Author: Kunuk Inutiq

On this day twenty five years ago, with all the promise, hope and anticipation it brought, I stood on stage with Lucy Illauq and Peter Gzowski hosting the televised celebration of the creation of the Nunavut Territory. The coverage was in Inuktitut, English and French. I recited the Inuktitut introductions, we took turns mixing up the order of languages so as not to seemingly prioritize any of them. When it was time to introduce the Prime Minister, he stood up to speak, I told him to hold on as I needed to say his introduction in Inuktitut first. It was a small act of assertion, but the day stood for us Inuit starting this process of asserting ourselves, claiming our place.

Today, there is much to be celebrated, but we must acknowledge there is a huge stain on Nunavut still that we must clean up. It has to do with linguicide we are allowing.

Over the twenty-five years, we have seen the surge of creative arts and expression awakening. Throat singing, drumming, mixed with modern music, visual arts, film, garment making, adornments such as earrings, tunniit (tattoos), country food cuisine, poetry and writing.  Young people are taking these arts on and running with them, and it is a beautiful thing to see. It is also inspiring to observe young people just owning their space in these creative ways, a lot quicker and with more vigor than our generation. As my friend Liina Ivik says and we are not going back. This is only the beginning with taking back the spirit of Inuitness.

Perhaps it is not an accident, along with the blossoming arts is the space the LGBTQ2+ community are claiming in expression and arts, therefore in our community. Freeing all of us from indoctrinated ideas of very binary or either/or ways of seeing relationships, genders, and the terms we use to refer to people in the English language. By no means, are the LGBTQ2+ community safe from hate, there is no shortage of religious zealots who spread their hate and intolerance with hurtful words. So versed in the colonial lens of seeing the world that allows self-loathing to prevail. Hate is, after all, reflection of self. This is all to say there is starting to be safety in numbers.

Art is also in the items we use. I remember the beautifully refined tools my grandfather created, to be used for hunting. They could have been displayed as art pieces, but they were utilitarian. And look at the beautiful parkas, kamiik and other garments that are made.  Art is everywhere we look.

Expression and arts means practicing humanity, rawness, exploring depths of emotions and minds, love, spirit, and in utilitarian items. I hope we sit for a moment and honour this reclamation of a part of ourselves. Just very recently Elisapee Isaac in receiving her Juno award stated we have no word for art in our language because we are all meant to be creative. Just sit on that, breath, take it in.

There is, however, a huge part of our spirit still oppressed in Nunavut. It is our language! A lens into seeing the majestic place we live in, and our relationships in it. We are still stealing this lens from our children, by not having an education system that ensures quality language learning happens.

Education is a sensitive and emotionally charged subject. We know instinctively that it is an instrument of indoctrination into the western philosophy, views and systems. Otherwise, why has the west insisted on controlling education as part of their colonial project? Think about the damage the residential schools and federal day schools did to our society. I, like so many, live with it. Because, control over education and spirituality are control over the minds of a society. Over centuries Europe or settler European nations have perfected the science for imperialist or capitalist cause, an economic system that will benefit the colonial or settler colonial nation. We are not taught to think but to simply absorb the textbooks and regurgitate them, so we will learn to do that in society. Otherwise, our education system would mean an Inuit worldview is intact, creates a better economic system on our terms and self-determination resulting in better living conditions. Versus partaking in the capitalist system that serves that larger Nation state, and Inuit when the Nation state only chooses.

After 25 years of Nunavut, Inuit children are still being taught that Canada was discovered by Europeans. Both my children have been taught about the explorers that came to our land, discovered and claimed it. This means the doctrine of discovery is still the premise of our education system, with English as the language as the marker of success.

Imagine that after decades of Inuit striving for systems that protect their way of life and language, to gain a government and organizations they thought would work hard to implement these ideas has meant the reverse. We have done nothing! Nunavut’s biggest failing is the education system. I am ashamed as a Nunavummiut we are still indoctrinating our children in English, and that their ancestors are invisible by not teaching them their own history, therefore they are invisible and do not matter. Imagine going through years of acculturation, and what that does to one’s self-esteem. Then getting as far as your vulnerability allows you to go in this system and having almost no opportunities to make a living. That is Nunavut.

A brief history on language legislation in Nunavut…

After the Nunavut territory was established, and the work to ensure it had systems to function as a government, the first order of business was to create language and education legislation. It took seven years to draft the two language acts and the education act. I have seen the binders of research that went into creating these language acts. I can say, the best models of language policy, including Indigenous language work was reviewed in order to create Nunavut’s language policies. I was also in the government legal division for some of the language law drafting phase, where it was debated and options were given to legislators on whether there should be fines for businesses not abiding Inuktut service requirements or not. There was also extensive public consultation between 2004-2007. This was a process of righting the wrong of language policy of extermination. So we thought.

