One of the challenges I have faced as an academic is the manne should discuss my own people, the Anishinaabe. The fact of the m an Anishinaabe academic, no matter how much the term sounds moron. I feel I can no longer use the third person in discussing my experience of the Anishinaabe is my experience, and there is no w ply the Anishinaabe are the" Other." As such, I have made a consci to use the first person in my academic writing on the Anishinaabe spect, I am surrendering the scholarly goal of supposed objectivity goal-academic precision. To the degree my comments approach aim, my writing will serve the interests of both the Anishinaabe communities, thus encouraging dialogue between the two. In th sis, if we are to move beyond treating people as the other, just suc is necessary. Hopefully, my remarks below will provide a small direction.

The myths of the Anishinaabe are helping us to maintain a distin and by continuing to tell our sacred stories and controlling the tel stories, we are sustaining our cultural sovereignty. One question th ther development, however, is the worldview developed on the bas myths. In recent years, analysis of Anishinaabe myths by non scholars has centered around what might be termedfood econom tionship of the Anishinaabe to food resources, with a special emph animals. The general consensus is that the myths teach morality, e vironmental ethics. The conclusions drawn on the basis of this app been insightful, as far as they go. However, another perspective le ferent understanding of Anishinaabe worldview and sacred stories Although the sacred stories of the Anishinaabe are wide ranging, mon element is that many of the stories are funny. What happens morous nature of Anishinaabe tales is taken seriously? For exa our most important mythic character, Wenabozho, or Nanabus