Printer Friendly

Reconciliation and the Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Introductory Sociology Textbooks.

In its Final Report (2015), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) is clear on the role that education should play in the reconciliation process:
   Much of the current state of troubled relations between Aboriginal
   and nonAboriginal Canadians is attributable to educational
   institutions and what they have taught, or failed to teach, over
   many generations. Despite that history, or, perhaps more correctly,
   because of its potential, the Commission believes that education is
   also key to reconciliation, (p. 234)

IT IS NOT SURPRISING THEN that several of the Calls to Action issued by the Commission make recommendations designed to ensure that the curriculum at all educational levels promotes reconciliation (see in particular TRC 2015:234-45). It is in this context that I want to assess the contribution that Canadian sociology is making to the reconciliation process by examining what a number of recently published introductory textbooks, all addressed to a Canadian audience, say about the Indigenous peoples of North America.


While there are many types of introductory textbooks, the focus here will be on textbooks that cater to what Greenwood and Howard (2011) call the "cafeteria-style" introductory course. These textbooks typically have 15 to 25 different chapters devoted to a relatively standardized set of subjects (e.g., Culture, Socialization, Methods, Inequality, Gender, Race and Ethnicity, Family, Religion, etc.) and aim to provide students with a broad overview of the discipline. Initially, the textbooks to be used in this study were identified in two ways. The first was by identifying textbooks addressed to the Canadian market that appeared on's "best-selling textbooks in sociology" list. The second was by identifying the textbooks that recurrently appeared on the syllabi for introductory courses in Sociology at Canadian universities that were discoverable online using searches with the keywords "introduction to sociology," "introductory sociology," and ".ca." Once identified, every effort was then made to locate the most recent edition of each textbook. When there were different textbooks with at least one coauthor in common (i.e., both Lome Tepperman and Robert Brym have each coauthored more than one type of textbook), the most recent textbook that best seemed to fit the "cafeteria" template was selected. The final result was a sample of 10 textbooks (Brym, Roberts, and Strohschein 2019; Carl and Belanger 2015; Henslin et al. 2014; Macionis and Gerber 2018; Manza 2018; Quan-Haase and Tepperman 2018; Ravelli and Webber 2019; Ritzer and Guppy 2014; Schaefer, Grekul, and Haaland 2017; Steckley 2017). Given that the "bestsellers" list on varies seasonably, and given that only some syllabi are accessible online, this sample does not of course exhaust the textbooks being used in Canadian universities and colleges. Still, most of these 10 textbooks have gone through several editions (the Macionis and Gerber textbook alone, is in its ninth edition and most of the others have gone through at least three editions); as a result, it seems likely a great many Canadian students will encounter these particular texts in their introductory courses. I also suspect that most sociologists reading this note who have taught introductory sociology will be familiar with most of the textbooks being examined here.


Some time ago, Steckley (2003) assessed the "politics of [Indigenous] representation" in introductory sociology textbooks by considering what these textbooks said about three subjects: stories about the abandonment of Inuit elders; the potlatch; and the events at Oka (Quebec) in 1990. Steckley's sample was larger than the sample used here both because his definition of an introductory text was more expansive (it included readers, for instance) and because he looked at textbooks published over a much longer time span (most of the texts he examined were published in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s). In the end, Steckley identified a number of patterns, but notably including: (1) a tendency to homogenize Indigenous culture (e.g., by implying that the term "potlatch" refers to a single practice when in fact it subsumes a number of different practices); (2) a tendency to privilege "culture" as an explanatory variable while ignoring the on-going effects of colonialism; and (3) a tendency to focus on accounts that depict Indigenous communities as passive in the face of oppression rather than on examples of active resistance to oppression.

This study aims to update Steckley's analysis using more recently published textbooks by similarly focusing on three subjects. First, I will be looking that the way these textbooks discuss residential schools and the social consequences of the residential school experience. This seems an appropriate focus given the highly visible work of the TRC and the fact that that experience has clearly had immensely important social consequences for Indigenous communities in Canada. The next two subjects were chosen only after looking up every reference in the index (of each textbook) under any general heading containing the terms "Indigenous," "Aboriginal," "First Nations," or "Residential schools." The referenced text, in all cases, was then read against two questions. The first was whether or not the discussion of Indigenous issues in the textbook promoted demeaning and misinformed stereotypes of Indigenous populations. For reasons that will be made clear in the section on "Indigenous religion" discussions of were especially problematic in this regard. Second, textbook discussions of Indigenous issues were also read against Steckley's earlier finding that textbooks tend to overlook "agency" and here these textbooks--all of them--seemed to overlook Indigenous agency in an especially important context, namely, the socially constructed nature of Indigenous identities, and so that is the third subject that will be considered here.


Million (2013), an Indigenous scholar, has traced out the theoretical shifts that have characterized sociological thinking on Indigenous issues. She argues that for most of the twentieth century, sociological thinking was shaped mainly by an "anomie" frame that attributed a range of social problems in Indigenous communities (including high rates of child neglect, alcoholism, minor crime, truancy, illegitimacy, divorce, etc.) to social disorganization. In this conceptual frame, "social disorganization" was unproblematized and there was little if any attempt to relate the various indicators of social disorganization to the social and economic effects of centuries of colonialism. This began to change (Million argues) in the 1970s, when sociologists--under the influence of criminological thinking--came more and more to adopt a "victimization" frame. What happened next, mainly as the result of critiques of the victimization frame by "radical feminist social-justice activists" (Million's term), is that sociological thinking came to incorporate an emphasis on continuing historical trauma, that is, an emphasis on the various ways in which the damage done by colonialism has been and is being perpetuated across generations.

To what extent are the changes and shifts described by Million reflected in introductory textbooks? There are several reasons why textbook discussions of Canada's residential schools provide a good context for answering that question. First, for a variety of reasons, but most notably because of the work of the TRC, the residential school experience has for some time now been in the public eye, and--almost certainly as a result--is something that all textbooks mention in some way. Second, textbook authors have long had access to scholarly material on residential schools that could have been used to reflect any or all of the emphases described by Million (for a review of the literature on residential schools published over the last few decades, see Monchalin 2016:125-41).

Thus, there is abundant evidence in that literature of the ways in which these schools sought to undermine the cultural traditions of Indigenous communities, and also abundant evidence, most often from the testimony of former students, of the abuses to which students were subjected. But that literature has also called attention to the ways "historical trauma" has been conveyed across generations. Monchalin (2016:138-41), herself an Indigenous scholar, provides an excellent overview of the different mechanisms that have been identified in that literature as leading to intergenerational trauma. As Monchalin notes, the one singled out most often is that the residential school experience ensured that the students involved found it difficult to effectively parent their own children. In its Interim Report, for instance, the TRC (2012) also noted "Deprived of affection and of their parents, many former students experienced tremendous difficulties in raising their own families" (p. 79), and provided much testimony from former students about the details of those difficulties. The Final Report of the TRC (2015:136) similarly emphasized how the nature of the residential experience often made it difficult for former students to become loving parents. But other literature, also reviewed by Monchalin, has established (1) that students who were abused were often likely to abuse others and (2) that as a result of the residential school experience "some residential school survivors and their descendants found it hard to establish trusting or supportive attachments with family members, including their spouses, children and grandchildren" (Monchalin 2016:138).

The point, then, is that there is a large literature that textbook authors could draw upon, in discussing residential schools, in order to discuss both the abuse experienced by those who attended residential schools, the loss of culture associated with the residential school experience and the social processes by which the trauma associated with that experienced has been transmitted intergenerationally. Of course, the fact that textbook authors could have created accounts of the residential school experience that discuss all three of these processes, does not mean they do that. So which processes are actually discussed in textbook accounts of residential schools?

