mediaINDIGENA

Blog

  • Sorry is Right: The True Meaning of Canada’s Residential School Apology

    Two years ago almost to the day, much was made of the Canadian government’s Statement of Apology to survivors of the country’s ‘Indian’ residential schools, where the only thing Indian about these grievous institutions were the children forced into them.

    We know the intended mission behind the schools: to systematically destroy the Indian in the child. Their architects hoped to do this, first, by removing Aboriginal children from everyone and everything that they knew and loved. Thus isolated, we were more readily subjected to the constant efforts aimed at eviscerating and eliminating our languages, our lifeways, our spiritual practices and our cultural institutions.

    It is an internationally-recognized act of genocide to forcibly transfer children of one group to another group. But again, that was only the first step. Linguistic and cultural erasure were the next calculated acts. Removed as they were en masse from their parents’ embrace, their community’s care and the rootedness of their people’s culture, it takes no great feat of imagination to see that this great physical and psychic dislocation had caused serious mental harm, which, when waged against members of a specific group, constitutes another criminal act of genocide under international law.

    But we know all this, not least because the Harper government apologized for it back in 2008:

    [T]he Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this.  We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. …

    The burden of this experience has been on your shoulders for far too long.  The burden is properly ours as a Government, and as a country.  There is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian Residential Schools system to ever prevail again. You have been working on recovering from this experience for a long time and in a very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey. The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.

    Such contrition! Words that held enough truth inside them, you could not be faulted for wondering whether they could also contain the genuine seeds of “a new relationship” between Indigenous peoples and Canada: a “partnership” based on mutual respect, good faith and honour.

    Swayed momentarily by words, you eventually face facts in the form of actions. In its March 2010 Speech from the Throne, the Harper government said that

    A growing number of states have given qualified recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.

    Last week (a scant 3 months after the Throne Speech), we found out what this government really thinks of the Declaration. It slipped out as part of a federal submission to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case regarding First Nations child welfare funding levels. The complaint alleges inequities in federal funding between First Nations child welfare agencies and the provincial agencies. (Take a wild guess who receives less, much less?)

    The Winnipeg Free Press writes that the submission, provided by the attorney general of Canada, implies “the [D]eclaration is meaningless in Canada and shouldn’t be used to determine the human rights challenge.”

    To quote the submission itself:

    In its explanation of vote at the [United Nations General Assembly] Canada stated that it had significant concerns with the wording of the text, and underlined that it is non-binding, has no legal effect in Canada and that its provisions do not represent customary international law. Canada’s position on the declaration has not changed.

    Forgive me if I fail to see how, post-Apology, the colonial practices of old have been replaced in any significant way by something different or better in this country. On-reserve child welfare systems reportedly receiving 22% less funding than their off-reserve counterparts. A federal promise to consider abiding by “international standards for the treatment of indigenous peoples” amounting to little more than an effectively empty ‘endorsement.’

    In the face of such conduct post-Apology by its leaders, one can see that Canada truly is one sorry country.

    Sorry is Right: The True Meaning of Canada’s Apology

    Two years ago almost to the day, much was made of the

    Canadian government’s apology to survivors of the country’s

    ‘Indian’ residential schools, where the only thing Indian

    about these grievous institutions were the children forced

    into them.

    We know the intended mission behind the schools: to

    systematically destroy the Indian in the child. Their

    architects hoped to do this, first, by removing Aboriginal

    children from everyone and everything that they knew and

    loved. Thus isolated, we were more readily subject to the

    constant efforts aimed at eviscerating and eliminating our

    languages, our lifeways, our spiritual practices and our

    cultural institutions.

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm

    It is an internationally-recognized act of genocide to

    forcibly transfer children of one group to another group.

    Again, that was only the first step. Linguistic and cultural

    erasure were the next calculated acts. Now removed en masse

    from their parents’ embrace, their community’s care and the

    rootedness of their people’s culture, it takes no great feat

    of imagination to understand that this physical and psychic

    dislocation caused mental harm to the youngest members of

    the affected group, another potentially criminal act of

    genocide under international law perpetrated in Canada.

    But we know all this. Because the Harper Government

    apologized for it back in 2008:

    http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp

    …the Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong

    to forcibly remove children from their homes and we

    apologize for having done this.  We now recognize that it

    was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant

    cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives

    and communities, and we apologize for having done this. …

    The burden of this experience has been on your shoulders for

    far too long.  The burden is properly ours as a Government,

    and as a country.  There is no place in Canada for the

    attitudes that inspired the Indian Residential Schools

    system to ever prevail again. You have been working on

    recovering from this experience for a long time and in a

    very real sense, we are now joining you on this journey. The

    Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the

    forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for

    failing them so profoundly.

    Such contrition! Words that held enough truth inside them,

    you could not be faulted for wondering whether they could

    also contain the genuine seeds of “a new relationship”

    between Indigenous peoples and Canada: a “partnership” based

    on mutual respect, good faith and honour.

    Swayed momentarily by words, you eventually face facts in

    the form of actions.

    In its March 2010 Speech from the Throne, the Harper

    government said that

    http://www.discours.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1388

    A growing number of states have given qualified recognition

    to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

    Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to

    endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully

    consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/feds-ignoring-rights

    -commitment-liberal-95597884.html

    Last week (a scant 3 months after the Throne Speech), we

    found out what this government really thinks of the

    Declaration. It slipped out as part of a federal submission

    to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case regarding First

    Nations child welfare funding levels. The complaint “alleges

    that First Nations children in federally-funded child

    welfare agencies cannot access the same services as other

    children in provincial agencies due to inequities in

    funding,” reports Canadian Business.

    The Winnipeg Free Press writes that the submission, provided

    by the attorney general of Canada, implies “the

    [D]eclaration is meaningless in Canada and shouldn’t be used

    to determine the human rights challenge.”

    To quote the submission itself:

    “In its explanation of vote at the [United Nations General

    Assembly] Canada stated that it had significant concerns

    with the wording of the text, and underlined that it is

    non-binding, has no legal effect in Canada and that its

    provisions do not represent customary international law.

    Canada’s position on the declaration has not changed.”

    Forgive me if I fail to see how the colonial practices of

    old have been replaced in any significant way by something

    different or better in this country. On-reserve child

    welfare systems reportedly receiving 22% fewer dollars

    http://www.firstnationsdrum.com/2009/october/child-tribunal.

    html than their off-reserve counterparts. Federal promises

    to consider abiding by “international standards for the

    treatment of indigenous peoples” effectively empty

    endorsement.

    In the face of such conduct post-Apology by its leaders, one

    can only conclude that Canada truly is one sorry country.

  • Reflections of a Residential School Survivor

    Today is the 2nd anniversary of the Government of Canada’s official apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools.  To mark the date, Ottawa-based journalist Martha Troian sat down with one former student and heard her story of time spent at residential school, her reflections on the apology, and how she learned to forgive.

    She was only 8 years old when she travelled by boat to the Fort Albany Indian Residential School, along the west coast of James Bay in northern Ontario. She still remembers the nuns greeting the boat, ready to take the students inside. There she would join hundreds of other children from five surrounding communities.

    During her first year at Fort Albany, she remembers that she spent a lot of time crying, overwhelmed by feelings of loneliness. She says it was always worse after dinner, when it would further materialize that she would not be going home.

    Meet Mary-Lou Iahtail, a 65-year-old mother, grandmother, and residential school survivor. Originally from the isolated community of Attawapiskat First Nation, located near James Bay, today she lives in Ottawa, Ontario.

    Before residential school, Mary-Lou lived on the trapline with her parents and six siblings. She has fond memories of returning there in the summer months, during breaks at school. They lived a traditional lifestyle that she says laid a foundation which got her through the later years. But every fall, Mary-Lou would climb back into the boat, and return to the nuns.

    Mary-Lou attended Fort Albany until grade 6, learning to read and write in English. But unlike some residential schools where students were punished for speaking Native languages, for the first two years she was instructed in Cree. The home economics class even involved cooking with traditional meat, like moose, rabbit, and partridge. Mary-Lou also learned a bit of French, something she enjoyed and would continue to learn later in life.

    But not all classes were so enjoyable. Even after all these years, her voice changes when she remembers, “I tried really hard. . .I was no good at reading my notes, so I had a hard time with music. ..and my teacher was very strict. She was very, very strict…”

    That inability to read music lead to her knuckles being struck hard by a ruler. She says she lived in fear, crawling into bed each night knowing she would have to return to class the next morning.

    But even if she wanted to return home to the trapline, she knew she couldn’t. After Fort Albany, Mary-Lou attended L’Ecole Routhier for two years, a so-called “day school” in Ottawa, before being transferred to St. Joseph Residential School in Spanish, Ontario, “My father kept sending me back to school”, she says, “He would tell me I would not survive from the bush because life is going change.. and the animals will not be plentiful.”

    Not only did her father encourage her to continue school, he also wanted her to learn as many languages as she could. She says her father told her a time would come when those languages would come in handy. And they did. Now fluent in three languages; Cree, English and French, Mary-Lou has worked as a translator all across Canada. Following his advice even further, she earned a Bachelor of Education degree from McMaster University.

    “I hope the apology was sincere and that they meant it….“

    On June 11, 2008 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in the House of Commons and apologized to former students of Indian residential schools, Mary-Lou was there.

    That morning, when she met up with a friend and fellow survivor, she wasn’t sure what to expect. But as they listened to the Prime Minister’s words she found herself crying, overcome with emotion. All Mary-Lou says she remembers was hoping the apology was sincere.

    “There was a little hole in my heart, and I had to look after it”.

    Mary-Lou never used to speak about the bad things she experienced at residential school. That is, until she fell sick.

    In 2000, when her family doctor told her she had cancer, Mary-Lou believes she knows what caused it, “All those things had to come out of my body, and they did.”

    She would endure cancer three times, depression and arthritis. But those sicknesses are what drove Mary-Lou to get counseling and finally begin talking about her experience at residential school. She says it’s helped her not to be so angry and most importantly, to heal. Work she continues to this day.

    “I’m told I’m doing very well, and I know I am. Because I feel confident about it”.

    Despite the bad experiences she had to overcome at residential school, Mary-Lou does not regret her time spent there. She is happy she made the most out of her education and continued to learn. Today at 65 years old, Mary-Lou wants to help people with their healing process. She firmly believes healing and one’s spirituality is the only way a person can move forward and forgive.

    Today, Mary-Lou Iahtail can say she is happy because she knows there is a way of forgiving.

    [Archive image via Anglican Church of Canada]

  • What’s up, Doctrine? (part 2)

    Columbus claiming the "new world"
    Columbus claiming the "new world"

    I probably first heard about the “Doctrine of Discovery” when I came upon my parents during one of their kitchen table sessions. Typically, Dad would make a point by poking a finger at the table. Mom might ponder a moment, maybe leaf through Felix Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, or reach for a piece of paper in a large stack of clippings and hand-written notes. Then she might present a counter-point or maybe an entirely new argument. This could go back-and-forth for hours with occasional bathroom breaks or a temporary truce declared for the duration of The Carol Burnett Show.

    Often, the discussion would centre on familiar questions that usually began with: “By what right… ?” You could fill in the blanks. By what right… did the Government of Canada refuse to acknowledge our (Mohawk) right to exist as a nation? By what right did Canada think it could ignore parts of a treaty but take advantage of the rest? By what right did the Minister of Indian Affairs control every aspect of lives but was not the least bit accountable to us? By what right did Canada say it owned the very land beneath our Mohawk feet? Who gave it to them? And by what right? (more…)

  • What’s up, Doctrine?

    Commonwealth Prime Ministers 1944
    "old boys club"

    Recently, I became a last-minute replacement for a panel discussion at a Montreal university for the “Anti-Capitalist Teach-in Against the G8/G20”. The person I replaced said he had to back out that day because of work. Later, he said he’d received a call from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS. Lately, a lot of activists say they’ve had CSIS knocking on their doors.

    The Quebec Public Interest Research Group organized the event. QPIRG is a resource centre for student research, and a vehicle for student social and political activism. I looked at QPIRG’s Facebook page on the event to learn more about my panel: “Indigenous Sovereignty, Displacement and Migration”. Then I went to look for about the G8/G20. (more…)

  • Some Inflated Thoughts About Treaty Payments

    I sent away for my “treaty money” the other day.

    Apparently, you can do that now. Growing up in Manitoba, treaty money was usually collected in person at “Treaty Days,” which commemorated the occasion of your First Nation signing its bilateral treaty with the Crown. Many treaty communities still host their own Days.

    It was at these celebrations that treaty money — a whole $5 per person (don’t spend it all in one place now) — was distributed.  I remember a Mountie, complete with Red Serge, would shake your hand after you accepted your yearly treaty payment.  All very exciting for a wee kid on the rez.

    Who gets treaty payments?  Well, according to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), who have been delegated the task of paying this money out,

    Treaty annuity payments are paid annually on a national basis to registered Indians who [hold membership in] bands that have signed historic treaties with the Crown.

    That would be me.

    Living in a major city, I almost forgot about treaty money altogether. That is, until I came across this form on INAC’s website. So as I sit patiently waiting for what I can only assume will be a $5 cheque with Chuck Strahl‘s signature to come in the mail, I’m left wondering, “Y’know, after all these years, with inflation and whatnot, why haven’t they increased the amount of treaty money we get?”

    That’s a question Jean Allard has thought long and hard about.  In his controversial article, “Big Bear’s Treaty: The Road to Freedom,” the now-retired Metis politician argued that treaty payments should be ‘modernized,’ that is, adjusted to reflect today’s dollar values. By calculating the amount of goods, services, land, etc. that one could buy with $5 back when most of the treaties were signed, you could generate an equivalent dollar figure for current payments.

    By Allard’s math, that would work out to annual treaty payments of $3,600 a year for each and every First Nations man, woman and child. A family of four would thus receive a total treaty annuity of $14,400.

    Here’s where the controversy comes in: Allard argues further that these adjusted-for-inflation treaty payments should be distributed directly to individuals — bypassing First Nations governments and even INAC altogether. Allard maintains it’s the only way to true self-sufficiency.

    And as I budget out what I’m going to buy with my $5 (a candy bar, pop and maybe a newspaper come to mind), Allard’s suggestion doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

    [ Top image via INAC / Glenbow Archives ]