Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:08:23.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defence of Reconciliation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

Victoria Freeman
Get access

Extract

Indigenous scholars and others have characterized Canadian discourses of reconciliation as supporting a top-down, government-defined and controlled agenda, which is at best ineffective and misleading and at worst fraudulent and recolonizing. Some have argued that reconciliation should only occur after the Indian Act has been abolished, reparations made, land and resources returned, and a political and economic nation-to-nation relationship restored. The author agrees that it is essential to look critically at state and nationalistic discourses of reconciliation and that neither the federal government, the churches, nor non-Indigenous peoples generally can or should control the agenda. However, while reconciliation is not a sufficient condition for decolonization in Canada, Indigenous resurgence on its own will not achieve full decolonization either. If the psychic structures of colonialism persist, various forms of neocolonialism will be prevalent even after a nominal “nation-to-nation” relationship has been established, given the demographic imbalance and geographical proximity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. There will always be a need for relationship and negotiation.

In fact, decolonization and reconciliation may be understood as complementary and concurrent processes. The concept of reconciliation underlines the emotional, psychological and human changes that are as necessary as political and economic reformulations for decolonization and that are not easily addressed by other means. Rather than a top-down government-initiated campaign focused on assimilation into the status quo or a Eurocentric Christian doctrine focused on forgiveness, reconciliation can be a transformative process of building the relationships, alliances and social understandings necessary to support the systemic changes that true decolonization entails. Indigenous and other cultural paradigms for resolving conflicts, making restitution and healing relationships, such as the Sto:lo concept of lummi or “facing yourself,” can help restore interconnectedness and reciprocity at all levels, both within Indigenous communities and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and the land. We also should not overestimate the government’s power to control even those reconciliation processes it does initiate, let alone those that arise autonomously. Decolonization and reconciliation are processes underway on many fronts in Canada, and they can’t be controlled by anyone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 213 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Alfred, Taiaiake, “Restitution is the Real Pathway to Justice for Indigenous Peoples” [“Restitution”] in Younging, Gregory, Dewar, Jonathan & DeGagné, Mike, eds, Response, Responsibility and Renewal: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Journey (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2009), 179–90 [Response]Google Scholar; Corntassel, Jeff, Chaw-win-is, & T’lakwadzi, , “Indigenous Storytelling, Truth-telling, and Community Approaches to Reconciliation” (March 2009) in 35:1, ESC: English Studies in Canada 137-59 [“Storytelling”]Google Scholar; Simpson, Leanne, Dancing On Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence and a New Emergence (Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring, 2011) [Dancing]Google Scholar; Tully, James, “The Struggles of Indigenous Peoples for and of Freedom” in Iveson, Duncan, Patton, Paul & Sanders, Will, eds, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) at 41 Google Scholar; Regan, Paulette, Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010) [Unsettling]Google Scholar.

2. “Restitution” at 184-85; Alfred, Taiaiake, Address, “First Annual Indigeneity Lecture” (delivered at Ryerson University, 15 February 2012)Google Scholar. Video at http://bit.ly/z6DfG8 [“Indigeneity”].

3. “Storytelling”, supra note 1 at 145.

4. Turner, Dale, Address (delivered at Inclusion and Representation in Anishinabek Self-Government Conference, Nipissing First Nation, 22 January 2011)Google Scholar.

5. Waziyatawin, , “You Can’t Un-Ring a Bell: Demonstrating Contrition through Action” in Response at 195-96Google Scholar.

6. “Restitution”, supra note 1 at 152.

7. Corntassel, Jeff, “Toward Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse” (2008) 33 Alternatives 105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar [“Self-Determination”]; Coulthard, Glen S, “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada” (2007) 6 Contemporary Political Theory 437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. See Alfred, Taiaiake, Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1999) [Peace] at 73–78.Google Scholar

9. Harper, Stephen, Address, (delivered at G20 Summit, Pittsburgh, PA, 25 September 2009.Google Scholar)

10. “Storytelling”, supra note 1 at 144.

11. Ibid at 145.

12. Coulthard, Glen, commentary, “Teaching Reconciliation: The Place and Power of Indigenous Pedagogy” (delivered at Native American and Indigenous Studies Association Annual Meeting, May 19, 2011)Google Scholar; “Storytelling”, supra note 1 at 144, 145.

13. Dancing, supra note 1 at 21.

14. Gunstone, Andrew, Unfinished Business: The Australian Formal Reconciliation Process (North Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2007) at 1, 3, 5. [Unfinished]Google Scholar.

15. Borrows, John, “Practical Reconciliation, Practical Recolonization?” (Canberra, ACT: Native Title Research Unit, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2004)Google Scholar; Unfinished at 2, 7.

16. Veracini, Lorenzo, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Corntassel et al. see it as a Western concept grounded in religion, noting, for example, that there is no word for reconciliation in Nuu-chah-nulth; however, the cultural concepts of gathering together the family to discuss problems and renewing community responsibilities through feasts and gatherings can be seen as Indigenous alternatives. “Storytelling”, supra note 1 at 145-46.

18. Maracle, Lee, personal communication; Maracle, Lee, “Oratory on Oratory” in Kamboureli, Smaro & Miki, Roy, eds, Trans. Can. Lit: Resituating the Study of Canadian Literature (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press, 2007) at 59ffGoogle Scholar.

19. Christian, Dorothy and Freeman, Victoria, “The History of a Friendship, or Some Thoughts on Becoming Allies” in Davis, Lynne, ed, Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non-Indigenous Relationships (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) at 382.Google Scholar

20. Sutherland, Jessie, Four Touchstones for Reconciliation: Transforming Conflict from the Inside Out (Sooke, CA: Worldview Strategies, 2005) at 22.Google Scholar

21. See Miller, JR, Compact, Contract, Covenant: Aboriginal treaty-making in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).Google Scholar

22. Webster’s Dictionary definition of reconciliation quoted in Unsettling, supra note 1 at 60.

23. Unsettling, supra note 1 at 60.

24. “Indigeneity”, supra note 2.

25. See, for example, Johnson, Leo A, “The Mississauga-Lake Ontario Land Surrender of 1805” (1990) 83:3 Ontario History 233 Google Scholar; Carter, Sarah, “Two Acres and a Cow: ‘Peasant’ Farming for the Indians of the Northwest, 1889-97” (1989) 70:1 Can Historical Rev 27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; or Lutz, John Sutton, Makuk: A History of Aboriginal-White Relations (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008) 233.Google Scholar

26. Smith, Andrea, Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Kuokkanen, Rauna, Reshaping the University: responsibility, indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2007) at 155.Google Scholar

28. “Self-Determination”, supra note 7 at 105, 119.

29. This critique of Corntassel’s Indigenous trade proposal was made by Joseph Bastien, student, University of Toronto, 2011.

30. Unfinished, supra note 14 at 2, 7; see also Goot, Murray & Rowse, Tim, Divided Nation? Indigenous Affairs and the Imagined Public (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

31. Unfinished, supra note 14 at 1.

32. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation was given a ten year mandate: one year to set-up; 4 years to disburse the $350-million healing fund on a multiyear basis, and 5 years to monitor and evaluate the projects. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation Summary Points of the AHF Final Report at 4, online: http://www.fadg.ca/downloads/rapport-fnal-eng.pdf.

33. Ibid at 4.

34. Peace at 76.