Finding Common Ground Through Creativity: Exploring Indigenous, Settler and Métis Values and Connection To The Land

Finding Common Ground through Creativity: Exploring Indigenous,
settler and Mtis values and connection to the land
Melanie Zurba
Holly Ann Friesen
Abstract
Finding Common Ground through Creativity, a community-based action research project, was
activated with the purpose of engaging the community, cross-culturally, by exploring the values
and connections surrounding land. The project was to create shared-spaces for promoting placebased dialogue around a theme accepting of the intersections of contexts relating to the land,
such as the need for decolonization, healing, and reconciliation.
Keywords: art, aesthetic, collaboration, decolonization, social action, reconciliation.
Introduction
Imagining place and a different kind of future beyond colonial structures and social constructs
can be highly challenging for communities aiming to build equanimity, reconciliation, and
ultimately working toward decolonization. For those that acknowledge the injustices associated
with the historical and on-going forms of colonization, a desire to engage in social action may be
problematized by economic disparities and social fragmentation, which may be the very products
of a colonial lifeworld1. However, grass-roots initiatives have been heralded as being capable of
responding to these challenges because of their connections to regional contexts and geographies
(Sium et al. 2012; Zalara 2013). Through social action, such as land-based activism,
communities can reframe the contexts in which they exist, through creating awareness of power
imbalances and shifting such imbalances towards greater forms of self-determination (Willow
2009).
Smith (1999) describes how communities are often understood in terms of their political
boundaries, citing among other examples the reservation systems existing in North America.
The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Fall 2014, Volume 2 Number 1
She contends that Indigenous2 ways of defining communities need to be acknowledged in order
for community-based research to become a force for decolonization. Such definitions exist
within the expressions of peoples, such as the Australian Aborigine connection to land through
song and dreamtime story; or the Anishinaabe bangijiganan stories, which are direct conduits to
knowledge and community life (Doefler et al. 2013). Visual artworks provide for other possible
forms of authentic community expression (Zurba & Berkes 2013). The creative process requires
an artist to reflect on their position in relation to their personal aesthetic, which can ultimately
lead to a visual representation of their worldview and something that can be understood by
others, particularly if the artist offers interpretation (McNiff 1998). When Indigenous aesthetics
are expressed, this can be a form of decolonization through direct exposure to powerful and
deeply rooted cultural values and ideals (Schiwe 2003). Learning through exposure to art can be
experienced by communities at various scales, (organization, town, and nation), and in turn can
lead to transformative outcomes, such as the development of new forms of public discourse
through what Somerville (2013: 178) describes as art as public pedagogy. This paper explores
the potential for collaborative art to generate discourse amongst the First Nations, settler, and
Mtis people living in the Kenora region of Northwest Ontario, Canada.
The community-based participatory action research project presented here is titled
Finding Common Ground through Creativity. The organization leading this project was the
Lake of the Woods Arts Collective (LOWAC, now named the Lake of the Woods Art
Community) in Kenora, Ontario. LOWAC was formed by a group of artists and those with
interest in the arts. The vision of LOWAC is to inspire unity, joy, and opportunity through the
arts in Kenora and the surrounding area by connecting arts and artists. The group brings together
artists of all disciplines, including those involved with music, visual arts, performing arts, and

writing. The cultural composition of the group is primarily settler and Mtis; however, the group
strives to meet the needs of all arts and artists in the greater community and has been extending
their outreach beyond Kenora to the First Nations communities in Northwest Ontario.
The specific purpose of this project was to engage the community, cross-culturally, by
exploring the values and connections surrounding the land. The more general purpose of the
project was to create shared-spaces for promoting place-based dialogue around a theme, while
also accepting of the intersections of contexts relating to the land, such as the need for
decolonization, healing, and reconciliation. First, we describe the region where the project took
place and explain the social movement that is common ground, as well as a specific land area
with different meanings to people in the region. Second, we explain how art and collaboration
can be combined to form a powerful form of social action. This is followed by a description of
our approach and how it was important for achieving our broader purpose. We then present the
outcomes of the creative collaborations and discuss them in terms of the regional implications for
working towards decolonization and reconciliation.
Waasay Gaa Bo / Common ground: the movement and the land

The area known commonly as Treaty #3 in Northwest Ontario bears its name due to the history
of colonization in the area, which set the stage for often dramatic and on-going transformations
and the shifting of decision-making power over land towards being vested in the colonialist
governance bodies (Greer, 2012). The treaty-making practices in Canada was founded on the
Royal Proclamation of 1763, which states that treaties would be made if Indian Nations were
inclined to part with their land (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 1996). Treaty #3 land
was set to become the first post-confederation treaty area; however, the Anishinaabe maintained

