Essay

We invite you to embark on a journey of exploration into the association between and significance of Inuit, tea, and tea pots. In this Education Box, you will be taken to (and through) two images. The first photograph is visible on this webpage. It is a historical image of a woman named Sheouak Petaulassie and a child taken in Nunavut, Canada in 1962. The second image is accessible by clinking on this following link. You will see a teapot designed by artist Becky Qilavvaq (Kilabuk) who also originates from the Canadian Arctic (Pangnirtung, Nunavut). The technique of Critical Reflective Analysis (CRA)[i] will be introduced and used to guide you through a process that connects internal insights with external conditions. This method will help you assess and make meaning of the images for what is seen and not seen.

Let’s begin our exploratory journey.  We will probe you to reflectively analyze using CRA questions and prompts that are written in italics. First, figuratively, stand back and observe the first picture of Petaulassie. Describe what you see without any analysis. Reflect on and take account of your feelings, thoughts and any behaviours as you view the picture and contemplate what you are seeing. You may for instance, think this is an ordinary daily routine or ritual. You feel comforted by the scene, and you may smile remembering similar events with family and friends. Consider ‘why’ you have these feelings, thoughts and behaviours. What specifically from your family, society, culture(s), and history have influenced you to have these feelings, thoughts, and behaviours? Also, what assumptions do you have about what you are observing?  A question like “how did this woman come-to know and use the teapot?” might seem benign, as the teapot may at first appear to be a natural and integrated part of daily life.  Also, you may or may not have observed and recognized the woman in the picture as an Indigenous-Inuk (Inuit) woman or considered this significant. Critically reflect as to ‘why’ or ‘why not’? Is the question – how did the woman come to know and use the teapot – now relevant? Continue to be mindful of your thoughts, feelings and behaviours as you consider these questions. Consider the current modern-day normalcy of tea and the taken-for-granted, routine nature of the tea drinking ritual (or not) for you, mainstream society, and Inuit women. Is it simply a ‘normal’ activity or are broader influences at play? What are their implications for you, Inuit, and mainstream (non-Indigenous) society?

Now, click on the link provided and stand back and observe the second image. Describe what you see. The image may or may not have conjured up feelings like pleasure, interest, or intrigue. You may recall specific memories. Identify these and try to make links to underlying values, beliefs, experiences, and influences. What is your emotional, cognitive, and physical reaction once you learn that this teapot is a modern art piece created by a female Inuk artist. The black markings depict uluit which are otherwise known as Inuit women’s knives.  But, why did you have these reactions, even if the reaction was one of ‘indifference’ or ‘disinterest’? Continue to critically reflect and excavate for deeper levels of meaning.

To answer the questions raised above, we must first consider the roots of tea, tea drinking, and tea pots. But first, whose roots do we trace? In this context we need to trace the roots of European settlers/colonists and their relations with Inuit.  Many would default to the assumption that the tea originated in the quest of European explorers and traders for black tea from East India and China. Then tea was brought to the ‘new world’ by early European explorers, traders, and settlers. (Labrie, 2019)

What role did tea and other related commodities have in creating social relationships and identities amongst Inuit and Qallunaat (non-Inuit peoples)? What were/are the implications?  Labrie (2019) argues that as a core good for both trade and consumption, “tea can be considered a nation-building product, establishing a Canadian identity while reinforcing ties to its sovereign and the Commonwealth” (p.106).

Overtime, tea became an important trade commodity between white or Qallunaat traders and Inuit as Inuit came to also value tea (Labrie, 2019). In other words, tea was a means to forge good relations between Inuit and white settlers. During the early period of exploration, fur trading, fishing and whaling in Northern Canada, teapots, fine china, and silverware were packed by Qallunaat whalers, explorers, traders, missionaries and later, government state agents and workers on long voyages across the harsh Northern landscape. These treasures were carted by foot, canoe, ships and even by dog team—sometimes through snowstorms. By way of illustration, the Franklin Expedition team, whose ship became stuck in the sea ice, even when walking on foot and starving to death across the frozen Arctic tundra, still dragged these items with them on sleds. Ponder the significance of these material items to Qallunaat in the Arctic. But, why? Teapots, tea sets, and the activity of drinking tea demonstrated the epitome of European colonial culture and represented high social status and refinement. Tea culture was and is equated with being civilized. The British explorers could maintain their ‘dignity’ through tea under the most dehumanizing conditions. ‘Being civilized’ was at the core of the imperialist ideology around the world. This ideology and the transplantation of European tea culture, embedded within the kettle as an object, was also brought to the Americas, including the Arctic. The teapot signified the transfer and domination of European elitism in the British colonies.