The reason there were three pieces of language legislation was that Official languages act would recognize the official languages of the territory. Nunavut being part of Canada felt it had no choice but to have English and French as official languages along with Inuktut. The Inuit language protection act would take special measures to protect the Inuktut language, so that it would have a language authority that would create language tools, decide on standard terminology, obligates governments and businesses on minimum standards, and create a right for parents to receive language of instruction in Inuktut for their children. The Education Act was, obviously outlining how the Education system was to deliver in all official languages, including a promise of bilingual education of English and Inuktut (with exception of the French language system).

It must be noted that the language acts talk about ‘Inuit language’ because it was recognized Inuinnaqtun dialect and Inuktitut dialect have different terms referring to the Inuit language in their dialect. Later, the term Inuktut was used to refer to both the dialects. To this day we have Inuit complaining about the term Inuktut, a term meant to unify an approach to protect our language. Failing to see that the term is meant to refer to our language. That, and attitude of dialect dominance are one of the biggest barriers to getting ahead with approach to language protection. ‘My dialect is better than yours’ or ‘that is not how we say it in my dialect’, the language and cultural policing does so much to continue deterring of language learning. With the deterioration of the language where English is becoming more and more dominant, makes for hostile and difficult environment for language learners. Lateral violence, conformity, along with not having an education system that ensures we learn the language well, is a recipe for Inuktut to fade away.

With Education Act, language of instruction was supposed to reach school year 2019-2020. But nothing was done to actualise this goal. No additional training for teachers, no special efforts to train teachers to instruct in Inuktut, no curriculum and material creation that became public or available. We know there was a lot of work done to create curriculum from the Elders that worked hard on them, but the naysayers in the system either hid them away or never revealed them. There are people in the system who do not want Inuktut to be a strong component of the education system. They make excuses of how it can’t or won’t be done. Too much work, too much money, too many unknowns. This casts a doubt on Inuit who initially believed or believe it could be done.

The previous government amended the Inuit Language Protection Act, taking away parents right to receive Inuktut education for their children. And amending the Education Act taking away powers from local education authorities.  So, from passive inaction, the government proactively took away rights and means for parents and communities to control how education is to be delivered.

All of the the members of the legislative assembly passed the amendment, every single one of them. I cannot understand how not even one asked why. It makes me think about how far we get caught in the system. So, in November 2020, all the members of legislative assembly unanimously consented to taking away these rights.

As a Nunavummiut Inuk, I am embarrassed this has happened. In a government with Inuit leaders. Embarrassed we continue to allow oppressive acts that hinder progression of protecting our culture and language.

I only half blame the politicians though. Yes, they are responsible for the continued inaction that keeps moving target dates to teach our children Inuktut as our language rapidly declines. The recent target date is a promise of a phased approach with all grades being taught Inuktut by the year 2039, in a language arts program. So the goal has been reduced to a class, with target late furthered. As time passes, it will become more and more difficult with passing of time, and strong language holders becoming fewer and fewer. Rather than making bold decisions and fighting for Inuit, political leaders pass it on to the next group of leaders.

Back to half blaming, because I know how difficult it is to shift the system that is full of administrators working hard to uphold the status quo. When I served as a languages commissioner, it took a toll on my mental health. I literally started to feel crazy for asserting rights for Inuit. When I took the job on, I learned the position had been demoted to an assistant deputy minister level, answering to the Clerk. I fought behind the scenes for the independence of the office, making no headway. Even though clear legislative intent did not match policy, and legal opinions substantiated this.

In a position that should be non contentious lobbying for language rights, in a region that is majority Inuit, the biggest questioners of actions I took were Inuit politicians (ironically, those who do not speak Inuktut were the biggest opponents). The undermining probably had a lot to do with the fact I was a young Inuk woman with a law degree, I had to be quieted.

I was determined to shift the office to deal with systemic issues rather than individual complaints, especially with the anticipation of additions to the role under Inuit Language Protection Act. It was rife with opportunity to shift how the office functions. Again, the behind the scenes questioning and undermining took a toll.  I can say, there are politicians who do not care about protecting the language. They will fight it, along with administration that will vigorously support them. The crazy thing is their rationale seems totally normal, when it is in fact absurd. That is how the system works.

It will take huge effort to gain administration that serves the interest of Inuit. And we must continue, as Inuit to educate ourselves on what it means to be anti-colonial and what reclamation is. We must stop being so nice to naysayers and equip ourselves with facts and figures, and create a network of support.

