I have never had difficulties with academic writing; it is a challenge I enjoy immensely, and is the source of my greatest learning experiences.  So why was it difficult this time?  It was just discussing indigenous decolonization through the lens of intercultural communication, and was inspired by the lecture Mark Pagel: How language transformed humanity (TEDGlobal, 2011).  It took me from the Old Testament (Genesis 11:1) through a brief history of colonialism globally, and back, full circle, to a common, colonial language with a new twist.  English as the language of empowerment instead of the language of oppression.  I do not know if I captured half of what my own head was screaming about the topic.

Where the real problem occurred was the realization that my own world views were changing as I was writing, and my arguments would no longer hold up to my own scrutiny (so how was I to hand in something I did not even believe in?).  Why such a change (and change. . .and change. . .and change!) in attitude and argument?  Because it was personal.  It was my history.  These were my struggles as much as they were the scholars I was studying.

There was no room to speak of traditional indigenous knowledge without speaking in traditional indigenous knowledge.  I could not talk about the indigenous struggle with colonialism, without using their words.  Suddenly, I was the storyteller and the scholar.  The two worlds I was discussing – colonial (white) and traditional (indigenous) became the same world, and the arguments lost validity (to me).  Can both worlds coexist in the same academic paper?  Why not?  Indigenous scholars do it all the time.  So, why then was this a struggle for a voice on the page, when the voice was speaking reason in my mind, and in spoken word?

I think I missed the mark on this paper.  It left me wanting to do more; to argue stronger, louder, and better.  This was just the exercise in self-reflection I needed, and it felt good.  It felt good!