One of the first things that emerges from a consideration of how sociology textbooks treat residential schools is that "coverage" of that subject varies considerably. Some textbooks devote several paragraphs to residential schools while others mention the subject only in passing. A sense of the variation that exists can be seen in column 2 of Table 1, which indicates whether or not a textbook devotes at least two or more contiguous paragraphs to residential schools. Even granting that not all topics of sociological interest can be discussed extensively in the sort of textbook being considered here, it seems clear that some textbooks could do a better job of informing students about residential schools simply by matching the coverage of residential schools found in most other textbooks.

Table 1 also provides information on the emphases identified by Million. Thus, column 3 indicates whether a textbook mentions the effects of residential schools in promoting "loss of culture;" column 4 indicates whether a textbook mentions the abuse experienced by students; and column 5 indicates whether there is any mention of the specific processes by which trauma is/was transmitted intergenerationally. Quan-Hasse and Tepperman (2018:126), I should note, do mention, if only in passing, "the generational trauma resulting from residential schooling" in their Deviance and Crime chapter but provide no sense of how this trauma was transmitted across generations.

The results suggest that while the first two emphases identified by Million have shaped the discussion of residential schools, the most recent shift in sociological thinking that she identifies has been less likely to filter down to these introductory textbooks. Thus, while all textbooks mention that residential schools caused a loss of culture, and almost all the textbooks mention the physical and sexual abuse that the students at residential schools' experience, only half of the textbooks have even the briefest mention of the social mechanisms by which the trauma caused by the residential school experience has been transmitted intergenerationally. The point of course is not that we should ignore the loss of culture or the abuse associated with residential schools, but rather that an awareness of that loss and that abuse should be supplemented with an awareness of the social processes which have ensured that the trauma caused by residential schools damaged not just the students directly involved but also their children, and more generally, later generations, who may never have had direct experience of those schools.

Just why it is important to the reconciliation process for textbooks to make a special effort to convey to students the mechanisms of intergenerational trauma is made clear by the results of a recent poll by the Angus Reid Institute (2018). That poll indicates that the Canadian population is deeply divided on the matter of residential schools, with slightly less than half (47 percent) saying that "the harm from residential schools continues and cannot be ignored" but with slightly more than half (53 percent) saying "Canada spends too much time apologizing for residential schools --it's time to move on." If there was ever a case, then, where sociology could serve the national interest by educating students in the ways that "personal troubles were connected to public issues" (to cite the mantra that defines the sociological imagination), describing the social processes by which the trauma of the residential school experience was and is being transmitted intergenerationally would seem to be it.


Over the last several decades, it has become commonplace to note that the model of religion popular in the West--a model that sees "religion" as being mainly about internalized beliefs and the rituals and other activities associated with those beliefs--only rose to prominence in the wake of the Reformation (for an overview of the enormous literature here, see Nongbri 2013). It is similarly commonplace to note that this model is ill-suited to Indigenous cultures, and in particular, to the Indigenous cultures of North America (see Beaman 2002; Fonda 2011; King 2013; Monchalin 2016:26-30; Wenger 2009). Unfortunately, these textbooks show little awareness of this second body of literature and generally discuss Indigenous religion (if they discuss it at all) using a Western model of religion.

All of these textbooks have a chapter on Religion (though three combine "Religion" and "Education") and most define religion using some variation of the definition that Durkheim developed long ago, namely, by first distinguishing between the sacred and the profane and then defining religion as the beliefs and rituals associated with the sacred (see for instance the definitions in Carl and Belanger 2015:266; Henslin et al. 2014:328; Macionis and Gerber 2018:532; Ritzer and Guppy 2014:633; Schaefer et al. 2017:331-32). Even when textbook authors move away from Durkheim, at least a bit, the Western emphasis on internalized belief remains. For example, Marwell (2018:354-55), in the Manza textbook, first presents Durkheim's definition of religion but then goes on to present Rodney Stark's definition of religion as involving beliefs about supernatural beings. Quan-Haase and Tepperman (2018) similarly define religion as "any system of beliefs about the supernatural and the social groups that gather around these beliefs" (p. 321). These definitions, in other words, differ in regard to what beliefs are critical but both retain that emphasis on internalized belief that is central to the Western model of religion.

