Lesson video

Hello there, my name is Mr. Robertson.

Welcome to this RE lesson, and thank you so much for coming to see it.

Today's lesson is from our unit, "Personhood: What Does It Mean To Be Alive?

" And in today's lesson, we're going to be looking at indigenous worldviews and personhood.

We're going to be looking at the challenge that indigenous worldviews offer to the traditional western way of seeing the world, and asking questions about, how do we see the world?

And what about parts of the world and nature, do they have any inherent ideas of being living entities as well?

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to describe how indigenous worldviews interpret ideas of personhood and the natural world.

In this lesson, we have four key words.

Personhood is the state or fact of being considered a person, such as having awareness or consciousness.

Interconnected means different parts or things connected or related to each other.

Gift is something that is freely given, which creates a responsibility to be shared.

Indigenous is from a particular place or culture that lived prior to European colonization.

As we go through the lesson, you will pick up and understand these words to a greater and greater depth.

So we're gonna start this lesson by thinking about this.

What are some indigenous world views?

Can you look carefully at this photograph?

This photograph is gonna be really helpful in these lessons to help us think through some of these ideas.

What words would you use to describe it?

How do you respond to this image?

You might have thought of what a beautiful photograph it is.

You might have thought about the power of that water as it cuts through the rock.

You might have thought this is a place that you would love to go and visit yourself.

Maybe you've had that opportunity, maybe you've been to parts of the world where we can see views like this.

We might describe people and animals as alive, and we've been doing some thinking about this idea of consciousness and awareness.

But what about features such as rivers and mountains?

Do they have life in the same way as people and animals?

Could they be said to be beings as well?

Now, that is a really different question, and I wonder what your initial responses might be to something like that now?

This photograph shows one of the San people of Southern Africa.

They're one of the oldest continuously-living cultures on earth.

They've lived in their region of South Africa and Namibia for thousands of years.

The San people are what we might call an indigenous people, because they've lived in that place, in that context, for thousands of years, and some still practice their traditional way of life.

You can see a traditional bow and arrow for hunting food.

Now, of course, the wider world has created great change for the San people, as it has for all indigenous people, and many indigenous people in the world today are under great threat, because their land is wanted for its natural resources, or because of the pressures and changes that modern life brings.

There are 475 million indigenous people in the world.

To clarify, by indigenous, we mean people who were originally the native inhabitants of an area before the arrival of Europeans or other groups.

And indigenous people include aboriginal peoples, who were the original inhabitants of Australia, the Maori of New Zealand, and native peoples of the Amazon and South America.

In North America, indigenous people are often now known as First Nations people to reflect the fact that their ancestors lived in that place before Europeans arrived.

So there's a huge diversity of indigenous people around the world, but what connects them, in terms of definition, is this idea of being native to a place, and living in that place, in that culture, for many thousands of years.

What's the best definition of indigenous?

Is it a.

, people who live in Australia?

b.

, the original native inhabitants of a place?

c.

, moving from one place to live in another place?

d.

, another word for the San people?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's b.

, the original native inhabitants of a place.

Fantastic, if you got that right.

Now, as we've said, indigenous peoples are hugely diverse, but when we're looking at indigenous worldviews, we might find some connective features that link them together, and we can do that by comparing them with western worldviews that we might find in Europe and North America.

Now, of course, when we're doing this, we're making some big generalizations, and worldviews vary within Europe and North America as much as they do, but we're gonna pull out three important contrasts here.

So, traditionally, indigenous worldviews tend to see time as based around seasons and natural cycles, whereas western worldviews tend to see time as following a straight line, and as measured using watches and instruments.

So, nowadays in the West, we might be really focused on the idea of time and measure it really accurately.

Whereas, traditionally, indigenous worldviews, without that technology, focus more on the cycle of seasons, and time in that way.

Indigenous worldviews tend to see humans as equal in value to the natural world, whereas western worldviews, influenced by Christian and Greek philosophical ideas, tend to see humans as more important in relation to the natural world.

And, finally, indigenous worldviews tend to see the natural world as sacred and interconnected with each other, so all living beings form a complex web of life.

Whereas, traditionally, western worldviews have tended to see the natural world as something to be utilized for humans, so rivers, mountains, trees are resources that human beings can use for their own consumption, rather than seeing it as something interconnected.

So these are some big general differences that we might find between indigenous worldviews and western worldviews.

We've got a missing word here I'd like you to think about.

Indigenous worldviews often speak of humans and the natural world being with each other.

Can you remember a word that would go to make that sentence?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

The word is interconnected.

Indigenous worldviews often speak of humans and the natural world being interconnected with each other.