sovereignty until 1873 when Treaty #3 was established as a result of the British development of a
trade route between Fort Garry and Fort William (Grand Council Treaty #3 2011). Treaty #3
covers over 55,000 square miles of Anishinaabe territory and has twenty-eight First Nations that
are governed by the Grand Council of Treaty #3. The Political Office of the Grand Council for
Treaty #3 binds the interests of the Treaty #3 First Nations, has the vision of advancing the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction, sovereignty, nation-building, and traditional governance with
the aim to preserve and build the Anishinaabe Nations goal of self-determination. The Grand
Council is also involved in traditional conflict resolution in the event of conflict between Treaty
#3 First Nations. Treaty #3 is unique among other Canadian treaties because it is the first to
have a written record from the perspective of First Nations. The notes made by Chief Powasson
are named the Paypom Treaty. The wording is significantly different from that of Imperial
recording of Treaty #3, reflecting a spirit of sharing rather than surrender (Grand Council Treaty
#3 2011).
The lack of acceptance by the Imperialist government of the spirit of peace and sharing
that was set forth in Paypom Treaty can be understood as substance behind the long-standing
conflicts between settler and Anishinaabe people in the region. The treaty-making practices and
conventions were later supplemented by the Constitution Act 1867, and consolidated in the
Indian Act 1876 (Government of Canada 1999). The Indian Act provides the guidelines for the
determination of Native status as well as the legal rights of First Nations. It was responsible for
displacing Indigenous peoples onto small portions of land with limited resources and little or no
autonomy. The paternalistic and discriminatory nature of the Indian Act is increasingly
becoming acknowledged as an oppressive system and a cause of much social and economic
disparity (Provart 2003).

Denis (2012) describes the Indigenous-settler relationship in the context of forced

assimilation through the residential schools and other systems in the Treaty #3 area. He explains
how the historical message from the White community was, You must be like us, but you can
never be like us, and how this contributed to the racial divisions that continue to exist in the
lifeworld today. Kenora is the largest city in the region (winter population: >15,000; summer
population almost doubles due to tourism) and is the home of the majority of the local settler
population. The racial disputes between populations in Kenora are ongoing and at times result in
different forms (physical, structural, economic) of violence (Fillion 2010). However, the
situation more recently in Kenora is one of increased awareness of the need to understand the
treaty relationship, reconcile differences, and move towards a common vision (Wallace 2010).
Common ground is now used as an informal way of speaking of this awareness in the
community (Robson et al. 2013). The desire for such a vision in the community may not be
completely unanimous, but is strong enough to have created momentum for a number of likeminded initiatives (Wallace 2010). Common ground or Wassay Gaa Bo in
Annishinaagemodaa language, as a vision and philosophical movement, became formalized in
2001 as an initiative started by regional leaders from both the settler and First Nations
community to support discussions about topics related to areas of mutual interest (Common
Ground Research Forum 2011).
The common ground movement most recently includes a unique opportunity for shared
governance of the place that is known as Tunnel Island. Tunnel Island is a large parcel in
Kenora, which Abitibi Consolidated Paper Company divested itself of in 2005 (Figure 1). This
land has great historical, social, and spiritual importance to both Anishinaabe and settler
communities. The land was formally written into the agreement in 2006, and transferred as a gift

to the City of Kenora and Grand Council of Treaty #3 First Nations. Tunnel Island and Bigsbys
Rat Portage was the first portion to be transferred in 2007, followed by Old Fort Island in 2008
consisting of over 400 acres of land (Common Ground Research Forum 2011). Ochiichag First
Nation, Obashkaandagaang First Nation, and Wauzhushk Onigum First Nation are the
Anishinaabe nations involved in deliberations over the area because it is part of their traditional
lands (Common Ground Research Forum 2011). This opportunity for shared land runs parallel
with the broader ethic of cross-cultural collaboration that has emerged in the area, and has
evolved as a focal point for the discussions around building mutual understanding, peace and
reconciliation, and collaborative governance structures. The Common Ground Research Forum
is a partnership involving the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg, the City of
Kenora, the three aforementioned First Nations, the Grand Council of Treaty #3, and various
other community partners interested in exploring common ground. The research forum is
focused on documenting and providing insights and knowledge of on-going cross-cultural
initiatives within the community (Sinclair et al. 2008).

Figure 1. Map of Tunnel Island / Wasaay Gaa Bo and the surrounding area.
Collaboration in art as a tool for decolonization and reconciliation

Reconciliation can be defined as an on-going dialectic relationship building process that is
mutually favorable and capable of gradually building equanimity (Arbour 2007). We subscribe
to this definition because it acknowledges reconciliation as a process rather than an end. We
agree that there are many stages that individuals and communities must go through in order to
achieve new forms of relationships, which may continue to grow and change based on the
actions of those involved. Similarly, decolonization affects both the Indigenous and/or
colonized peoples (many Indigenous peoples do not self-identify as being colonized) and the

non-Indigenous/ colonizing population (non-Indigenous peoples that are immigrants and are
fitting into a pre-existing social structure would not be labeled as colonizers), and can be
viewed as a process that can be mutually enhancing of both populations if the desired outcomes
are related to the building of peace and equality (Huaman 2011; Wallace 2013).
Walker (1999) contends that the trauma resulting from oppressions such as the acts
associated with colonization can have negative effects for generations. Also, when considering
such trans-generational trauma, one could say that the pain of colonization is not only felt by
Indigenous Canadians today, but by the population as a whole to different degrees. Indigenous
peoples, descendants of European colonizers, and new immigrants alike are often subject to
prejudice, inability to communicate over common interests, and at the worst of times end up in
conflict sometimes resulting in different forms of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual
violence. In this sense, decolonization is relevant not only to Indigenous communities, but is
also meaningful to other members of a community who may be experiencing different forms of
cognitive dissonance associated with their experience of being part of the section of society
associated with past and ongoing forms of colonialism (Johnston & Lawson 2000). Meaningful,
and at times novel, forms of actions must be explored in order to work against past and present
forms of oppression and find ways of building relationships between Indigenous and settler
communities (Zurba et al. 2012).
Participatory action research (PAR) is a philosophical approach to research in which
participants play a role in the development and implementation of the research program (Burgess
2006). Zanala (2013) states PAR can play an important role in strategic approaches to
decolonization. Finding Common Ground through Creativity was one way in which the artistic
community in Kenora could engage in PAR through a partnership with a university researcher

working through the Common Ground Research Forum who also had experience in facilitating
other community arts PAR programs. This partnership between the researcher and LOWAC
made it possible to have impartial facilitation of workshops with the local arts community,
including those outside of LOWAC because the researcher was from another province in
Canada. The researcher also contributed reporting and dissemination tools and advised on the
stages of the project and best practices for recording and sharing project outcomes. The project
and research component also followed a reflexive form of qualitative inquiry in order to
incorporate regional and social contexts leading to the co-production of knowledge (Berkes
2009; Wang & Redwood-Jones 2001). McTaggart (1991) outlines PAR guidelines according to
Western and [Australian] Aboriginal contexts. These guidelines state that the PAR process
ought to align with genuine care for and connection with a community, and that the group should
decide together the thematic concern to be worked on through the research. However, the
capacity for individual expression within collective works is also important for art that aims to be
an empowering form of community activism (Parr 2007). Thematic explorations, as well as
individual expression, were therefore both supported through the project.
If conducted in an empowering fashion, participatory art projects can have the potential
to change colonial attitudes and break barriers to public discourse through the various stages of a
creative process (Clarke 2002). Zurba and Berkes (2013) describe collaborative art as working
as a powerful boundary object, a tool for communications amongst and between groups.
Boundary objects in this sense work across groups in three main ways by: (i) connecting artists
through the creative process; (ii) connecting the artistic expression to the broader community,
which happens by observing and interacting with the art; and (iii) connecting the artistic
expression with other communities undergoing similar transitions (Zurba & Berkes 2013). In

this regard, collaborative art has the potential to work as a tool for promoting reconciliation
processes within and across societal scales.
When explored together, the Indigenous, settler, and Mtis aesthetics have the potential
to create powerful opportunities for building understanding and relationships. Through art, all
aspects of self and community may potentially be expressed (physical, mental, emotional,
spiritual) according to an artists identity (Gilbert & Clark 2007). Engaging in aesthetic
experiences can enable participants of various backgrounds to consider their personal connection
to past and present colonization, and the individual ways that they can work to promote
decolonization. It however ought to be re-noted and emphasized here that it is important to
maintain participant creative autonomy when facilitating collaborative art that explores colonial
realities. Collaboration and shared understandings are the ultimate goal of such endeavors,
however, individual expressions cannot be limited if shared learning about the perspectives of
others involved in collaboration is to be truly supported.
Creating Finding Common Ground through Creativity: The Process

Project Initiation: Community dialogue and experiencing Waasay Gaa Bo together
The project started with a meeting between representatives from LOWAC and the researcher
working through the CGRF. Following this initial meeting the idea for a participatory art project
was brought forth to the broader LOWAC membership through a meeting in Winter 2009/2010
where it was decided that the project was of interest to the organization. PAR was then applied
to the LOWAC artists in order to determine the best way to explore common ground. At the
time this project was initiated, a particular aim of LOWAC was to give artists a voice and to help

10
effect positive changes for the relationships in the community. Through the PAR process the
LOWAC artists decided on the meaning of land as the broad theme that would guide the
project. This in turn provided the opportunity for LOWAC to reach their goals by exploring
creativity in relation to connection to place. In order to be consistent with art that works towards
decolonization, it was determined in advance of the project initiation that all perspectives would
be welcomed, and that artists could have a choice as to whether they wanted to express
individually or collaboratively.
All major artistic activities were organized through an appointed project coordinator
elected by the LOWAC membership. PAR was applied through art with both the LOWAC
artists and the broader community together as a means to create a forum for cross-cultural
collaboration that engaged Indigenous, settler, and Mtis communities. While participatory art
can take place in the form of performing arts, music, and writing, this project took shape largely
as a visual art project. However, before the visual components were created there were several
opportunities for expression and dialogue in relation to the common theme the land. Crosscultural communication was encouraged by posing the question, What does the land mean to
you? and asking artists to produce artwork that answered this question. This communication
revolved around the values and meanings people hold in relation to the land, water, and place
they share. Conversations took place during the initiation of the project and facilitated
workshop, the creation of the artwork, and during the presentation and exhibition of the produced
art works. The initiating and final celebration sessions were video recorded, which is the source
for the quotes from the participants that are presented here.
Consistent with PAR guidelines, the formats and detailed themes for the artistic creations
were determined entirely by the community members, from LOWAC and from outside of

11
LOWAC, who participated in the initial community dialogue session on April 10, 2009. In order
to maximize participation, an invitation was extended within LOWAC and to the broader
community through emails and posters that were fixed in several areas that were highly
trafficked by Anishinaabe, settler, and Mtis people (e.g. community centers, public libraries, a
womens resource center, cafs, restaurants, and various other community and art hubs).
Twenty-six people attended the initial dialogue session, and over half were from outside of the
LOWAC membership. It was decided in advance that the cultural background of the participants
would not be quantified at the session or throughout the creative processes because such
quantification could create tension and take away from the discussions about the land and
common ground. Instead, the CGRF researcher focused on discourse as qualitative evidence
for the ways participants understood the cultural exchange that was occurring through the project
(Baumann 1996).
The CGRF researcher facilitated the initiating dialogue session. Participants were asked
the guiding question: What does the land mean to you? Follow-up questions were open-ended
and free-formed relating to the meaning and connection to land. During this workshop, members
of the community discussed their answers to the question, and the responses were recorded on
large flip charts, which were displayed on the walls so that participants could continue to reflect
throughout the continued dialogue. The session was open and exploratory, with the intent of
giving participants the opportunity to share freely without concern about structure. Stories were
shared, spiritual and emotional connections were expressed, visions for the land were described,
and meanings were identified. The discussion was useful for bringing common ground in
Kenora to the forefront of the question. One of the community participants from outside of
LOWAC commented on the workshop experience:

12
It was very interesting first off, because there were all types of people there and the word
common came out with the first question, What does the land mean to us? So many
different things, but all a common link that weve all experienced in a different way.
It was collectively determined at the initial workshop that a larger group project was
needed to facilitate discussion among those community members that may otherwise not seek the
opportunity to come together for a single purpose. Artists were also encouraged to submit work
on an individual basis, assured that it would be equally included into future discussions and
celebrations of the project. For the larger group art project, more discussion was needed to
decide on a focus. A local historian and Anishinaabe guides came forward to offer tours of
common ground, or Tunnel Island, and its surrounding water (Figure 2). Several community
members participated in these tours and were given a brief history of the place. From these
tours, the idea of what would be created began to take shape. One LOWAC artist who did the
tour expressed how meaningful and inspiring the experience on the land was for her:
I think for me [the major inspiration] was when we took the walk around. When we were
standing there and Cuyler [local historian] explained how all of the different rivers came
together and how the people came together, and later we walked and later it started to rain
and pour and pour and pour and we came to that old settlement where people had lived
and the old house through the bush there on the point and coming back I really got a
strong feeling of the history. I could see it! I felt like I wanted to get up and sing it!

13
Figure 2. Finding Common Ground through Creativity field trips on and around Tunnel Island /
Wasaay Gaa Bo.
Through discussion among the artists that were present at the initial dialogue session, it
was decided to explore the creation story of Turtle Island. There are several stories of Turtle
Island, but a common theme is the collaboration of animals to create the land, with the turtle
providing the structure from which land can be built. A participant from outside of LOWAC
commented:
[Land is important] because the creator granted us this beautiful earth.
It was decided through consensus that the goal was to create something that would be
presented, displayed, and remembered by the community at large. This would allow the
discussion of shared land to continue after the completion of the project. Another participant
from outside of LOWAC commented:
There is a deep and profound story that hasnt been shared.

14
Creation of collaborative art works: the mosaic & vial installations

A four-panel mosaic was proposed with a turtle motif representing the Turtle Island creation
story. The overall mosaic image was sketched on four panels with direction from artists
representing LOWAC. The LOWAC project coordinator transported the panels to eight
locations within the surrounding community including Fragile Glass Studio, Dalles First Nation,
Tunnel Island, Kenora Association for Community Living, St. Thomas Aquinas High School,
Beaver Brae High School, Womens Place, and the studio of Holly Ann Friesen (Figure 3).

15
Figure 3. The making of the glass mosaic at different venues.

At each location, participating artists were invited to discuss the question of What does
the land mean to you? along with their connections and values for shared land. Contributors
joining in at this point were given an explanation of the theme and scope of the art project and
were invited to break glass into pieces and place them on the mosaic structure as they saw fit.
They were also asked to etch glass with images they felt represented their feelings about the
question being posed. These etched pieces created the turtle shell. Local stone and rock was
incorporated at the base of the structure to blend with the natural landscape intended for display
of the finished piece. On this stone or rock, contributors were invited to etch images with the
posed question in mind as well. Over ninety artists, from novice to established, collaborated to
create the final artwork.
As the process of creating the mosaic was taking place, another group piece emerged. It
was decided that others wanted to contribute in a meaningful yet different way. This allowed
those that may not have had access to the mosaic to contribute to the discussion. In collaboration
with the artist and proprietor of Fragile Glass Studio, Kris Goold, test tubes were donated and
used to fill with objects exploring the question, What does the land mean to you? Materials for
the test tube installation were collected and created by individuals and groups on the guided tours
of the land and waters around Tunnel Island, on separate tours, and in their own spaces.
Messages were also written with the question in mind and placed in test tubes. Once the filling
of the tubes was complete, the LOWAC project coordinator assembled them with wire and
driftwood to be presented and discussed by the group at the second workshop. While the test
tube installation incorporated natural materials in many of the test tubes, it was important to tie
them together as well. Binding them to driftwood tied them to both land and water figuratively.

16
For both group installations it was important to incorporate materials from the land in the
region. The glass in the mosaic and test tube installations provided both interest and a medium
or conduit to express values contributors hold regarding land. However, it was felt that these
projects needed to have a more literal connection to the land. The placement of natural materials
at the bottom of the piece provided a transition to the natural landscape where it found its
permanent home. The mosaic is displayed prominently at the outside entrance of the Discovery
Centre in Kenora. The etched and non-etched rock provides a grouping of the mosaic to the
land. This is a venue for community events and is the visitor information center for Kenora and
the region. Its placement provides the opportunity for continuation of the dialogue started at the
inception of this project. Several artists and people from the community talked about the final
home of the mosaic as being appropriate to the project theme and common ground. The
following quote is an example:
That [mosaic] will sit outside. That will be there and getting everybody together and
everyone interacting with it. Its such a common ground thing. Its so artistic and it
really does reflect tremendously.
Expressions emerging through art and dialogue

Artistic expressions
The artworks were the products of the individual and collaborative dialogues, field trips, and
creative workshops. The nature of the mosaic building and the test tube installation enabled
participants to enter a variety of objects and pictorials expressing their connections, values,
meanings, and further questions relating to the land. The mosaic etchings representing the
connection to land included a variety of images. The most common kind of images were those
that were recognizable features of the environment, such as trees, plants, flowers, lake shores,
celestial items (suns, moons, stars), birds, fish, and other animals. Words were also prominently

17
featured in Anishinaabeg and in English, such as maiigan (Anishinaabeg for timber wolf) and
beauty. Symbols such as spirals and Christian crosses were also present in the etchings. The
image of the Turtle Island creation story connected the individual pieces together into a
communitys expression for the land (Figure 4).
Figure 4. The completed mosaic with the test-tube art installation represents the participants
values and connections for land. Photo taken during the community celebration and public
workshop at the Lake of the Woods Museum.
The test tube installation featured a variety of objects, which fell into three broad
categories: poems, material culture, and objects from the land (Figures 5, 6). Poems revealed

18
deep connections to land, and expressed a variety of emotions including joy and frustration, as
well as ideologies such as environmental conscience and condition. Material culture
contributions, such as beadwork, loose seed beads, leather works, Buddhist mandala sand,
handmade paper, and braided sweet grass represented the cultural and spiritual expressions of the
connections that participants had to land. Small objects from the land were featured throughout
the tubes and included both organic and inorganic items such as leaves, fungi, seeds, wild rice,
and stones. All contributions represented a meaning and connection to the land beyond their
objective descriptions. For example, wild rice is not only a food, but is also very culturally
important in a variety of ways to the Anishinaabe people, including representing sustenance and
survival (Vennum 1998). Several of the project participants spoke of the land in terms of
connection and spirituality, and how the project enabled them to revisit these connections:
I was really excited about this project because its about what the land means to you, and a
lot of my work is really connected to the land. Its a total inspiration. Its actually a
necessity for me to be outside and in the bush and on the lakes. I find it really balancing
and healing. Im very drawn to it and thats part of the reason why I was so excited by this
project. I really am connected to the land here. (LOWAC participant)

19
Figure 5. The contents and three main themes emerged from the test tube art installation.

20
Figure 6. The completed vial installation with test tubes filled with different materials
representing the participants connections and values for the land.
Two artists, Susie Brown and Joy Parsons, chose to contribute individual creations to
Finding Common Ground through Creativity. Susie Browns contribution was mixed media,
which included photographs of Tunnel Island and handmade paper that had materials that were
sourced directly from Tunnel Island (Figure 7). Joy Parsons contribution was a series of three
prints made through photography and mixed media titled Intertwined with Nature are Roots and
the Stories (Figure 8). The first print expresses a connection to roots, heritage, and the paths on
Tunnel Island. The second print speaks to the artifacts of Tunnel Island and the connections of
the pasts of many peoples. The third print represents the connections to the experiences and
impacts felt by the land.

21
Figure 7. Handmade paper and photograph collage, by Susie Brown.

22
Figure 8. Print series, Intertwined with Nature are Roots and the Stories, by Joy Parsons.
Expressions shared: the Finding Common Ground through Creativity community final workshop
and celebration
The collaborative and individual artistic creations were presented at the Lake of the Woods
Museum, which is a central location in Kenora able to support the event. At this event, the
student facilitator from the Common Ground Research Forum again posed the question about the
meaning of land. Artists had a further opportunity to verbally interpret their creations and
contributions at this time, as well as expressions related to the processes that took place. Artists
reflected on how they felt like they were creating a shared history by working together on the
collaborative artworks. They also reflected on the importance of people of multiple generations
working together on the same pieces, which was facilitated by involving diverse groups through

23
the tours on the land and the different locations for the creative workshops. Several artists also
expressed that they were amazed at how quickly the artworks took shape. One artist stated that
large community projects in the past had taken much longer to complete sometimes years,
whereas Finding Common Ground through Creativity only took six months from the time of the
first exploratory workshop to the community celebration in October 2010. One participant
stated:
I cant believe the speed with this. Usually things get tossed around for years. This is just
a few months!
Artists expressed that the materials that were used were of great personal, cultural, and
spiritual significance to them. Several artists also spoke of their intimate connection with the
land, and often in particular with Tunnel Island. Community members observing the artworks
expressed deep gratitude to the artists for their contributions to community expression and
dialogue. When asked to give commentary, one such observer said:
I was actually inspired to see the finished product. I had seen it in progress. I also wanted
to hear the artists talk about their experiences with it and the project and what it meant to
people. Its making me want to do more research into the project and find out more about
it and what this [artwork] represents.
First time observers reflected on the overall image of the mosaic as being an appropriate
story to tie together the individual pieces etched within. The local historian who helped guide
the tours on Tunnel Island also contributed his thoughts on the medium that was used for the
mosaic, which was glass. He had researched the half-life of glass, which was said to be one
hundred years. He then reflected it back to the treaty relationship with First Nations, which has a
spirit and intent of as long as the grass grows and river flows that is forever.

24
Contributions to reconciliation and decolonization in Northwest Ontario

Community art as activism
In adhering to reconciliation and decolonization as processes instead of ends we can consider
grass-roots community actions as forces either working for or against. Finding Common Ground
through Creativity was an example of social action working towards reconciliation and
decolonization. The objectives of the project were generated by the community with the spirit
and intent of exploring individual and shared meanings for land towards the promotion of greater
understanding across cultures. By deciding on an open and inclusive format that extended well
beyond the LOWAC membership, the potential for reconciliation and decolonization was further
enhanced (Huaman 2011). The collaborative nature of the multi-participant art projects
permitted for enhanced dialogue within the creative spaces, which facilitated greater ease around
the discussions of at times potentially contentious issues such as land (Zurba 2014).
Tuck and Yang (2012: 7) state, decolonization in the settler colonial context must
involve the repatriation of land simultaneous to the recognition of how land and relations to land
have always been differently understood and enacted; that is, all of the land, and not just
symbolically. Finding Common Ground through Creativity did not directly repatriate land, but
did contribute directly to the discourse shaping the future decision making over land, Wassay
Gaa Bo, and the particular area of land known as Tunnel Island. The land on Tunnel Island is an
example of repatriation from a forestry company to a community comprised of Indigenous,
settler, and Mtis people. Tuck and Yang (2012: 3) also warn about practices that are called
settler moves to innocence, which describes an attempt to reconcile settler guilt and
complicity, and rescue settler future. We acknowledge the importance of being aware of
actions that do not account for power and instead try to maintain and promote current structural

25
oppressions. The artistic endeavors described here are an attempt at creating a shared future that
acknowledges past and ongoing wrongdoings and power imbalances with artistic expressions
acting as a force for equalization. Here, the notions of a shared future were envisioned by the
community as a way of moving forward with a direct focus on unique values and connections to
land. One LOWAC participant spoke of the outcomes of the project, as well as the need for
continued relationship building:
Coming together as a people is creative itself on how were going to put this together and
express what was the heart behind everything, which was to bring cultural unity and bring
people together that wouldnt normally come together. I think that was successful in the
period of time were in right now. I think we have a ways to go in relationship building,
but weve definitely started something.
The extensive community outreach and project design was put forward to make the
project inclusive without being assimilative. The question about land was posed in a way that
encouraged participants to express themselves fully and authentically. The changing of venues
for each workshop was also a way of supporting diverse forms of dialogue and creation. All
perspectives were welcomed as being valid and important, which was necessary for achieving
the broader purpose of the project to engage the community, cross-culturally, by exploring the
values and connections surrounding the land. The flexibility of the project, which invited artists
to choose whether or not they wanted to collaborate or contribute individual artwork, also
enhanced the potential for greater authenticity in artistic expression. We also believe that the
format of the facilitated dialogue sessions and artistic components (artistic, option for
collaborative or individual, open to difference, etc.) were the reasons for the absence of
observable conflict throughout the process. In summary, Finding Common Ground through
Creativity achieved community activism through the promotion of dialogue about land, and the

26
creation of artistic works that would be shared and interpreted throughout the community, thus
enhancing the voices of the artists beyond the artistic community.
Aesthetic connected to land

The strong imagery of Turtle Island at the center of the larger collaborative mosaic symbolized
the replacement of the colonization stories with the creation story, acting as a strong symbol for
decolonizing the discourse about land (Tuck and Yang 2012). The Turtle Island story as one of
different animal nations in collaboration for the creation of earth also reflected the project goals
for building cross-cultural understanding through collaboration. The symbols and materials that
were used throughout the artistic contributions echoed, or were taken directly from the land
ceremoniously (according to different cultures), as a way of honoring the connection to land.
Thus, the process of creating the artistic contributions was an important outcome of the project
because it generated actions directly tied to peoples spiritual connections to the land. The
sharing of these connections through aesthetic expression with other artists further enhanced the
effects of the creative actions through generating enhanced understanding of the multiple ways
of viewing the land (Zurba & Berkes 2013). The following community person attended the final
workshop and celebration, and reflected on the aesthetics of the artworks in relation to the land
and the common ground movement:
What I find interesting in this [art project] in relation to common ground is that
common ground has been a vision of a lot of people, and also it seems to be the
expression of the land as well. This is a kind of meeting place. It has been for millennia
with all that that means. These pieces have captured some of the reality of that coming
together.

27
The ability to use a range of media has been credited as a way for [Indigenous] peoples to
enhance communication and self-determination (Leuthold 1994). The media used to create the
mosaic, test tube installation, and individual works were a mixture of traditional and new media.
Both larger collaborative formats were chosen by those in attendance of the first workshops as a
way of promoting individual forms of expression in the form of etchings for the mosaic or
objects for the tubes. This enabled artists to contribute to the overall aesthetic according to their
own visions, and resulted in the expression of language, spiritual symbols, and items relating to
Indigenous, settler, and Mtis participants. The unfiltered sharing of meanings that came
through the overall aesthetic of the project evoked cultural presence and imagination of a
potential type of unity where individual voices could be not only maintained, but also promoted.
The spirit of the treaties, and the fostering of meaningful alliances

Finding Common Ground through Creativity as a creative process brought together members of
the community who might not have otherwise had the chance to meet to discuss values and
connections to land. Previous regional discussions about land have generally been held within
formats that promoted different forms of political discourse such as regional conferences, town
hall meetings, and resource management consultations. Such formats have been limited in scope
in terms of what was discussed and who could participate. The Ke-Ondaatiziying: How We Will
Sustain Ourselves conference is an annual focal point of the discussions surrounding treaty
relationships and opportunities for economic and other types of collaboration in the Treaty #3
area (Hale 2013). Conferences such as Ke-Ondaatiziying are inclusive and important for
creating foundations for collaboration with respect to their participants and affiliated