Ritzer and Guppy (2014) make an attempt to show that Durkheim's definition does not apply to Indigenous societies, but still cannot get away from the Western model. Thus, after devoting several pages to Durkheim's definition, they have a short section on "Aboriginal spirituality" and say there that "Spirituality is all-pervasive for Aboriginal people--it is integral to everything they do, to every action they undertake ..." (Ritzer and Guppy 2014:636). On the one hand, and to their credit, this characterization does challenge Durkheim's contention that the sacred/profane distinction is universal and, in particular, makes it clear that this distinction is absent in Indigenous cultures. On the other hand, the term "spirituality" here continues to reflect that emphasis on internalized belief that is a hallmark of the Western model.

The fact that these textbooks rely so heavily on a Western model of religion (which is ill-suited to Indigenous societies) likely explains why some (Brym et al. 2019; Schaefer et al. 2017) have nothing at all to say about Indigenous religion in their Religion chapters. Others mention Indigenous religion, but in ways that, surprisingly, show continuing traces of the sort of social evolutionary thinking that long ago went out of fashion in sociology generally. One of the clearest offenders here is Macionis and Gerber. Thus, their Religion chapter has section entitled "Religion in Pre-Industrial Societies," where students are first told that "Early hunters and gatherers practised animism" and then "Many Aboriginal societies in North America are animistic" (Macionis and Gerber 2018:537). The terms "pre-industrial" and "early hunters and gatherers" clearly function to associate animism--and thus the modern Indigenous societies that the authors associate with animism--with an early stage of social evolution.

In other cases, the social evolutionary emphasis is softer but still present. Thus, Carl and Belanger do not say anything specific about Indigenous religion but they do say "Preliterate societies practised totemism" (Carl and Belanger 2015:266). The "pre-" in "preliterate" here of course again has social evolutionary connotations and the religious tradition (totemism) mentioned would likely be read by many students as being associated with Indigenous communities.

In his Religion chapter, Steckley includes much material on Indigenous communities--but not in a way that challenges the Western model. For instance, in discussing what Durkheim meant by "sacred," Steckley provides a list of things considered sacred in different cultures, and includes in that list things like "items in the medicine bundle of an Aboriginal shaman" and "some Aboriginal dances" (Steckley 2017:323)--thereby implying that the sacred/profane distinction found in Western cultures is also found in Indigenous cultures. Similarly, in keeping with his own (earlier) critique of textbooks as not granting agency to Indigenous communities, Steckley (2017:338-441) emphasizes the ways in which Indigenous groups have often merged their traditions with elements borrowed from European religious traditions (e.g., how the Iroquois [Haudenosaunee] merged Quaker elements with the Great Law of Peace to create the Code of Handsome Lake). Even so, the frame underlying the discussion here is still one that emphasizes internalized beliefs and their associated rituals.

In the end, there is really nothing in the Religion chapters of these textbooks that would suggest to students that the model of religion with which they are familiar does not apply to Indigenous cultures. In this area, then, there is much room for improvement.


As mentioned, one of the general conclusions that Steckley (2003) reached was that textbook discussions tended to deny agency to Indigenous populations. It is hardly surprising then that in his own textbook he makes a special effort not to make the same mistake. For instance, Steckley (2017:422-24) devotes several pages in his Environment chapter to a discussion of the Anishinabe community of Grassy Narrows (in northern Ontario) and its struggle both with the government and with the multinational corporation that dumped mercury into local waterways. As part of that discussion, he criticizes accounts of the Grassy Narrows community found in other textbooks for adopting a "victimology" approach that ignores the well-organized efforts by the local community to effect change to the conditions oppressing them.

