Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action Recently I was made aware of a cultural difference between how we in Western society use the word 'serious', and how it is interpreted and used in some parts of Africa. While we often use the word to distinguish between something light-hearted and something more grave, in Africa the word 'serious' is reserved to differentiate between something that is just talk, and when something is accompanied by an action or consequence (often in financial transactions). For example, we would say that something is a joke, and not to be so serious. They would use the word to say we're not just talking something, but rather that they are serious (meaning something concrete is happening, for sure). This small cultural and linguistic difference struck me as interesting, especially as Western politicians speaking in Africa were unaware of the distinction. A young reporter asked Senator John Kerry, after his speech, if his intentions were really in fact serious or not? Kerry, an overly serious and grave person, dismissed the question and didn't really understand the context of it. The reporter was really asking, all these things you are saying, for your involvement and commitment to African affairs, are they serious? Do they carry actual economic sanctions, military backing, etc, or are they simply words? The readings this week brought this distinction back to the forefront of my thoughts, as I really had to consider whether these documents, commissions and recommendations from the Canadian government were in fact serious, that they accompanied real action, or were they simply words spoken in a grave tone. Beginning with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Call to Action, I found the language and aim of the document quite positive and forward moving for Indigenous affairs. The commission identifies a lot of key factors, moving beyond simple economic reparations, that need to be changed in Canadian culture, society and politics; such as increased funding towards Indigenous language programs, matching the educational rights and funding of all Indigenous and First Nations Canadians whether they are on reserves or not, and developing a curricula that is focused on Indigenous and First Nations issues, history and values. Now, these are definitely positive steps, and the Call to Action document is quite exhaustive and thorough. Some parts however, are listed as goals, but really are complex issues that require more than simple identification, and these relate to the deep rooted, systemic problems Canada has created for our First Nations, Metis and Inuit citizens. For example; under the Education section, it states: 10. We call on the federal government to draft new Aboriginal education legislation with the full participation and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. The new legislation would include a commitment to sufficient funding and would incorporate the following principles: i. Providing sufficient funding to close identified educational achievement gaps within one generation. ii. Improving education attainment levels and success rates. [...] Both parts of this i. and ii. are important and should be focused on, but that wording, and what it requires is so vague and inconsequential compared to the actual nuances of the issues. "Improving education attainment levels and success rates." How is that done? How much funding is needed? How much money, if thrown at the issue, will it take? How much improvement is needed to be deemed acceptable? And most importantly, how do we improve those levels, is it through tutoring, longer school hours, more strict attendance policies, more teachers, smaller classes, better technology, more schools? Having the wording be vague is appropriate on some levels, as it allows for the spirit of the recommendations to be explored and developed on a case by case basis. However, it also leaves the possibility for ambiguity and a lack of accountability in the end. If some effort is put forward, and things improve slightly, then is that a success? I believe the criteria for a lot of these issues needs to be more rigorous and developed. The measures put forward to combat these inequalities, especially in education, need to be serious and not simply lip service. Perhaps then, beyond the specific calls to action within this report, the most important issue would be to have a call to action for Canadians, within government and citizens as well, to put First Nations, Metis and Inuit concerns on par, and equal to all other concerns and place priority on resolving these issues above others. That perhaps would be the best indication of how serious the Government of Canada and it's people are about Indigenous rights and affairs. Part of that stems from the effort being put into education and acknowledging the crimes of the past. The section on Education for Reconciliation is therefore one of the key sections where the ultimate success of this report and call to action rests upon. By teaching, exposing and increasing the importance of Indigenous history, residential schooling and current First Nations issues, we change the cultural and political landscape of future Canadians, ensuring these topics get the attention they deserve. First Nations, Metis and Inuit Education Policy Framework What I found most interesting and compelling about this document was not simply the efforts, focus and aims education framework, but how it compares and contrasts with the TRC: Calls to Action report, especially noting the language and issues as they span an 8 year gap. What you find is that the same issues and concerns are being identified: drop out and retention, curriculum development, language protection, Indigenous values/history/culture being taught, access to education, etc. However this policy framework does have more concrete and specific goals and expectations, and lists much more defined paths for success. While I found the entire approach to be quite comprehensive, and the goals admirable, I wonder how effective it was, considering that 8 years later, the TRC releases its Calls to Action, which doesn't list anywhere to continue with the programs of success they have in place. How effective were these policy changes? And perhaps, the most crucial element for me is wondering, when will these policy changes be implemented into the actual curriculum, some of the documents being even before this policy framework came out? In order for a lot more effective change, these topics need to be included in the curriculum itself for all students in Ontario, thereby guaranteeing that they are given priority and included actively by teachers. I believe that any initiatives towards further education that is not in the curriculum has the added obstacle of potentially being given less priority by teachers and school boards. What now amounts to locally developed courses or programs needs to be taken out of the dark, and put into the spotlight of curriculum design and education reform. Knockwood Chapter 10: Reactions to the Apology This Chapter of Knockwood is a response to the official government apology issued by Stephen Harper in 2008, on behalf of the Canadian Government for its role in residential schools. What emerges from her reaction, and what she observes, is a mixed, complex portrait on the divided and unsure nature of how First Nations people felt about the apology, what they expected and what they needed. This comes to the crux of this issue for me, beyond even the specifics of First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Canada, (and I know I've talked about this issue soo many times, and gone on and on ad nauseam) and that is what is required to move on from a tragic or traumatic event, how the survivors or victims interact with the perpetrators in the future, what responsibility/guilt is there, what is enough, what is fair, and what needs to happen to move on. This issue is so complex because it is a massive, widespread sweeping program that affected soo many lives, but it affected them all individually in different ways. So each and every person involved, each Indigenous person, their family, their community, will have different needs and wants moving through this. And also, everyone else involved, people who are involved as Canadians
Knockwood identifies this very issue, the mixed response from her community hearing the apology, the inability to communicate afterwards, seeing the way the apology actually seeded uncertainty and confusion. Before the apology there was more unity because the communities had their collective anger and disappointment. But now, afterwards, it splintered them, some felt relieved, some happy, some were still furious, some felt it was insulting or just lip service. They were no longer all on the same page, because each and every person needed something unique, and Stephen Harper seemed to be giving a very bland, general apology. I believe, as an outsider looking at this issue, I would have wanted Stephen Harper to have gone all the way on his apology, to take responsibility not just for being involved, but for the governments direct role, and how unforgivable those policies were and are. It seems more that the government is concerned with absolving guilt rather than doing what would be best for the relationship with Indigenous peoples in Canada. What I learned from Knockwood and her insights is that the real failure and disappointment of the government apology, albeit it being a step forwards at least, is that there was no real identification of what Indigenous people's really needed to move forwards, and if there was, it was not followed through. She mentions how Stephen Harper only addressed the Speaker of the House, how the 5 First Nations leaders present were not given a chance to respond, comment or be heard at all, these are both huge elements that could have been used to move towards reconciliation, towards real discussion and interaction, not simply relegating them as observers, with no power to influence their own fate. This is the recurring theme, the lack of power, ability, self determination given to First Nations, Metis and Inuit people. We identify their problems, we hypothesize solutions, steps to take, but real power, real change, is not given to them in the magnitude it needs to be. Coming back to my initial thoughts, this is just talk, it's speaking and acting without being "serious" in that all too crucial sense, serious in that our actions will back up, support and prove our words. There is slow progress, commission after commission, study after study, but why is it moving so slowly? Why are there still misconceptions by the average Canadians, stereotypes about the "lazy, drunk Indian", why are funds being mismanaged, why do we allow former Prime Ministers during their tenure to say things like "Missing Indigenous Women are not a priority?". How do we let these outrages continue, in the background, without speaking out and acting out against them? That comes down to the social/cultural shift that is still waiting to happen. This slow boil that continues below the surface, where everyone in Canada needs to become engaged, needs to care, and needs to decide to make First Nations, Metis and Inuit people a prioritized and valued part of Canada. Maybe our generation of new teachers is the exact thing Canada is waiting for, to undue and repair the damage of residential schools and hundreds of years of propaganda against Indigenous peoples. Maybe as these new programs are implemented, as students are given a clear and open view of Canadian history, we'll see a new Canadian identity emerge, one that values all of it's members, and is willing to take a firm stance on their behalf. That responsibility is on our shoulders now, definitely some food for thought and a serious conversation all potential teachers should be having.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories |