successful. It is always better to balance knowledge and beliefs.
From that moment, I have learnt the lessons on how to live with living and environment, but it was not relating to my research. May be methods and methodology parts related? If I have a chance, I would have asked for their roles and future collaboration plan to fight for global warming/climate change. Well, I enjoyed the moment. Be your knowledge be golden!