Nevertheless, there is one context in which all textbook authors continue to deny agency to Indigenous peoples and it involves something that almost all textbooks mention, if only in passing: the relative size of the Indigenous population in Canada. To understand what is problematic here, consider that between 1986 and 2006, the Indigenous population in Canada more than doubled, growing from 464,655 to 1,172,790 (Trovato and Romaniuk 2014:xv). Nor has this explosive growth ended. A recent Statistics Canada (2017) report notes that between 2006 and 2016, the Indigenous population grew by 42.5 percent, which--the report notes--was more than four times the growth rate of the non-Indigenous population over the same period. And yet, as dramatic as the growth of Canada's Indigenous population has been over the past several decades, it is not a phenomenon that has captured the attention or imagination of most textbook authors. As far as I can tell, for instance, only four textbooks mention that the Indigenous population has grown faster than the national average (Ravelli and Webber 2019:290; Ritzer and Guppy 2014:326, 346; Schaefer et al. 2017:208; Steckley 2017:225), and only two make any attempt, however minimal, to explain this dramatic growth--and both of these ignore one of the most important determinants of that growth. Thus, for Ritzer and Guppy (2014:326), it is all a matter of fertility. Ravelli and Webber (2019) by contrast make it clear that more than fertility is involved by citing "impressive strides to increase education levels, decrease infant mortality rates, and address substance abuse issues" (p. 290).

In fact, a concise summary of what is actually going on is provided by the Statistics Canada (2017) report already mentioned:
   Two main factors have contributed to the growing Aboriginal
   population: the first is natural growth, which includes increased
   life expectancy and relatively high fertility rates; the second
   factor relates to changes in self-reported identification. Put
   simply, more people are newly identifying as Aboriginal on the
   census--a continuation of a trend over time.

The dramatic growth in the size of the Indigenous population, in other words, is in large part due to the fact that more and more people are choosing to declare an Indigenous identity.

This is not the result of one generation choosing to affirm an identity ignored by their parents. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence to suggest that this dramatic growth is the result of intragenerational ethnic mobility, that is, people changing their ethnic affiliation, in this case switching from a non-Indigenous to an Indigenous identity, over the course of their life--something that is especially true of people living in large urban centers (Goldmann and Delic 2014; Guimond, Robitaille, and Senecal 2014:109-11; Trovato and Romaniuk 2014:xiv-vi).

The issue of why more and more people are choosing to adopt an Indigenous identity over the course of their lives is a complicated issue, and one discussed in the works cited above. The only point I am making here is that textbook authors pay little attention to one of the most dramatic social patterns associated with the Indigenous community in Canada, namely, the fact that the size of that community has exploded over the past half century, and no attention to the fact that this explosive growth is in large measure the result of people choosing to construct for themselves an Indigenous identity they had previously not declared.


In her book on Indigenous methodologies Margaret Kovach (2009:169) suggests that a necessary first step in decolonizing the academy begins with non-Indigenous academics "decolonizing one's mind and heart" and "exploring one's own beliefs and values about knowledge and how it shapes practices" One useful way of becoming aware of the ways in which what non-Indigenous scholars regard as "knowledge" has been shaped by conceptual frameworks that are distinctively Western (and I take this to what Kovach is saying here) is to engage in conversations with Indigenous scholars and knowledge keepers about Indigenous issues--and certainly Indigenous scholars have recurrently argued that paying more attention to the work of Indigenous scholars is necessary for the decolonization of the academy (Smith, Tuck, and Yang 2019). The TRC (2015) took note of this, at least to some extent, in recommending that publicly funded educational institutions should include "a segment on Aboriginal spiritual beliefs and practices developed in collaboration with Aboriginal elders" (p. 239) As regards more specifically the writing of introductory textbooks, such conversations might mean soliciting feedback from Indigenous scholars on proposed text--and at least one textbook in the sample here has done just that.

