Module II, Part II

Essential Question: How is everything connected from the perspectives of indigenous peoples and Western scientists? What are the advantages to knowing both ways?

Explain: Scientific views differ between Native Alaskan and Western perspectives. What I find most interesting is that the West tends to be skeptical of every new theory. Plate tectonics and evolution are widely accepted, but it took a long time for people to come around to the new ideas. On the flip side, Native Alaskans use a long tradition of oral history. Whenever I mention oral histories in class, the first thing students point out is that those can change over time, like a game of telephone. Of course, my school has a very low percentage of Native Alaskan students so my classes have a very Western perspective.

One thing I found interesting when teaching the culture unit in Alaska Studies is how analytical my students are. They have a hard time wrapping their minds around a Native mindset. I use an analogy with a salmon in addition to some videos interviewing Native elders to help them understand. If a Westerner were to catch a salmon, they would immediately need to put a number on it. How much did the fish weigh? How long was it? Does it place in any fishing competitions? They would possibly write this down, especially if it were a large fish. On the other hand, a traditional Native Alaskan catching the fish would be more interested in how the fish came to be there and the overall importance of the fish. Who is the fish going to feed? How was the fish caught?

Interestingly enough, both these perspectives use empirical evidence, usually in a rural setting. They also seek to add to a body of knowledge, just in very different ways.

Extend: How do Native people define traditional knowledge?

• It is practical common sense based on teachings and experiences passed on from generation to generation.

• It is knowing the country. It covers knowledge of the environment - snow, ice, weather, resources - and the relationships between things.

• It is holistic. It cannot be compartmentalized and cannot be separated from the people who hold it. It is rooted in the spiritual health, culture and language of the people. It is a way of life.

• Traditional knowledge is an authority system. It sets out the rules governing the use of resources - respect, an obligation to share. It is dynamic, cumulative and stable. It is truth.

• Traditional knowledge is a way of life -wisdom is using traditional knowledge in good ways. It is using the heart and the head together. It comes from the spirit in order to survive.

• It gives credibility to the people.

Taken from Alaska Native Science Commission.

As I read this, I immediately started comparing this to the Western perspective of science. In some ways they are very different, but in other ways they're very similar.

1. Western science passes its teachings from generation to generation. We go to college and learn from professors who practice and publish in their field. We learn from textbooks and journals written by scientists.

2. Western learning is less holistic and environmentally oriented. We break things apart by subject, time, and area. As a history teacher, I wish I could take students to where the history happened, to the environment that it occurred in. I would imagine it would be the same for science teachers. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to demonstrate the power of glaciers standing on Turnagain Arm? Then you could tie all sorts of other topics in- rock glaciers, mud flats, tidal exchange, and so on.

3. I think Western knowledge is dynamic and stable. It is constantly changing, but certain theories become accepted as truth. Sometimes it takes a long time for this to happen- plate tectonics, evolution, and Galileo's theory that the earth orbits the sun were all dismissed as frauds in their early days. We know we don't know everything yet, but are seeking to learn more.

4. Western knowledge relies mainly on the head, not the heart. Having lived in Alaska since 1985, I think there is a definite attempt to bring traditional values into the schools, especially, but much of this doesn't reach the main populace. I also think our Western science is still feeling the effects of separating from the Church. For so long Westerners were told just to believe and now the pendulum has swung the other way. We question everything. Only once your theory has been proven and you have made a name for yourself are you given credibility.

Evaluate: Having watched the UAA video on Chevak, it's obvious how valuable Native knowledge is. (Side note: I had no idea igloos were so warm children could play naked in them. I had always thought igloos were used as temporary hunting shelters.) I know if it came down to it and I was forced to live off the land in Western Alaska I would die in just a few days. I also liked the opening paragraphs of the ANSC page with the story of the polar bear hunter. I'm not sure it would occur to a Western hunter to act like a seal to lure the bear, but that was probably an innate thought for a Native hunter. It seems to me that the best view of science in Alaska is one that takes into account both the Native and Western views. They both have strengths and weaknesses, but together they could certainly provide a much clearer picture on any scientific phenomena.