Brilliant, if you got that right.

One way we can better understand indigenous worldviews is by looking at work made by indigenous artists.

There are many amazing indigenous artists, and you might want, yourself, to look at the internet and find some examples of artwork for yourself.

Here, we've got a representation of some indigenous art in the style of some First Nation artists from Canada.

I want you to look really carefully at this image, and I'd like you to think about what we were just saying about the contrast between indigenous worldviews and western worldviews.

How does this artwork infer and tell us more about indigenous worldviews, and how might it be different from western worldviews?

You might want to pause the video here and look at that picture in more detail and think about those connections you could make with it.

So, you may have noted that, in this image, humans are part of the natural world, and not separate from it.

We can see fish, we can see a duck, we can see human beings, other animals, plants, all within this image, and humans are one of many animal forms there.

Life is depicted as a cycle.

We can see the cycle the life cycle of fish and animals, the world, and the seasons turn.

And the natural world is interconnected together, everything depends on everything else, humans may have to eat food and hunt it to eat, but they also have to protect and care for those fish and animals, otherwise, you'd run outta food.

So this is a worldview where humans stand amongst the natural world, not apart from it.

And if you were to look online and find examples of different indigenous art, you would see these ideas of interconnection running through much of that artwork.

Okay, I've got a task for you now.

On screen here, you can see a continuum line.

At one end of this line is the statement, "Humans are not more important than the natural world.

" At the other end of the continuum line is this statement, "Humans are more important than the natural world.

" I wonder where you would place indigenous worldviews on this line, and where you might place western worldviews.

And I'd like you to justify your decisions about where you would place them and why.

You might want to think about some of the things we've talked about, you might want to use that image of artwork as evidence.

And then I'd like you to think about your own worldview, where do you stand on this continuum line?

And then I'd like you to think about why you might stand there.

What's shaped this view?

What is it in your own life experience or worldview that makes you stand where you do, and can you explain this?

You might want to work with other people, or in a group, to think about these ideas.

Look forward to hearing what you've come up with.

So, you might have said something like, "I placed indigenous worldview towards the left, because indigenous world views see themselves as interconnected with the natural world.

" "I placed western world views towards the right, I chose that because, traditionally, western worldviews have seen humans as superior to the natural world.

" You might then have placed yourself anywhere on this continuum, and I'd be really interested to think of why you think that.

My example is I've placed my worldview close to indigenous worldviews, I have a lot of pets at home and enjoy walking in the countryside, my worldview has been shaped up by growing with and spending time in nature.

I think that humans are animals, like others, and part of this world.

I wonder what you'd put yourself on this continuum line, and I wonder what experiences have shaped the fact and made you think like you do?

So, in the second part of this lesson, we're asking this question, how do some indigenous people see personhood?

Let's return to this photograph that we began the lesson with.

I wonder how someone with an indigenous worldview might describe this place?

I wonder how they might see humans in relation to it?

I wonder if that might be different to how some traditional western worldviews might see this place?

I wonder if for some people with a western worldview, they might see this photograph as a resource, trees that could be cut down, rivers that could be used for damming, or for power?

Whereas maybe people with an indigenous worldview might see this differently.

They might see a connection to this river, to these mountains, to this place that their ancestors have lived in for many thousands of years.

This is Jeanette Anderson.

Jeanette Anderson lives in Canada, she's from the Okanagan First Nation in Canada, an indigenous group of peoples.

She is a knowledge keeper of indigenous wisdom, and author, and an activist, and we can better understand her worldview by understanding this context.

Jeanette lives in Canada, she is a First Nations person, and her worldview is going to be really shaped by that context that she's grown up in.

Jeanette talks about interconnection.

She says this, "I know the mountains, and, by birth, the river is my responsibility: they are part of me.

I cannot be separated from my place or my land.

" I wonder how this might help us understand her worldview better?

I wonder how she sees mountains and rivers, and if that's different, perhaps, to how traditional western worldviews might see them?

For Jeanette Anderson, like many indigenous people, land and nature are not separate.

Her identity as of Okanagan First Nation is strongly-linked to the land and the animals within it.

Jeanette Anderson doesn't see the land and nature as something separate from her, she sees it as part of her.

And because she sees it as part of her, it feels like something she has responsibility for.

The land isn't something that could be exploited, it's something she has to look after and care for as her ancestors have for thousands and thousands of years.

The land isn't just somewhere random that she lives because she likes it, it's part of her inheritance, it's part of her identity.

She goes on to talk a bit more about her context.

She says, "The way we talk about ourselves as Okanagan people is difficult to replicate in English.

Our word for humanity, for human beings, is difficult to say without talking about connection to the land.

When we say the Okanagan word for ourselves, we're actually saying, 'The ones who are dream and land together,' that is our original identity.

" You might want to read that through slowly and more carefully so you can think about what Jeannette Anderson is saying here.

She's saying something really powerful about the very words we use.

We might think, why does Anderson say it's difficult to replicate in English?

She says, "Our word for humanity, for human beings, is difficult to say without talking about connection to the land.

" And then she has this phrase, "The ones who dream and land together.

" What Jeanette Anderson is saying here is that, in the actual language she speaks, her native language, the word for ourselves is the same as dreaming and being part of the land.

She can't separate the land from her identity, there isn't a person, her, and the land she lives in, they're the same thing, they're connected.

Laura and Aisha are discussing Jeanette Anderson.

Laura says, "Her context is important, because she's showing how her indigenous language, Okanagan, does not see humans as separate from the land.

They're interconnected.

" Aisha says, "The idea that the Okanagan people are the ones who are dream and land together shows that the land has personhood.

Land is not something inanimate, but living.

" I wonder what you find interesting or challenging about this view?

How is what Jeanette Anderson is saying different from traditional western worldviews that we may have grown up with?

I've got a question for you here.

Which of these best represents Anderson's view of personhood, a.

, Only humans have personhood, b.

, only animals have personhood, c.

, animals and humans have personhood, d.

, humans, animals, mountains, rivers have personhood?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

The answer's d.

, isn't it?

Humans, animals, mountains, rivers all have personhood.

Brilliant, if you got that right.

This is Robin Wall Kimmerer.

Kimmerer lives in the USA, near New York, and she's a botanist, which means she studies plants as a scientist.

But she's also a member of the Potawatomi nation, which is another First Nation indigenous people.

Kimmerer's worldview is shaped by her Potawatomi people's teachings about the idea of gift.

I wonder if you've ever eaten wild strawberries, maybe, or blackberries, or conkers?

I wonder how they might seem different to strawberries you can grow in a supermarket, that's grown in a farm?

Do they taste different?

Do they seem different, I wonder?

Robin Wall Kimmerer says wild strawberries are different, because they're a gift from the Earth.

They're a gift to humans and animals.

We don't have to pay for wild strawberries or blackberries, do we?

We can just go and take them from a bush or a hedge.

She says that is different from strawberries that you buy, because, as it's a gift, we can feel gratitude for them, that the earth provides them for free.

It's amazing, isn't it, that we can go and get those berries, and eat them, but we don't have to pay for them like we do from strawberries from a supermarket or a shop.

And then we might think, what do we do with these gifts like wild strawberries?

Well, in the indigenous Potawatomi worldview, a person's wealth was not measured by how much they had, but how much they shared.

To keep hold of possessions for yourself, to store them up, was to misuse the gifts of the Earth.

You became rich by sharing gifts with others.

That is very different, isn't it, from a traditional western worldview, which measures wealth by how much you have, how big your house is, how much money you have in the bank, that's a sign of wealth.

The Potawatomi worldview says, no, your wealth is how much you've shared it with other people.

The more you've given away, the richer you are, because you've taken this gift and you've shared it with other people.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

For Kimmerer, wealth is judged by how much a person owns.

Is that true or false?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's false.

But why is it false?

Because she talks about the idea of gift, sharing what nature gives us, rather than keeping it all for ourselves.

Look at this photograph.

I wonder what you notice here?

The sparrow is eating from the berries, the berries from a tree in autumn.

Robin Wall Kimmerer would say that the tree provides these berries as a gift.

But, in return for this gift, the bird spread seeds, and new trees can grow.

So, for Kimmerer, a gift involves reciprocity, we don't just get a gift, we do something with it.

So just like the tree gives berries to the sparrow, the sparrow repays that by going and spreading the seeds elsewhere, which means there can be new trees.

So, for Kimmerer, gifts always involve a responsibility for us.

When we're given a gift, we have to do something with it, we have to share it, or protect it, or be responsible for those who gave it to us.

Robin Wall Kimmerer tells this brilliant story about the idea of gift.

She says, "The Potawatomi nation has a symbol of peace with another nation.

It is a dish with one spoon.

The dish represents all that Mother Earth has given us as gift.

She's filled the dish with all of the gifts of the Earth.

We're all fed from the same dish that is Mother Earth.

When it's empty, we all suffer.

There is one spoon, because we have to share everything.

We have to share this gift with others.

" I really think that's a brilliant story, this idea that we have all of the gifts we need from the Earth, but we only have one spoon, so we have to share with other people, we can't just try and keep it all to ourselves.

Laura and Aisha are discussing Robin Wall Kimmerer's ideas.

Laura says, "Kimmerer uses the example of the dish to show that, in her worldview, the Earth gives us all we need in abundance.

All living creatures can take from this gift.

" Aisha says, "The idea of gift also implies sharing, the more we share a gift, the more value it has.

Nature is not there to exploit for personal gain, but a gift for us all to share.

" I wonder how you think these ideas might challenge western views of nature?

And I wonder how that you respond to this idea of wealth being through sharing, rather than the amount of stuff you have?

Do you like this idea?

I wonder why you think what you do.

You might want to pause the video and think about this with other people.

Let's just check our understanding.

I'd like you to finish Laura's sentence.

She says the dish with one spoon can show that we need to share Earth's, a.

, wealth, b.

, gift, or c.

, personhood?

Which do you think is correct?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's gift, isn't it?

b.

, the dish with one spoon can show that we need to share Earth's gift.

Brilliant, if you got that right.

So we have a task to complete now, and we're going to bring together all our thinking about what we have been learning about indigenous world worldviews.

You'll see that we have four images connected with our learning today.

We have the image of the indigenous worldview of all of nature and humans together, we have the image of the strawberries, we have an image of Robin Wall Kimmerer, and an image of Jeanette Anderson.

What I'd like you to do is to work with somebody and make as many connections as you can to link our learning.

So, for example, you might have Robin Wall Kimmerer and Jeanette Anderson, and a connection you could make between them is they're both indigenous people and activists.

I'd like you to think about as many links as you can.

Would you be able to use the words nature, gift, personhood, maybe interconnection?

You may want to use these images, and print them out, and spread them, and make as many connections as you can that way too.

Okay, really excited to see what links you can make between them.

Fantastic.

Some brilliant work there.

So, you may have made the following links, you might might've said the strawberries linked to the worldview picture, as many indigenous people, like Robin Wall Kimmerer, talk about nature as gift.

You might've linked Robin Wall Kimmerer and Jeanette Anderson because they both share indigenous worldviews.

You might've linked Jeanette Anderson to the picture of the indigenous worldview because she talks about being part of the land, and she talks about, in her native language, how the idea of ourselves is about connection to the land.

You might have linked strawberries and the worldview pictures together because they bring together this idea of interconnection.

I wonder if you made any other connections that I didn't think of?

Brilliant, if you did.

And our second part of the task is this, we're going to try adding some detail to a kernel sentence, and I'd like you to choose either Jeanette Anderson or Robin Wall Kimmerer to talk about.

You'll see we've got our kernel sentences, either Jeanette Anderson sees the land as part of her, or Robin Wall Kimmerer believes nature is gift.

With either of those sentences, I'd like you to add some who to it.

So, who is that person?

So, you might say Robin Wall Kimmerer, Kimmerer, and then a bit of explanation about who they are.

Could you add a how to show what they believe about nature and personhood?

So, "Robin Wall Kimmerer, explain who they are, believes nature is a gift because," and say something more about what they believe nature is a gift, and why as well, why do they think this is important?

So, can you take that small kernel sentence and add more detail to say who, how, and why about the ideas of interconnection, worldviews, personhood?

Fantastic.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with this time.

Amazing work, everyone.

So, you might have said, if you'd chosen Jeanette Anderson.

"Jeanette Anderson, from the Okanagan First Nation in Canada, sees the land as part of her, because, in her language, land and humans are interconnected, and the land has personhood.

" So, brilliant explanation from your kernel sentence.

Or you might have said, "Robin Wall Kimmerer, a member of the Potawatomi Nation in New York, believes nature is gift because everything as a gift from Mother Earth.

She uses the example of a dish with one spoon to show how humans are part of nature, and we all need to share gifts together.

" You may have used your own ideas, but I hope you've managed to create an explanation from that kernel sentence.

Fantastic work, everybody.

So, let's summarize what we've learned today.

We've been thinking all about indigenous worldviews and personhood.

Indigenous people are ancestors of those who are native to places before the arrival of Europeans and other settlers.

Indigenous worldviews emphasize the interconnection between humans and nature, rather than humans being separate from nature.

Reading the work of modern indigenous thinkers can help us better understand ideas such as humans and the natural world being gift, and features such as mountains having personhood.

I hope you've managed, and enjoyed, thinking about indigenous worldviews today, and maybe that made you reflect a little bit more about how you see the world.

Are there some ideas and wisdom from these worldviews that might help us in the future?

And I look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.