Delaney: 
Asad, Talal. “Introduction”. From Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter in Readings For a History of Anthropological Theory. 2014. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. 391-403.
Talal Asad’s introduction from Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter looks at the relationship between anthropology and colonialism. He discusses the “handmaiden of colonialism”, referring to anthropology being the handmaiden to colonialism. Asad believed that anthropology was born out of colonialism and these ethnocentric ideologies shaped the beginnings of the discipline. He writes that the discipline was created out of an unequal divide between first world countries and third world countries. Asad acknowledges the disparity between those who primarily dominate the study of anthropology and those who are the subjects leads to a greater power divide. This power struggle has shaped the discipline and must be always aware to anthropologists when conducting research. He writes “we then need to ask ourselves how this relationships has affected the practical pre-conditions of social anthropology; the uses to which its knowledge was put; the theoretical treatment of particular topics; the mode of perceiving and objectifying alien societies; and the anthropologists claim of political neutrality.” (Asad, 1973: 388). Asad’s article on colonialism and anthropology provides a blunt look at the deep ties between the two that can be hidden. His work is relevant to the research paper as it examines the impact of colonialism on anthropology worldwide.
Dyck, Noel. “Cultures, Communities and Claims: Anthropology and Native Studies in Canada”. From Canadian Ethnic Studies. 1990. Vol. 22, Issue 3: 40-55.
Noel Dyck’s article looks at the emergence of Indigenous studies by anthropologists over the past 40 years. Research and ethical management surrounding how anthropologist conduct their work in Canada has increasingly changed and adapted over the last few decades. More protocols and consent has to be established before any ethnographic fieldwork begins. Dyck discusses how “the nature of anthropologists’ involvement with aboriginal communities and issues has been shifting as field researchers have been asked to intervene on behalf of native peoples when dealing with governments.” (Dyck 1990: 43). No more does the armchair anthropologist exist in Canada according to Dyck. Canadian anthropologists have taken on the role of advocates and speakers on behalf of their subjects. Anthropologists have begun to take an active role as agents in Indigenous communities and issues affecting them instead of remaining solely as outsiders looking in. Participatory research methodology has allowed anthropologists to become involved in publishing oral histories and conducting extensive interviews. This allows for a more insider’s perspective to be achieved during fieldwork. Anthropology in Canada has adapted to acknowledge Indigenous communities are not static and unchanging. Noel Dyck’s article provided a detailed and in depth examination of the relationship between Indigenous people and anthropologists. His work will be a helpful source in looking at the colonial ties to Canadian anthropology.
Dyck, Noel, and James B Waldram. Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. 2014. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montréal. 
Noel Dyck and James B. Waldram examine the ties between Canadian anthropology and its Indigenous peoples. Dyck and Waldram divide their book on Indigenous issues into three subsections; focusing on historical perspectives on policy issues, followed by anthropological research and finally the anthropological involvement in Indigenous issues. Part three on anthropology’s hand in Indigenous policy looks at six individual case studies including anthropologist Julia Harrison. Anthropologists have faced tensions with Indigenous groups due to previous misrepresentations of groups in research. Although, the book discusses anthropologists working for Indigenous organizations can actually benefit these organizations for several reasons. These reasons include “political cohesion, operational knowledge of government, and policy research capacity.” (Dyck and Waldram 2014: 277). As Canadian anthropology is deeply tied to colonialism, anthropologists can use this history to better examine how to move away from a Eurocentric view by allowing marginalized groups to have a voice. This source is particularly helpful for writing the paper as it looks at the influences Indigenous studies have on anthropologists in Canada. The authors provide a comprehensive and in-depth look at the way anthropologists can influence Indigenous policy in Canada by providing examples.
Ervin, Alexander M, and Lorne Holyoak. “Applied Anthropology in Canada: Historical Foundations, Contemporary Practice and Policy Potentials.” 2006. Napa Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1: 134–155.
