Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Gathering knowledge : Indigenous methodologies of land/place-based visual storytelling/filmmaking and… Christian, Dorothy 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2017_may_christian_dorothy.pdf [ 4.33MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0343529.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0343529-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0343529-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0343529-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0343529-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0343529-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0343529-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0343529-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0343529.ris

Full Text

Gathering	Knowledge:	Indigenous	Methodologies	of	Land/Place-Based	Visual	Storytelling/Filmmaking	and	Visual	Sovereignty	by	Dorothy	Christian	M.A.,	Simon	Fraser	University,	2010	B.A.,	University	of	Toronto,	1999	Dissertation	Submitted	in	Partial	Fulfillment	of	the	Requirements	for	the	Degree	of		Doctor	of	Philosophy		in		The	Faculty	of	Graduate	and	Postdoctoral	Studies	(Educational	Studies)			The	University	of	British	Columbia	(Vancouver)			April	2017		©	Dorothy	Christian,	2017		ii	Abstract	This	dissertation	addresses	two	questions	that	examine	how	localized	cultural	knowledge	informs	production	practices	in	visual	narratives	produced	for	Fourth	World	Cinema	and	how	Indigenous	visual	storytelling/filmmaking	styles	based	in	that	knowledge	determine	the	film	elements,	thus	the	cultural	congruency	of	their	selected	aesthetics.		Secwepemc-Syilx	systems	of	knowledge	in	British	Columbia	are	used	as	an	exemplar	for	the	development	of	a	localized	theory	for	creating	visually	sovereign	narratives	for	Fourth	World	Cinema.		This	culturally	specific	ontology	formulates	a	land/place-based	identity,	specific	to	Secwepemc-Syilx	territories.	Land,	story	and	cultural	protocols	are	central	to	this	work	and	the	seamless	relational	quality	is	illustrated	by	emphasizing	how	integral	they	are	to	Indigenous	self-representation	and	identity.		In	the	film	discourse,	the	researcher	brings	together	Manuel	(Secwepemc)	and	Poslun’s	Fourth	World	(1974)	and	Barclay’s	(Maori)		(1990,	2003a,	2003b)	assertion	of	a	Fourth	Cinema	to	further	develop	the	notion	of	a	Fourth	World	Cinema.	The	ways	that	Indigenous	film	aesthetics	shape	the	meaning	of	visual	sovereignty	and	the	concept	of	cultural	congruency	in	constructing	film	elements	are	fundamental	for	Fourth	World	Cinema.	In	the	globalization	and	film	discourses	the	researcher	interrogates	how	the	concepts	of	political	identity	(indigeneity)	and	geographical	location	(deterritorialization)	affect	the	treatment	of	Indigenous	representation.		An	Indigenous	Inquiry	process	is	set	in	an	Indigenous	research	paradigm	that	privileges	Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge.	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge(s)	are	juxtaposed	to	reveal	the	philosophical	differences	that	affect	land,	story,	and	cultural	protocols.		Archibald’s	(2008)	seven	Indigenous	storywork	principles	of	respect,	responsibility,	reciprocity,	reverence,	holism,	interrelatedness,	and	synergy	set	the	framework	for	the	shared	conversations	of	13	Indigenous	knowledge	keepers.	The	findings	of	the	knowledge	gathered	illustrate	the		iii	commonalities	in	the	cosmologies	within	the	diverse	expansive	Indigenous	worldviews.	Another	layer	of	investigation	documents	a	peer-to-peer	discussion	between	the	researcher	who	is	a	visual	storyteller	and	a	diverse	group	of	17	Indigenous	filmmakers	who	shared	stories	from	their	film	production	experiences.		Their	perspectives	affirmed	the	role	of	culture	in	contemporary	film	production	practices	and	led	to	the	development	of	the	concepts	of	story,	land,	cultural	protocols,	and	Indigenous	identity	in	Fourth	World	Cinema.				iv	Preface	Dorothy	Christian	carried	out	the	research	design,	analysis,	and	written	chapters	of	this	dissertation.	The	dissertation	is	an	original	and	unpublished	work	of	Dorothy	Christian.	The	following	committees	and	informal	advisor	listed	below	provided	guidance	and	feedback	to	Dorothy	Christian	throughout	the	research	and	dissertation	writing	process.	University	of	British	Columbia	PhD	Committee:	Dr.	Jo-ann	Archibald,	Supervisor	Dr.	Sheryl	Lightfoot,	Member		Dr.	Rita	Shelton	Deverell,	Member		Ethical	Approval	for	interviews	received	from:	The	University	of	British	Columbia,	Office	of	Research	Services	and	Administration,	Behavioural	Research	Ethics	Board,	Certificate	Number	H13-01914	A	Note	on	Copyright	and	Intellectual	Property	Rights:	While	the	copyright	of	this	dissertation	rests	with	me,	Dorothy	Christian	Cucw-la7	as	the	researcher	and	author,	I	declare	that	the	Secwepemc	people,	as	represented	by	the	17	Secwepemc	Communities	of	the	Secwepemc	Nation,	have	inherent	cultural	rights	and	ownership	of	all	oral	histories	and	cultural	information	on	the	Secwepemc	contained	in	this	dissertation,	and	further	claim	first	rights	to	any	intellectual	property	arising	from	the	cultural	knowledge	as	derived	from	Secwepemc	elders	and	other	Secwepemc	cultural	specialists.	I	respectfully	extend	the	same	inherent	cultural	rights	and	ownership	of	all	oral	histories	and	cultural	information	from	other	Indigenous	Nations,	that	is,	Syilx,	Cree-Métis,	Haida,	Hopi,	Inuit,	Mohawk,	Seneca/Iroquois	and	Stó:lō	whose	knowledge	keepers	shared	cultural	information	for	this	research	study.	Those	seeking	secondary		v	use	of	the	materials	must	honour	these	Nations’	inherent	authority	in	regard	to	their	cultural	information	in	their	specific	knowledge	system	and	must	seek	permissions	from	them.			Kukwstec-kuc	to	Kukpi/Dr.	Ron	Ignace,	Dr.	Marianne	Ignace,	Dr.	Nancy	Turner	and	Dr.	Kelly	Bannister	for	developing	the	wording	for	this	statement	on	copyright	and	intellectual	property.		In	addition,	I	extend	this	respect	to	the	authors	of	the	graphics	that	are	used	in	my	dissertation.		The	copyright	of	Figure	3:	Mobilizing	Indigenous	Land	Based	Framework	Eshkakimikwe	Kaandossowin:	Earth	Ways	of	Knowing	and	Figure	4:	Gee-zhee-kan-kan’-dug	Cedar	Pedagogy	sits	with	the	original	author	Alannah	Young	Leon	(Cree-Anishinabe).			Kukwstsétsemc	to	Secwepemc	graphic	artist	Tania	Willard	who	donated	her	creativity	and	time	to	create	Figure	1:	Cucw-la7	Preparing	for	Flight,	Figure	2:	Cucw-la7	Gathering	Knowledge	and	Figure	6:	Cucw-la7	with	the	Eggs	She	Laid.		We	share	copyright	on	these	images.	For	the	original	work	by	Dorothy	Christian,	citations	may	be	used	in	accordance	with	academic	protocol	for	citing	knowledge/sources.			Cultural	Advisory	Council:	Maria	Campbell	(Cree-Métis),	Mike	Myers	(Seneca/	Iroquois),	Mona	Jules	(Secwepemc)	and	Rosalind	Williams	(Secwepemc).	Informal	Indigenous	Film	Advisor:	Victor	Masayesva,	Jr.			vi	Table	of	Contents	Abstract	...........................................................................................................................................................	ii	Preface	...........................................................................................................................................................	iv	Table	of	Contents	......................................................................................................................................	vi	List	of	Tables	.................................................................................................................................................	x	List	of	Figures	..............................................................................................................................................	xi	List	of	Acronyms	......................................................................................................................................	xii	Glossary	......................................................................................................................................................	xiii	Acknowledgements	...............................................................................................................................	xiv	Dedication	..................................................................................................................................................	xvi	Chapter	1.	 Introduction	......................................................................................................	1	1.1.	 Cultural	Location	.............................................................................................................................	1	1.1.1.	 Cucw-la7	Gathering	Knowledge	.................................................................................	3	1.1.2.	 Ancestral	Collective	Memories	....................................................................................	4	1.2.	 Chapter	Overview	............................................................................................................................	5	1.3.	 Back	Story	of	Doctoral	Research:	The	Master’s	Thesis	...................................................	6	1.4.	 Doctoral	Study–Gathering	Knowledge:	Indigenous	Methodologies	of		Land/Place-Based	Storytelling	and	Visual	Sovereignty	.................................................	8	1.5.	 Research	Purpose	and	Research	Questions:	Giving	Voice	to	the	Stories	and	the	Land/Visual	Sovereignty	...................................	12	1.6.	 Research	Objectives	....................................................................................................................	13	1.7.	 Indigenous	Way	of	Doing:	Research	Design	and	Methodology	................................	14	1.8.	 Globalization	and	Global	Film	Discourses:	Indigeneity	and	Deterritorialization	....................................................................................	18	1.9.	 The	Land	Is	Our	University:		Home	Schooling	Myself	..................................................	20	1.10.	What’s	Missing?:	The	Knowledge	Gap	.................................................................................	23	1.11.	Summary	of	Chapters	.................................................................................................................	25	Chapter	2.	 Literature	Review	.........................................................................................	30	2.1.	 Chapter	Overview	.........................................................................................................................	30	2.2.	 The	Oral	Stories	and	Euro-Western	Literary	Genres	....................................................	31	2.3.	 Critical	Interdisciplinary	Indigenous	Theories	...............................................................	33	2.4.	 Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Philosophies:	Land	and	Stories	.................................................	39	2.5.	 Euro-Western	Critical	Theories:	Religious	Studies	and	the	Land	...........................	47	2.6.	 It	Really	Is	About	the	Land:	Globalization,	Indigeneity	and	Deterritorialization	......................................................	49	2.7.	 Global	Film	Discourse	and	Deterritorialization	..............................................................	50	2.8.	 Summary	of	Critical	Indigenous	and	Non-Indigenous	Theories	..............................	54		vii	Chapter	3.	 What	Horse	Did	I	Ride	in	on?:	Methodologies	....................................	57	3.1.	 Chapter	Overview	.........................................................................................................................	57	3.1.1.	 What	Horse	Did	I	Ride	in	on?	....................................................................................	58	3.2.	 History:	“Hands	Back,	Hands	Forward”	..............................................................................	59	3.3.	 Research	Design:	Indigenous	Research	Paradigm	and	Indigenous	Methodology	and	Methods	....	61	3.4.	 Methodologies:	Research	as	Storytelling	and	Indigenous	Storywork	to	Make	Meaning	...............	65	3.5.	 How	to	Do	Things	in	Indian	Country	...................................................................................	67	3.5.1.	 Personal	Community	Engagement	.........................................................................	68	3.6.	 “Hand	in	Glove”:	Protocols	and	Accountability	...............................................................	70	3.7.	 Multiple	Levels	of	Accountabilities	.......................................................................................	72	3.7.1.	 My	Home	Community	..................................................................................................	72	3.7.2.	 Inter-Tribal	Engagement:	Participant	Visual	Storytellers	and	Cultural	Knowledge	Keepers	............	74	3.8.	 Indigenous	Methods	in	Gathering	Knowledge	.................................................................	78	3.8.1.	 The	Journal:	Experiential/Lived	Experience	as	Knowledge	and	Reflexivity	Method	.......................................................................	79	3.8.2.	 Synergy	and	Interrelatedness:	Active	Listening	with	Three	Ears	............	80	3.8.3.	 Inward	Knowledges	as	a	Method	............................................................................	81	3.9.	 Challenges	and	Successes	of	Indigenous	Methodologies/Methods	........................	84	Chapter	4.	 Who	Are	We	on	the	Land?:	Critical	Indigenous	Theories	...............	86	4.1.	 Chapter	Overview	.........................................................................................................................	86	4.2.	 Euro-Western	Jurisprudence:	What’s	Land	Got	to	Do	with	Story?	.........................	87	4.3.	 Globalization	from	an	Indigenous	(Syilx)	Perspective	.................................................	91	4.4.	 Globalization:	The	Interface	of	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	Systems	of	Knowledge	..............	94	4.5.	 Shared	Indigenous	Perspectives:	The	Land	and	the	Stories	......................................	99	4.5.1.	 A	Cree-Anishinabe	Model	for	the	Land,	the	Stories,	and	Cultural	Protocols	.......................................................................................................	100	4.5.2.	 Critical	Land-Based	Theories:	Story	as	Theoretical	Anchor	....................	103	4.6.	 Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Relationship	to	Land	...................................................................	106	4.6.1.	 Secwepemc	Stories	and	Reciprocal	Accountability	.....................................	106	4.6.2.	 Syilx	Stories:	Customary	Laws	and	Indigeneity	.............................................	110	4.7.	 Developing	a	Critical	Localized	Secwepemc-Syilx	Theory	......................................	116	4.8.	 A	Proposed	Critical	Localized	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Principle	.............................	127		 		viii	Chapter	5.	 Knowledge	Keepers:	Conversations,	Stories	and	Experiences	...	131	5.1.	 Chapter	Overview	......................................................................................................................	131	5.2.	 Analysis/Interpretation	of	Shared	Knowledge	............................................................	131	5.3.	 Diversity	in	Indigenous	Representation:	Cultural	Knowledge	Keepers	............	136	5.4.	 Shared	Knowledge(s)	..............................................................................................................	139	5.4.1.	 Indigenous	Worldviews	...........................................................................................	139	5.5.	 The	Knowledge	Keepers	and	Relationship	to	Land	....................................................	149	5.6.	 Land	and	Stories	Are	Integral	to	Each	Other	.................................................................	157	5.6.1.	 The	Stories	.....................................................................................................................	157	5.6.2.	 Cultural	Protocols	Are	Encoded	in	the	Stories	...............................................	161	5.6.3.	 Technology:	Social	Media/Facebook	..................................................................	164	5.7.	 Conclusion	....................................................................................................................................	166	5.7.1.	 Still	Writing	on	the	Land:	Re-Indigenizing,	Re-Inscribing	and	Re-Storying	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Stories	.......................................................	172	Chapter	6.	 Fourth	World	Cinema:	Land,	Story	and	Cultural	Protocols	..........	175	6.1.	 Chapter	Overview	......................................................................................................................	175	6.2.	 Indigenous	Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers	in	this	Study	.......................................	176	6.3.	 Shifting	Hollywood	Portrayal	of	Indigenous	People	from	Colonial	Times	to	the	21st	Century	.....................................................................................	180	6.4.	 Fourth	World	Cinema:	Indigenizing	Film	Production	Practices	in	the	21st	Century	..................................................................................................................................	183	6.5.	 Fourth	World	Cinema	in	the	International	Sphere	.....................................................	190	6.5.1.	 Transnational,	Intercultural	and	Decolonized	Cinema:	Geographical	Location	and	Political	Identity	..................................................	190	6.6.	 Fourth	World	Cinema	in	the	National	Sphere	...............................................................	193	6.7.	 Global	Film	Discourse:	Deterritorialization	and	Indigeneity	.................................	195	6.8.	 Indigenous	Place	on	the	Land	and	Identity	....................................................................	199	6.8.1.	 Visual	Sovereignty	of	Indigenous	Cultural	Production	..............................	201	6.9.	 Indigenous	Filmmakers:	Place-Based	Identities,	Land	and	Diasporas	..............	205	6.10.	Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers	and	Story	.....................................................................	212	6.11.	Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers	and	Cultural	Protocols	..........................................	217	6.12.	Conclusion	....................................................................................................................................	220	Chapter	7.	 Indigenous	Films	and	Culturally	Congruent	Aesthetics	................	224	7.1.	 An	Inner	Knowing:	Extending	Respect	and	Taking	Responsibility	as	a	Visiting	Visual	Storyteller	to	Another	Indigenous	Territory	..................................	224	7.2.	 Chapter	Overview	......................................................................................................................	225	7.3.	 Indigenous	Arts	in	Canada:	Transforming	the	Space	.................................................	226	7.4.	 Films	as	Indigenous	Knowledge	Production	.................................................................	230	7.4.1.	 Types	of	Knowledge(s)	.............................................................................................	232		ix	7.5.	 Accountabilities	in	Production:	Internal/External	.....................................................	235	7.5.1.	 Internal	Accountabilities	.........................................................................................	235	7.5.2.	 External	Accountabilities:	Funders	.....................................................................	239	7.6.	 What’s	Race	Got	to	Do	with	the	Ecology	of	Aesthetics	and	Artistic	Integrity?	244	7.7.	 The	Politics	of	Aesthetic	Accountability	..........................................................................	246	7.7.1.	 Aesthetics:	Indigenous	Language	and	Sounds	...............................................	248	7.8.	 Indigenous	Production:	Cultural	Congruency	and	Aesthetic	Choices	................	255	7.9.	 Community-Based	Visual	Storytellers:	Living	His/Her	Stories	.............................	262	7.9.1.	 Winnipeg	Women	Collective	..................................................................................	262	7.10.	Conclusion	....................................................................................................................................	265	Chapter	8.	 What	Eggs	Did	Cucw-la7	Lay?	.................................................................	267	8.1.	 Chapter	Overview	......................................................................................................................	267	8.2.	 Cucw-la7	Gathering	Knowledge:	More	than	a	Metaphor	.........................................	267	8.2.1.	 Research	Questions	....................................................................................................	267	8.2.2.	 Knowledge	Gathered	(Findings):	Knowledge	Keepers	..............................	268	8.2.3.	 Knowledge	Gathered	(Findings):	Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers	.......	273	8.3.	 Contributions	to	Knowledge	Production	........................................................................	281	8.3.1.	 Indigenous	Critical	Theories	..................................................................................	281	8.3.2.	 Globalization	and	Indigenous	Place-Based	Identity	....................................	284	8.3.3.	 Fourth	World	Cinema:	Indigenous	Film	Theory,	Visual	Sovereignty,	Indigenous	Aesthetics	and	Cultural	Congruency	..........................................	287	8.3.4.	 Indigenous	Methodologies	......................................................................................	291	8.4.	 What	Are	Cucw-la7’s	Next	Flight	Destinations?	...........................................................	292	8.4.1.	 Future	Research	Projects	........................................................................................	292	8.5.	 Cucw-la7	Returns	Home	.........................................................................................................	295	8.5.1.	 What	Is	a	True	Reconciliation	in	Canada?	........................................................	295	8.6.	 Implications	and	Limitations	of	this	Research	.............................................................	299	8.7.	 Personal	Reconciliation	for	Cucw-la7:	Reflections	.....................................................	303	References	.............................................................................................................................	305	Filmography	............................................................................................................................................	315			x	List	of	Tables	Table	1.	 Cultural	Knowledge	Keepers	...................................................................................	136	Table	2.	 Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers	.............................................................................	177				 		xi	List	of	Figures	Figure	1.	 Cucw-la7:		Preparing	for	flight.		Artist	T.	Willard.		Copyright	by	D.	Christian	&	T.	Willard;	used	with	permission.................................................1	Figure	2.	 Cucw-la7:	Gathering	knowledge.	Artist	T.	Willard.	Copyright	by	D.	Christian	&	T.	Willard;	used	with	permission.	.............................................	3	Figure	3.	 Mobilizing		Indigenous	land-based	framework:	Eshkakimikwe	kaandossowin	[Earth	ways	of	knowing].	Artwork	by	C.	Poernomo,	2014.	Reproduced	from	“Indigenous	elders	pedagogy	for	land-based	health	education	programs:	Gee-zhee-kan’-dug	cedar	pedagogical	pathways”	by	A.	Young,	2015,	p.	93.	Copyright	2015	by	A.	Young;	used	with	permission.	.................................................................................	64	Figure	4.	 Gee-zhee-kan-kan’-dug:	Cedar	pedagogical	pathways.		Artwork	by	Clarissa	Poernomo,	2014.	Copyright	Alannah	Young,	2013;	used	with	permission.	.................................................................................................	102	Figure	5.	 Dorothy	Christian	signing	the	document	commemorating	the	100th-year	Anniversary	(1910-2010)	of	the	Memorial	to	Sir	Wilfrid	Laurier	at	the	Spences	Bridge	Gathering	at	the	confluence	of	the	Fraser	and	Thompson	Rivers,	August	2010.	Photo	by	Jennifer	Machiorlatti;	used	with	permission.	........................................................................................	172	Figure	6.	 Cucw-la7	with	the	eggs	she	laid	................................................................	280			xii	List	of	Acronyms	APTN	 Aboriginal	People’s	Television	Network	BC	 British	Columbia,	Canada	BREB	 Behavioural	Research	Ethics	Board	CRUW	 Culturally	Relevant	Urban	Wellness	IK	 Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge	MA	 Master	of	Arts	NFB	 National	Film	Board	NMAI	 Museum	of	the	American	Indian	OCAP	 Ownership,	Control	Access	and	Possession		PBS	 Public	Broadcasting	Station	PhD	 Doctor	of	Philosophy	RCAP	 Royal	Commission	on	Aboriginal	Peoples		TRC	 Truth	and	Reconciliation	Commission	TV	 Television	UBC		 University	of	British	Columbia	UNDRIP	 UN	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	VACFSS	 Vancouver	Aboriginal	Child	and	Family	Services	Society	WIPO	 World	Intellectual	Property	Organization	ZDF	 Zweites	Deutsches	Fernsehen		xiii	Glossary	Aboriginal,	Indigenous,	Native,	First	Nations,	and	Indian	refers	to	original	peoples	of	Turtle	Island	(North	America)		Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge(s)	and	Euro-Western	system	of	knowledge:	Throughout	this	dissertation	I	make	reference	to	both	these	terms.	To	clarify	my	meaning	of	Indigenous	knowledge(s),	I	am	acknowledging	that	each	Indigenous	group	has	its	own	philosophies,	epistemologies,	pedagogies	and	ontologies.			In	addition,	to	explain	how	I	use	the	term	Euro-Western	system	of	knowledge,	I	am	referring	to	the	dominant	Euro-Western	philosophy	used	in	academic	institutions.		I	acknowledge	that	there	is	not	one	monolithic	Euro-Western	system	of	knowledge	but	a	spectrum	of	knowledge	systems	based	in	Western	Europe.		Nsyilxcen	–	Syilx	Language		Secwepemctsin	–	Secwepemc	Language		Secwepemculecw	–	Secwepemc	Land		Sek’lep	–	Secwepemc	word	for	Coyote		Sen’klip	–	Syilx	word	for	Coyote			Sk'elép	from	Kukpi/Dr.	R	Ignace’s	PhD	dissertation	Turtle	Island	referring	to	how	Indigenous	Peoples	identify	North	America		Use	of	English	Language:		At	the	beginning	of	this	dissertation,	I	explain	how	using	the	English	language	is	difficult	when	conveying	meaning	of	Secwepemc/Syilx/Indigenous	concepts.		In	particular,	when	I	use	the	English	words,	“theoretical/theory/concept”,	I	am	referring	to	Indigenous	ways	of	knowing,	thinking,	being,	acting	and	listening.				xiv	Acknowledgements	My	first	acknowledgement	is	to	the	spirits	of	lands	of	the	Coast	Salish	peoples	and	to	my	Coast	Salish	cousins	on	whose	lands	I	have	been	living	and	working	on	to	create	this	work.	Kukwstec-kuc	Thank	you	(singular	to	group)	in	Secwepemcstin	for	sharing	the	beauty	and	the	energy	of	your	lands.	Kukwstec-kuc	to	the	people	at	home	who	helped	me	with	Secwepemc	Indigenous	knowledge	and	language;	specifically	Kukpi/Dr.	Ron	Ignace,	Dr.	Marianne	Ignace,	Dr.	Kathryn	Michel,	Mona	Jules,	Rosalind	Williams	and	my	brother	Kukpi	Wenecwtsin	Christian.		And	a	big	kukwstsétsemc	to	our	Secwepemculecw	(Secwepemc	land)	that	holds	the	blood	and	bones	of	our	ancestors.	Kukwstec-kuc	to	my	siblings	Thelma	Christian,	Mike	Christian	and	my	sister-in-law	Teresa	Jensen-Christian	who	supported	me	with	lots	of	laughter	and	helping	me	to	remember	what	is	important	in	life.		I	am	eternally	grateful	to	my	Academic	Supervisor	Dr.	Jo-ann	Archibald,	(Stó:lō	Coast	Salish)	and	Committee	members,	Dr.	Sheryl	Lightfoot	(Anishinabe)	and	Dr.	Rita	Shelton	Deverell	for	providing	me	with	excellent	leadership	and	guidance	on	this	journey.		This	dissertation	was	strengthened	by	your	questions	and	your	encouragement.		I	also	recognize	other	Indigenous	and	non-Indigenous	ally	scholars	who	helped	me	navigate	through	this	process.		They	are:	Dr.	Rita	Wong	(Emily	Carr	University	of	Art	and	Design),	Dr.	Marianne	Ignace	(Simon	Fraser	University),	Dr.	Kirsten	E.	McAllister	(Simon	Fraser	University)	and	Dr.	Alannah	Young	Leon	(Cree-Anishinabe)	(UBC).		I	totally	appreciate	your	help	in	sharing	your	experiences	and	knowledge	in	how	to	get	to	the	finish	line	with	as	little	stress	as	possible!		In	particular,	thanks	to	Dr.	Rita	Wong	who	hired	me	as	a	Research	Associate	on	the	SSHRC	Downstream	Project,	which	resulted	in	a	book,	Downstream:		Reimagining	Water	(2017).		And,	thanks	to	Dr.	Marianne	Ignace	who	hired	me	as	a	Research	Assistant	on	her	SSHRC	Insight	Grant	for	the	“Secwepemc	Sense	of	Place”	project.			xv	Kukwstsétsemc	to	my	Secwepemc	sister,	the	awesome	graphic	artist	Tania	Willard	who	donated	her	creativity	and	time	to	visually	enhance	this	dissertation.	Without	the	financial	support,	this	academic	endeavour	would	have	been	impossible;	therefore,	I	acknowledge	financial	support	from	the	following:		Social	Sciences	and	Humanities	Research	Council	(SSHRC)	for	the	3-year	Joseph-Armand	Bombardier	Canada	Graduate	(Doctoral)	Scholarship;	New	Relationship	Trust	(2010);	The	Aboriginal	4-year	PhD	Scholarship	from	the	University	of	British	Columbia	(UBC),	Faculty	of	Education/Indigenous	Education	(2010-2014);	Faculty	of	Education	Graduate	Award	(2010,	2011,	2013);	Department	of	Educational	Studies	(UBC);	Chief	Joe	Matthias	Aboriginal	Scholarship	(2014);	Indspire’s	Building	Brighter	Futures:		Bursaries	and	Scholarship	Awards	(2014);	The	Irving	K.	Barber:		British	Columbia	Scholarship	Society	(2015-2016);	Gina	Blondin	Award	(2014);	Verna	J.	Kirkness	(Ni-jing-jada)	Award	(2015)	and	the	National	Indian	Brotherhood	Trust	Fund	(2016).						xvi	Dedication	This	work	is	dedicated	to	all	the	story	knowledge	keepers	of	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Nations	in	the	generations	before	me	who	worked	at	preserving	the	cultural	knowledge	so	that	we	may	continue	to	perpetuate	life	on	our	lands.		And,	to	those	story	knowledge	keepers	who	will	follow	in	the	generations	after	me	to	ensure	that	our	children	know	who	we	are	on	the	land.		1	Chapter	1. 		Introduction	1.1. Cultural	Location	I	am	of	the	Secwepemc	(Shuswap)	and	Syilx	(Okanagan)	Nations	from	the	interior	plateau	lands	of	what	is	now	geo-politically	known	as	British	Columbia.	The	three	tribal	names	I	carry	are	all	bird	names	so	I	turn	to	the	Eagle	for	guidance.		I	was	given	a	story	with	each	name.		I	was	told	that	the	names	are	living	energies	that	need	to	be	respected	and	looked	after.	This	is	the	story	within	the	story	of	my	receiving	my	Cucw-la7	name.	After	observing	me	for	over	10	years,	the	old	ladies	from	my	Secwepemc	Splats’in	home	community	gave	me	a	name	at	a	ceremony	in	May	2007.		It	was	an	emotional	experience	because	I	was	taken	away	from	my	community	when	I	was	13	years	old	and	put	into	white	foster	homes.		Some	of	my	siblings,	nieces,	nephews	and	cousins	were	present	to	witness	my	name	giving.		Lena	Bell,	the	eldest	woman	in	our	community	(now	deceased)	gave	me	the	name	and	her	daughter	Marion	Lee	(my	cousin)	said,	“…	my	Mom	has	forgotten	to	add,	that	the	Meadowlark	that	Dorothy	is	like—She	is	not	afraid	to	talk	about	anything	that	needs	to	be	revealed.		In	her…film	and	video	work,	like	the	Meadowlark,	she	travels	and	flies	all	over	and	comes	home	to	talk	about	it,	in	a	loud	voice!		That’s	why	she	was	given	Cucw-la7.			Weyt	Cucw-la7.”			My	Secwepemc	spirit	name,	Cucw-la7	made	its	presence	known	in	May	2014	when	I	was	at	Ron	&	Marianne	Ignace’s	home—as	we	set	up	the	equipment,	a	Meadowlark	was	singing	outside	the	patio	door—Marianne	said,	“Cucw-la7”—I	looked	at	her	as	my	body	tingled.		I	said,	“That’s	my	Indian	name!”	The	spirit	of	Cucw-la7	flew	with	me	and	guided	me	as	I	gathered	knowledge	for	this	work.	Figure	1.	 Cucw-la7:	Preparing	for	flight.	Artist	T.	Willard.	Copyright	by	D.	Christian	&	T.	Willard;	used	with	permission.		2	I	am	the	first	in	my	family	to	pursue	graduate	level	studies,	mostly	because	my	Syilx	Grandmother	who	raised	me	in	the	first	4	years	of	my	life	said,	“Go	to		school	we	have	to	learn	how	those	people	think!”		3	1.1.1. Cucw-la7	Gathering	Knowledge		Figure	2.	 Cucw-la7:	Gathering	knowledge.	Artist	T.	Willard.	Copyright	by	D.	Christian	&	T.	Willard;	used	with	permission.		4	1.1.2. Ancestral	Collective	Memories	During	my	writing	process,	I	was	feeling	very	disconnected	from	my	community	and	questioning	whether	or	not	I	had	the	right	to	be	working	with	this	knowledge.	While	on	a	writing	retreat	at	a	home	overlooking	the	Salish	Sea,	an	Eagle	did	a	‘fly	by’	every	day	to	remind	me	of	my	spirit	connection.		I	also	had	a	dream/visitation	that	comforted	me.	I	was	shown	that	the	collective	memories	of	my	blood	relatives	are	with	me	on	this	journey.		My	Great	Uncle	Joe	came	to	help	me	with	this	work.		He’s	been	gone	from	this	physical	reality	since	the	mid-1990s.	He	is	one	of	my	maternal	grandfather’s	brothers.	In	our	way	that	makes	me	his	grandchild	too1.	DREAM:	I	was	driving	down	Canyon	Road—this	road	cuts	right	through	the	land	where	my	grandparents	and	great	grandparents	lived.		I	saw	Uncle	Joe	standing	in	this	field	and	stopped	to	say	hello.		I	was	watching	him	watch	these	guys	who	were	doing	‘something’	to	the	land.		He	was	w-a-t-c-h-i-n-g	them	VERY	INTENTLY.		I	asked	him	if	I	could	give	him	a	ride	home	when	he	was	ready.	He	avoided	the	question.	I	realized	he	didn’t	really	know	who	I	was.		I	told	him	my	name	and	explained	that	I	was	Delphine’s	oldest	daughter	and	Emily	and	Alec’s	first	grandchild.		Finally	he	let	me	give	him	a	ride	down	the	Canyon	Road,	to	his	home.		When	we’re	driving,	he	asks	me	“Who	are	you	again?”		I	repeat	my	genealogy	and	tell	him	“so	you	are	my	grandpa	too”!		We’re	visiting	at	his	place	after	I	gave	him	some	canned	deer	meat	that	I	had	done	up.		He	starts	telling	me	about	these	horse	races	that	are	happening	on	Saturday	and	he	wants	to	go.	I	ask	him	if	I	can	go	with	him,	thinking	this	was	a	way	for	me	to	spend	more	time	with	him.		I	know	he	walks	everywhere.	He	doesn’t	have	a	car.		He	tells	me,	“No	but	you	can	take	a	message	for	me.”	I	think,	Oh	poop,	I	really	wanted	to	just	hang	out	with	him.		He	brings	out	this	piece	of	paper	and	it	has	all	kinds	of	writings	and	drawings	on	it—it	looks	kind	of	like	a	map.		He	tells	me	the	name	of	the	guy	he	wants	me	to	give	this	information	to.		Then	he	shows	me	on	the	paper	what	I	need	to	show	the	people.		It’s	about	what	he	was	‘observing’	in	relation	to	the	land.		He	tells	me,	“You	write	this	down	and	take	it	over	there	and	show	those	people.”		After	that	dream,	I	felt	like	I	was	on	track—I	was	totally	comforted	by	Uncle	Joe’s	visit,	I	knew	my	ancestors	are	with	me	and	the	work	I	am	doing	is	for	the	land!		I	am	diverging	from	the	conventional	way	of	academic	writing	in	that	I	write	in	four	voices	to	visually	represent	the	holistic	approach,	as	I	did	in	my	MA	thesis.		The																																																							1		In	April	2014,	I	sat	with	Mona	Jules,	a	Secwepemc	Elder	and	one	of	my	knowledge	keepers	and	she	confirmed	for	me	that	great	Uncle	Joe	would	also	be	considered	a	grandfather	to	me.			5	four	voices	are:	the	storyteller	voice	(body)	represented	in	italicized	Papyrus	11	point	font	with	1.15	spacing,	that	is	right	margined;	the	dream	voice	(spirit)	represented	in	the	Papyrus	italicized	11	point	bold	font,	with	1.15	spacing,	also	right	margined;	the	scholar	(mind)	voice	is	represented	in	Cambria	12	point	font,	with	1.5	spacing	and	left	margined.		The	last	voice	is	the	heart	voice,	which	is	silent	and	invisible;	however,	it	synthesizes	the	other	voices	through	the	emotions	of	the	heart.		I	include	graphics	to	illustrate	the	metaphorical	metaphysical	space	of	my	Secwepemc	name	Cucw-la7	that	is	directly	related	to	the	‘gathering	knowledge’	aspect	of	this	study.		The	storyteller	and	spirit	(dream)	voices	signify	some	of	my	lived	experiences	that	are	relevant	to	this	study.			1.2. Chapter	Overview	To	respect	my	Indigenous	research	paradigm	and	Indigenous	methodological	choices,	I	introduce	myself	in	a	culturally	appropriate	way.	I	visually	represent	the	metaphor	of	this	doctoral	research	that	is	my	Secwepemc	name	Cucw-la7	flying	around	Turtle	Island	to	gather	knowledge	(see	Figure	2).		I	explain	how	I	got	the	name	and	the	meaning	of	the	name.		I	share	a	dream	that	occurred	during	my	writing	process.	This	is	an	unconventional	‘way	of	doing’	in	academe;	I	incorporate	as	much	as	possible	my	Indigenous	way	of	doing,	which	I	fully	explain	in	the	third	chapter	(methodology)	of	the	overall	dissertation.			In	the	following	section,	I	provide	the	background	of	my	approach	to	this	doctoral	dissertation.		I	then	describe	the	major	components	of	my	PhD	study,	that	is,	I	explain	my	Indigenous	research	paradigm	and	methodologies/methods,	plus	I	outline	the	research	purpose	and	objectives.		I	state	the	research	questions	to	provide	clarity	on	what	is	being	addressed	in	the	overall	study.		I	explain	my	research	design	and	methodology	and	provide	a	brief	summary	of	the	concepts	in	the	globalization	and	film	theory	discourses	that	directly	relate	to	this	work.	Further,	I	explain	my	cultural		6	education	that	affirms	my	Indigenous	way	of	knowing,	seeing,	doing,	thinking	and	listening.		I	conclude	by	summarizing	the	chapters	of	the	dissertation.		1.3. Back	Story	of	Doctoral	Research:	The	Master’s	Thesis		In	my	Master’s	thesis,	Torres	Strait	Islander,	Martin	Nakata’s	(1997,	1998,	2002,2006,	2007a)	concepts	of	an	Indigenous	standpoint2	(Nakata,	2007,	p.	215)	and	cultural	interface	(Nakata,	2002,	p.	285)	liberated	me	from	the	oppressive	colonial	binaries.	Up	until	I	encountered	Nakata’s	work,	most	of	my	time,	effort	and	writing	space	were	extended	to	explaining	and	situating	my	stance	within	the	settler	colonial/Indigenous	relationship.	In	2010	I	said:		The	“Indigenous	standpoint”	theory	that	Nakata	(2007)	developed	is	concerned	with	the	validity	and	coherence	of	Indigenous	knowledge.	Nakata	(2007)	argues	that	in	order	for	the	cultural	interface	to	be	understood	there	must	be	a	priori	knowledge	of	historical	specificities	of	Indigenous	experience,	otherwise	the	Indigenous	voice	will	remain	as	the	objects	of	study	and	relegated	to	the	prescribed	narrative	of	the	dominant	society	where	on	a	theoretical	level	Indigenous	voices	do	not	have	the	power	to	interrogate	the	larger	narrative.	In	the	dominant	narrative,	the	Indigenous	voice(s)	is/are	reduced	to	an	advisor	role	so	that	other	peoples	may	understand	them	(p.	210).	(Christian,	2010,	p.	7)			In	this	context,	I	exercised	agency	as	an	Indigenous	scholar.	Together	with	Smith’s	(2002)	pivotal	work	on	methodologies	and	Archibald’s	(2008)	Indigenous	storywork	process,	my	Indigenous	perspective	was	affirmed.	Then	I	addressed	the	intricacies	of,	and	the	multifaceted	concerns	of	my	research	project.		Other	critical	theories	that	informed	my	Master’s	thesis	were	Stuart	Hall’s	1973	model	of	communications	of	‘Encoding	and	Decoding’	and	Lorna	Roth’s	2005	development	model.		Hall’s	critical	cultural	theory	from	the	Birmingham	School	of	Cultural	Studies	is	central	because	it	reveals	how	cultural	knowledge	determines	how																																																							2		I	elaborated	the	three	criteria	of	Nakata’s	Indigenous	Standpoint	Theory	in	my	MA	thesis	(Christian,	2010,	p.	8).		I	did	not	include	it	here	because	of	space	constraints.				7	one	constructs,	disseminates	and	interprets	visual	narratives.		And	Roth’s	model	provided	an	in-depth	history	of	the	policy	developments	that	led	to	the	licensing	of	the	first	ever	Aboriginal	People’s	Television	Network	(APTN)	on	February	22,	1999.		Most	importantly,	Roth	(2005)	acknowledges	the	space	of	Fourth	World	and	speaks	of	Indigenous	peoples	transforming	from	“objectified	being	to	subject-agents”	in	media	production	(p.	227).		Further,	Roth	developed	an	inclusive	communications	framework	that	called	into	question	the	status	quo	of	what	was	the	accepted	norm	of	broadcasting	in	Canada	(p.	229).			On	this	foundation	that	includes	people	of	color	and	Indigenous	peoples’	participation	in	the	Canadian	screen	culture,	I	turned	to	the	global	Indigenous	perspective	on	film	and	video	(Wilson	&	Stewart,	2008),	including	Maori	filmmaker	Barry	Barclay	whose	1990	book	Our	Own	Image	guided	my	theorizing	about	Indigenous	film	production	practices.	Some	non-Indigenous	film	theorists	also	informed	my	MA	thesis:	Leuthold	(1998)	discussed	Indigenous	film	and	video	aesthetics,	while	Lewis	(2005)	provided	the	concept	of	a	“Cinema	of	Sovereignty”	when	he	elaborated	Alanis	Obomsawin	as	being	the	“controlling	intelligence”	in	her	visual	storytelling.	I	continue	to	maintain	the	same	position	around	the	complexity	of	issues	that	surround	Indigenous	knowledge	as	articulated	in	my	2010	MA	thesis	(Christian,	20103)	from	the	perspective	of	an	Indigenous	visual	storyteller/filmmaker/researcher	out	in	the	field.		I	fully	discussed	the	theoretical	nuances	of	the	issues	in	a	section	called	“The	Problem	Before	the	Research	Problem”	(pp.	1-124).		I	maintain	the	same	inherent	complexities	still	exist	in	2016.																																																									3		Full	text	is	available	at	http//summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/11842/etd6042_DChristian.pdf	 4		Full	text	is	available	at	http//summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/11842/etd6042_DChristian.pdf	 	8	1.4. Doctoral	Study–Gathering	Knowledge:	Indigenous	Methodologies	of	Land/Place-Based	Storytelling	and	Visual	Sovereignty		This	work	is	a	continuation	of	my	MA	thesis.	As	an	Indigenous	researcher,	I	am	mindful	that	the	majority	of	the	discourses	I	use	are	grounded	in	colonial,	post-colonial,	neo-colonial	perspectives	that	are	based	in	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge.		It	is	important	to	acknowledge	the	international,	national	and	regional	political	landscape	within	which	I	am	working.		Canada	was	one	of	four	nation-states	(including	Australia,	New	Zealand,	and	the	USA)	that	voted	against	the	UN	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	(UNDRIP)	in	2007.		In	2010	Canada	reversed	their	decision	with	various	caveats	along	with	the	other	colonial	nation-states.		In	May	2016,	Indigenous	Affairs	Liberal	Minister	Carolyn	Bennett	announced	to	the	UN	that	Canada	was	now	a	full	supporter	of	UNDRIP,	“without	qualification.”		Further	she	stated,	“We	intend	nothing	less	than	to	adopt	and	implement	the	declaration	in	accordance	with	the	Canadian	Constitution.”5		It	is	critical	to	point	out	that	“…the	primary	obstacles	for	the	nation-state	were	land	rights	and	self-determination,	including	the	principle	of	free,	prior,	and	informed	consent	(Lightfoot,	2016,	pp.	1-2).		The	global	Indigenous	rights	movement	that	has	persisted	for	30	years	to	gain	recognition	on	land	issues	are	significant	because	land	and	the	visual	sovereignty	of	cultural	stories	is	central	to	this	research	study.		The	colonial	mindset	that	Canada	continues	to	perpetuate	insists	on	categorizing	Indigenous	peoples	as	ethnic	minorities,	even	though	it	is	obvious	to	Indigenous	peoples	that	we/they	are	outside	the	boxes	of	various	ethnic/immigrant	groups.		Current	policies	in	the	art	of	media	making	give	the	“illusion	of	inclusion”	(Corntassel,	2008,	2012)	through	the	multicultural	and	diversity	programs	and	they	do	not	recognize	the	unique	location	of	Indigenous	peoples	on	the	colonized	lands.		Indigenous																																																							5		http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/canada-adopting-implementing-un-rights-declaration-1.3575272			9	cultural	producers	continue	to	be	treated	as	if	they/we	are	just	another	interest	group	and	because	of	this	political	reality	my	work	tacitly	includes	the	issue	of	race.			The	time-period	I	focused	on	during	the	research	of	this	doctoral	research	is	the	late	1990s,	and	early	2000s	when	there	was	an	explosion	of	Indigenous	visual	storytelling	in	independent	production.		There	were	significant	policy	transformations	that	occurred	because	of	a	strong	social,	political	and	cultural	movement	in	the	late	1980s	and	early	1990s	to	claim	the	right	to	tell	our	own	stories.		Up	to	this	time,	cultural	appropriation	of	Indigenous	stories	by	mainstream	writers	in	Canada	was	common	practice.	With	Indigenous	writers	challenging	the	status	quo,	there	were	noteworthy	changes	in	how	Indigenous	stories	were	treated.	Indigenous	writers	asserted	a	culturally	specific	storytelling	style	in	transposing	the	oral	stories	to	the	written	form6		(Armstrong	cited	in	Anderson,	1987;	Beaucage,	2005;	Campbell,	1995,	1976,	1973).		This	was	the	beginning	of	a	corpus	of	Indigenous	literature	that	developed	Indigenous	storytelling	styles,	which	captured	the	shift	from	the	oral	to	the	written	form.		This	study	takes	the	next	step	and	looks	at	how	Indigenous	stories	are	being	transposed	from	the	written	to	the	visual	form,	which	is	made	for	the	ever-present	screen	culture.			During	this	same	time-period,	the	Canadian	screen	culture	blossomed	to	include	Indigenous	stories	by	broadcasters	such	as	the	Aboriginal	People’s	Television	Network	(APTN),	VISION	TV	and	OMNI.		During	this	time	the	global	Indigenous	filmmaking	communities	grew	to	include:	producers,	directors,	assistant	directors,	writers,	production	managers,	location	managers,	casting	directors,	animators,	set	designers,	costume	designers,	editors,	camera	men/women	and	agents	for	the	actors.	Indigenous																																																							6		Although,	there	were	individuals	such	as	Mohawk	poet,	Pauline	Johnson	and	Okanagan	writer,	Christine	Quintasket	who	were	writing	in	the	late	1800s	and	early	1900s,	they	were	the	exception.		Quintasket	wrote	under	the	pen	name,	Mourning	Dove	and	she	wrote	and	published	oral	stories	in	the	written	form.		Historical	information	for	Quintasket	can	be	read	at:	http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9512	retrieved	April	28,	2015.			10	visual	storytellers	are	involved	in	every	conceivable	genre,	in	feature	films,	in	series	television,	in	comedy	sitcoms,	in	documentaries,	in	animation,	in	experimental	films	and	in	the	many	forms	of	new	media	including	graphic	art.	Some	of	our	cultural	stories	are	thousands	of	years	old	and	are	represented	visually	on	rock	paintings/petroglyphs/pictographs	that	are	literally	written	into	the	land	(Ignace,	2009;	Sam	2013).	The	storytelling	form	I	discuss	is	relatively	new.		I	call	it	visual	storytelling;	others	call	it	filmmaking.		Silent	films	started	in	the	late	1800s,	which	is	comparatively	recent	when	considering	the	thousands	of	years	of	history	of	the	rock	paintings/petroglyphs.		Since	the	inception	of	moving	pictures,	Indigenous	peoples	have	been	involved	in	the	film	industry	in	various	roles	as	actors,	stunt	men,	and	directors	(Raheja,	2010).		In	contemporary	times,	some	Indigenous	peoples	continue	to	participate	in	the	Hollywood	film	industry	in	a	multitude	of	roles;	however,	that	is	not	the	focus	of	this	study.	Rather,	the	emphasis	of	this	work	is	the	independent	filmmaking	of	those	I	call,	“visual	storytellers.”		I	use	this	term	to	refer	to	Indigenous	peoples	who	are	working	in	the	many	forms	of	visual	screen	culture	beyond	the	narrow	scope	of	filmmaking.			 		In	this	PhD	research,	I	adopt	what	Archibald	(2008)	refers	to	as	“research	as	storytelling”	(p.	47),	in	that	I	am	listening	to	the	stories	and	conversations	of	two	groups	of	Indigenous	peoples,	while	at	the	same	time	sharing	some	stories	with	them.		The	first	group	I	conversed	with	are	13	knowledge	keepers	from	the	following	Nations	on	Turtle	Island:	Secwepemc,	Secwepemc-Syilx,	Mohawk,	Cree-Métis,	Haida,	Stó:lō	and	Seneca.		One,	non-Indigenous	scholar/linguist	is	included;	she	is	of	Plattdutsch	ancestry	who	traces	her	genealogy	on	her	homelands	for	800	years.		She	is	married	into	the	Secwepemc	Nation	and	has	been	adopted	by	both	the	Haida	and	Secwepemc	cultures.	We	shared	conversations,	stories	and	experiences,	which	reveal	the	expansive	worldviews	of	some	of	the	knowledge	keepers.		Furthermore,	to	provide	insights	into	the	cultural	protocols	of	our	stories	and	to	understand	how	they	guide	our	teaching	and		11	learning	practices,	to	see	if	our	cultural	knowledge	is	still	relevant	today	in	how	we	apply	cultural	protocols.		The	second	group	I	spoke	with	are	17	multi-generational	Indigenous	visual	storytellers/filmmakers	(Abenaki,	Cree,	Anishinabe,	Cree-Métis,	Mohawk,	Mohawk/Heiltsuk,	Hopi,	Inuit,	and	Secwepemc)	to	understand	how	our	cultural	knowledge	informs	how	we	see,	think,	do,	act,	listen,	teach	and	learn	in	our	production	practices.	Fourteen	of	the	visual	storytellers	work	in	the	film	and	television	industry	and	my	youngest	visual	storyteller/filmmaker	is	in	film	school	and	intends	to	work	in	the	industry.		Three	women	(Anishinabe-Cree,	Plains	Cree,	Cree-Saulteaux-Métis)	whom	I	refer	to	as	the	Winnipeg	Women	Collective	identify	themselves	as	digital	visual	storytellers	and	they	are	not	engaged	in	visual	production	professionally	but	produce	stories	for	community-based	purposes.		This	study	is	unique	because	the	knowledge	shared	by	the	knowledge	keepers	is	an	Indigenous-to-Indigenous	conversation,	while	the	stories	and	shared	experiences	of	the	visual	storytellers/filmmakers	is	a	peer-to-peer	conversation	because	the	researcher	is	an	Indigenous	visual	storyteller.	Undoubtedly,	I	am	privileging	Indigenous	knowledge	systems	over	Euro-Western	system	of	knowledge;	however,	to	be	clear,	I	share	Sami	scholar	Porsanger’s	(2004)	perspective	that:	…	the	indigenous	approaches	to	research	on	indigenous	issues	are	not	meant	to	compete	with,	or	replace,	the	Western	research	paradigm;	rather,	to	challenge	it	and	contribute	to	the	body	of	knowledge	of	indigenous	peoples	about	themselves	and	for	themselves,	and	for	their	own	needs	as	peoples,	rather	than	as	objects	of	investigation.	(p.	105)	I	expand	Porsanger’s	stance	one	step	further;	I	believe	Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge(s)	are	adding	to	the	production	of	world	knowledge,	which	is	currently	dominated	by	the	Euro-Western	system	of	knowledge.		12	1.5. Research	Purpose	and	Research	Questions:	Giving	Voice	to	the	Stories	and	the	Land/Visual	Sovereignty		Within	the	scope	of	the	global,	national	and	regional	Indigenous	film/visual	storytelling	and	media	landscape,	the	underlying	purpose	of	this	PhD	research	is	to	expand	my	2010	MA	thesis,	which	outlined	a	theoretical	framework	for	Indigenous	film/video	production	thus	adding	to	and	expanding	conceptual	ideas	in	the	global	and	national	Indigenous	visual	storytelling/film	theory	discourse	(Columpar,	2010;	Knopf,	2009;	Marks,	2000,	2002,	2004;	Monk,	2001;	Raheja,	2010).		From	the	global	to	the	national,	local/regional	scope,	the	particular	purpose	of	this	doctoral	project	is	to	theorize	a	localized	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	critical	theory	that	speaks	to	how	our	cultural	stories	are	at	the	core	of	our	ways	of	knowing,	being,	doing,	acting,	listening	and	thinking	that	directly	impact	the	pedagogical	possibilities.		Furthermore,	our	Sek’lep	or	Senklip7/Coyote	stories	are	intimately	connected	to	the	land	and	embed	the	customary	laws	and	cultural	protocols	that	give	us	our	operating	principles	of	how	we	as	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	peoples	are	to	live	with	each	other	and	all	the	other	sentient	beings	on	the	land.		When	delving	into	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	systems	of	knowledge,	the	following	questions	guide	my	exploration:		1.		 How	do	Secwepemc-Syilx	systems	of	knowledge	contribute	to	developing	a	localized	theory	for	visually	sovereign	narratives	in	relation	to	how	the	elements	are	constructed	for	Fourth	World	Cinema?		What	role	do	cultural	protocols	play	in	choosing	the	elements	of	the	films?		2.		 What	are	the	Indigenous	visual	storytelling	styles	and	elements	that	determine	the	cultural	congruency	of	the	films/videos	of	Fourth	World	Cinema?		What	does	cultural	congruency	mean	to	their	production	(what	can	or	cannot	be	filmed),	performativity	(where	they	can	be	screened)	and	how	they	are	used	for	teaching/learning?		In	Chapter	6,	Fourth	World	Cinema:	Indigenous	Methodologies	of	Land/Place-Based	Visual	Storytelling	and	Visual	Sovereignty,	I	clarify	my	use	of	the	encumbered																																																							7		The	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	both	have	Coyote	as	the	main	character	in	their	stories.		The	Secwepemc	spelling	for	Coyote	is,	‘Sek’lep’	and	the	Syilx	spell	is,	‘Senklip’.				13	term,	‘visual	sovereignty’.		From	an	Indigenous	perspective,	the	concept	of	visual	sovereignty	is	one	that	speaks	to	self-representation	and	aesthetic	control	of	images	by	Indigenous	cultural	producers.	Jolene	Rickard8	(Tuscarora)	was	the	first	to	introduce	the	concept	in	1995,	with	another	articulation	in	2011.	Since	then	Michelle	Raheja	(Seneca),	2007,	2010;	and	Hulleah	J.	Tsinhnahjinnie	(Seminole-Muscogee-Navajo)	2008	have	added	to	the	discussion.		Therefore,	I	join	the	ongoing	critical	dialogue	with	these	scholars.	With	the	strong	foundation	that	Rickard,	Raheja	and	Tsinhnahjinnie	have	developed	surrounding	the	notion	of	visual	sovereignty,	I	expand	the	discussion	by	putting	their	ideas	of	visual	production	with	the	shared	information,	conversations,	and	stories	of	the	visual	storytellers/filmmakers.		In	addition,	I	compare	how	the	localized	Secwepemc-Syilx	theory	I	developed	relates	to	what	I	mean	by	visual	sovereignty	and	the	continuance	of	Indigenous	cultures	on	the	land	through	our	Coyote/Sen’klep	stories.	1.6. Research	Objectives	The	main	objective	of	this	work	is	to	answer	a	question	that	Archibald	(2008)	asks,	that	is:	“…	how	to	keep	the	story	spirit	alive	and	how	to	make	it	live	on	the	printed	page	or	through	media	such	as	video	and	digital	technology”	(p.	149).		I	am	guided	by	Archibald’s	Indigenous	storywork	process	that	she	elaborates	in	seven	chapters,	where	as	a	reader	you	see	how	the	practices	of	her	Stó:lō	Coast	Salish	culture	are	implicit	in	her	theoretical	framework.		She	explains	how	being	a	part	of,	and	witnessing	the	transmission	of	Indigenous	knowledge	in	Coast	Salish	Longhouses	is	the	“spiritual	work	of	oratory,	ceremony	and	songs”	(p.	3),	which	I	assert	are	the	cornerstones	of	Indigenous	cultures.		Archibald	explains	why	she	coined	the	term	“storywork,”	in	that	she	wanted	to	encode	the	discourse	with	the	realization	that	“our	stories	and																																																							8		Dr.	Jolene	Rickard	has	an	upcoming	book	titled	Visual	Sovereignty,	publish	date	unknown	and	she	is	developing	a	journal	on	“Global	Aesthetics,”	publish	date	unknown.			14	storytelling	were	to	be	taken	seriously”	(p.	3)	thus	moving	away	from	diminishing	our	stories	to	simple	folklore.		I	seek	to	reinforce	Archibald’s	stance	of	the	critical	role	of	stories	and	visual	storytelling	through	the	objectives	of	this	study.		I	establish	whether	or	not	the	seven	operating	principles	of	Archibald’s	(2008)	Indigenous	storywork	process,	which	are:	respect,	responsibility,	reciprocity,	reverence,	holism,	interrelatedness,	and	synergy	(p.	33)	are	discussed	in	the	conversations	with	two	separate	groups	that	I	introduced	in	this	chapter’s	Doctoral	Study	section.	I	extend	Archibald’s	Indigenous	storywork	process	to	an	Indigenous	visual	storytwork	process,	with	the	same	underlying	principles.		Another	objective	is	to	examine	how	the	cultural	stories	of	Indigenous	peoples	determine	their	relationship	to	the	land,	including	the	interrelatedness	of	all	seen	and	unseen	beings	on	the	territories,	that	is,	all	life	forms	including	the	animals,	the	winged	ones,	the	trees/plants/medicines,	and	all	forms	of	water	(streams,	lakes,	rivers,	oceans).	The	last	objective	is	to	examine	how	the	stories	of	the	land	affect	the	film/video	elements	selected	by	the	visual	storytellers	and	what	that	means	to	land/place-based	aesthetics	and	Indigenous	identity.		1.7. Indigenous	Way	of	Doing:	Research	Design	and	Methodology	In	meeting	these	objectives,	I	examine	critical	Indigenous	and	non-Indigenous	theories;	however,	I	privilege	Indigenous	knowledge	by	choosing	an	Indigenous	research	paradigm,	methodologies	and	methods.		At	the	beginning	of	this	chapter,	I	explain	my	holistic	method	of	writing	this	dissertation,	which	is	an	integral	part	of	my	choice	of	research	paradigm.		An	important	point	to	acknowledge	is	that	in	respecting	both	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge,	means	double	work	for	Indigenous	scholars	as	we	unpack	and	deconstruct	colonial,	post-colonial	and	neo-colonial	theoretical	frameworks		15	while	at	the	same	time	developing	critical	Indigenous	theories.	Furthermore,	to	add	to	an	already	heavy	workload,	many	Indigenous	scholars	are	pulled	into	educating	non-Indigenous	scholars	about	why	it	is	important	to	decolonize	the	hegemonic	system	we	all	work	within.		While	Indigenous	scholars	are	balancing	these	two	systems	of	knowledge,	they/we	continue	to	move	forward	as	sovereign	individuals	on	self-determined	academic	pathways.		In	this	work,	I	am	one	of	many	Indigenous	scholars	who	are	traversing	a	self-determined	path	through	a	multi-dimensional	lens	that	encompasses	a	multidisciplinary	trajectory	to	add	Indigenous	knowledge	production	to	that	of	world	knowledge.		In	developing	my	research	design	and	in	gaining	clarity	on	my	methodological	choices,	I	concur	with	Kovach	(2009)	when	she	states,	“Knowledge	is	neither	acultural	nor	apolitical”	(p.	30).		I	also	agree	with	Marshall	and	Rossman	(2006)	when	they	state,	“critical	and	post-modern	genres…assume	that	all	knowledge	is	political	and	that	researchers	are	not	neutral	since	their	ultimate	purposes	include	advocacy	and	action”	(p.	72).		In	the	theoretical	choices	I	make,	I	navigate	an	intellectual	minefield	of	methodological	and	epistemological	differences	between	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge(s);	however,	I	am	also	moving	into	an	arena	of	action	by	contributing	to	and	transforming	some	of	the	existing	concepts	in	the	critical	globalization	and	film	theory	discourses	by	looking	at	how	Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge	shape	Indigenous	ways	of	doing	in	relation	to	land	and	story.		Moreover,	I	write	myself	into	the	research	process	because	I	am	a	part	of	the	community	I	am	researching	and	I	am	actively	participating	in	the	process	of	contemporary	Indigenous	knowledge	production.	In	this	way,	I	“bring	together	the	study	of	self	(auto)	in	relation	to	culture	(ethnography)”	while	at	the	same	time	including	an	approach	where,	“self-reflection	moves	beyond	field	notes	to	have	a	more	integral	positioning	within	the	research	process	and	the	construction	of	knowledge	itself”	(Kovach,	2009,	p.	33).		I	maintained	a	journal	during	my	knowledge	gathering	process	that	includes	my	emotional	reactions/responses	that	I	experienced	in	finding		16	my	‘sense	of	place’	on	the	land,	within	my	own	family,	home	community	and	Nations.		I	share	some	relevant	lived	experience	stories	throughout	the	dissertation	to	enhance	the	meanings	of	issues	discussed.		My	research	is	a	critical	qualitative	study;	therefore,	it	is	important	to	reiterate	another	critical	point	that	Kovach	(2009)	makes	about	the	problematic	nature	of	bringing	Indigenous	methodologies	under	the	“wing”	of	qualitative	research	and	her	concern	centers	around	language.		She	states:	The	first	centers	on	form	or,	more	specifically,	the	language	that	holds	meaning	in	epistemological	discourse.		Indigenous	knowledges	have	a	fluidity	and	motion	that	is	manifested	in	the	distinctive	structure	of	tribal	languages.		They	resist	the	culturally	imbued	constructs	of	the	English	language,	and	from	this	perspective	alone	Western	research	and	Indigenous	inquiry	can	walk	together	only	so	far.	(p.	30)	Although	there	are	some	limitations,	this	study	is	a	part	of	decolonizing	the	research	field	(Kovach,	2009,	pp.	31-34).		I	think	of	this	work	as	indigenizing	the	field	of	research,	thus	becoming	the	verb,	the	action	of	decolonizing.		This	research	is	also	a	part	of	what	Denzin,	Lincoln,	and	Tuhiwai	Smith	(2008)	call	“…the	Decade	of	Critical	Indigenous	Inquiry”	(p.	ix).		This	means	working	with	non-Indigenous	scholar-allies	to	be	a	part	of	Grande’s	(2005)	construct	of	“indigena”	thus	becoming	a	part	of	“the	fourth	space”	(p.	171)	to	address	concerns	of	the	Indigenous	visual	storytelling	communities.		My	intention	is	to	“us[e]	methods	critically”	and	to	bring	theory	and	practice	together	that	are	“emancipatory	and	empowering”	for	me	as	an	Indigenous	researcher	(Denzin	et	al.,	2008,	pp.	1-20).		I	join	numerous	global	Indigenous	scholars	working	in	this	fourth	space	as	I	theorize	a	“localized	[Secwepemc-Syilx]	critical	theory”	(p.	9).		I	become	a	part	of	the	much-needed	reform	in	education	that	calls	for	a	shift	away	from	the	deficit	model	of	education	to	one	that	is	self-determined	by	Indigenous	educators	and	includes	strategies	for	culturally	relevant	teaching	and	learning	processes	(Archibald,	2008;	Battiste,	1986;	Brayboy	&	Castagno,	2008;	Grande,	2008;	Kirkness	&	Barnhardt,	1991).		For	the	theoretical	framework	of	my	localized		17	Secwepemc-Syilx	theory,	I	turn	to	the	work	of	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	scholars	(Armstrong,	2009;	Billy,	2009;	Cohen,	2010;	Ignace,	2009;	Michel,	2012;	Sam	2013)	who	have	developed	culturally	specific	theories	that	shape	my	work.		I	locate	my	doctoral	research	in	academia	as	a	critical	qualitative	study	that	centers	Indigenous	knowledge(s)	and	is	firmly	grounded	in	an	Indigenous	research	paradigm	and	utilizes	Indigenous	methodologies	and	methods	in	the	gathering	of	knowledge	(Wilson,	2008;	Kovach,	2009).		I	place	myself	in	a	squirmy	“insider/outsider”	relationship	with	the	visual	storytellers,	cultural	knowledge	keepers,	my	community	and	my	Nation	whereas	my	engagement	with	them	is	shifting.		There	are	tensions	because	I	am	applying	Indigenous	epistemologies	within	an	Indigenous	approach	to	qualitative	research	that	is	“attempt[ing]	to	fit	tribal	epistemology	into	Western	conceptual	cultural	rubrics”	(Kovach,	2009,	p.	31).		I	say	that	my	researcher	relationship	is	“squirmy”	because	I	am	adding	another	dimension,	that	of	academic	researcher	to	the	existing	familial,	cultural	and	professional	relationships	that	I	have	within	my	Nation(s)	and	within	the	community	of	visual	storytellers/filmmakers	in	Canada.		My	experience	as	a	dislocated	Secwepemc-Syilx	woman	returning	to	my	homelands	coupled	with	my	professional	experience	in	visual	media	informs	this	research.		My	eclectic	work	experience	in	the	industry9	includes:	working	for	national	broadcaster	VISION	TV	as	a	director/writer	and	segment	producer	for	eight	television	seasons	whereas	I	travelled	throughout	Turtle	Island	and	into	Mexico	to	bring	Indigenous	stories	to	the	Canadian	screen	culture.		Over	those	8	years,	I	accumulated	over	100	professional	production	credits.		Previous	to	that	time,	I	served	as	board	member	and	Chair	of	the	Ontario	Film	Review	Board,	a	provincial	agency	that	classifies	film	and	video	for	commercial	distribution.	Before	I	entered	graduate	school,	I	was	contracted	by	a	non-profit	organization,	the	Indigenous	Media	Arts	Group	in	Vancouver																																																							9		I	will	include	experiential	stories	in	Chapter	six	focused	on	Visual	Storytelling	and	Visual	Sovereignty.			18	to	fulfill	the	roles	of	Executive	Director,	Film	Festival	Director	and	Office	Manager.		I	have	produced,	directed	and	wrote	one	independent	film,	“a	spiritual	land	claim”	(2006).		I	acknowledge	I	have	not	worked	on	any	feature	film	sets.		Thus	my	cumulative	experiences	of	interacting	with	numerous	Indigenous	communities	and	their	protocols,	commercial	distribution/dissemination,	programming	Indigenous	stories	in	film	festivals	and	producing	an	independent	film	I	believe	enhances	this	study	that	includes	the	international,	national	and	regional	domains.	1.8. Globalization	and	Global	Film	Discourses:	Indigeneity	and	Deterritorialization		Land	is	a	critical	aspect	of	this	work	because	it	is	integral	to	our	land/place-based	cultural	stories;	therefore,	land	and	story	are	intertwined	and	central	to	my	research.		The	recent	inclusion	of	some	of	our	cultural	stories	in	curriculum	development	is	important	to	educational	reform	because	they	bring	culturally	relevant	ways	of	teaching	and	learning	to	Indigenous	students.		This	is	significant	because	as	Archibald	(2008)	points	out:		Indigenous	peoples’	history	of	colonization	has	left	many	of	our	peoples	and	our	cultures	weak	and	fragmented.		Cultural	knowledge,	traditions	and	healing	have	lessened	the	detrimental	effects	of	colonization.		Cultural	knowledge	and	traditions	have	also	helped	us	to	resist	assimilation.		I	believe	that	Indigenous	stories	are	at	the	core	of	our	cultures.		They	have	the	power	to	make	us	think,	feel,	and	be	good	human	beings.		They	have	the	power	to	bring	storied	life	back	to	us.	(p.	139)			Many	Indigenous	cultures	are	developing	effective	strategies	to	strengthen	our	communities	by	turning	to	their/our	culturally	specific	knowledge	base,	which	means	understanding	their/our	cultural	stories	and	how	they	relate	to	the	land.	Throughout	the	dissertation,	I	refer	to	this	movement	as	“re-Indigenizing,	re-inscribing	and	re-	19	storying10”	ourselves	on	our	ancestral	territories.		To	fully	understand	how	stories	inform	our	practices	on	the	land,	from	a	theoretical	perspective,	I	utilize	the	scholarship	of	some	Indigenous	Nations,	that	is,	Young	Leon	(Cree-Anishinabe)	(2015);	Corntassell	(Cherokee)	(2008;	2012);	Coulthard	(Dene)	(2014);	Lightfoot	(Anishinabe)	(2016);	Maracle	(Stó:lō)	(2007)	and	Simpson	(Nishnaabeg)	(2008,	2014).		Moreover,	to	situate	my	study	of	land	and	stories	in	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	philosophies	I	refer	to	recent	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	scholarship	from	my	two	Nations,	which	are	the	primary	sources	for	developing	my	localized	critical	theory	(Armstrong,	2009;	Billy,	2009;	Cohen,	2010;	Ignace,	2008;	Michel,	2012;	Sam,	2013).		In	my	theory	Chapter	4,	I	explain	the	specific	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	concepts	that	lay	the	theoretical	framework	for	the	localized	critical	theory	I	develop	for	visual	storytelling.	Central	to	this	research	are	Indigenous	peoples’	relationship	to	land	and	how	story	is	implicit	in	that	relationship;	therefore,	I	examined	how	the	globalization	and	film	theory	discourses	treat	the	geographical/physical	locations	and	the	political	identities	of	Indigenous	peoples.	I	focused	on	the	concepts	of	deterritorialization	and	indigeneity	and	put	the	Euro-Western	understandings	of	these	two	concepts	alongside	Indigenous	critical	theories	that	address	place-based	locations	and	how	we	identify	ourselves	on	our	land.		A	major	thrust	of	the	critical	Indigenous	theories	that	I	apply	is	an	intellectual	intervention	of	the	globalization	and	Indigeneity	discourses	by	two	Syilx	scholars	(Armstrong,	2009;	Sam,	2013).		I	add	to	Armstrong	and	Sam’s	intervention	through	the	localized	Secwepemc-Syilx	theory	I	developed,	which	refines	a	culturally	specific	Indigenous	identity.		The	theoretical	framework	put	forward	is	a	counter-narrative	to	what	cultural	anthropologist	Appadurai	presents.		In	my	theory,	Chapter	4,	I	critique	Appadurai’s	(1988,	1990,	1996)	globalization	construct	of	deterritorialization	to	expose	his	erasure	of	Indigenous	peoples	from	the	discussion.																																																									10		I	am	developing	and	asserting	these	3Rs,	“re-Indigenizing,	re-inscribing	and	re-storying”	as	part	of	the	continuous	decolonizing	occurring	on	my	territories.		Kathryn	Michel	speaks	of	re-storying	on	Secwepemc	territories	in	her	2012	dissertation	and	I	have	added	to	her	term.			20	In	addition,	I	examine	how	mainstream	film	theorists	apply	the	term	deterritorialization,	which	includes	how	Indigenous	peoples	are	treated	in	the	global	media	landscape	(Columpar,	2010;	Knopf,	2009;	Marks,	2000,	2002,	2004;	Monk,	2001;	Shohat	&	Stam,	2013).		Further,	I	consider	how	critical	Indigenous	scholars	discuss	the	concepts	that	pertain	to	Indigenous	visual	narrative	production	(Barclay,	1990,	2003,	2003a;	Raheja,	2007;	2010;	Rickard,	1995,	2011;	Tsinhnahjinnie,	2008).			To	examine	my	visual	narrative	production	process,	I	look	at	how	my	relationship	to	land	and	cultural	stories	has	been	determined	by	the	social	and	political	policies	of	the	successive	settler	colonial	governments.		To	reclaim	my	place	on	the	land,	I	purposefully	invoked	my	own	curriculum	to	home	school	myself	in	an	Indigenous	cultural	education.			1.9. The	Land	Is	Our	University11:		Home	Schooling	Myself		Before	I	started	this	research	journey,	I	questioned	my	own	relationship	to	the	land	and	to	the	Sek’lep/Senklip/Coyote	stories	of	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Nations.		Both	my	MA	thesis	and	this	doctoral	dissertation	are	driven	by	a	desire	to	understand	how	culture	influenced	me	when	I	was	constructing	my	visual	stories	for	the	national	broadcaster,	VISION	TV.		To	do	that,	it	was	necessary	to	go	back	in	time	to	understand	how	I	can	move	forward	on	this	research	pathway.		That	research	pathway	is	literally	a	life	way	for	me;	it	is	not	separate	from	how	I	conduct	my	day-to-day	activities.	I	have	a	commitment	to	engage	in	and	perpetuate	effective	tribal	land-based	pedagogical	processes,	which	means	I	maintain	a	consistent	relationship	with	my	ancestral	homelands	and	my	Nations.		I	drive	home	to	Splatsin																																																							11	I	have	heard	numerous	Elders	from	different	Nations	say	this	phrase	so	I	cannot	give	acknowledgement	to	any	one	person.		Janice	Billy	(Secwepemc)	uses	this	phrase	in	her	PhD	dissertation.			21	frequently	to	pick	berries	and	harvest	salmon	and	to	attend	family	gatherings,	community	events,	and	funerals,	thus	upholding	my	responsibilities	to	my	people	and	my	land	(Corntassel,	2012).			I	renew	my	relationship	to	all	of	Creation	and	the	land	by	actively	participating	in	spiritual/cultural	ceremonies	at	home	as	well	as	inter-tribally	on	other	territories.		An	example	of	my	community	involvement	occurred	in	August	2014,	I	went	home	to	be	a	helper	at	a	Community	theatrical	production;	“Tuwitames,”	(pronounced	too-weet-a-miss,	which	means	he/she	is	growing	up)12	which	presented	some	of	our	cultural	stories	at	an	outdoor	stage	at	Splatsin.		I	sewed	in	the	Costume	Department.		In	addition,	I	attended	numerous	Storytelling	on	the	Land,	Storytelling	and	the	Law	and	Song	and	Dance	sessions	that	occurred	between	2010	and	2014.		I	am	an	active	part	of	‘re-Indigenizing,	re-inscribing	and	re-story-ing’	our	place	on	the	land.		However,	this	way	of	being,	knowing,	and	doing	has	evolved	over	a	number	of	years	because	of	severe	disruptions	in	my	cultural	education.		Access	to	my	language	and	culture	was	severely	interrupted	by	Canada’s	genocidal	policies	and	practices	that	forced	the	generation	before	me	to	attend	residential	school.		And	my	generation	were	captives	of	the	1960s	Scoop13;	my	brothers	and	sisters	and	I	were	taken	from	our	family	and	community.		I	was	in	five	foster	homes	in	5	years	and	separated	from	my	siblings.		Some	of	my	siblings	were	infants	when	they	were	apprehended.		Thankfully	my	grandparents	raised	me	in	the	first	4	years	of	my	life	and	they	set	the	foundation	for	me	as	a	child.		I	had	time	with	my																																																							12	Story	in	local	newspaper	about	Splatsin	Community	play	found	at:	http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/entertainment/269450251.html	retrieved	January	31,	2015.			13	During	the	1960s	Scoop	80	to	90%	of	the	children	from	my	community	were	taken	and	put	into	white	foster	homes.		This	statistic	was	given	to	me	through	a	personal	communication	with	a	Social	Worker,	Earl	Shipmaker,	who	worked	in	my	community	during	this	time.		This	phenomenon	called	the	1960s	Scoop	is	finally	being	discussed	as	the	wave	of	assimilation	policies	and	practices	that	followed	residential	schools.	More	information	is	available	at	this	website:	http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/sixties-scoop.html	retrieved	November	8,	2015.	There	are	4	class	action	suits	in	the	litigation	process	(BC,	Ontario,	Saskatchewan	and	Labrador).		I	am	a	part	of	the	one	in	BC	and	the	focus	is	on	loss	of	language	and	culture.		22	great	grandfather	and	great	uncles	and	aunts	before	they	passed.		None	of	the	old	people	in	my	family	went	to	residential	school.	I	have	memories	of	sitting	under	the	table	listening	while	they	visited.	I	carry	blood	memories	of	the	stories	from	my	land	(Holmes,	2000,	pp.	37-53;	Kovach,	2009,	p.	57);	some	people	call	this	a	“collective	memory”	(Armstrong,	2009,	pp.	106-108.		I	believe	cultural	information	is	passed	on	through	the	genetics	of	my	ancestors.		As	a	child,	I	was	a	language	speaker/listener;	nowadays	I	have	a	very	limited	understanding	of	the	Syilx	language.		Up	to	my	grandmother’s	passing	in	1971,	she	would	only	speak	to	me	in	the	language.	When	I	am	around	Syilx	language	speakers,	I	can	follow	the	gist	of	the	conversation.		I	started	my	home	schooling	process	to	reclaim	my	Indian	within	while	I	lived	on	the	territories	of	the	Iroquois	and	the	Anishinabe	peoples.		Their	cultural	knowledge	helped	me	to	reconnect	to	the	land;	therefore,	I	am	influenced	by	the	teachings	of	the	Iroquois	of	the	Haudenosaunee	Confederacy	(Mohawk,	Seneca,	Cayuga,	Onondaga,	Oneida	and	Tuscarora)	and	the	Anishinabe.		In	the	late	80s	and	early	90s,	I	volunteered	at	the	Toronto	Friendship	Centre	for	7	years	where	I	served	as	President,	Vice-President	and	Treasurer.		We	set	up	a	Traditional	Peoples	and	Elders	Advisory	Council,	which	made	it	possible	for	me	to	spend	considerable	time	with	knowledge	keepers	from	these	cultures.	I	learned	of	their	Creation	stories/prophecies,	which	propelled	me	to	seek	out	the	stories	of	other	Indigenous	cultures.	I	attended	Anishinabe	Midewiwin	Ceremonies	and	was	a	guest	in	Iroquois	Longhouses.		The	teaching	of	the	Two	Row	Wampum	from	the	Iroquois	profoundly	influences	my	ideological	stance	because	it	epitomizes	what	it	means	to	be	an	autonomous	and	sovereign	person.		Still	today,	I	use	this	model	of	co-existence	that	upholds	the	principles	of	peace,	respect	and	friendship	between	Indigenous	and	settler	peoples.		In	1990	I	started	a	purposeful	spiritual	reclamation.	I	worked	with	a	Sioux	Medicine	Man	who	taught	me	what	it	means	to	relate	to	the	land	and	spirits	on	the	land.		I	fasted	for	4	days	in	4	consecutive	years	at	Bear	Butte	in	South	Dakota.	He	was	not	trying	to	fashion	me	into	becoming	a	Sioux	person;	rather	he	was	helping	me	to	more	fully	understand	what	it	was	to	be	a	Secwepemc-Syilx	person	on	the	land,	from	a	spiritual	perspective.		Following	years	of	dislocation,	I	returned	to	my	homelands	in	1995,	I	worked	with	a	Syilx	medicine	woman	(now	deceased)	who	directed	me	in	my	Syilx	cultural	education.	She	guided	me	through	spiritual	processes,	which	helped	me	to	reconnect	in	a	very	real	and	personal	way	to	the	land	and	beings	on	my	ancestral	territories.		She	suggested	I	put	up	a	Feast	&	Giveaway	where	I	could	announce	myself	back	on	the	land.		I	took	5	years	to	prepare	for	this	ceremony	where	I	was	given	a	Syilx		23	name,	Kwash	Kay.		In	the	intervening	years,	I	have	made	relationships	with	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	knowledge	keepers	to	understand	our	ways	of	knowing,	doing,	acting,	seeing	and	listening.	I		Sun	danced	with	the	Eagle	Dance	Society/Red	Blanket	men,	which	occurred	on	my	territories	in	Merritt.		In	the	summer	of	2016,	I	was	bestowed	with	a	Red	Shawl	at	Sundance	to	be	a	part	of	the	women	leadership	of	this	society.	I	participate	in	intertribal	ceremonies	in	the	urban	center	and	help	out	at	ceremonies	on	my	home	territories.	Although	these	lands	hold	many	horrifying	childhood	memories	of	the	genocide	of	my	people,	it	also	holds	many	beautiful	embodied	genetic	blood	memories	that	I	carry	in	my	subconscious	memories.		I	have	an	innate	sense	of	my	connection	to	the	land	that	holds	the	blood	and	bones	of	generations	of	my	ancestors.		When	I	first	returned	to	my	territories	in	1995,	I	travelled	by	car	back	and	forth	between	Coast	Salish	territories	(Vancouver)	and	my	home	territories	to	do	post-production	work.		On	my	way	home	to	the	Okanagan	Valley	I	drove	the	Coquihalla	Highway	and	there	is	a	particular	point	as	I	enter	Merritt	where	my	whole	body	feels	a	surge	of	energy	that	touches	me	from	head	to	toe.		It	feels	like	a	wave	of	energy	washing	over	me.		I	have	the	same	wondrous	experience	as	I	drive	into	Princeton	when	I	take	the	Hope-Princeton	Highway	3	route	to	the	Okanagan	Valley.	I	believe	when	this	surge	of	energy	runs	through	my	body,	my	being	is	being	recognized	by	my	ancestral	land.			My	life	circumstances	and	experiences	provide	me	with	numerous	filters;	therefore	I	have	a	multi-facetted	view	of	the	world.	I	have	had	the	privilege	of	traveling	globally	(Kenya,	Uganda,	Russia,	Jamaica,	Hawaii,	Germany,	Mexico).		In	Indian	country,	I	have	visited	many	Indigenous	communities	on	Turtle	Island	to	witness	and	to	hear	their	cultural	stories.		I	consider	the	knowledge	keepers	of	land/place-based	cultures	as	the	professors	of	Indigenous	knowledge	from	the	land.		1.10. What’s	Missing?:	The	Knowledge	Gap	This	Gathering	Knowledge:	Indigenous	Methodologies	of	Land/Place-Based	Visual	Storytelling/Filmmaking	and	Visual	Sovereignty	project	will	contribute	to	the	scant	body	of	knowledge	in	the	Indigenous	film	discourse.		There	is	very	little	documented	“talking	in”	(Barclay,	1990,	p.	76)	discussion	of	present-day	Indigenous	visual	storytellers		24	sharing	ideas	and	recounting	their	creative	experiences	in	how	they	treat	their	contemporary	stories	as	they	construct	the	visual	narratives	in	the	form	of	film/video14.		As	German	film	theorist	Knopf	(2009)	states,	“…there	is	hardly	any	basic	research	on	Indigenous	filmmaking	in	North	America”	(p.	xv),	save	a	few	articles	or	essays	written	by	Indigenous	filmmakers.		Barry	Barclay’s	Our	Own	Image	(1990)	is	the	exception	because	it	is	a	book	that	presents	an	Indigenous-to-Indigenous	conversation	about	Indigenous	filmmaking.	This	research	study	will	add	to	what	exists	in	the	discourse	and	expand	the	discussion	on	Indigenous	film	theory	and	production	practice.			Certainly,	there	are	some	books	and	many	journal	articles	in	mainstream	film	discourse	that	analyzes	the	work	of	some	of	the	Indigenous	filmmakers	and	which	interpret	their	visual	narratives	through	the	lens	of	mainstream	film	theory	(Columpar,	2010;	Knopf,	2009;	Leuthold,	1994;	Lewis,	2006;	Marks,	2000,	2002,	2004).		This	study	does	not	do	that.		This	work	is	unique	because	it	is	a	layered	Indigenous-to-Indigenous	discussion,	that	is,	Indigenous	knowledge	keepers	speaking	with	an	Indigenous	visual	storyteller	about	how	their	cosmologies	and	worldviews	situate	their	cultures	within	the	universe.		The	second	circle	of	conversation	is	an	Indigenous	visual	storyteller	speaking	with	her	peers	about	their	production	practices.		Through	these	conversations,	Indigenous	ways	of	knowing	are	affirmed	and	Indigenous	film	theory	is	put	side	by	side	with	the	experiential	practices	of	the	visual	storytellers/filmmakers.		This	“talking	in”	(Barclay,	1990,	p.	76)	conversation	is	unique	in	the	Indigenous	film	discourse.	I	believe	this	study	will	be	useful	for	other	Indigenous	visual	storytellers/filmmakers,	scholars	focusing	on	Indigenous	visual	production	and	for	policy	makers	who	determine	diversity	programming	in	the	cultural	industries	in	Canada.																																																							14	There	are	examples	such	as	the	story	“Raven	Stole	the	Sun”	in	a	video	format,	located	at	this	website:	http://www.redskyperformance.com/transcript-ravenvideo	retrieved	July	16,	2013.		The	script	is	available;	however,	there	is	no	discussion	about	the	actual	process	of	enlivening	the	story.		Another	story,	“When	Raven	Stole	the	Moon”	is	another	contemporary	example	of	transposing	an	oral	story	to	the	screen.		Retrieved	July	16,	2013	and	it	can	be	viewed	at:	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNo2hFTMay4			25	1.11. Summary	of	Chapters	To	review	the	overview	and	salient	points	of	this	Introduction	chapter	see	section	“Chapter	Overview”	above.		In	Chapter	2,	I	outline	the	literature	I	reviewed	in	various	disciplines	to	discuss	Indigenous	cultural	stories	and	how	they	implicitly	hold	our	customary	laws,	our	ways	of	knowing	and	being.		Most	importantly	I	look	at	how	those	stories	explain	Indigenous	peoples’	relationship	to	the	land.		To	do	that,	I	briefly	discuss	the	history	of	“The	Oral	Stories	and	Western	Literary	Genres,”	including	how	Indigenous	writers	challenged	the	precepts	of	the	Euro-Western	literary	discipline.		I	also	review	“Critical	Interdisciplinary	Indigenous	Theories”	to	look	at	the	historical	development	of	Indigenous	scholars	in	Euro-Western	educational	institutions	and	put	forward	critical	Indigenous	theories	that	are	pertinent	to	this	study.		To	be	more	explicit,	I	discuss	“What	the	Land	Means	to	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Stories”	by	discussing	recent	work	of	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	scholars	who	discuss	cultural	stories	and	how	they	relate	to	the	peoples’	place	on	the	land.		I	complete	the	chapter	by	examining	critical	theories	in	the	Globalization	and	Global	Film	Theory	discourses	that	directly	impact	the	critical	Indigenous	theories	that	pertain	to	stories	and	land.		I	point	out	the	differences	in	the	philosophies	of	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge	and	how	they	affect	this	research.			In	Chapter	3,	I	provide	an	overview	of	the	Indigenous	methodologies	and	methods	used	in	my	research	study	and	theoretically	affirm	my	ideological	stance	of	being	an	autonomous,	sovereign	Secwepemc-Syilx	scholar.		I	utilize	Tsimilano,	Dr.	Vince	Stogan’s	teaching	of	“Hands	Back,	Hands	Forward”	(Archibald,	2008,	p.	50)	as	the	template	for	looking	at	the	historical	development	of	Indigenous	scholars	in	the	academy	in	the	“History:	‘Hands	Back,	Hands	Forward’”	section.		To	discuss	my	“Research	Design:	Indigenous	Research	Paradigm	and	Indigenous	Methodology	and	Methods,”	I	explain	my	application	of	the	critical	Indigenous	theories	of	Kovach	(2009),		26	Maracle	(2007)	and	Young	Leon’s	(2015)	model	of	“Mobilizing	Indigenous	Land-Based	Framework”	to	create	the	context	for	how	I	treat	cultural	stories	and	their	relationship	to	land	in	my	work.	Through	the	sub-titles,	“How	to	Do	Things	in	Indian	Country,”	“Hand	in	Glove:	Protocols	and	Accountability,”	and	“Multiple	Levels	of	Accountabilities,”	I	explain	my	approach	during	this	research	process,	which	is	an	example	of	engaged	Indigenous	methodologies	and	methods.		Then	I	focus	on	the	Indigenous	methods	used	in	gathering	the	knowledge	for	this	study.	I	complete	the	chapter	with	what	worked	and	what	did	not	work	in	the	research	process.		In	Chapter	4,	the	theory	chapter,	I	begin	by	providing	an	overview;	then	I	briefly	discuss	legal	precedents	in	Euro-Western	jurisprudence	that	directly	impact	Indigenous	land	and	stories.		Followed	by	an	examination	of	the	globalization	phenomenon	from	an	Indigenous/Syilx	perspective	(Armstrong,	2009;	Sam,	2013).	I	dedicate	the	next	section	to	looking	at	globalization	at	the	intersection	of	Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge	when	discussing	this	phenomenon.		Within	that	discussion,	I	purposefully	deconstruct	a	prominent	cultural	anthropologist’s	theorizing	of	Native/Aboriginal/Indigenous	peoples	(Appadurai	1988,	1990,	1996)	in	relation	to	the	land	and	the	concept	of	deterritorialization.		Most	importantly,	I	focus	on	how	this	theorizing	erases	Indigenous	peoples	from	their	connection	to	their	ancestral	homelands	in	a	contemporary	global	community.		This	discussion	is	followed	by	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	shared	perspectives	about	land	and	stories.		I	utilize	a	Cree-Anishinabe	model	for	the	land	the	stories	and	cultural	protocols	to	illustrate	shared	values	of	Indigenous	peoples.		Then	I	delve	into	some	critical	land-based	Indigenous	theories	that	include	using	story	as	a	theoretical	anchor.		I	move	to	looking	specifically	at	how	Secwpemc	and	Syilx	relate	to	the	land	and	stories,	including	a	discussion	on	Indigeneity	and	customary	laws	that	govern	how	land	and	stories	are	treated.		To	develop	the	localized	theory	from	my	Secwepemc-Syilx	perspective,	I	use	a	Sek’lep/Coyote	story	and	provide	my	rationale	of	how	I	use	the	story	of	not	copying	others	to	further	examine	the	issue	of	Indigenous	identity.		Next,	I		27	conclude	by	utilizing	specific	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	concepts	to	explain	the	localized	critical	theory	I	developed	that	puts	forward	a	culturally	specific	Secwepemc-Syilx	identity	in	direct	relationship	to	the	territories	we	occupy.		In	Chapter	5,	I	revitalize	the	metaphor	of	“Cucw-la7	Gathering	Knowledge,”	that	I	introduced	in	Chapter	1	and	represented	by	the	Figure	2	graphic	illustrating	the	territories	I	travelled	to	meet	with	the	knowledge	keepers	and	visual	storytellers/filmmakers.		Then	I	explain	my	process	of	interpretation,	which	upholds	an	Indigenous	research	paradigm.		In	conventional	academic	terms,	this	chapter	delivers	the	findings	or	the	data	of	the	shared	information;	however,	as	an	Indigenous	researcher	I	chose	to	refer	to	the	gathered	knowledge	as	‘shared	stories/conversations’.		In	addition,	I	elect	to	use	lengthy	quotes	so	as	not	to	de-contextualize	their	stories/information	and	to	maintain	a	semblance	of	orality	with	a	conversational	sensibility.		I	separate	the	shared	stories/conversations	into	discussions	around	land,	stories,	and	cultural	protocols	and	have	a	short	discussion	on	technology	(social	media/Facebook)	before	concluding	the	chapter.		The	knowledge	keepers	are	introduced	in	Chapter	5,	with	their	names,	their	Nations,	their	ages,	genders	and	whether	or	not	they	speak	their	language.		Also	included	is	their	geographical	location	and	any	additional	roles	they	uphold	in	their	communities.		Through	their	shared	knowledge(s),	Indigenous	worldviews	are	discussed	and	how	that	relates	to	land,	stories,	and	cultural	protocols.	I	summarize	how	Archibald’s	Indigenous	storywork	principles	sit	alongside	the	Indigenous	philosophies	shared,	with	the	intent	of	searching	for	parallel	understandings.		To	conclude,	I	insert	a	section	“Still	Writing	on	the	Land”	briefly	discussing	the	contemporary	ways	that	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	stories	are	still	being	written	on	the	land.		In	Chapter	6,	Fourth	World	Cinema	in	the	international	and	national	spheres,	I	use	my	second	research	question	as	the	guide	to	the	discussion.		I	provide	an	overview	of	the	chapter,	followed	by	an	introduction	to	the	Indigenous	visual		28	storytellers/filmmakers	who	participated	in	this	study	in	Chapter	6.		Then	look	briefly	at	how	the	representation	of	Indigenous	peoples	has	shifted	in	the	Hollywood	blockbuster	films.		Next,	I	look	at	Fourth	World	Cinema	and	how	filmmakers	have	been	Indigenizing	their	production	practices;	after	which	I	situate	Fourth	World	Cinema	in	the	international	and	national	spheres.		In	the	discussion,	I	examine	the	concepts	of	deterritorialization	(geographical	location)	and	indigeneity	(political	identity).		Plus,	I	analyze	the	film	discourses	to	reveal	an	erasure	of	Indigenous	filmmakers.		Next,	I	look	at	Indigenous	place	on	the	land	and	how	that	forms	a	culturally	specific	Indigenous	identity.	I	then	add	to	and	expand	the	discussion	on	the	encumbered	term	of	visual	sovereignty,	which	is	presented	from	different	Indigenous	points-of-view.		I	turn	the	focus	to	land,	story,	and	cultural	protocols	and	how	they	inform	our	place-based	identities,	which	are	grounded	in	our	ancestral	homelands.	I	deliver	excerpts	from	my	conversations	with	the	visual	storytellers/filmmakers	surrounding	land,	story,	and	cultural	protocols.	I	finalize	the	chapter	by	providing	an	analysis	and	recount	some	observations	of	the	comments	by	the	Indigenous	visual	storytellers/filmmakers.	In	Chapter	7,	I	focus	on	the	concept	of	cultural	congruency	and	Indigenous	film	aesthetics.	The	chapter	begins	with	an	experiential	story	to	illustrate	what	I	mean	by	cultural	congruency,	followed	by	an	overview	of	the	chapter	contents.		Next,	I	briefly	discuss	the	development	of	Indigenous	involvement	in	the	arts	landscape	of	Canada.		The	subsequent	discussions	focus	on	film	as	part	of	Indigenous	knowledge	production	and	I	explicate	the	different	types	of	knowledge(s)	from	a	Hopi/Indigenous	perspective.		In	addition,	I	explain	the	internal	and	external	accountabilities	that	Indigenous	filmmakers	must	contend	with	in	their	production	practices.		I	look	at	the	issue	of	race	and	how	that	influences	artistic	integrity	and	our	choices	of	film	aesthetics,	including	language	and	sound.		Then	I	examine	our	aesthetic	choices	and	how	that	affects	the	culturally	congruency	of	Indigenous	production	practices.		Next,	I	briefly	discuss	a	Women’s	Collective	who	are	creating	community-based	visual	stories	to	record	our	own	histories	for	our	own	purposes.		I	conclude	by	summarizing	the	chapter.			29	In	Chapter	8,	I	return	to	the	metaphor	that	opened	this	dissertation.		This	chapter	is	named	“What	Eggs	Did	Cucw-la7	Lay?”		As	is	usual,	I	begin	with	an	overview	of	the	chapter,	and	then	discuss	how	gathering	knowledge	is	“more	than	a	metaphor.”		I	restate	my	research	questions	within	the	context	of	my	“findings”	from	the	Knowledge	Keepers	and	the	Visual	Storytellers/Filmmakers.		Next,	I	summarize	the	contributions	that	this	dissertation	makes	to	Indigenous	knowledge	production,	specifically	in	Indigenous	critical	theories,	Indigenous	place-based	identity,	Fourth	World	Cinema/Indigenous	film	theory	and	Indigenous	Methodologies.	I	identify	the	areas	of	study	where	this	research	may	be	utilized.	I	outline	further	research	projects	that	emerged	from	this	work.		Next,	I	look	at	the	implications	and	limitations	of	this	research	in	the	context	of	Truth	and	Reconciliation	in	Canada.	I	conclude	with	reflections	from	my	own	personal	reconciliation	process	that	occurred	during	the	process	of	the	production	of	this	dissertation.		30	Chapter	2. 		Literature	Review	2.1. Chapter	Overview	In	this	chapter,	I	give	an	overview	of	the	literature	I	utilize	to	realize	the	stated	purpose	of	this	research	study,	which	is	to	add	to/expand	the	Indigenous	film	theories	of	representation	on	a	global	and	national	level.		While	at	the	same	time	I	developed	a	localized	Secwepemc-Syilx	theory	based	in	culturally	specific	Indigenous	knowledge	systems	that	illustrates	how	Indigenous	identity	is	shaped	by	linking	the	language,	cultural	stories	and	the	land	to	our	philosophies,	which	I	believe	is	similar	in	global	Indigenous	communities.			I	examine,	challenge	and	compare	the	analyses	in	the	discourse	with	regard	to	the	trajectory	of	my	arguments,	that	is,	in	terms	of	how	cultural	stories	are	treated	and	how	they	determine	Indigenous	epistemologies	and	pedagogies	thus	shaping	the	relationships	with	the	land	and	all	other	seen	and	unseen	beings	within	the	environment.		Further,	I	examine	the	interrelatedness	of	the	cultural	stories,	the	land,	and	the	people	and	how	that	may	or	may	not	affect	the	contemporary	visual	storytelling/filmmaking	practices	of	Indigenous	peoples.	I	provide	a	short	history	of	“The	Oral	Stories	and	Western	Literary	Genres”	and	how	Indigenous	writers	claim	a	space	to	discuss	how	their	oral	stories	relate	to	Euro-Western	literature.		In	addition,	I	discuss	“Critical	Interdisciplinary	Indigenous	Theories”	that	are	developed	in	the	social	and	political	sciences	and	in	education	discourses.			The	concepts	I	examine	in	these	disciplines	relate	to	land,	the	role	of	stories	and	land-based	education.		Further,	I	explore	how	these	concepts	apply	to	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	lands.		To	do	this,	I	explore	“Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Philosphies:	Land	and	Stories”	by	looking	at	some	of	the	history	between	the	two	Nations	and	examine	recent		31	Secpwepemc	and	Syilx	scholarship	to	situate	concepts	that	are	the	basis	for	the	development	of	a	localized	Secwepemc-Syilx	theory.		I	turn	to	“Euro-Western	Critical	Theories”	in	the	religious	studies	discipline,	global	film	and	globalization	discourses	to	specifically	examine	the	notion	of	de-territorialization,	which	has	direct	impact	on	the	relationship	Indigenous	peoples	have	with	their	ancestral	lands.		I	conclude	by	looking	at	the	contributions	of	critical	Indigenous	and	non-Indigenous	theorists	to	this	study.		2.2. The	Oral	Stories	and	Euro-Western	Literary	Genres		Historically,	the	literature	about	the	cultural	stories	of	Indigenous	peoples	has	been	the	subject	of	research	and	interpreted	through	the	pervasive	ethnocentric	lens	of	such	disciplines	as,	anthropology,	literary	studies,	political	science	and	education.		In	the	overall	Euro-Western	education	institutions	the	stories	of	the	Secwepemc,	Syilx	and	by	extension	most	Indigenous	peoples	have	been	diminished	to	the	status	of	folklore,	which	delegitimizes	and	skews	the	critical	role	they	have	in	Indigenous	cultures.		Regrettably,	this	has	become	the	established	knowledge	for	Indigenous	oral	stories	(Boas,	1909;	Bouchard	&	Kennedy,	1979,	2002;	Cruickshank,	1998;	Guie,	1990;	Robinson,	2005;	Wickwire,	1989,	1992).		It	is	prudent	to	acknowledge	that	the	work	of	the	non-Indigenous	scholars	who	documented	Indigenous	cultural	knowledge	at	a	time	when	Indigenous	peoples	were	not	transposing	the	oral	stories	to	the	written	form	is	a	valuable	source	of	information	today.		However,	some	of	their	interpretations	are	problematic	because	their	discussions	were	with	each	other	within	the	academic	domain	and	their	conclusions	may	have	created	misunderstandings	in	how	we	as	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	interrelate	with	each	other	and	our	physical	and	spiritual	environments.		More	recently,	in	the	book	Orality	about	Literacy:	Reflections	across	Disciplines	(2011),	Carlson’s	chapter,	“Orality	about	Literacy:	The	‘Black	and	White’	of	Salish	History”	looks	at	how	the	historical	view	from	an	Indigenous	point-of-view	“…not	only	challenge	Western	chronologies	but	dispute	Western	ways	of	knowing”	(Carlson,	2011,	pp.	43-69).		With	non-Indigenous	scholars	decolonizing	themselves	from	the		32	status	quo	of	colonial	histories	and	examining	their	own	culturally	biased	views,	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge(s)	may	together	bring	a	more	realistic	view	of	the	colonizing	process,	which	includes	an	Indigenous	perspective.	In	the	late	1980s,	this	perspective	was	strongly	asserted	by	some	Indigenous	women	writers	to	claim	a	space	in	the	literary	field.		They	did	this	to	bring	some	understanding	of	the	underpinnings	of	Indigenous	philosophies	and	ways	of	being	and	to	explain	the	roles	of	cultural	stories.		Thus	begins	the	discussion	on	the	controversial	appropriation	of	Indigenous	stories	issue.	Two	Indigenous	women	writers	who	were	instrumental	in	claiming	a	culturally	specific	literary	space	are	Lee	Maracle	(Stó:lō	-Coast	Salish)	and	Lenore	Keeshig-Tobias	(Anishinabe).		Maracle	challenged	the	feminist	community	at	an	International	Feminist	Book	Fair	in	Montreal	in	1988,	which	is	documented	by	Christine	St.	Peter	in	a	feminist	journal	(Greenhill	&	Tye,	1997,	pp.	65-72).		St.	Peter	calls	on	the	“professional	academics	or	artists	from	the	dominant	group”	who	are	gaining	financially	by	studying	marginalized	women	to	address	the	unethical	practices	of	appropriating	“others”	stories	in	the	face	of	centuries	of	genocidal	treatment”	(St.	Peter	cited	in	Greenhill	&	Tye,	1997,	p.	70).		In	1989,	Keeshig-Tobias	confronted	the	systemic	racist	policies	of	the	Writers	Union	of	Canada	at	an	Annual	General	Meeting	by	addressing	the	“Appropriation	of	Voice”	controversy15.		This	historical	action	is	included	in	the	history	of	the	Writers	Union	on	their	website.		However,	there	are	more	than	appropriation	issues	that	concern	the	Indigenous	writers.	In	addressing	the	complexities	of	how	Indigenous	oral	stories	fit	into	Euro-Western	literature	and	its	categorization	of	genres,	Jeannette	Armstrong,	Syilx	traditional	storyteller,	writer,	environmentalist	and	scholar	states:		There	are	more	than	structural	concerns.	The	question	is	how	do	you	tell	an	Indigenous	story	from	within	the	Indigenous	worldview	but	in	the	western	literary	prose	tradition?	What	is	the	role	of	the	narrator?	How	do	you	write	sounds?	Indigenous	writers	have	created	innovative	techniques																																																							15	These	actions	are	included	in	the	history	of	the	Writers	Union	of	Canada	on	their	website:	http://www.writersunion.ca/content/history	retrieved	May	18,	2015.			33	in	their	writing	to	create	a	reality	that	is	understood	from	an	Indigenous	cultural	context.	They	create	a	series	of	vignettes,	impressions	and	images	that	are	pulled	together	in	a	larger	gestalt	of	movement	in	the	story.	(Armstrong	cited	in	Anderson,	1997,	p.	55)	She	also	says	that	oratory:	[…]	extends	beyond	poetry	in	its	need	to	interact	with,	and	persuade	an	audience.	It	is	not	simply	political	rhetoric	because	of	its	link	to	traditional	story.	It	is	not	drama	because,	at	its	roots,	it	is	prayer.	It	is	a	distinct	combination	that	defies	western	genres.	(Armstrong	cited	in	Anderson,	1997,	pp.	55-56)	Another	traditional	storyteller,	Maria	Campbell	(Cree-Métis)	accentuated	that	the	cultural	protocols	need	to	be	attended	to	when	she	says:		No	one	ever	told	a	story	that	was	not	his/her	own	and	if	they	did,	it	was	only	if	the	story	had	been	given	to	them	or	if	the	story	was	traded.	Even	then,	the	storyteller	would	begin	the	story	by	telling	how	he/she	came	by	it	and	the	name	of	the	original	creator	would	be	given.	Some	stories	are	sacred	and	can	only	be	told	at	certain	times	by	the	people	who	have	been	chosen	and	trained	to	carry	them	for	the	people.	(Campbell	cited	in	Beaucage	2005,	p.	144)	These	actions	by	the	creative	writers	started	the	development	of	a	body	of	Indigenous	literature	that	transposed	oral	stories	to	the	written	form.	While	these	writers	were	explaining	Indigenous	story	protocols,	some	Indigenous	scholars	were	carving	a	space	for	Indigenous	systems	of	knowledge	in	academia,	which	by	its	very	nature	addresses	research	paradigms,	theoretical	frameworks	and	methodological	approaches.	To	fully	understand	Indigenous	research	paradigms	and	methodologies	in	academia,	it	is	necessary	to	look	at	the	historical	development	of	Indigenous	scholars	in	the	academy,	which	I	discuss	extensively	in	Chapter	3,	my	methodology	chapter.		2.3. Critical	Interdisciplinary	Indigenous	Theories	Linda	Tuhiwai	Smith’s	(2002)	seminal	text,	Decolonizing	Methodologies:	Research	and	Indigenous	Peoples	shifted	Indigenous	scholars	the	world	over	to	begin		34	presenting	critical	Indigenous	theories	that	challenged	the	staid	Euro-Western	theories	that	dominated	and	stultified	their	intellectual	development.		Indigenous	scholars	such	as	Kovach	(2009)	and	Wilson	(2008)	developed	critical	theories	that	pertain	directly	to	Indigenous	methodologies	and	methods.		Other	Indigenous	theorists	moved	away	from	the	ever-present	colonial	binaries	to	a	decolonizing	approach,	which	enabled	them	to	develop	critical	Indigenous	theories	in	their	disciplines.		Some	would	argue	that	the	area	most	damaged	by	the	colonial	approach	is	the	domain	of	education	where	the	deficit	model	has	hampered	effective	strategies	developed	by	Indigenous	educators	and	communities.		The	dissatisfaction	of	Indigenous	educators	and	the	political	leadership	resulted	in	a	call	for	Indian	Control	of	Indian	Education	that	resulted	in	a	national	education	policy	that	was	written	in	1972	and	accepted	by	the	federal	government	in	1973.	Two	decades	later,	the	Royal	Commission	on	Aboriginal	Peoples	released	a	5-volume,	4,000-page	comprehensive	document	in	1996,	which	revealed	many	abhorrent	conditions	in	the	social,	political,	cultural	domains	of	Indigenous	peoples’	lives.		In	this	highly-referenced	document,	numerous	recommendations	were	made	to	improve	education	policies	and	practices	for	Aboriginal	children;	however,	in	2015	as	statistics	continue	to	attest,	the	performance	outcomes	continue	to	reflect	a	system	that	is	not	working	for	Indigenous	children.		To	transform	a	very	tired	ineffective	educational	system,	groundbreaking	research	emerged	in	educational	studies	that	were	centered	in	Indigenous	ways	of	being.		Through	their	article	on	post-secondary	education,	Kirkness	and	Barnhardt’s	(1991)	introduction	of	the	fundamental	operating	principles,	the	4Rs:	respect,	relevance,	reciprocity,	and	responsibility	provided	a	glimpse	into	Indigenous	epistemologies.	Battiste	(1986)	addressed	how	the	colonial	education	system	had	assimilated	Indigenous	peoples	and	she	presents	the	concept	of	cognitive	imperialism	to	counter	the	master	narrative	that	Indigenous	peoples	were	failures	in	the	system.	Grande’s	Red	Pedagogy	(2004)	called	for	a	transformation	in	Indigenous	education	policies	and	practices	by	adding	the	notion	of	a	“Red	Pedagogy”	(p.	165),	along	with	the		35	concepts	of	“a	fourth	space	of	Indigenism”	(p.	167)	and	“indigena”	(p.	171)	to	the	education	discourse.		In	2005,	Brayboy	authors	“Toward	a	Tribal	Critical	Race	Theory	in	Education”	where	he	elicits	his	reasoning	for	developing	a	tribally	specific	theory	that	addresses	tribal/Indigenous	issues	in	education.	He	explains	the	original	intent	of	the	dominant	critical	race	theory	was	addressing	African-American	peoples	and	cultures,	following	the	Civil	Rights	Movement;	however,	Brayboy	felt	it	was	important	to	develop	a	race	theory	specifically	for	Indigenous	peoples	in	the	United	States.	I	argue	that	what	Brayboy	postulates	also	applies	to	Indigenous	peoples	in	Canada.		Most	importantly,	he	explains	that	critical	race	theory	and	by	extension,	Tribal	Critical	Race	Theory	“values	narrative	and	stories	as	important	sources	of	data”	(p.	428).		Brayboy	collaborates	with	Castagno	(2008)	to	introduce	the	notion	of	culturally	relevant	schooling	as	a	strategy	for	Indigenous	students	to	learn	in	a	way	that	is	suitable	to	their	way	of	knowing	and	being.		At	the	same	time,	they	presented	the	notion	of	“code	switching”	(2008)	that	explains	what	Indigenous	students	have	to	invoke	in	order	to	learn	in	Euro-Western-based	educational	institutions.	These	critical	theories	developed	by	Indigenous	scholars	are	important	to	my	work	because	they	theoretically	formulate	how	and	why	culturally	specific	ways	of	learning	are	central	to	the	intellectual	development	of	Indigenous	students.		Most	importantly,	it	becomes	clear	how	stories	are	at	the	center	of	Indigenous	learning,	which	leads	to	transforming	a	system	that	historically	does	not	serve	Indigenous	people.		One	critical	work	that	specifically	delves	into	the	complexities	of	the	role	of	cultural	stories	in	teaching	and	learning	processes	of	Indigenous	communities	is	Archibald’s	(2008)	Indigenous	Storywork:	Educating	the	Heart,	Mind,	Body,	and	Spirit.		Her	work	is	extremely	significant	to	my	work	because	in	the	description	of	her	process	of	engagement,	I	gain	insight	into	the	complicated	and	layered	nature	of	the	undertaking	of	this	research.		Archibald	engages	for	years	in	different	sectors	of	her	home	community,	in	the	Coast	Salish	community	and	in	the	academic	community	to		36	formulate	her	Stólō-Coast	Salish	localized	theory	of	Indigenous	Storywork.		Her	Indigenous	methodology	is	embedded	in	her	writing,	that	is,	she	includes	dreams	and	cultural	stories	from	many	different	Indigenous	cultures	throughout	the	book	to	explain	how	she	came	to	her	Indigenous	Storywork	theory.	In	her	research	with	the	Elders/Storytellers	and	within	the	communities	she	embodies	the	Indigenous	principles	of	respect,	responsibility,	reciprocity,	reverence,	holism,	interrelatedness,	and	synergy.		What	is	remarkable	to	me	is	that	Archibald	also	incorporates	all	those	valued	principles	throughout	the	book.		She	says,	“The	mystery,	magic,	and	truth/respect/trust	relationship	between	the	speaker/storyteller	and	listener/reader	may	be	brought	to	life	on	the	printed	page	if	the	principles	of	the	oral	tradition	are	used”	(p.	20).	This	forced	me	to	ask,	“I	wonder	if	this	applies	to	visual	storytelling	too?”	The	Indigenous	storywork	process	that	Archibald	developed	engages	all	parts	of	a	human	being	(heart,	body,	mind	and	spirit)	which	is	integral	to	Indigenous	peoples’	way	of	knowing	and	being	in	how	they/we	make	meaning	in	our	day-to-day	lives.		Indigenous	cultural	stories	give	us	the	“principles	for	creating	story	meaning”	(p.	25)	on	so	many	levels,	including	the	research	process.		Archibald	refers	to	a	number	of	writers	and	storytellers	from	various	Indigenous	cultures	to	identify	some	of	the	principles	such	as:	inclusiveness	(Simon	Ortiz),	oratory	as	prayer	(Lee	Maracle),	community	responsibility	(Maria	Campbell),	quietness	(Jeannette	Armstrong),	healing	power	of	story	(Leslie	Marmon-Silko)	and	reciprocity	(Norma	Marks	Daunhauer)	(pp.	25-28).		Archibald’s	text	is	deceiving	in	that,	it	seemingly	is	‘telling	stories’	but	as	an	Indigenous	person,	hearing	the	sounds	of	the	story	in	my	head,	I	have	a	knowingness	that	there	are	many	ways	to	understanding	each	story.		Reading	and	re-reading	each	story,	brings	something	different	each	time	because	there	is	so	much	cultural	information	hidden	in	the	layers	of	the	story.		Utilizing	Archibald’s	storywork	process	to	make	meaning	is	valuable	to	my	analysis	of	how	visual	storytellers/filmmakers	use	the	technology	to	tell	our	cultural	stories.		In	particular,	I	am	interested	in	the	synergistic	relationship	between	the	story,	the	storyteller	and	those	who	benefit	from	listening	or		37	watching	the	interrelationship	in	action.		I	am	particularly	interested	in	how	and	what	senses	are	engaged	when	hearing/listening	or	watching	a	visual	story.		Through	her	way	of	using	story	to	make	meaning	in	our	lives,	Archibald	opens	up	innovative	ways	to	also	use	cultural	stories	in	the	teaching	and	learning	processes	in	the	classroom	while	at	the	same	time	teaching	the	readers	about	the	cultural	protocols	surrounding	a	responsible	and	ethical	approach	to	the	stories.			Another	area	where	critical	Indigenous	theories	have	been	developed	is	in	the	political	science	discipline	(Alfred,	2009;	Corntassel,	2012;	Coulthard,	G.,	2014;	Lightfoot,	2016),	which	is	essential	to	this	study	because	it	elevates	Indigenous	self-determination	and	human	rights	to	the	international	domain	(Lightfoot,	2016).		The	intersections	that	the	international	political	rights	movement	encompasses	are	what	Lightfoots	calls	“soft	rights”	that	includes	culture,	education,	language,	spirituality	and	identity.		The	“hard	rights”	she	identifies	are	land	rights	and	self-determination	(p.	13).		These	concepts	are	relevant	to	this	work	because	of	the	implications	to	Indigenous	relationship	to	land	and	how	they	converge	with	cultural	stories	and	how	that	directly	relates	to	place-based	teaching	and	learning	practices.		While	Lightfoot	(2016)	informs	the	international	Indigenous	political	rights	domain,	Alfred	(2009)	calls	for	action	and	transformation	in	academe	and	in	the	community.		While	Corntassel	(2012)	cautions	of	the	dangers	of	an	“illusion	of	inclusion”	(p.	92)	in	national	policies	that	could	mislead	people.		In	understanding	Lightfoot’s	comprehensive	historical	background	of	Indigenous	rights,	answering	Alfred’s	metaphorical	war	cry	and	paying	attention	to	Corntassel’s	warning,	Indigenous	scholars	Coulthard	(2014),	Simpson	(2008,	2014),	and	Young	Leon	(2015)	develop	theories	that	highlights	Indigenous	peoples’	relationship	to	land,	cultural	protocols	on	the	land,	cultural	stories	from	the	land	and	place-based	education.			To	fully	comprehend	what	Indigenous	scholars	are	countering	in	the	discussion	of	land-based	education,	it	is	necessary	to	examine	the	globalization	discourse	because	it	has	significant	implications	to	Indigenous	relationship	to	land.		There	is	very	little	in		38	the	globalization	dialogue	written	from	an	Indigenous	perspective	written	from	an	Indigenous	perspective	(Brown	&	Sant,	1999;	Maaka	&	Fleras,	2005;	Wilson	&	Stewart,	Editors	(2008)).		However,	Sam	(2013,	pp.	24-62)	provides	a	thorough	and	in-depth	look	at	the	historical	development	of	the	phenomenon	of	globalization	and	the	implications	that	it	has	on	Indigenous	peoples,	lands,	waters	and	other	resources.		Sam’s	analysis	is	a	strong	counter-narrative	to	cultural	anthropologist	Appadurai’s	1990	article	on	the	global	economy.		To	understand	Appadurai’s	lack	of	consideration	of	global	Indigenous	cultures	in	his	analysis	of	the	global	economy,	it	is	necessary	to	examine	his	earlier	1988	article.		In	that	article,	he	theoretically	rationalizes	a	complete	erasure	of	Indigenous	peoples	by	disconnecting	the	people	from	the	land.	I	argue	that	the	analysis	and	critical	theories	developed	by	Coultard,	Sam,	Simpson	and	Young	Leon	successfully	disputes	Appadurai’s	sophisticated	theoretical	dismissal	of	Indigenous	peoples	in	the	globalization	discourse.		Young-Leon’s	(2015)	model	of	“Mobilizing	Indigenous	Land-Based	Framework”	(p.	87)	and	her	“Cedar	Pedagogical	Pathways”	(p.	56)	clearly	illustrates	Indigenous	relationship	to	land.		Coultard	and	Simpson	take	the	classroom	out	on	the	land	through	the	program	they	teach	at	the	“Dechinta	Bush	University:	Indigenous	land-based	education	and	embodied	resurgence”	(2014),	where	land-based	educational	practices	are	enacted.		One	of	the	concepts	in	Coulthard’s	Red	Skin	White	Masks:	Rejecting	the	Colonial	Politics	of	Recognition	(2014),	addresses	specifically	Indigenous	peoples’	relationship	to	the	land	in	what	he	has	named,	“grounded	normativity.”		He	says:	I	call	this	place-based	foundation	of	Indigenous	decolonial	thought	and	practice	grounded	normativity,	by	which	I	mean	the	modalities	of	Indigenous	land-connected	practices	and	longstanding	experiential	knowledge	that	inform	and	structure	our	ethical	engagements	with	the	world	and	our	relationships	with	human	and	nonhuman	others	over	time.	(p.	13)		I	interpret	Coulthard’s	concept	to	mean	we	have	specific	relationships	to	the	land	through	the	generations	of	Indigenous	knowledge	that	is	transmitted	through	culturally-based	practices	on	the	lands	that	each	Indigenous	group	is	born	on	and	that		39	hold	stories	which	explain	those	relationships.	Simpson	(2014)	takes	a	deeper	look	at	the	role	of	cultural	stories	on	the	land	by	explaining	the	Anishinabe	maple	sugar	story.		She	provides	an	excellent	example	of	just	how	a	cultural	story	guides	and	teaches	Indigenous	reciprocal	relationship	to	land.	To	examine	how	these	critical	Indigenous	theories	apply	to	my	region,	I	turn	to	recent	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	scholarship,	which	centralizes	land	in	their	theoretical	frameworks.		2.4. Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Philosophies:	Land	and	Stories	The	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	are	traditional	neighbors;	they	have	co-existed	on	their	respective	lands	for	thousands	of	years	and	have	historically	shared	use	of	some	of	those	lands.		Syilx	scholar,	Marlowe	Sam	(2013)	states:		It	is	my	intent	to	include	the	brother	nation	of	the	Syilx,	the	Secwepemc,	as	not	too	far	in	the	recent	past	(a	few	thousand	years)	these	two	Salish	tribal	groups	were	one	people.		The	oral	traditions	of	the	Secwepemc	are	an	important	part	of	this	inquiry	based	on	the	fact	that	the	narratives	are	used	in	remarkably	similar	manner	as	the	Syilx.		The	Secwepemc	stories	and	personal	perspectives	of	the	interviewees	will	be	used	to	assert	that	Sn’klip’s	laws	are	present	within	other	Salish	tribes.	(p.	7)	Furthermore,	the	two	Nations	have	stood	together	in	resisting	the	occupation	by	the	colonial	powers	on	their	lands	and	have	advocated	for,	and	asserted	sovereignty	on	their	respective	territories.		The	historical	document,	Memorial	to	Sir	Wilfrid	Laurier,	Premier	of	the	Dominion	of	Canada	dated	25	August	1910	and	presented	at	Kamloops,	BC16	is	a	declaration	by	the	Interior	Chiefs	of	the	Secwepemc	(Shuswap),	Syilx	(Okanagan),	N’laka’pamux	(Thompson)	and	other	Nations	to	the	then	Prime	Minster	of	Canada.	Clearly,	when	the	full	text	is	read,	it	illustrates	that	the	Chiefs	are	acting	and	speaking	as	sovereign	peoples,	not	as	defeated	victims	on	their	own	lands	(Ignace	2008,	pp.	233-235).		The	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	are	re-Indigenizing,	re-inscribing	and	re-																																																						16	Full	text	of	the	document	is	available	at:	http://shuswapnation.org/to-sir-wilfrid-laurier/	retrieved	July	15,	2013.		More	information	is	available	at:	http://rabble.ca/news/2010/09/	wilfred-laurier-memorial-100-years-later	retrieved	May	27,	2015.			40	storying	our	traditional	homelands	by	memorializing	significant	historical	events.		On	June	11,	2010,	100	years	after	this	meeting	with	the	Prime	Minister	of	Canada,	community	members	and	Chiefs	of	some	of	the	original	signatory	Nations	attended	a	gathering	at	the	confluence	of	the	Thompson	and	Nicola	Rivers	at	Spence’s	Bridge17	to	celebrate	and	commemorate	this	inter-Nation	political	stance.	On	October	15,	2014,	another	event	that	took	place	to	re-establish	the	historical	ally	relationship	between	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Nations	is	the	reaffirming	and	celebrating	of	the	long-standing	pre-contact	Fish	Lake	Accord18—an	agreement	made	long	before	the	colonial	settlement	of	their	territories.		Marlowe	Sam	(2013)	explains	the	long-standing	political	relationship,	he	states:		According	to	Glen	Douglas	(1990)	a	Syilx	traditional	knowledge	keeper	who	served	as	an	interpreter	and	aide	to	Okanagan	Grandchief,	Tommy	Gregoire,	the	first	Okanagan/Shuswap	Confederacy	was	formed	in	the	summer	of	1878	in	response	to	the	growing	incursion	of	white	settlers	in	the	Interior	Plateau.		Over	a	century	later	the	Okanagan/Shuswap	Confederacy	was	reaffirmed	in	December	1986	at	the	Alkali	Lake	Reserve	community	hall	due	to	the	growing	threat	of	political	unrest	that	was	threatening	the	rights	of	aboriginal	people	in	Canada’s	province	of	British	Columbia.		(p.	152)	With	this	thinking	embedded	in	the	historical	consciousness	of	the	interior	plateau	peoples,	it	is	clear	that	the	two	Nations	stand	together	politically	and	spiritually	and	they	are	very	aware	of	how	necessary	it	is	to	counteract	the	current	pathway	to	extinction.		Although	their	languages	are	specific	to	their	cultures,	they	do	share	Coyote	as	the	primary	character	of	their	cultural	stories	who	provides	the	teachings	of	how	to	live	on	their	adjacent	lands.			The	Secwepemc	Nation19	consists	of	17	communities	and	has	the	largest	land	base	in	what	is	now	called	the	province	of	British	Columbia.		The	traditional	lands	of	the																																																							17	http://www.syilx.org/images/event_file/177_1.pdf	retrieved	May	27,	2015.		18	A	copy	of	the	poster	for	this	event	is	attached	in	the	Appendices	of	this	dissertation.		19	A	more	detailed	description	of	Secwepemc	people	and	territories	can	be	found	at:	http://www.secwepemc.org/about/ourstory	retrieved	May	19,	2015.			41	Secwepemc	covers	a	region	of	145,000	square	kilometers.		The	role	of	Coyote	is	explained	more	fully	on	a	website	that	explains	Secwepemc	stories.		They	speak	of	Coyote	in	this	way:		The	Secwepemc	people	believe	that	the	world	was	made	good	to	live	in	by	the	all	powerful	"Old	One"	with	the	help	of	Coyote.	The	original	story,	told	and	retold	by	generations	of	Secwepemc	people,	explained	how	the	earth	was	made	ready	for	Secwepemc	people.20	The	website	for	the	Syilx	Nation	explains	their	relationship	to	Coyote	in	this	way:	In	our	histories	we	are	told	that	the	creator	sent	Senklip	(Coyote),	to	help	our	people	survive	on	this	land.	Coyote’s	travels	are	a	record	of	the	natural	laws	necessary	for	our	Syilx	people	to	survive	and	essential	to	our	ability	to	carry	on.	We	weren’t	born	with	the	instincts	to	know	how	to	live	in	nature’s	laws,	instead	we	are	given	memory	to	remind	us	of	what	we	could	and	couldn’t	be	doing.	Understanding	the	living	land	and	teaching	our	young	generations	how	to	become	a	‘part	of	it’	is	the	only	way	we,	the	Syilx,	have	survived.	(Okanagan	First	Peoples)21	The	Syilx	Nation22	consists	of	eight	communities,	including	one	south	of	the	imposed	49th	parallel	boundary	and	their	traditional	territories	covers	approximately	69,000	square	kilometers.		In	the	past	decade,	scholars	from	both	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	Nations	have	added	to	the	production	of	world	knowledge	from	an	Indigenous	perspective.		They	introduce	critical	theories	that	are	extremely	important	to	my	work	because	they	directly	link	the	cultural	stories	to	the	land	within	the	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	ways	of	knowing	and	being.		The	works	of	Jeannette	Armstrong	(2009),	Ron	Ignace	(2008),	Kathryn	Michel	(2012)	and	Marlowe	Sam	(2013)	are	the	primary	texts	I	utilized	for																																																							20	An	invaluable	source	of	information	regarding	the	body	of	Secwepemc	cultural	stories	can	be	found	at:	http://secwepemc.sd73.bc.ca/sec_origin/sec_originfs.html	retrieved	May	20,	2015.		21	http://www.syilx.org/who-we-are/the-syilx-people	retrieved	May	20,	2015.	22	http://www.syilx.org/who-we-are/organization-information/ona-member-bands	and	a	description	of	how	the	Syilx	describe	their	place	on	the	land	can	be	found	at:	http://www.syilx.org/who-we-are/the-syilx-people	retrieved	May	20,	2015.			42	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	social	and	political	critical	theories.	In	addition,	they	provide	cultural	concepts	that	directly	relate	to	cultural	stories	and	how	they	relate	to	the	land	and	which	have	direct	implications	to	the	localized	critical	theory	I	develop.			Ron	Ignace’s	(2008)	Our	Stories	Are	Our	Iron	Posts:	Secwepemc	Historical	Consciousness	takes	an	in-depth	look	at	how	our	stories	are	embedded	in	Secwépemcúlecww,	the	Secwepemc	word	for	our	land.		His	work	is	significant	to	my	study	because	he	ties	together,	the	language,	the	oral	stories	and	the	physical	locations	on	the	land.		Furthermore,	how	he	substantiates	the	cultural	knowledge	within	the	stories,	with	scientific	data	is	not	just	instructive	but	also	affirms	the	knowledge	that	has	been	passed	on	through	generations	of	Secwepemc	storytellers	and	knowledge	keepers.	Ignace	examines	how	the	overlapping	information	that	archaeology,	geology,	and	paleo-ecology	(defined	as	“the	branch	of	ecology	dealing	with	the	relations	and	interactions	between	ancient	life	forms	and	their	environment”23)	confirms	historical	facts	in	Secwepemc	oral	stories.	In	addition,	he	re-interprets,	from	his	Secwepemc	worldview,	some	of	the	misunderstandings	and/or	distortions	that	have	been	recorded	by	anthropologists	or	ethnographers	who	studied	the	Secwepemc	peoples	and	their	stories.	In	his	own	words,	Ignace	(2008)	states	he	did	this	“to	cross	check	and	triangulate	evidence”	that	he	received	in	the	oral	stories	of	Secwepemc	elders	from	his	life	experience	(p.	31).	Ron	Ignace	is	not	just	a	scholar,	he	is	Kukpi	(Chief)	of	his	Skeetchestn	community	and	his	ancestors	have	been	in	leadership	roles	for	generations,	so	it	is	no	surprise	that	he	is	a	part	of	resisting	the	imposition	of	colonial	powers	on	our	lands.	He	is	a	language	speaker	and	his	childhood	was	filled	with	oral	stories	from	his	great	grandparents,	grandparents	and	other	old	people.		Ignace	is	a	part	of	the	recent	proliferation	of	scholarship	in	the	interior	plateau	region	that	one	Syilx	scholar	calls	“reactionary	resistance”	(Cohen,	2010,	p.	7-8).		His	Secwepemc	perspective	reveals	many	facets	of	how	Indigenous	peoples	view	their	relationship	to	the	lands	they	have	existed	on	for	centuries.																																																									23	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paleoecologist	retrieved	October	29,	2014.			43	An	important	Sylix	scholar	is	Jeannette	Armstrong	(2009)	whose	dissertation	Constructing	Indigeneity:	Syilx	Okanagan	Oraliture	and	_tmixʷcentrism	is	critical	for	a	number	of	reasons.		Armstrong	challenges	the	dominant	discourse’s	permutations	of	the	concept	of	Indigeneity,	which	has	been	perpetually	linked	to	Indigenous	cultural	identity.		She	introduces	a	Syilx	way	of	knowing	and	being	on	the	land	that	formulates	Indigeneity	as	a	social	paradigm24	which	Armstrong	says	is	not	an	ethnicity	but	is	a	way	of	gaining	wisdom	and	knowledge	from	the	land	so	that	life	may	continue	to	perpetuate	itself	(p.	1).		Armstrong	sources	her	in-depth	knowledge	of	the	language	and	culture	to	develop	a	Syilx	environmental	ethics	model,	which	illustrates	the	complex	layers	of	interdependence	and	interrelatedness	of	all	life	forms	that	are	needed	for	the	regeneration	of	the	land.	In	other	words,	this	way	of	knowing	the	land	is	about	sustainability,	not	about	the	extraction	and	exploitation	of	resources.		She	explicates	how	“the	tmixʷ	are	understood	to	be	many	strands	which	are	continuously	being	bound	with	each	other	to	form	one	strong	thread	coiling	year	after	year	always	creating	a	living	future”	(p.	3),	thus	regenerating	to	bring	new	life	on	the	land.		The	Syilx	word,	“tmx	w	ulax	w”	(life-force-place)	brings	all	the	beings	together	with	the	territories	on	which	they	live	(p.	3).		Furthermore,	Armstrong	(2009)	outlines	the	genres	of	the	Syilx	Okanagan	stories	to	create	a	way	to	understand	an	“oral	literature,”	which	is	very	different	from	a	written	literary	form.		She	provides	an	in-depth	explanation	of	the	cultural	protocols	of	when,	how	and	which	stories	are	told.		A	critical	aspect	of	Armstrong’s	theorizing	is	that	she	also	explains	in	detail	the	linguistic	limitations	of	the	English	translations	of	Syilx	words	and	concepts	that	provide	immeasurable	insights	into	the	misunderstandings	and	distortions	of	meanings	of	Syilx	cultural	ways	of	being.		Her	work	affirms	how	the	Syilx	stories	are	embedded	in	the	collective	memories	of	the	people	and	how	that																																																							24	http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm	defines	a	social	paradigm	as:	a	philosophical	and	theoretical	framework	of	a	scientific	school	or	discipline	within	which	theories,	laws,	and	generalizations	and	the	experiments	performed	in	support	of	them	are	formulated;	broadly:	a	philosophical	or	theoretical	framework	of	any	kind,	retrieved	May	29,	2015.			44	relates	to	the	environment	and	the	land	(Armstrong,	2009,	p.	74,	pp.	90-105,	pp.	106-108).		The	fact	that	Armstrong	is	a	language	speaker	provides	invaluable	insights	into	how	the	stories	of	the	Syilx	govern	how	the	people	interrelate	to	all	the	beings	on	the	land	and	how	they	outline	the	responsibilities	the	people	have	to	upholding	the	regenerating	principles	given	in	the	stories.		In	fact	she	is	identified	as,	a	suxʷqʷaqʷalulaxʷ	“speaker	for	the	land”	and	she	“hold[s]	the	highest	qualification	within	the	knowledge	structure	of	the	Syilx	Okanagan”	(p.	6).	Another	critical	Syilx	thinker	is	Marlowe	Sam	(2013)	who	brings	an	in-depth	examination	of	the	historical	development	of	the	phenomenon	of	globalization	and	how	it	has	caused	destruction	on	Indigenous	lands	and	in	particular	how	it	has	affected	the	water	on	those	lands	(pp.	24-62).		Sam’s	analysis	and	assertions	are	a	counter-narrative	to	Appadurai	(1988,	1990)	in	that	he	speaks	of	how	globalization	has	affected	regional	economies	“while	European	capitalism	flourished	with	the	shift	of	regional	centers	of	accumulation”	(Sam,	2013,	p.	29).		In	documenting	the	history	of	globalization,	he	brings	together	Indigenous	and	non-Indigenous	philosophers,	political	scientists	and	economists	to	deliver	an	Indigenous	perspective	to	the	globalization	discourse.		This	Syilx	critical	analysis	of	globalization	is	valuable	to	my	work	because	Sam	elucidates	insights	into	how	the	global	economy	has	destructive	affects	on	the	lands	and	resources	of	regional	locales;	in	particular,	to	“Indian	reservations	and	reserves”	in	North	America”	because	they	“hold	significant	deposits	of	the	last	remaining	and	accessible	natural	resources	found	in	the	Western	hemisphere”	(p.	35).		Another	important	aspect	that	Sam	brings	forward	is	the	collusion	between	church	and	the	state	during	the	colonizing	of	the	what	Euro-Western	thinkers	call	the	“new	world”	in	that	they	used	“two	legal	doctrines	of	dispossession;	the	Doctrine	of	Discover	and	terra	nullius”	to	“justify	the	taking	of	indigenous	lands	and	resources	in	North	America”	(p.	39).		Sam’s	systematic	and	detailed	look	at	the	consequences	of	globalization	in	the	social,	political,	and	economic	domains	of	Indigenous	peoples	on	Turtle	Island	(North	America)	is	significant	to	critical	Indigenous	social	and	political	theories	because	he	provides	a	Syilx	perspective,	which	is	rare	in	the	globalization	discourse.			45	Secwepemc	scholars	Janice	Billy	(2009)	and	Kathryn	Michel	(2012)	and	Syilx	scholar	W.A.	Cohen	(2010)	are	also	important	to	my	work	because	they	have	all	been	involved	in	setting	up	language	immersion	schools	in	Secwepemc	and	Syilx	territories.		Billy	and	Michel	are	the	co-founders	of	The	Chief	Atahm	School	at	Adams	Lake	and	Cohen	is	the	founder	of	the	Nkmaplqs	I	Snmamayatn	kl	Sqilxwtet:	Okanagan	Language	Immersion	at	the	Head-of-the	Lake	community	in	Vernon,	BC.		Their	examination	of	land	and	stories	in	relation	to	culturally	specific	teaching	and	learning	processes	is	invaluable	to	this	study.			Billy	(2009),	whose	work	Back	from	the	Brink:	Decolonizing	Through	the	Restoration	of	Secwepemc	Language,	Culture	and	Identity,	takes	a	decolonizing	approach	to	understand	how	the	domination/oppression	of	colonialism	caused	the	“loss	of	Secwepemc	language,	most	aspects	of	culture,	loss	of	land,	and	self-determination”	(p.	14-15).		Her	questions	about	Secwepemc	knowledge	and	how	it	is	produced	and	by	whom	lead	her	to	develop	“An	Ideal	[Secwepemc]	Education	Model”	(p.	163)	that	puts	the	child	at	the	center	and	includes	extended	family.		Billy	explains	that	the	Secwepemc	language	does	not	have	a	word	for	‘education’	per	se.		However,	the	training	that	individuals	went	through	was	intended	to	help	them	develop	into	full	human	beings,	that	is,	to	be	spiritually,	cognitively,	physically	and	socially	competent	(pp.	165-166).		The	acquisition	of	knowledge	meant	learning	from	the	land.		Students	were	active	participants	in	everyday	land-based	activities	(hunting,	fishing	trapping,	berry	and	root	gathering,	medicine	gathering,	implement	and	tool	making,	building	outdoor	shelters,	building	sweat	lodges,	singing,	drumming	and	dancing,	and	playing	traditional	sports	and	games)	(p.	183)	thus	illustrating	that	the	“land	is	our	university.”		Billy’s	work	dovetails	with	Kathryn	Michel’s	discussion	on	why	it	was	important	to	set	up	the	Chief	Atahm	immersion	school	in	their/our	traditional	territories	so	that	our	children	can	learn	the	Secwepemctsin	language	by	extending	the	classroom	to	the	land	where	they	can	participate	in	land-based	day-to-day	cultural	activities.				46	In	Michel’s	(2012)	Trickster’s	Path	to	Language	Transformation:	Stories	of	Secwepemc	Immersion	from	Chief	Atahm	School	she	shares	her	vital	knowledge	of	the	Coyote	stories	by	outlining	foundational	concepts	of	the	Secwepemc	culture	in	Secwepemctsin.		The	translation(s)	Michel	gives	shifts	away	from	Euro-Western	way	of	knowing.		For	example,	the	Secwepemc	concept,	“k’weseltktnéss”	translates	to	the	notion	of	“we	are	all	related”	(p.	83)	to	expand	relationships	beyond	the	human,	there	is	a	much	broader	understanding	of	relating	to	all	the	other	seen	and	unseen	beings	on	the	land	(pp.	143-144).		Most	importantly,	when	Michel	speaks	Secwepemc	concepts,	she	links	the	language	to	Billy’s	practical	application	of	learning	from	the	land	in	that	individuals	are	expected	to	take	personal	responsibility	for	their	learning.		A	prime	example	is	the	concept	“knucwestsut.s”	which	means,	“taking	care	of	yourself	[to]	hone	individual	strength”	in	our	day-to-day	lives	(p.	82).		She	refers	to	this	process	as	“re-storying	Self	to	Power”	through	“etsxe,”	a	process	for	learning	how	to	survive	and	live	on	the	land	by	vision	questing,	to	be	a	whole	human	being	so	that	we	may	be	a	part	of	the	collective	re-storying	of	the	land.		Furthermore,	Michel	explains	how	specific	words	from	the	culture	come	from	the	Coyote	stories	and	how	they	shape	Secwepemc	epistemologies,	thus	affirming	a	culturally	specific	way	of	teaching	and	learning	(pp.	82-84).		Michel’s	work	provides	the	understanding	of	how	the	stories	and	the	teachings	within	them	hold	our	culturally	specific	pedagogical	practices.		W.A.	Cohen,	is	the	founder	of	the	Okanagan	Immersion	school,	Nkmaplqs	i	Snmamayatn	kl	Sqilxwtet	(NSS),	which	translates	to:	The	North	Okanagan-Head	of	the	Lake	place	for	learning.	Throughout	his	dissertation,	School	Failed	Coyote,	so	Fox	Made	a	New	School—Indigenous	Okanagan	Knowledge	Transforms	Educational	Pedagogy	(2010)	Cohen	shows	how	he	represents	Coyote’s	brother	Fox	in	setting	up	this	“new	school.”		He	introduces	what	he	calls,	a	“radical	pedagogical	framework”	(p.	41)	because	he	is	applying	Syilx	ways	of	knowing	and	being	in	the	teaching	and	learning	processes	that	are	central	to	the	language	immersion	school	he	founded.	Like	Billy	(2009),	Cohen’s	delivers	a	Syilx	teaching	and	learning	model	that	is	also	child	centered	and	includes	extended	family	participation.	Cohen’s	pedagogical	model	is	a	practical	application	of		47	Armstrong’s	(2009)	model	of	regenerating	life	on	the	land	that	implicitly	connects,	land,	language	and	story.		Stories	are	central	to	Cohen’s	work;	he	refers	to	Coyote	stories	throughout	and	he	includes	his	own	experiential	stories	in	the	Euro-Western	education	system	while	at	the	same	time	sharing	stories	from	the	community.		Central	to	all	his	stories	is	the	Syilx	relationship	to	the	land	and	how	the	stories	embody	the	teachings	of	how	to	be	interrelated	with	human	and	non-human	relatives	by	honouring	the	basic	operating	principles	of	respect,	responsibility,	relevance	and	reverence.			2.5. Euro-Western	Critical	Theories:	Religious	Studies	and	the	Land	The	notion	of	reverence	or	sacredness	is	central	to	my	probing	for	reconciliation	between	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge	because	I	am	keenly	interested	in	the	role	of	spirituality	in	our	human	development	and	how	that	plays	out	in	a	shared	society.	In	educational	studies,	Brayboy	and	Castagno	examined	some	of	the	differences	between	the	two	ways	of	knowing	in	their	discussion	of	culturally	responsive	curriculum	for	Aboriginal	youth	in	math,	science	and	language	arts.		The	first	evident	difference	was	that	Indigenous	ways	of	being	highly	value	being	a	part	of	the	collective	and	perceive	themselves	in	that	context	whereas	in	the	Euro-Western	ways	of	knowing,	the	individual	is	given	primacy.	When	discussing	how	searching	for	one’s	purpose	in	life,	which	I	argue	is	part	of	the	human	condition,	no	matter	what	culture	you	are	a	part	of,	Brayboy	and	Castagno	(2008)	discuss	how	Indigenous	peoples	conceive	of	this	differently	from	the	dominant	Euro-Western	society	(p.	964).		The	second	difference	and	possibly	the	most	critical,	is	that	Euro-Western	knowledge	considers	spirituality	a	taboo	subject.		They	state:		It	is	important	for	teachers	to	be	aware	of	and	treat	appropriately	the	connections	many	Indigenous	peoples	make	between	spirituality	and	science.		Although	much	tribal	knowledge	of	the	earth,	animals,	and	humans	is	intimately	tied	to	moral	and	spiritual	values,	many	teachers	are	reluctant	to	bring	spirituality	into	the	classroom.	(Pewewardy	&	Bushey,	1992	cited	in	Brayboy	&	Castagno,	2008,	p.	967)			48	I	argue	that	Indigenous	spiritual	practice	goes	beyond	the	human	collective	of	family	and	community	because	our	worldviews	include	the	interrelatedness	of	all	things,	the	earth,	the	waters,	the	plants,	the	animals,	and	the	water	beings.		Spirituality	may	be	the	most	contentious	issue	that	sits	between	the	Indigenous	and	Euro-Western	systems	of	knowledge	and	because	of	these	fundamental	differences	that	permeate	every	level	of	education;	they	create	possibly	irreconcilable	tensions	in	the	coexistence	of	these	two	ideological	ways	of	knowing.	One	Religious	Studies	text,	an	edited	volume	Indigenous	Diasporas	and	Dislocations	addresses	some	of	these	tensions,	which	is	why	I	look	closely	at	how	the	authors	link	the	concepts	of	Indigeneity,	Indigenous	diasporas,	in	relation	to	their	discussion	of	home,	and	homelands	(Thompson	&	Harvey,	2005).		The	editors,	Thompson	and	Harvey	clarify	in	their	introduction	that	this	notion	of	diaspora	is	usually	thought	of	in	terms	of	the	movement	of	Jewish	populations	and	they	refer	to	this	as,	the	“classic	form	of	diaspora”;	however,	they	expand	the	idea	of	a	diaspora	to	include	refugees,	migrant	workers,	traders	and	multiculturalists	(p.	1).		It	is	the	inclusion	of	Indigenous	peoples	in	this	notion	of	populations	moving	from	one	territory	to	the	other	that	is	of	particular	interest	to	my	research.		More	importantly,	the	authors	connect	the	concept	of	Indigeneity	to	Indigenous	spirituality	and	because	of	this	unique	approach;	their	analysis	is	critical	to	my	theorizing	about	cultural	stories	and	relationship	to	land	because	these	two	things	have	a	profound	impact	on	what	the	ancestral	lands	mean	to	an	Indigenous	person.		No	matter	where	we/they	live,	there	is	still	an	intimate	spiritual	connection	to	the	land	we	call	“home.”		This	gives	a	much	deeper	meaning	to	“home”—beyond	just	a	physical	structure	where	we	reside.		Interestingly,	Thompson	and	Harvey	speak	of	Indigenous	diasporas	as	a	“de-storying	of	traditions”	(p.	10),	which	speaks	to	my	ideas	of	re-Indigenizing,	re-storying,	and	re-inscribing	the	land.	Thus,	the	Indigenous	diaspora	that	these	authors	speak	of	has	more	to	do	with	people	being	removed	from	their	homeland	whereas	the	conventional	thinking	of	diaspora	is	related	to	the	movement	of	populations.				49	2.6. It	Really	Is	About	the	Land:	Globalization,	Indigeneity	and	Deterritorialization			In	the	social	anthropology	discourse	on	globalization,	there	are	two	terms	‘Indigeneity’	and	‘deterritorialization’	that	are	concepts	pertinent	to	my	study	in	that	these	notions	are	directly	related	to	Indigenous	peoples’	relationship	to	land.	The	abstractions	of	the	highly-discussed	term,	Indigeneity	are	generally	identified	as	relating	to	facets	of	Indigenous	cultural	identity	while	the	term	deterritorialization	is	generally	related	to	the	dissolving	of	national	borders	between	nations	and	the	movement	of	global	populations	who	are	voluntarily	or	involuntarily	removed	from	their	home	country.		Deleuze	and	Guattari	(2009)	originally	developed	the	concept	‘deteritorialization’	in	Anti-Oedipus:	Capitalism	and	Schizophrenia	in	philosophical	discussions	in	1972.		They	were	exploring	the	psychological	aspects	of	space	and	place.		Since	that	time	the	term	has	been	adopted	and	transformed	by	cultural	anthropology	in	the	globalization	discourse.	The	Oxford	Dictionary	defines	deterritorialization	to	mean,	“the	severance	of	social,	political,	or	cultural	practices	from	their	native	places	and	populations”25,	which	is	the	definition	that	will	be	utilized	within	this	research.		However,	it	is	prudent	to	state	that	in	principle	some	Indigenous	peoples	have	been	severed	from	their	homelands	and	their	ways	of	knowing	and	being	since	the	time	of	first	contact	with	settler/colonial	incursions.		Certainly	Indigenous	peoples/Nations	on	Turtle	Island	(North	America)	have	had	their	relationship	to	their	territories	interrupted	by	the	process	of	colonialism,	which	from	an	Indigenous	perspective	is	critical	to	any	discussions	on	globalization.		In	the	analysis	of	most	discussions	of	globalization,	the	ethnic,	refugee,	immigrant	and	hyphenated	groups	of	people	who	move	from	one	country	to	another	are	the	populations	considered.		Marlowe	Sam’s	(2013)	analysis	of	globalization	brings	a	rare	Indigenous	perspective	on	how	the	influx	of	foreign	populations	affects	Indigenous	peoples,	their	territories	and	natural	resources.		This	perspective,	I	argue	is																																																							25	http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/deterritorialization	retrieved	July	18,	2013.			50	new	to	the	globalization	discourse.		When	there	is	any	mention	of	Indigenous	peoples,	it	is	usually	at	the	margins,	or	not	at	all.		However,	I	add	an	Indigenous	perspective	on	how	this	term	‘deterritorialization’	touches	the	lives	of	contemporary	Indigenous	peoples	by	closely	examining	Appadurai’s	use	of	the	term	in	discussing	globalization.		Appadurai’s	(1990)	analysis	of	globalization	addresses	the	“fundamental	disjunctures	between	economy,	culture	and	politics”	(p.	2)	whereas	his	analysis	looks	closely	at	the	fractures	in	populations	that	is,	political	exiles,	refugees,	immigrant	workers	and	other	ethnic	minorities	caused	by	the	global	movement	of	peoples;	however	he	marginalizes	Indigenous	populations	in	his	work.		In	fact,	in	his	earlier	1988	publication,	he	rationalizes	the	erasure	of	Indigenous	populations	in	the	globalization	discussion	and	through	a	sophisticated	conceptual	discussion	he	separates	the	Indigenous	connection	to	the	land.		In	his	book,	Modernity	at	Large,	Appadurai’s		(1996)	discussion	of	deterritorialization	expands	his	theorizing	of	this	concept	by	looking	at	the	notion	of	neighborhoods	as	a	localizing	phenomenon	(pp.	178-199).		In	his	earlier	1990	work,	he	referred	to	this	notion	as	“indigenizing”	meaning	the	migratory	populations	were	adjusting	to	their	new	locations.		I	look	at	the	nuances	of	Appadarai’s	theory	of	localizing	and	compare	it	to	what	Secwpemc	and	Syilx	scholars	Armstrong	(2009),	Billy	(2009),	Cohen	(2010),	Ignace	(2008),	Michel	(2012)	and	Sam	(2013)	say	about	Indigenous	relationship	to	their	homelands	and	cultural	stories,	which	is	based	in	culturally	specific	knowledge	systems.		I	focus	on	deconstructing	the	concept	of	deterritorialization	in	the	globalization	discourse	from	a	Secwepemc-Syilx	perspective.		2.7. Global	Film	Discourse	and	Deterritorialization		The	global	film	disco