But how did we end up with the stories depicted in the images? This is particularly important given that while Inuit eventually gained access to tea and metal pots, including tea kettles, through interactions with Qallunaat, during the early years of contact, Qallunaat actually discouraged access to these things. This discouragement was born from fear Inuit interest in such items could lead to dependency and reduce involvement in trapping, hunting, and trading in furs [1]. In the Canadian Arctic, the fur trade economy was almost entirely reliant on Inuit labour; the Hudson’s Bay Company “raison d’etre” was the trade of Arctic fox, and the Government of Canada, as a result, became deeply reliant on the HBC (Qikiqtani Truth Commission, 2014; Wenzel, 2019, p.571). Needing Inuit labour, colonists, however, could not risk a leisurely Inuit population dependent on the government or for that matter achieving high social status (Qikiqtani Truth Commission, 2014). Could the pervasive perception of Indigenous peoples as ‘heathen’ and ‘primitive’ have played a role in actions that limited Inuit access to European goods such as tea pots that symbolized leisure and the epitome of high society? Could these actions have been a deliberate attempt to keep the ‘natives’ in a position of ‘provider’ for refined White society while withholding their access to being the ‘receiver’ of benefits?

By 1940, the fur trade, for the most part, had collapsed, and over the next hundred years, Inuit were encouraged to become increasingly integrated into the capitalist economy and Qallunaat society. Qallunaat took it upon themselves to educate Inuit on how to live, eat and dress. Furthermore, the explicit intention of the education system was to assimilate Inuit into the dominant Canadian culture. A range of Qallunaat perceptions of Inuit can be noted in archival records, however, a prevailing ideology can be discerned from a 1949 government report concerning the need to educate Inuit. The report read: “In order that the Eskimo may accomplish the adjustment to civilization successfully, the education set-up must afford understanding of, and practice in, Canadian and democratic ways of living” (1949 report/Qikiqtani Truth Commission: p.27) [2].This plan to civilize Inuit meant changing how Inuit lived. One primary example of this is, The Book of Wisdom, a document developed by Qallunaat to educate Inuit to western ways of life.  The book provided information on daily practices, such as how to clean and care for children and otherwise live like those within the dominant culture; live as Qallunaat nuclear families. In other words, metaphorically, how to drink tea. This document subjugated Inuit ways of knowing and being. This mixture of paternalism, racism, and assimilation-focused ideas by Qallunaat government officials towards Inuit families also resulted in other restrictive policies. In an effort to control Inuit access to cash, the government instead offered only credit/vouchers to purchase items at the local storehouse[3]. Furthermore, specific items were intentionally selected by Ottawa that were determined to be suitable for Inuit to purchase. These items included tea.

Importantly, these attempts to encourage Inuit to engage more fully in the capitalist economy and to amass dominant culture possessions did not produce wealth, but instead created poverty, previously unknown in the Arctic. Inuit increasingly experienced debt that further contributed to ties to the capitalist economy and reduced their reliance on subsistence living. For many Qallunaat, modernity, which was associated with living like Qallunaat in southern Canada, was assumed to be desirable to Inuit. Encouraged to live as Qallunaat, Inuit were presented with programs, such as the Eskimo Housing Loan program, and later matchbox housing (1958), among others, that encouraged attainment of wood-built houses despite living where wood was unavailable. These tiny houses (sheds) typically contained nothing but a stove – no furniture or place to sleep. While tea could be made on the stove, Inuit were faced with a problem – how to live in these new and entirely inadequate environments with all the related challenges (e.g., mold, lack of space to cook, sleep, keep food etc.).