Alexander Ervin and Lorne Holyoak’s article examines how Canadian history has shaped and influenced anthropology, specifically applied anthropology. The authors look at the history of applied anthropology in Canada and its relationship to Indigenous groups. Anthropologists Diamond Jenness and Harry Hawthorn worked closely with Indigenous groups and preservation of traditional ceremonies such as the sun dance. Canadian anthropology grew out of its connection to colonialism and as a result Indigenous groups were intertwined. Much anthropological work has been done on Indigenous peoples in Canada, allowing for a variety of perspectives. The article discusses well known examples of anthropologists working alongside Indigenous groups in Canada. Anthropologists in Canada have become increasingly involved in participatory research alongside Indigenous groups and advocating for improving quality of life for their subjects. The James Bay Hydroelectric project in the 1970’s is mentioned as a prime case of anthropologists able to study a group being relocated and the ramifications associated with this shift. They discuss how anthropologists in Canada have begun to understand Indigenous policy making and the issues surrounding it. Ervin and Holyoak provide an in depth examination of the emergence of Canadian anthropology becoming advocates for Indigenous rights and removing the colonial influence on the discipline.
Hancock, Robert L.A. “Towards a Historiography of Canadian Anthropology”. Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory. 2014. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. pp. 30-43.
Robert L.A. Hancock’s article examines the historiography of Canadian anthropology. He first looks at the history of Canadian anthropology by breaking it down into four periods of development. These four periods were the missionary era, the amateur era, the national museum era, and the university era. Hancock discusses how these four periods shaped Canadian anthropology through work by anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Edward Sapir. He writes that Canadian anthropology has struggled to find its own identity but has been greatly shaped by colonialism. Canadian anthropology found its beginning in the missionary era with the work of Jesuit missionaries in what was known as New France. These missionaries wrote about the Indigenous groups in Canada from their perspective and began ethnographic field research. Hancock discusses some of the issues facing Canadian anthropology in biases and ethnocentrism that were rooted in colonization. His article is beneficial for the research paper in that it discusses the history of Canadian anthropology and its deep ties to colonialism and settler history in Canada. 
Park, Augustine S.J. “Settler Colonialism and the Politics of Grief: Theorising a Decolonising Transitional Justice for Indian Residential Schools”. From Human Rights Review. 2014. Volume 16, Issue 3: 273-293.
This article by Augustine S.J. Park provides a basis at one of the effects of colonization on Canadian history. Park’s article looks at the creation of residential schools in Canada and the history of settler colonialism. As the author is a historian and not an anthropologist, they provide a more historical look at residential schools rather than an anthropological perspective. The article is useful for collecting background information on some of the key events in Canadian history that shaped the country and how anthropological work is conducted in Canada. As Indigenous groups in Canada are still are increasingly marginalized group and were historically forgotten or misrepresented in anthropology. As the discipline began it grew out of a largely European colonial perspective that underrepresented minority groups such as Indigenous groups in Canada and female perspectives in favour of the armchair anthropologist. This anthropologist tended to be a European male who allowed his own biases to influence the anthropological research being conducted. This source looks at settler colonialism from a historical perspective and provides a look at Canadian colonial history. This history heavily influenced anthropology in Canada through residential schools which the effects of are still being studied today.
Slaney, Frances. “Working For a Canadian Sense of Place(s): The Role of Landscape Painters in Marius Barbeau’s Ethnology”. From Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays Toward a More Inclusive History of Anthropology. 2000. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin. pp. 81-122.
In Richard Handler’s work on a history of anthropology, Frances M. Slaney writes about Marius Barbeau and his work with Indigenous groups and the idea of space and place. Slaney argues that Barbeau believed in an ethnically diverse and cross-cultural approach to research. “Rather than assume that all citizens would be equal and the same within a uniform state, Barbeau wanted to promote an appreciation of diversified local “colour” that would connect each citizen to numerous regional histories and culturally charged places.” (Slaney 2014: 84). She argues that Marius Barbeau was a pioneer in working to reduce any ethnocentric or prejudiced views of anthropologists during his time conducting research. Slaney’s article examines famous anthropologists who conducted work in Canada and left a lasting impression on how the discipline operates to this day. Both Franz Boas and Marius Barbeau practiced salvage anthropology and stressed the idea of diffusion and culture expanding. Slaney provides a look at anthropologists who helped to shape what is known as Canadian anthropology today and its identity.
Simpson, Audra. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. 2014. Duke University Press: Durham. 
In Audra Simpson’s book,  Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States specifically chapter four, she examines the history of colonialism and anthropology with an Indigenous focus. Simpson discusses the dominant euro-centric presence in anthropology that romanticized the “noble savage”. She discusses prominent anthropologists such as Lewis Henry Morgan who conducted work on the Iroquois and some of his biases and misunderstandings he had about his subjects. Simpson looks at the extensive anthropological studies conducted on Iroquois people and issues of sovereignty in Canada. Chapter four of Simpson’s book examines the tight rope anthropologists must walk in conducting research on Indigenous groups. She discusses the difficulties she herself had when doing research as an Indigenous woman and an anthropologist. Audra Simpson’s work will be useful for the research paper as it looks at the impact colonialism has had on anthropologists in Canada. Her book provides an insider’s look at Canadian anthropology and its relations to Canada’s Indigenous people. The discipline has a tense history with its treatment of Indigenous people and Simpson is familiar with both sides and her viewpoint is an integral perspective when discussing this subject matter. 
Bibliography -- The Decolonization of Archaeological Practices
Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice
Smith and Wobst discuss the field of archaeology as a colonialist endeavor, stating that one rarely considers non-Western approaches in caring for cultural heritage. They note that Indigenous critiques set new directions for the practice of archaeology that allows for political awareness and sensitivity to the goals of the Indigenous peoples.  They urge for a shift in mindset to aid in creating opportunities for Indigenous peoples to voice their opinions on a global forum.
Indigenous worldviews and ways of knowing as theoretical and methodological foundations for archaeological research
Harris begins her discussion on the conflict that can arise between Indigenous people and archaeologists resulting from divergent worldviews and methods for gathering knowledge.  She explains how Western thought organizes itself around dichotomies like animate and inanimate, subject and object, observer and observed, whereas Indigenous thought is more holistic. She argues that in order to move forward towards change, there needs to be a better understanding of aboriginal concerns.
Marius Barbeau and the Methodology of Salvage Ethnography in Canada, 1911-51
Nurse covered the methodologies that were used in Canadian salvage ethnography, in particular those used by Marius Barbeau in his field work of western indigenous cultures.  Barbeau believed that most indigenous cultures in Canada were on the brink of extinction, so he took it upon himself to salvage as much of the cultures as he saw fit.  Nurse discussed the problems with Barbeau’s salvage methods where he explained that authenticity determined by anthropologists used little reference to the views of the people actually under study.
Iroquoian Archaeology, the Public, and the Native communities in the Victorian Ontario
Hamilton goes into detail on how the public influenced the development of Iroquoian Archaeology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  These amateurs helped to determine the standards for documentation and excavation, as well as the interpretation of remains.  There were also repercussions in using amateurs, where bones were often found broken by shovels and the most unusual or attractive artifacts were collected.  Hamilton also discussed how Iroquoian archaeology affected many First Nations communities where indigenous spirituality was overlooked in terms of excavations involving human remains.
The Positioning of Archaeology within Anthropology: A Canadian Historical Perspective
This article by Kelley and Williamson provided a comparative analysis on the origins and evolution of archaeology within Canada and the United States.  Canadian professional archaeology can be traced back to 1851 during the establishment of the Canadian Institute where its goals were for the general advancement of the physical sciences and the arts.  The United States however began their systematic archaeological research during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century when the American Philosophical Society and the American Antiquarian Society became interested in aboriginal cultural remains.  Kelley and Williamson also discuss the future of four-field anthropology where they argue that archaeology and anthropology are no longer sharing as much in terms of subject and methodology as they once did.  However, archaeologists are increasingly working in collaboration with first Nations groups and in ethnographic studies of material culture in which will help in the reintegration process back into the field.
Letters from the field: reflections of the nineteenth-century archaeology of Harlan I. Smith in the Southern Interior of British Columbia, Canada
This paper by Carlson provides an understanding of the early methodologies and working relations with the indigenous peoples of Smith’s three seasons of fieldwork in the southern Interior of British Columbia.  These letters by Harlan Smith explain his field time and funding that was devoted to excavating human remains, taking portrait photographs of the indigenous peoples, and plaster casts of indigenous people’s heads.  Carlson notes in this article that Smith’s letters embodied many issues that are still faced today in archaeology such as cultural conflict, ethics of practice, degree of community involvement, and colonial attitudes.  
The rediscovery of HMS Investigator: Archaeology, sovereignty and the colonial legacy in Canada’s Arctic
This article by Hodgetts goes into the history of the HMS Investigator and its impact towards the Inuit communities of the North.  Archaeologists over the years such as Clifford Hickey have proposed that Inuinnait culture underwent significant transformation due to the tins and barrels that were discovered onshore.  Hodgetts argues that while archaeologists used to think that cultural interactions resulted in a one-way flow of ideas and change from colonizers to colonized, there is now a recognition of agency of Indigenous peoples.  She explains that rather than focusing on how the HMS Investigator goods transformed Inuit culture, archaeologists prefer to examine on how the goods were incorporated into or resisted by existing cultural practices.  
Annotated Bibliography for Collaborative Anthropology
Bani, Mary, and Anita Herle’s article, Collaborative Projects on Torres Strait Collections,  provides an interesting example of collaborative methodology restoring cultural authority to the studied communities even after the original ethnographic project had long been completed. With a 1998 exhibition opening on the 1898 Cambridge expedition to the Torres Straight, the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology worked with cultural representatives from the Torres Strait in order to create a more complete and nuanced exhibition.
Blaikie and Calum’s article, Coproducing Efficacious Medicines, details a collaborative ethnographic research event focusing on medicinal practitioners from India, Tibet, and Nepal. The event was set up as a workshop allowing these practitioners to explain and demonstrate their craft alongside anthropologists who had been working in these communities for decades. This article is a prime example of modern collaborative anthropology and illustrates one format in which this methodology may be implemented. 
Kennedy reflects on her work in collaborative anthropology, drawing details from three projects; an ethnographic project in South America, and two collectively written books on feminist anthropology. She highlights both the difficulties posed by this methodology as well as what she felt was gained in the outcome of the research. Her third project in particular, the book Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold, drew from work with the academic and lesbian communities and nicely illustrates the collaborative approach.
In Collaborative Anthropology as Twenty-first-Century Ethical Anthropology, Fluehr-Lobban argues that collaborative anthropology is ethically preferable to other forms of research. She also argues for superior outcomes as this methodology draws on multiple perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced conclusion. Fluehr-Lobban contrasts collaborative anthropology with perviously used Boasnian models, European social anthropology, and colonial influences. 
Lassiter explores the history and development of collaborative ethnographies in Collaborative Ethnography and Public Anthropology, creating a context for contemporary collaborative research. Historical themes influencing this development include feminist anthropology and postmodernist approaches. Lassiter argues for the use of collaborative research in modern work as a way to more immediately serve the subject communities.
In Moving Past Anthropology and doing Collaborative Research, Lassiter introduces the current debates surrounding collaborative anthropology, and suggests methods for future collaborative work. While Lassiter focuses heavily on the criticisms of this methodology, he does encourage the use and development of collaborative research in the anthropological sphere.
Malinowski proposes a scientific protocol ensuring that the native point of view is articulated; he is one of the first in anthropological history to set methodology specifically ensuring this outcome. The passage Introduction: the subject, method and scope of this inquiry notes the beginnings of a shift in the perspective of anthropological research, and reestablishes the communities as the source of cultural authority. This is illustrated in Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islanders in New Guinea.
Margaret Rodman’s project Working Together in Vanuatu: Research Histories, Collaborations, Projects and Reflections, culminating in a published book, drew on research gathered in a workshop in Vanuatu, in the Pacific Islands. The book was a collection of reports written during this workshop and included not only the work of three anthropologists but the reports of eleven field-workers and ten house-girls. This research highlighted the girl’s experiences with their employers and explored the themes of gender and race in Vanuatu.
Tylor details the scientific approach to ethnographical research. He provides insight into early anthropological methods and reasoning prior to the rise of collaborative work, illustrating the methodological basis that collaborative methodology was eventually introduced to. Tylor also expands on cultural evolution and cultural laws, though these are not as pertinent to the essay.
Ruby Zarriga’s article, Restorative Justice in Papua New Guinea: a Collaborative Effort, provides another illustration of a modern and practical application of collaborative anthropology. Zarriga, et al. detail the process of community development and restoration in Papua New Guinea from the perspective of the Department of National Planning. Collaborative methods are emphasized, with multiple perspectives lending to decision making, and the communities themselves are pulled into this process in order to create change that genuinely improves their lives. 

INTRODUCTION

Please add a few sentences here about your section... 
The section "Autoethnograpy: Introspection as Decolonization" examines the methods and ideologies of autoethnography. This methodology does not solely focus on decolonizing Canadian anthropology, but through the works selected we see how autoethnography has been deployed in a Canadian setting. Autoethnography, in essence, is a tool that shifts power away from colonizers, and facilitates the indigenization of anthropology and epistemology.  In “ Archaeology and Museums: Deconstruction and examining the colonial effects on modern Canadian archaeology ” section, it discusses the legal and reforms that have happened in archaeology and museums. In an age where colonial powers are no more reforms are needed to move anthropology and even archeaology out of the colonial framework. We are now in a post-colonial world where acts of repatriation are being done and ownership of indigenous artefacts are being challenged by both sides, indigenous and government.  “The Decolonization of Archaeological Practices” adds to “Archaeology and Museums: Deconstruction and examining the colonial effects on modern Canadian Archaeology” by discussing the ethics of archaeological practice and the present methods used in decolonizing archaeology.  Various case studies will be discussed to show how colonial attitudes have impacted communities throughout the recent years.  "Collaborative Anthropology: A Methodological Response to Modern Theory" explores the rise of collaboration in anthropological research projects. Introduced only recently to the field, this section highlights the origins and benefits of this methodology. Collaborative structures aim to decolonize anthropological research through the reformatting of unbalanced power structures that have long secured the anthropologist as the 'expert' on culture, ignoring the opinions and contributions of community participants. In "The Colonial Past of Canadian Anthropology and Its Future" examines the history of Canadian anthropology with its influences from colonialism and its relationship to Indigenous groups who were often ignored and misrepresented in the discipline as a result. As well, the current responses to breaking away from these colonial ties with reference to newer methodologies such as interpretive and participatory style actioned research and how anthropologists are increasingly using their position to advocate on behalf of their subjects. The Section "Decolonizing Educational Anthropology in Canada" examines the role anthropologists have played in the colonial history of education and the development of the sub-field itself. Particular attention will be paid to how the cooperation of anthropologists and educators can develop decolonized curricula. 

Decolonizing Methodologies

T. Smith's book Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples \cite{tuhiwai2013} is a well-known text that is not limited to anthropology, but that identifies different ways that research can be conducted by and with Indigenous peoples in ways that respect Indigenous needs and rights.
In a Canadian context, UBC anthropologist Charles Menzies has suggested a list of strategies for ethnographic research conducted "with, for, and among Indigenous peoples" \cite{menzies2001reflections}.
Central to both of these works is the premise that research must be truly collaborative from its inception, with research questions and priorities set in association with local communities, instead of operating in an extractive or merely consultative mode. Identifying Indigenous communities as partners and collaborators (e.g., \citealt{ridington2013happiness}) implies a substantially different relationship between anthropologists and collaborators than is suggested for conventional participant observation, in which the ethnographer is a privileged subject whose role is to understand, and report on, "the natives" \cite{Malinowski1922}.

Autoethnography: Introspection as Decolonization (Kevin)

 Anthropology’s origins are deeply rooted in colonialism, a fact that has shaped discourse within the discipline through generations. While anthropology has greatly shifted away from its initial colonial ideals, it can be argued that anthropology is inadvertently still colonial. Unfortunately, Canadian anthropology is no exception to this pattern. Challenging these colonial values can be a difficult task. Throughout this essay, autoethnography, which is an individual’s study or account of their own culture, will be examined as a potential remedy to colonialism in anthropology. This will be done by looking at how autoethnography challenges conventional anthropology’s physical presence, how it can give a voice to informants, and how autoethnography intersects with public anthropology to deflect colonial values. To supplement this discussion, the autoethnographic works of Robert F. Murphy, Julie Cruikshank, and Joel Martineau will be examined. Following this, several common criticisms of autoethnography will be disputed. Over the course of this essay it will be argued  that autoethnography is an ideal means of decolonization, physically and epistemologically. While this methodology does not specifically target Canadian anthropology, some Canadian autoethnographic works have been selected to show how it has decolonized Canadian anthropology. To understand how to challenge the presence of colonialism in anthropology we must first understand how anthropology has been colonial in the past.  
Central to the discipline of anthropology is fieldwork.  Tullio Maranhão goes as far as to say that fieldwork is the defining feature of the “anthropologist’s métier” \cite{Maranhao1986}. While fieldwork has laid the foundation of modern anthropological theory and practice, colonial undercurrents can often be found, rendering some methods of fieldwork problematic. Aleksandar Bošković and Thomas Hylland Eriksen highlight how western anthropology is often colonial in nature because it focuses on foreign cultures who are not in a position to resist an unwanted presence \cite{Boskovic.Erkison2013}. Essentially, anthropology has been colonial as it has synthesized inimical fieldwork with an interest in foreign cultures, and through this has reinforced colonial power balances. Epitomizing the colonial themes encapsulated in fieldwork are Marius Barbeau and Bronislaw Malinowski. A brief examination of the work of these anthropologists will draw attention to how autoethnography can be used to decolonize anthropological fieldwork and methodology. It is important to note that these anthropologists were chosen not for their anachronistic nature, but because their fieldwork, while prolific and greatly influential, was harmful to the cultures they studied. 
Marius Barbeau, a Canadian salvage ethnographer, reinforces a colonial power balance through his fieldwork. In the early 20th century Barbeau collected and archived Indigenous cultures that he believed were on the brink of extinction. Through his preservation efforts Barbeau assumed the role of a cultural curator, where he arbitrated the (in)authentic. This method of fieldwork is colonial as it polarizes power between the Indigenous people and the anthropologist. Barbeau often disregarded the information locals provided to him, deeming that their cultural insight was inferior to his. Through this Barbeau creates a dichotomous power relationship, where he is the authoritative figure on a culture despite his brief immersion into it, and that because of this he controlled what was genuine. In short, Barbeau distorted and dismissed contemporary culture by deciphering its authenticity through his “intuition” \cite{Nurse2011}. Despite his problematic fieldwork, Barbeau made great contributions to archiving culture and championed early anthropology’s strive to salvage culture perceived to be at risk. As mentioned, Barbeau was a Canadian anthropologist, helping provide an example of how Canadian anthropology has been colonial.
Bronislaw Malinowski’s Argonauts of the Western Pacific \citep{Malinowski1922} is another example of the colonial nature of anthropological fieldwork. While not Canadian in any sense, Malinowski's work further shows how anthropological methodology can be interpreted as colonial. Diverging from Barbeau’s power dichotomy, Malinowski’s fieldwork has a colonial undercurrent through the physical presence encouraged by participant observation. Malinowski advocated that anthropologists need to immerse themselves in the cultures they study. While this approach was progressive in contrast to its contemporaries, it reinforced a colonial presence in the cultures being studied. In “The Hermeneutics of Participant Observation”, Maranhão states that Indigenous populations fear anthropologists as they “do not know the powers [t]he[y] can unleash, but who have learned about the impact the colonial authority, the missionary, or the tourist can have over their community” \cite{Maranhao1986}. In other words, the presence of an anthropologist can bring discomfort and even fear to a community. This is alluded to by Malinowski himself when he states: “they finished by regarding me as part and parcel of their life, a necessary evil or nuisance, mitigated by donations of tobacco” \cite{Malinowski1922}. Despite eventually becoming a part of everyday life, it is clear that Malinowski was an invasive presence. Pertinent to the colonial roots of fieldwork is a quote from David MacDougall, an ethnographic film maker, who writes that “if not in his personal demeanor, then in the significance of his working method, he inevitably reaffirms the colonial origins of anthropology” \cite{McDougall2003}. While the works of these anthropologists have contributed greatly to current in anthropology, they reinforced problematic fieldwork methods.
Autoethnography offers a unique and polymorphous remedy to some of these issues, allowing a possible path for decolonizing anthropology. Central to the discussion of how to decolonize anthropology is the work of Mary Louise Pratt, who establishes a useful definition for the term “autoethnography”. Pratt states that autoethnography is when “colonized subjects undertake to represent themselves in ways that engage with the colonizers own terms” \cite{Pratt1991}. This definition provides context for the preceding works and how they can be seen as autoethnographic.
     One central way that autoethnography decolonizes anthropology is through its subversive methodologies. One such work that challenges the concept of the anthropologist as an authoritative third party is the work of Robert F. Murphy. Murphy's work is deeply emotional, tragic, and insightful, but for pertinence his work must be briefly summarized for its methodology. The Body Silent is an autoethnographic work, published in 1987, that charts Murphy’s transition into paralysis, and the social effects it has had on his life as an anthropologist and professor.  In The Body Silent there is a merging of personal experience with research and theory, which creates a powerful anthropological work. This work is subversive, as rather than following patterns of western anthropology, focusing on foreign cultures with an etic approach, Murphy takes an introspective approach of his own culture, fusing emic and etic perspectives by using “inner space to explore the structure of selfhood and sentiment” \cite{Murphy2001}. Indirectly this approach also removes what might be seen as an intrusive presence from an indigenous community. Murphy shows how the transition of denizen to subject can be fluid and unobtrusive, allowing for the study of physical impairment, or other aspects of ones own culture without the need  for a colonial presence. Murphy decolonizes anthropology by showing that it is not solely a tool for learning about the "other".