Thoughts on Reconciliation

 

I have always had strong opinions about Truth and Reconciliation. It is a very complicated topic masked by one simple word: reconciliation. But what does that really mean and how would it work in practice? Recently I read 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act by Bob Joseph. While, he does outline problems with the act and how it affects Indigenous people today, I feel that it was not focused and sometimes overreached it's conclusions. Still, it got me thinking about how reconciliation would work in practice. 

Part of the problem with this effort is the emotions involved. Detractors will claim that reconciliation means erasing “white” history – tearing down statues of Canadian founders and demonizing White (or colonizer) Canadians. Proponents will state that it means recognizing troubling truths about colonization, restoring failed treaties and agreements, and living together in harmony. But, how would this work in the real world? We simply cannot erase all traces of white settlers off of Canada. Even if somehow we managed to move every settler, immigrant, and refugee off of Canadian land, the landscape has still changed irreparably. Native cultures have been forgotten or changed. Lands have been passed down to settler families and some may say they have as much claim to that land as the original tribes. Furthermore, how do you divide up the land? Indigenous tribes have not remained stagnant over the last few hundred years - like any group of people. Tribes were migrated, moved off original land, or merged with other tribes. To untangle that mess of who is who and who should get what is impossible! So, how would you start to try to solve this issue. 

Historically, white settlers (or colonizers, if you rather) dealt with the "problem" forcefully. In the thoughts of the time, they were superior and their needs had precedence. They, quite simply, conquered. Throughout much of history, that is how things have worked (for better or for worse). One country conquers another, asserts their physical and cultural dominance and the conquered are eventually subsumed into the larger culture. But, the Natives were never full assimilated into the British culture. While, I cannot say that early British governments in Canada tried to preserve their culture, they did not integrate them fully. Instead, they created Indian Acts, and, later, reservation systems to deal with this "problem". I do honestly think that they did what they thought best at the time - no matter how badly it turned out. For example, they honestly believed that they were smarter and more advanced than Native cultures. So, to help them, they tried to teach them the "better way" of doing things. They didn't think about the losses of language and tradition - not like we do today. I think it's important to remember historical context when looking back. All that being said, where does that leave us today? 

Last year, I read The Hutterites in North America by Rod Janzen and Max Stanton. I read it in part to compare how Hutterite colonies operated in Canada and how their model might influence reconciliation. But to do that, I want to understand what is meant by reconciliation. Not just on a fanciful level of good gestures and words (land recognition etc.) but in practice. How would reconciliation operate in daily life? In the next few weeks, I will be looking into the definition of Reconciliation and what people, particularly government and tribes) think it should look like. I will also look at how that might work in practice.