28
organizations involved in the economic development of the region. Such forums, however, do
not reach community members outside of those involved in managing economic activities.
Through the artistic process, Finding Common Ground through Creativity provided a unique
opportunity to reach members of the community who have connections to the land, but wouldnt
normally be accounted for in community discussions surrounding land. A community person at
the final workshop and celebration spoke to how the energy around the project created awareness
of potential ways to build connections in the community:
As this project was unfolding there was sort of a buzz on the street about it and there were
people that had their attention captured. Whether they participated in the work itself or
not suddenly they became aware that there was an interest in the community. For
example, a friend that lives out on one of the [First Nation] communities suddenly became
aware of LOWAC as a potential resource for future work in the arts. So, there were
connections that were made that wouldnt have happened otherwise if this kind of project
hadnt emerged. It was really good.
The discussions and creative processes that led to the artistic works were reflective of the
discussions relating to the spirit of Treaty #3 in several different ways: (i) discourse was
encouraged to be open, honest, and authentic rather than assimilative, reflecting the two parallel
paths taken by First Nations and settlers in the treaty relationship (Muller 2007); (ii) the project
was focused on land at a critical time when common ground / Wasaay Gaa Bo and the
possibility of shared land (Tunnel Island) were being considered and were at the height of
consciousness of many community members; and (iii) there was a keen focus on relationship
building in the implementation of the project (i.e. rather than just being focused on artistic
productions). All of these factors indicate a strong direction towards the creation of different
kinds of relationships within the community, potentially inclusive of greater understanding and
empathy.

29
The above discussion on treaty relationship ties into what Wallace (2013) describes as
unhelpful non-Indigenous ally practices and helpful non-Indigenous ally practices within the
context of Northwest Ontario, which is based on his work with Treaty #3 First Nations. In his
account, Wallace describes the following practices as being helpful for building alliances: the
contribution of material and strategic support; practices that respected Anishinaabe
leadership, knowledge, and decision-making; the complex field of trust building; reciprocal
teaching; and speaking the truth. Finding Common Ground through Creativity was not
designed according to these characteristics; however, a post hoc analysis enables us to say
conclusively that the project qualifies as including helpful non-Indigenous ally practices with
regards to the non-Indigenous people who took leading roles in the project (i.e. members of
LOWAC and CGRF). The following reflection on the project by a leading LOWAC artist
echoes the communicative aspects of being a helpful non-Indigenous ally:
I couldnt tell you how many wonderful moments weve had in the last four months with
doing the project with youth and with First Nations people creating dialogue about the
land, but just creating dialogue. For me, thats very important and using art as the
medium of expression of course is just a really great way to do that.
Conclusions
Through artistic collaboration, participants were able to reflect on unique, shared values and
connections for land. The experience of creating the artwork, the reflection on land, and the
Turtle Island creation story as the focal point of the mosaic provided a unique opportunity for the
participants to communicate values across cultural meanings and interpretations. With art
projects as such it can be said that the process is just as important as the product for generating
knowledge and building relationships (Zurba & Berkes 2013). By following PAR guidelines for
community empowerment and focusing on an inclusive grass-roots approach, decolonization and

30
reconciliation [as a process] was achieved (Sium et al. 2013; Zalara 2013). This occurred
through the individual experiences of the participants involved in the creation of the art, but was
also experienced by those people from the community who interacted with the art and
discussions about land through the workshops, or individually. Art was a powerful medium in
achieving such outcomes because it shifted power towards the participants (Willow 2009), and
reframed the boundaries of the community towards being based on relationship and shared
concern, instead of being arbitrarily defined through imposed peripheries (Smith 1999). Finally,
the artworks will continue to promote decolonization and reconciliation by acting as a tool for
ongoing community discourse (Sommerville 2013). In this sense, the art produced through
Finding Common Ground through Creativity is an enduring form of unifying activism for the
people living in the area around Kenora Ontario.
Acknowledgements:
Many people came together from the communities surrounding the common ground to
explore the meaning of the land, a topic of great timeliness and importance. This could not
have been achieved without the hard work and shared vision of the project partners. Thank
you for believing in the power of the creative process for promoting dialogue within
community, and the ability of this process to bring together people to collaborate. A special
thanks also goes out to those who were involved in the field trips on Tunnel Island. These
outings were of tremendous value to your fellow community members and provided
unique opportunities to experience the land together. Thank you to the Fragile Glass
Studio, Lake of the Woods Museum, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Women's Place
resource centre, and Dalles Community Centre, Beaver Brae High School for hosting the
workshops. A special thank you also goes out to Iain Davidson-Hunt who championed the
project within the CGRF and who introduced the project partners, and to John Sinclair who

31
supervised the students component of the project. The project was supported by the
Common Ground Research Forum and the Community Arts & Heritage Education Project
(CAHEP).
Notes
1 Lifeworld is a concept representing the progressive evolution of systems such as those that are
democratic, as well as the norms in a society (Habermas 1987).
2 Indigenous is capitalized throughout this manuscript. This convention acknowledges the
political nature of writing, and refrains from reproducing dominant traditions that have been
responsible for the minimization and subjugation of Indigenous knowledge.
Bibliography
Arbour, L. 2007. Economic and social justice for societies in transition. International Law and
Politics, 40(1), 1-28.
Baumann, G. 1996. Contesting culture: Discourse of identity in multi-ethnic London. New
York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F. 2009. Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary
context. Conservation Letters, 2(1), 20-25.
Burgess, J. 2006. Participatory action research: First-person perspective of a graduate student.
Action Research, 4(4), 419-437.
David J. Clarke. 2002. Hong Kong art: culture and decolonization. North Carolina, Duke
University Press.
Denis, J. S. 2011. Transforming meanings and group positions: tactics and framing in
Anishinaabe-white relations in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(3),
453-470.
Doerler, J., Sinclair, N. J., and Stark, J. K. 2013. Centering Anishinaabeg studies:
Understanding the world through stories. East Lansing, MI: Michigan University Press.
Gilbert, J., & Clark, K. 2007. Learning by designing: Pacific Northwest coast native art,
Volume 2. Union Bay, BC: Raven Publishing.
Greer, A. 2012. Commons and Enclosure in the Colonization of North America. The American
Historical Review, 117(2), 365-386.

32
Habermas, J. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Hale, A. S. 2013, October 2). Ke-Ondaatiziying conference tries to build relationships and
collaboration. Kenora Daily Miner and News. Retrieved from
http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/2013/10/02/ke-ondaatiziying-conference-tries-tobuild-relationships-and-collaboration
Huaman, E. S. 2011. Transforming education, transforming society: The co-construction of
critical peace education and Indigenous education. Journal of Peace Education, 8(3), 243-258.
Johnston, A., & Lawson, A. 2000. Settler Colonies. In H. Schwarz & S. Ray. A (Eds.), A
companion to postcolonial studies (p. 360-376). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Leuthold, S. 1994. An Indigenous Aesthetic? Two Noted Videographers: George Burdeau and
Victor Masayesva. Wicazo Sa Review, 10(1), 40-51.
McNiff, S. 1998. Art-based research. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
McTaggart, R. 1991. Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly,
41(3), 168-187.
Mithlo, N. M. 2004. We Have All Been Colonized 1: Subordination and Resistance on a
Global Arts Stage. Visual Anthropology, 17(3-4), 229-245.
Muller, K. V. 2007. The Two" Mystery" Belts of Grand River: A Biography of the Two Row
Wampum and the Friendship Belt. The American Indian Quarterly, 31(1), 129-164.
Parr, H. 2007. Collaborative film-making as process, method and text in mental health research.
Cultural Geographies, 14(1), 114-138.
Robson, J. P., Sinclair, A. J., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and Diduck, A. P. 2013. Whats in a
name? The search for common ground in Kenora, Northwest Ontario. Journal of Public
Deliberation, 9 (2), Article 7.
Ross, R. 1992. Dancing with a ghost: Exploring Aboriginal reality. Toronto, ON: Reed Books.
Schiwy, F. 2003. Decolonizing the frame: indigenous video in the Andes. Framework: The
Journal of Cinema and Media, 44(1), 116-132.
Sium, A., Chandni, D., and Ritskes, R. 2012. Towards the tangible unknown: Decolonization
and the Indigenous future. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), i-xiii.
Smith, T. S. 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York,
NY: Zed Books.
Sommerville, M. 2013. Water in a dry land: Place-learning through art and story. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40.

33
Vennum, T. 1988. Wild rice and the Ojibway people. Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society
Press.
Walker, P. 1999. Concepts of self: Implications for cross-cultural conflict resolution. The ADR
Bulletin, 2(2), 17-24.
Wallace, R. 2013. Merging Fires: Grassroots peacebuilding between Indigenous and nonIndigenous peoples. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood Publishing.
Wang, C. C., & Redwood-Jones, Y. A. 2001. Photovoice ethics. Perspectives from Flint
Photovoice. Health Education and Behaviours, 28(5), 560-572.
Willow, A. J. 2009. Clear-cutting and colonialism: The ethnopolitical dynamics of Indigenous
environmental activism in northwestern Ontario. Ethnohistory, 56(1), 35-67.
Willow, A. J. 2012. Strong hearts native lands: Anti-clearcutting activism at Grassy Narrows
First Nation. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.
Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood
Publishing.
Zavala, M. 2013. What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? Lessons from
decolonizing, Indigenous research projects in New Zealand and Latin America. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 55-71.
Zurba, M., Ross, H., Izurieta, A., Rist, P., Bock, E., & Berkes, F. 2012. Building comanagement as a process: problem solving through partnerships in Aboriginal country,
Australia. Environmental management, 49(6), 1130-1142.
Zurba, M., & Berkes, F. 2013. Caring for country through participatory art: creating a boundary
object for communicating Indigenous knowledge and values. Local Environment, (ahead-ofprint), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792051
Zurba, M. 2014. Leveling the Playing Field: Fostering Collaborative Governance Towards On
Going Reconciliation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(2), 134-146.

34

Finding Common Ground Through Creativity: Exploring Indigenous, Settler and Métis Values and Connection To The Land

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Finding Common Ground Through Creativity: Exploring Indigenous, Settler and Métis Values and Connection To The Land

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Finding Common Ground through Creativity: Exploring Indigenous,

settler and Mtis values and connection to the land

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Waasay Gaa Bo / Common ground: the movement and the land

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Denis (2012) describes the Indigenous-settler relationship in the context of forced

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Collaboration in art as a tool for decolonization and reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Creating Finding Common Ground through Creativity: The Process

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Creation of collaborative art works: the mosaic & vial installations

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Figure 3. The making of the glass mosaic at different venues.

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Expressions emerging through art and dialogue

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Figure 7. Handmade paper and photograph collage, by Susie Brown.

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Contributions to reconciliation and decolonization in Northwest Ontario

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Aesthetic connected to land

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The spirit of the treaties, and the fostering of meaningful alliances

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi