“Traditional Indigenous knowledge,” which usually includes the historic observations, collective memories, generational teachings and spiritual beliefs of aboriginal communities, is a complex anthropological discipline, but it is not science. As the minister’s words suggest, Bill C-69 treats it as something distinct and apart from “scientific information and data,” and it is listed as an independent variable for Ottawa regulators to contemplate alongside things such as “economic feasibility” and “environmental effects” when scrutinizing project proposals.
Some might reply that aboriginal knowledge can surely be a kind of anecdotal science, or at the very least, be incorporated into a larger scientific system of evidence gathering and deliberation. Yet such thinking is specifically rejected by advocates of traditional aboriginal knowledge. When Quebec’s deputy environment minister suggested traditional indigenous knowledge could be best used to assist or complement scientific data, he was blasted by aboriginal policy experts for perpetuating a “hierarchy of knowledge” and “the history of justifying inferiority in relation to Western societies.”
Full column: Washington Post