In their Preface, Ravelli and Webber (2019) indicate that in developing this edition of their textbook, and in order to expand their coverage of Indigenous issues, they "formed a six-member Indigenous Council including Indigenous colleagues from across the country to review our work and add some of their own" (p. xiii-iv). The Ravelli and Webber text also provides a short biographical account of each member of this Council, and these accounts make clear that the interests and background of Council members are by no means homogeneous. If such consultation were to become more common and more established among textbook authors (and even Ravelli and Webber admit their consultation with their Indigenous Council is "in its early stages" [p. xiii]), it seems obvious that the discussion of Indigenous issues in introductory textbooks would be much improved.

The matter of consultation with Indigenous colleagues aside, another step toward the decolonization of introductory textbooks would be for textbook authors to become more aware of the work, especially by Indigenous scholars, on the biases that have shaped the discussion of Indigenous issues in the academy. For example, if textbook authors were truly familiar with the work by scholars like Million and Steckley on the "victimology" frame that has so often structured sociological discourse on Indigenous issues, then an exclusive emphasis on "abuse" and "loss of culture" in discussing residential schools would at the very least raise some flags. This in turn might lead to more balanced discussions of residential schools, like those by scholars such as Monchalin (2016:125-42), which give equal emphasis to the mechanisms of intragenerational trauma.

Similarly, if textbook authors took to heart the finding that it has long been conventional in sociology to overlook agency on the part of Indigenous peoples and communities, that would make it easier, as we have seen, to tie the explosive growth of the Indigenous population to intragenerational ethnic mobility (which is the linkage suggested by the data). Finally, greater sensitivity on the part of textbook authors to the issue of stereotypes, and to discussions that promote stereotypes, would almost certainly lead to the deletion of those these remnants of social evolutionary thinking still found in some Religion chapters.

Generally, and even aside from the issue of social evolutionary remnants, however, it is likely in connection with their discussion of "religion" that textbook authors most need to engage in the sort of introspection that Kovach calls for--and here the first question they need to ask themselves is, simply, why "Religion" merits its own chapter. One answer to that question, of course, is that separating "Religion" into its own section of a textbook reflects a conceptualization of "religion" that is distinctively Western, that is, "religion" is something that can be defined in terms of a cluster of beliefs and rituals that can be analytically separated from other aspects of society. That may indeed be appropriate as regards most of the religions already familiar to most students in Canada (and so a chapter on "Religion" in Introductory textbooks may indeed be justified, at least with the proper contextualization), but as noted at the beginning of this note, there is large literature that makes clear that the Western model of religion does not capture the Indigenous experience. Just what model of religion (or really, what cosmological model) is better suited to Indigenous societies is a complicated issue and one not easily summarized here. But a step would be for textbook authors to recognize the problem and familiarize themselves with the scholarly works cited earlier.

Aside from consulting the scholarship on Indigenous ways of understanding the world, especially the relevant works by Indigenous scholars, another useful resource might be the court cases in which attempts by Indigenous groups to secure legal protection under "freedom of religion" laws for traditional practices has run afoul of courts whose thinking on religious freedom is still structured by the Western model. Tisa Wenger (2009), for example, provides a good analysis along these lines in connection with Pueblo communities in the U.S. Southwest who went to court during the 1920s to secure legal protection for traditional practices. A recent Canadian example would be the attempts by the Ktunuxa First Nation in British Columbia to prevent the construction of a ski resort that would sever, in their view, the connection between the Ktunaxa and Grizzly Bear Spirt, an important supernatural resource for the Ktunaxa. The Ktunaxa lost their appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017, but their factum in that appeal (Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. 2017) presents a concise account of the cosmology that gave rise to their concern.

Still, textbook authors also need to confront the possibility that a "Religion" chapter might not be the best place to discuss Indigenous ways of understanding the world. For example, for quite some time now, a range of Indigenous scholars have argued that decolonization of the academy must include moving beyond treating Indigenous peoples simply as objects of study and creating a space in the academy for Indigenous ways of knowing (Kovach 2009; Wilson 2008). Although the term "methodology" often appears in the titles of the essays and books involved, those essays and books make clear that methodology and ontology are intertwined for Indigenous peoples. Wilson (2008), for instance, advances this claim by saying:
   An Indigenous research paradigm is made up of an Indigenous
   ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology. These beliefs
   influence the tools we as researches use in finding out more about
   the cosmos, (p. 13)

So long as the proper contextualization is provided, then, Indigenous ways of understanding the world might be included in the Methodology chapters that are always a part of introductory textbooks.

Ravelli and Webber, again, have already taken a step in this direction, likely as a result of consultation with the Indigenous Council with whom they collaborated in writing the most recent edition of their text (described above). Thus, they devote half a page to "Indigenous Research Methods" (Ravelli and Webber 2019), the only text to do so, and as part of that discussion say:
   Localized approaches to research focus on the knowledges and
   beliefs of a specific tribe and/or community as the theoretical
   foundation of the study. Relational approaches to Indigenous and
   Indigenist research consider how relationships affect and are at
   play within the research process. In Indigenous and Indigenist
   research contexts, considering relationships can involve thinking
   about connections between people, the environment, spiritual belief
   systems and the cosmos, or connections between ideas and entities,
   (p. 107)

What they are describing here, although it could certainly be fleshed out in more detail, is a way of investigating the world using a research methodology that is structured by a way of understanding the world that is quite different from the understanding of the world that undergirds Western methodologies.

On balance, it seems fair to say that the representation of Indigenous issues in introductory Sociology textbook is likely better than it was when Steckley did his study nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, two things seem clear. First, some serious problems remain. But second, there are a number of strategies, most notably those proposed by Indigenous scholars, which could be used to address those problems. Since introductory textbooks are generally revised every--three to five years, the opportunity to do just that, address these continuing problems and soon, is there.


Wilfrid Laurier University

Michael P. Carroll, Department of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5. E-mail:


Angus Reid Institute. 2018. "Truths of Reconciliation: Canadians Are Deeply Divided on How Best to Address Indigenous Issues." Retrieved June 21, 2018 ( indigenous-canada/).

Beaman, L.G. 2002. "Aboriginal Spirituality and the Legal Construction of Freedom of Religion." Journal of Church and State 44(11:135-49.

Brym, R., L.W. Roberts and L. Strohschein. 2019. Sociology: Compass for a New Social World. Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Carl, J.D. and M. Belanger. 2015. Think Sociology. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Fonda, M. 2011. "Are They Like Us, Yet? Some Thoughts on Why Religious Freedom Remains Elusive for Aboriginals in North America." The International Indigenous Policy Journal 2(4).

Goldmann, G.J. and S. Delic. 2014. "Counting Aboriginal Peoples in Canada." Pp. 59-78 in Aboriginal Populations: Social, Demographic, and Epidemiological Perspectives, edited by F. Trovato and A. RomaniukEdmonton, AB: University of Alberta.

Greenwood, Nancy A. and Jay R. Howard. 2011. First Contact: Teaching and Learning in Introductory Sociology. Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Guimond, E., N. Robitaille and S. Senecal. 2014. "Another Look at Definitions and Growth of Aboriginal Populations in Canada." Pp. 97-118 in Aboriginal Populations: Social, Demographic, and Epidemiological Perspectives, edited by F. Trovato and A. Romaniuk. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

Henslin, J.M., D. Glenday, N. Pupo and A. Duffy. 2014. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

King, S. 2013. "Context Matters: Studying Indigenous Religions in North America." Religion Compass 7(November):498-507.

Kovach, M. 2009. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. 2017. "Appellants' Factum; SCC File No. 36664." https://www.

Macionis, J.J. and L. Gerber. 2018. Sociology. Don Mills, ON: Pearson.

Manza, J., ed. 2018. The Sociology Project: Introducing the Sociological Imagination. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Canada.

