What's in a Name?

What's in a name?

A whole lot, apparently.

I have been a school board Trustee for 6 months and it's been quite the learning curve. It would have been nice to have a couple of months to review the major things coming for decision, as most of the Trustees are new, but we were immediately immersed in many years' worth of board decisions. One of the things up for further decision at our very first meeting was the rebranding/renaming of a school that had been consolidated with another. It has become a heated issue in our area. And I will begin by stating that this is my personal opinion and I am still learning...

In 2017, the board moved to 'rebrand' 2 schools that had been consolidated out of 3 (1 school closed), there was no mention of 'renaming' in that motion. 6 years later, when students from that time have since graduated, we were given a report that said the name of the school, Chippewa, was offensive, "How can they move forward with an offensive name?" It's not clear how the rebrand motion from 2017 became a rename motion in 2022; the new motion to rename brought forward by the board Administration (operations role) claimed it as an equity issue, yet the board of Trustees (governance role) did not discuss it as we thought the report was a thorough investigation... However, a rename committee was formed to bring recommendations to the board of Trustees. At the time of the December report, I took the information presented at face value because I figured discussions with local First Nations had taken place about it. I came to realize that no one had contacted any local Indigenous leaders for consultation regarding the name change (there was mention of sharing the possibility of renaming with a local Indigenous leader, yet that is not 'consultation', that is 'informing'). I also came to realize that letters sent to the board from concerned community members, past principals of the school, and Indigenous/non-Indigenous school community members, were not forwarded to the Rename Committee. The 2022 report claiming that name of the school was an equity issue gave details from American articles about schools in the US, and an example from a Canadian article talked about a school in Calgary (which was named after a person, an architect of a residential school, obviously a problem).

The word Chippewa itself is a long ago mispronunciation by white people of Ojibwe, yet it has been adopted by generations of Anishinabeg (also spelled Anishinaabeg, or if singular, Anishinabe) for "first" or "original people. There are several explanations for the derivation of the word "Ojibwa." Some say it is related to the word "puckered" and that it refers to a distinctive type of moccasin that has high cuffs and a puckered seam. Others say that the French used the word o-jib-i-weg or "pictograph" because the Anishinabe employed a written language based on pictures or symbols. There is no standard spelling in English, and variations include: Ojibwa, Ojibway, Chippewa and Chippeway." - more can be read about this here. First Nations Languages are dynamic living languages, and it is clear that prior terms of mispronunciation by the English and French are now widely used within Indigenous cultures, no longer 'exonyms'.

What's important to understand, after conversations with local members of Nipissing First Nation (NFN), is that the protocol of First Nations is to regard the considerations of each separate Nation - each Nation is itself a different culture from the next - there is no overarching First Nations identity, though many over large land masses overlap. The consideration of the particular First Nation on whose land and culture is being discussed by settler agencies should be priority. And, after hearing from NFN committee members, the committee agreed that the name Chippewa is not considered offensive as had been stated in the report.

The removal of the school's appropriated mascot/imagery began around 2012, and it was in respectful consultation with NFN leaders. At this point, the name is claimed to be the problem, and new branding needs to be adopted. Fine. Except for the sticky issue that the majority of community members, students, some staff and past principals don't want the name changed. Many don't believe a new name will address the real problem of racism or focus on the principles of Truth of Reconciliation. The leaders of NFN don't care whether the name is used or not, they don't see the name as offensive, and they certainly don't want to be exploited for a social justice cause they never agreed with or brought forward as an issue. As one person on the committee mentioned, "there are no Chippewas in this area"... except, there are. Cultures intermingle, that's what happens, one could call themselves Scottish Dane, and one could call themselves Chippewa Anishinabe. In fact, the board was contacted by a self-identifying Chippewa who is an alum of the school and a parent of a self-identifying Chippewa student currently attending - His communications were not forwarded to the committee, his request to present at the committee was denied, and I had to amend an agenda in order to share his concerns about removing the name with committee members. Denying Indigenous people a voice regarding issues that concern them hearkens back to darker times... 'officials knowing what's best for Indigenous people'.

What's offensive? The bigotry and racism plaguing our society, in schools, and in this specific school the derogatory twisting of the word Chippewa that caused harm to Indigenous students. It is a responsibility of school boards to teach the harms of discrimination, to uplift Indigenous education, and to partner with local First Nations in doing so; school boards are also responsible for tackling systemic racism. At the committee level, we were given a booklet and lesson on "Cultural Appropriation vs. Appreciation" (linked here, a good resource for anyone interested) -  However, it would surprise me if anyone sitting on that committee didn't understand what appropriation is and haven't already taken courses in Indigenous education (there are also 4 Indigenous members sitting on the committee). Incidentally, the original report was compiled without the conventions in that booklet. We were also told that there could be potential Ontario Human Rights Code violations (new proposed policy on the discriminatory display of names/words/images) if the name Chippewa is used. If you look further into the proposed policy position, it also states: affected groups may want other actions to promote awareness of historical rights violations. Training and public awareness may be necessary to help address misinformation, prejudice and other barriers that contribute to tension and conflict. A collaborative approach may be needed to help promote social inclusion of affected groups, and bring communities together to find the best solutions. This is what I'm hearing from NFN members - it is important that they are consulted and that government agencies take actions that have real and lasting effects.

It is a time for relationship-building, listening to and learning from the worldviews and knowledge of the traditional people of the land areas where we live. The surface-scratching of name-changing, especially in Ontario (Kanadario/Onitariio) Canada (Kanata) where many landmarks and streets and towns and buildings are French or English derivatives of Indigenous names, does not address the real issue of racism or adhere to the principles of the TRC - "Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust-building, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources." Solutions must be inclusive and informed in respectful consultation with Indigenous leaders as we move forward. Cultural appreciation is the process of creating healthy and positive relationships - This is where we need to be.

Whitewashing is a further erasure of Indigenous distinctiveness - and what when all the buildings and streets and landmarks and towns have eliminated Indigenous terms from the map? We will walk around a Eurocentric country, most things named after trees or something. We could be funneling energy and resources into uplifting First Nations in meaningful ways and in the reclamation of spaces. We could be learning the history and modernity of traditional languages by teaching, in our case, Anishinabemowin. We could be using this time to establish connections.

As far as the legal threat of possible human rights violations, this process should be well-documented in respectful consultation with Indigenous leaders of the area, and be a launching point for real solutions and substantial investments in the true reparation of colonial harms.