Now, let’s return to the default assumption that European settlers were the founders and creators of tea culture. Why do we make this assumption? How it is that we have come to not know or to assume that other cultures and societies, including Inuit, could not also value, produce and consume (in this case) teas and, in the process, produce a tea culture? Tea as ‘commodity’, tea knowledge, and tea consumption was not exclusively the domain of the ‘modern, civilized’ world. For instance, Inuit would traditionally brew certain plants native to their territories, often for medicinal purposes (Black et al., 2011). Ingenuity and innovation surround Indigenous tea cultures. For instance, Innu (an Indigenous Nation distinct from Inuit) created what is known as Innu tea dolls. Dolls were constructed and filled with tea. In this manner children would assist in carrying supplies during nomadic hunting treks into the wilderness. When the tea was gone, grass would be used to reshape the doll (Labrie, 2019). Contemplate the implications that having only one story about ‘tea’ has to the notions of ‘being productive’, ‘ownership’ and ‘conquest’? What does it imply about who has ingenuity and who does not? Who, for instance, has the ability to own a story while erasing others’ stories (and realities) and why? Who are perceived as the suppliers of something valuable and desirable? Who are the recipients? What does this imply about their relationship?

Let’s turn your gaze to the image of the artisan teapot embellished with the uluit design. How did this image emerge?  Assimilation attempts were reflected in the material items selected for Inuit through Hudson’s Bay Company storehouses. Teapots, linens, silverware were among the approved items Inuit could purchase. While Inuit were encouraged to eat and drink like Qallunaat, as part of civilizing assimilationist ideals, Inuit held fiercely, to their ways of knowing, being and doing. Despite its association with British colonialism, the teapot was adopted by Inuit and adapted within Inuit culture. Tea has become a staple in many homes and continues to be enjoyed throughout the Arctic. In some communities, Inuit youth may be tasked with travelling to get the best ice to make tea for their Elders, and in many locations, families and friends routinely drink tea during visiting and socializing. For some Inuit, having tea in one’s home is considered essential.

The content, use and activity of sharing and socializing over tea has been claimed and adapted by Inuit over time. The teapot has been transformed into something that today can be arguably understood as deeply embedded within Inuit culture throughout the Arctic. Social visiting within Inuit communities may incorporate the activity of drinking tea (and eating) and yet remain distinctly Inuit-specific in culture and social ways. Inuit families may call on each other, often unexpectedly, and are welcomed with sharing what one has with visitors. Today Inuit entrepreneurs put their mark on items such as the teapot presented in the image by Qilavvaq (Kilabuk), and new markets for selling goods are embraced as Inuit increasingly own the means of production. The teapot image can be understood as a representation of the refusal of Inuit to submit to colonialism and instead to self-determine their own future and attachment to culture and capital. Now Inuit teapots and tea are purchased by many Qallunaat – highlighting a reversal of capitalist relations and a social culture and distinct recreation of what being Inuit means. Increasingly, Inuit have often opposed, overturned, and dismissed colonial attempts to control Inuit ways of life. The remaking of colonial artifacts into Inuit art, highlights the reclamation of an object once used as a source/site of assimilation, to one that emphasizes Inuit culture, creativity, dynamism, and ingenuity.

Conclusion

Through CRA learners can excavate understandings that lie beneath the surface of taken-for-granted meanings imposed and portrayed by photographs. We have attempted to do this here with two images depicting Inuit, tea, and tea pots. CRA reveals how Qallunaat efforts aimed to assimilate Inuit into ‘civilized’ colonial society, while prohibiting their dependency on government and access to elite society at the same time. Our analysis aims to engage readers to come to understand that while Inuit have adopted aspects of settler culture, such as tea culture, the process may not have been what it first appears. Instead, this process can be less about coercion and more about Inuit agency in the integration and adaptation of their own tea drinking practices, artistry, and culture with and within Qallunaat culture.