Marwell, G. 2018. "Sociology of Religion." Pp. 351-88 in The Sociology Project: Introducing the Sociological Imagination, edited by J. Manza. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Canada.

Million, D. 2013. "Trauma, Power and the Therapeutic Speaking Psychotherapeutic Narratives in an Era of Indigenous Human Rights." in Reconciling Canada, edited by J. Henderson and P. Wakeham. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Monchalin, L. 2016. The Colonial Problem: An Indigenous Perspective on Crime and Injustice in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Nongbri, B. 2013. Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Quan-Haase, A. and L. Tepperman. 2018. Real-Life Sociology: A Canadian Approach. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Ravelli, B. and M.Webber. 2019. Exploring Sociology: A Canadian Perspective. North York, ON: Pearson.

Ritzer, G. and N. Guppy. 2014. Introduction to Sociology: Canadian Version. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Schaefer, R.T., J. Grekul and B. Haaland. 2017. Sociology: A Brief Introduction. Toronto, ON: McGraw Hill Education.

Smith, L.T., E. Tuck and K.W. Yang. 2019. "Introduction." Pp. 1-37 in Indigenous and Decolonizing Studies in Education: Mapping the Long View, edited by L.T. Smith, E. Tuck and K.W. Yang. New York: Routledge.

Statistics Canada. 2017. "Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census." Retrieved June 21, 2018 ( dq171025a-eng.htm).

Steckley, J. 2003. Aboriginal Voices and the Politics of Representation in Canadian Introductory Sociology Textbooks. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars Press.

Steckley, J. 2017. Elements of Sociology: A Critical Canadian Introduction. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Trovato, F. and A. Romaniuk. 2014. "Introduction." Pp. xiii-xxxvi in Aboriginal Populations: Social, Demographic, and Epidemiological Perspectives, edited by F. Trovato and A. Romaniuk. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2012. They Came for the Children: Canada, Aboriginal Peoples, and Residential Schools. Winnipeg: Truth Reconciliation Commission Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Volume One Summary. Winnipeg: Truth Reconciliation Commission Canada.

Wenger, T. 2009. We Have a Religion: The 1920s Pueblo Indian Dance Controversy and American Religious Freedom. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Wilson, S. 2008. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point, NS: Fern-wood Publishing Company.
Table 1
The Discussion of Residential Schools (RS) in
Canadian Introductory Sociology Textbooks

                                  Devotes at Least Two
                                   or More Contiguous    Mentions Loss
Textbook                            Paragraphs to RS      of Culture

Brym et al. (2019)                        Yes                 Yes
Carl and Belanger (2015)                  Yes                 Yes
Henslin et al. (2104)                      No                 Yes
Macionis and Gerber (2018)                Yes                 Yes
Manza (2018)                               No                 Yes
Quan-Haase and Tepperman (2018)           Yes                 Yes
Ravelli and Webber (2019)                 Yes                 Yes
Ritzer and Guppy (2014)                    No                 Yes
Schaefer et al. (2017)                    Yes                 Yes
Steckley (2017)                           Yes                 Yes

                                      Mentions         Reasons for
                                     Sexual and     Intergenerational
Textbook                           Physical Abuse        Trauma

Brym et al. (2019)                     Yes                Yes
Carl and Belanger (2015)               Yes                No
Henslin et al. (2104)                  Yes                No
Macionis and Gerber (2018)             Yes                Yes
Manza (2018)                            No                No
Quan-Haase and Tepperman (2018)        Yes                No
Ravelli and Webber (2019)              Yes                Yes
Ritzer and Guppy (2014)                Yes                No
Schaefer et al. (2017)                 Yes                Yes
Steckley (2017)                        Yes                Yes
COPYRIGHT 2019 Canadian Sociological Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Carroll, Michael P.
Publication:Canadian Review of Sociology
Geographic Code:1CONT
Date:Nov 1, 2019
Previous Article:Black Neofascism? The Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters