Indigenous Stats: More than Just Numbers.

Indigenous statistics is intensely political.

Walter and Andersen's "Indigenous Statistics- A Quantitative Research Methodology" uncover implicit power dynamics within governmental statistics that depict Indigenous people as "deficient" and imply a need for conformity to non-Indigenous standards. This prompts a reevaluation of assumptions within government-disseminated statistics on Indigenous populations, raising questions about their true purpose and who benefits from the constructed "reality" of Indigenous Peoples as a collective.

My recent interest has been on Inuit traditional birthing methods and the diminishing presence of these doula practices. Traditionally, Inuit birth their babies with the aid of an ikajurati (Inuit midwives helper). However, since the 1980s, the legitimacy of this practice has been displaced. The government has normalized the evacuation of pregnancies from Arctic Canada to southern parts of the country. Consequently, Inuit women now have to travel over 100 kilometers away from family and community at 36 weeks gestation to give birth in a foreign urban center. Recent data indicates that 80% of all births in Nunavut are evacuated to Winnipeg (Lee E et.al, 2022).

The government's use of statistics to justify what appears to be an ill-informed decision, seeking to address the high perinatal mortality in Arctic Canada compared to its Southern counterparts, is indeed intriguing. One could argue that this policy was implemented to colonize the Northern birthing process by medicalizing it. However, it's crucial to note that evacuation is not inherently superior, and, more importantly, birthing within the community is not inherently riskier. This evacuation policy strikingly resembles what Walter and Anderson's book terms as a present, ongoing, and more integrative assimilation wielded through statistical representation. This assumption implies that Indigenous Peoples aspire to align with the practices of the nation-state.

The government's assumption that Inuit must or want to conform to Western medical norms for birthing prompts critical questions. Is the government's intervention justified as a moral obligation to reconcile high perinatal deaths, or does it reflect a deeper assimilation agenda? The statistics used to justify this also prompt questions. What categories were used to collect the statistical information? Were all angles considered, such as how other social determinants like overcrowded housing could affect infant mortality rates? Or were these numbers generated to justify the political realities imposed on the Inuit community and continue its assimilation?

The significance of categories in collecting statistical information and their impact on interpretation is crucial. The nature of questions significantly influences power distribution. It is imperative to question how statistics on perinatal and birthing rates of Inuit women in Nunavut were determined, as well as all Indigenous Statistics presented. As a collective, there is a responsibility to ensure that these constructed realities accurately reflect the needs and desires of these communities. Statistics go beyond numbers; they shape policies that affect lives. Data should empower the community; they are not mere objects, but active participants in identifying their needs and contributing to the formulation of its structure.