In October 2021, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. filed lawsuit against the territorial government for failing to deliver education in Inuktut. After all, this is what Nunavut was supposed to be about. With our territorial government fighting the lawsuit claiming Inuit have no language rights to claim. Which is so absurd, bonkers in fact! It is so unfortunate and sad it has come to this, and families are torn on different ‘sides’. Again, the system leads us to this.

As disheartening as it is, it is not too late though.

Purpose of Education…

What is an education for? How would we create confident, capable Inuit children and youth? Thinking in their mother language, and applying that worldview in their part of the world and wherever they choose to go in the world.  I am still hopeful, Inuit will take hold of the education system one way or another. Perhaps in small pockets here and there at first. The continued centralizing and maintaining prioritizing western systems and ways will eventually be seen as damaging, and the reason so many of our young people struggle. It literally kills or dims our spirit and displaces our identity as Inuit. Reclamation will not be easy, as we will be on uncharted territory trying out how it works. It is so important we trust ourselves to do it. Lateral violence and acculturationists in the system will continue to be the biggest barriers, but we must arm ourselves in numbers and collectivity. We must do this for the love of our children and ourselves.

I’ve struggled with the concept of a right or rights in a legal context. I think because historically Indigenous people have been granted rights by the colonizing state. As if we have no agency or sovereignty pre-existing before Europeans arrived.

In law school we had an Anishnaabe Professor, John Borrows who said rights were both what one is entitled to but also responsibility for, so it’s a relationship of reciprocity. Even though this idea seemed more familiar, there was still this unresolved internal discomfort over the idea of rights. As it did not answer the question of ‘but where do they come from?’.

The Canadian Constitution recognizes existing rights for Indigenous people – basically what Canada chooses to recognize. Note that it does not say pre-existing. The Canadian Courts have said there are ‘inherent rights’ held by Indigenous people to land, culture, way of life that pre-exist prior to settler colonialism but still limit how these are interpreted.

Even with the adoption of UNDRIP ‘free, prior, informed consent’ assumes a colonial state’s systems are at heart and an Indigenous group is responding to a proposal or approach and not neccessarily defining their own relationship to land, and starting from that basis. It is still a limited notion of sovereignty.

There are examples of Indigenous Nations asserting sovereignty on their own terms. They claim and live sovereignty over their own lives. We see the tension in the Wet’suwet’en territory as Canada tries to assert it’s power.

Whereas we have gone on the path of agreeing with Canada on terms of our relationship through the land claim mechanism. So much of it is ‘granted’ rights, and under Canadian laws and systems. Which limits assertion of sovereignty over our own lives. Because someone else is still defining what our land is for i.e. it’s for exploiting, and how to live our lives around the economy that is defined for us. When Inuit are a hunting society.

All our laws and systems, our language revolve around a hunting way of life. How then do we express ‘rights’ in this context, where we claim sovereignty over our own lives according to our worldview? Without getting stuck in how we have been cornered in how to think about it?

I think of it as a psychological process of claiming space(s). This is our land, we have a right to define our lives, relationships, recover from colonialism and make livelihoods. Once we get to this psychological space of claiming space, it is a lot easier to think about rights on our terms. It lives within us!

Imagine the possibilities once you claim your own space in your head?!

I’ve wanted to go to Alaska ever since I’ve been aware of the place and aware of my Inuitness. Last June I was finally given an opportunity to visit Qikiqtaġruk/Kotzebue. I was so excited and could not believe it was actually happening. The gathering was something my friend Dalee Sambo-Dorough and I had spoken about: getting arctic peoples together to talk about our vision (for us and our people), without the constraints and limitations of colonial institutions. Dalee made it happen, with the help of our friend Anne Henshaw.

The gathering had an amazing group of people who work and think about decolonization and reclamation in various forms. Our hosts were so welcoming and awesome (thank you Corina & Lance Kramer and Lucy Boyd – my heart thanks you for life)!

The setting could not have been better. The discussions were heartfelt and honest, productive in the sense they felt hopeful. This is so important as we live with so much despair in our lives and communities with so many demoralizing barriers to do anything about our conditions.

The highlight was that we got to go on a land trip where we collected eggs of various birds. There were birds I had never heard of. Walking long distances to harvest in peace and serenity, and finding eggs was so rewarding.

We also had a country food night, where we ate very familiar foods. Our food! But also some new ones for us, new to me because they were more plant based of things we may not have in our area. The focus on garden of the sea of ugruk/ujjuk, maktaaq, fish, felt like home!

The abundance of wildlife and the beauty of the landscape made me wonder why Inuit of East of Alaska would have left there. It’s a stunning place with lots of wildlife.

During our visits, tour and conversations we heard stories about how Inuit from the region would gather in Qikiqtaġruk. There would be conflicts and fights. There were boundary marks for different groups, shelters with secret exits and tunnels. Another statement from a story stood out: that children were raised to be warriors. The person (Lance Kramer) asked why is it that we were raised as warriors that we allow colonial forces to rule. The question I’ve asked myself is, why can’t our goodness and kindness win against these forces. We are such good people, it seems to our own detriment at times.

The stories of conflict and fighting made me think we are a Tuniit mix in this region. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

Not that we’ve never had conflict. We certainly have, hence stories like Atanarjuaq; stories in places like Arctic Bay area of warring long time ago; Story of Qillarjuaq, and others. However, most of our stories and teachings are avoiding conflict, dealing immediately with conflict and aiming to live in harmony.

If you look online the story about Kunuk the Orphan (here https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780773594593-toc/pdf ) collected in Greenland, clearly a story based in Alaska, it is about conflict. It explains in the introduction it is not clear whether the fights described were against other group of Inuit or allait/different peoples.

That was the other realization, how Greenlanders are more direct descendants of Alaskan Inuit than us, linguistically, but also the stories and clothing. I’ve known this in conversation with linguistic friends, it just became more apparent while in Alaska with Inuit from Greenland and Canada.

Yes, striving for unity and harmony is true for all Inuit regions. But hearing about raising children to be war ready, types and frequency of warring and conflict made me think about the timid and conflict avoidant Tuniit. That we’ve adopted these traits, because we are them?! Tuniit were also known to be small and very strong.

It is not just our social traits that seem to strongly suggest we are Tuniit. Linguistically speaking, as said Kalaliit are closer to Alaskan Inuit in terminology (not sure about structure). It may be due to our language evolution but maybe also Tuniit influence. As my linguist friend Katti Frederichsen says the further away from source of origin, the more a language evolves. So the closeness between Alaskan and Greenland dialects may be due to proximity in time of contact, but also influence by another group such as Tuniit.

There is more, look at our clothing especially kamiit, qulittat, pualuit and amautiit – our clothing is so different from Alaskans. I had thought in the past that it may be due to Inuit bordering allait, and the influence of that in clothing that their clothes more resemble them. It may be that too. It makes me wonder about evolution of our stories, how close our stories and myths are between the regions and how many distinct stories we may have in this region (if any).

But Tuniit are Inuit. Just an earlier wave of Inuit migrating east. So they would not have been as strangers to Inuit as allait for example. There would be shared traits, including language, tools, hunting methods, worldview. The thinking about Tuniit also made me more curious about our stories of them. And of course, relying less on western theories about our people. We know us, it’s in our stories.

Anirnira, tarnira ~ My soul, I breathe

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tusaqpagit ~ I hear you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Ikpigivagit ~ I feel you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tukisivagit ~ I understand you

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Kanngunaqtut anivut ~ shame is dispelled

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Tarnira qaummakpuq ~ my soul illuminates

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Uummatiga tatappuq ~ My heart is full

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Ikpigusuutikka ipiksivut ~ My senses are sharpened

Inuuvunga ~ I am alive, a being

Naglingniq saqqippuq ~ love surfaces

Inuuvugut ~ We are alive, we are beings

1. It is the institution of monarchy I do not agree with, what it is, and what it stands for. The royal family uphold this system.

2. Our parliament (as a monarchist state) makes British monarchy core of our federal structure. Even though the official line is that the monarchy and their representatives play a more ceremonial role, our system is all about ‘in right of her majesty’. This system goes against basic principles of democracy. It also excludes indigenous people from ever being head of state in their own homeland.

3. The mostly ‘ceremonial role’ they play is at great financial cost to the country. Estimated over $50million in 2015.  This is for a handful of people. When you compare this to what is spent on Indigenous communities, it’s hugely disproportionate. Sending an underlying message their lives and life style and up keep is more important than the basic needs Indigenous people struggle to get from the system.

4. Having monarchy as head of state is an archaic medieval practice that keeps feudalism intact, where the class system and social inequality is entrenched as basis of the government. They are the highest of aristocracy and said to represent ‘humanity of the state’ and ‘collective spirit’ (according to Canadian Heritage). It assumes aristocracy is, after all, trusted because they’re superior in intelligence and ability. Especially when it comes to making decisions on policy and money matters.

5. The official line is that the idea one is supreme and divine by birth has been abandoned for centuries. However, we still maintain practice of the right to rule by birth, against the backdrop of feudalism, classism, aristocracy. It simply does not jibe with principles of social equality and democracy.

6. Being a monarchist state makes (British) conservatism as a default governance system, more apt to serve the privileged white Anglo-saxons.

7. The British monarchy have two streams of power: they are head of Church of England  (Anglican Church) and head of the State. Again, contradicting democratic principles that say church and state are to be separate and apart.

8. It is at royal decree of monarch lands were ‘acquired’ as colonies by their agents. As the lands were considered unoccupied  because Indigenous people were deemed uncivilized people because thy were not Christian therefore could not own land. These legacies still are very much at the crux of our relationship with the ‘state’. Indigenous people are still displaced from their lands and having the ability to determine their own destinies.

9. The automatic deference and respect expected to be paid by us, as ‘subjects’ no less with codes of behaviour around the monarchy, is plainly absurd. Bow? Curtsey? These traditions are in places like our courts and parliaments. The absurdity is that the respect was never earned and there is no accountability to us to gain the respect because it’s believed they are born more ‘supreme’ and answer only to God. They are seen as righteous and cannot do wrong. The sense of impunity extends to aristocracy in general, where room for error is larger in being perceived forgivable.

10. Our blind interest in celebrity culture, especially those that appear flawless, or live fairy tale like lives keeps the royal family in limelight of curiosity, making them look relevant to us even if they are just pure spectator objects. When their lifestyle has little relevance to ours, except maybe as fashion, behaviour, protocol icons. In western culture we socialize our children with fantasies aspiring to being princesses or princes.

11. As said the monarchs living realities have little relevance to ours. They are so removed from our realities in so many ways: socially, economically, culturally. How can the monarchy have empathy and understanding for our community conditions? When their riches are as a result of exploitation under colonialism and slavery. These systems of power continue directly and indirectly, safely secured in our political and economic systems.

12. Great atrocities were done in the name and direction of King/Queen for first peoples and black people. Our historical and present relationship with the state as indigenous people is often tenous. Treaties, agreements and terms of relationships have been abused,  misused,  ignored in their favor time and time again. Even though by convention, the democratically elected are acting on their own prerogative, again they working in the larger oppressive hierarchical system that remains. How can you have a good relationship with anyone who sees the other parties as ‘subjects’?

13. The fact the monarchy are head of state and church blurs the line of being able to question them, or the system. The insult to injury is dispossession of lands and control over our own affairs has been to subjugate people through religion into becoming ‘subjects’. In Iqaluit’s Anglican church the holy water bowl was gifted by Queen Elizabeth ‘to my Eskimo people’. Are we hers? Or our own? (I would add as a side note: if monarchy are prime examples of morality, why is ‘God save the Queen’ about crushing the rebellious Scots?).

14. The principle of divine right to rule was used by medieval monarch to instill fear and obedience. Fear was an instrument of colonialism. Fear is certainly still a weapon in controlling systems in Nunavut, fear of (further) economic depravity for example.

15. Even if I am not in favour of being a monarchist state it’s the system we have. I have said before, moving towards becoming a Republic would be great symbolism and act towards reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous people. This would require in shifting the whole system to be more Indigenous governance focused.

16. So supporting having an Inuk governor general, it is within this context of it is what we have right now. If we are to move towards detaching from archaic outdated systems that continue to harm and destroy our communities at worst, work not in their favor at best, who would best be in a position to start the dialogue? It is a standard question of working with the system or outside the system, or both.

17. Until this system is revamped we are stuck seeming being hypocritical at some point. When people are working in the system I understand there are individual decisions on where they draw the line on their relationship with monarchy or the state, representing themselves and being true to themselves as an indigenous person (and feeling like they are not being a traitor). Being a colonized people is often a never win situation as there are many corners to get stuck in in the colonial system.

18. Personally I refused to swear an allegiance to the Queen when being called to the bar (to become a lawyer). Firstly, I went to law school to equip myself with education to learn the Canadian justice system in hopes to give myself tools to seek justice for our people. Justice in the plainest definition of the word, not the Canadian legal definition of the word. Secondly, for the reasons I described above, it is my belief fairness, equality and justice is founded on people, not the “supreme” or “divine” rulers. Thirdly, our history of treatment on behalf of the monarchy and monarchist state has meant being marginalized, it has meant genocide, and subjugation. I did not want to participate in the systems that continue that. Going to law school was struggle enough to feel indoctrinated in an oppressive system. Fourthly, I wanted my oath to represent service to my community, (and not the Queen).