blogcutter

Back in 1967, there was a climate of hope, celebration and optimism. It was Canada's centennial year. At school, the class traveled from Ottawa to Montreal to attend Expo '67. In June at the end of the school year, we had our usual open house and devoted our displays to envisioning what Canada would look like in the year 2067. Over the summer holidays, I attended Expo again and my family hosted two Inuit girls, ages 12 and 14, from what was then Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories.

They seemed happy and excited to be in the big city for a few weeks. I enjoyed their company too. We kept in touch for a few years but then as we got entangled in adult life, that stopped.

But oh, what a difference 54 years makes. Now we white people are the colonial oppressors. I'm not thinking here of those two people in particular, but of the situation in general.

So. Should September 30 be not just a federal holiday but also a public holiday in all provinces and territories? Maybe, maybe not. In Ontario, it's been likened to Remembrance Day: a solemn occasion that deserves to be marked in some way, but perhaps not exactly celebrated.

Here in Canada, flags have been at half-mast for several months. Then we had the Cancel Canada Day movement, lasting through July, August and now September. Can we finally raise the flags again in October? Do we have to always emphasize the negative aspects of our history?

I can't justify or excuse the atrocities that occurred in residential schools or the sixties scoop that saw indigenous children wrenched from their families, communities and culture. On the other hand, I wasn't directly a part of it. Perhaps ignorance, wilful or otherwise, is no excuse, but I find myself constantly thinking "Yes, but..." when I hear the litany of indigenous grievances, legitimate though they may be.

For a number of years now, conference organizers have opened the proceedings by acknowledging that the conference is taking place on unceded indigenous (usually Algonquin in our area) territory. Okay. But what exactly does that mean?

Is the whole of Ottawa "unceded Algonquin territory"? Does that mean that nobody who is non-indigenous ought to be allowed to own land anywhere in the city?

Most homeowners (and their families) have made certain sacrifices to get to where they are: putting together a down-payment and making monthly mortgage payments, while foregoing or postponing other things they might ideally have hoped to buy with that money. Maintaining and improving that property post-purchase. And now they are supposed to accept that their house was never theirs to buy or sell in the first place?

Then consider all those tiny pairs of shoes that sit on Parliament Hill and no doubt on numerous other memorial sites throughout the country. They're supposed to represent all the indigenous children from residential schools who were buried in unmarked graves. Yes, the remains should be identified in an effort to bring at least a measure of closure to families who have been grieving for far too long. But frankly, those shoes are of absolutely no use to the dead children. Would it not be better to give them to families who cannot afford decent shoes and other clothing for children who are still alive? Maybe these resources could be better directed into assuring a supply of clean drinking water - surely a basic human need and right - and adequate food to everyone, whether on or off reserve.

Then there's the Sixties Scoop. Now, plenty of families have outstanding grievances with Child and Family Services, whether they are indigenous or not. It may be down to poverty, to the colour of one's skin, to lifestyle choices that do not conform to the norms of the day. The grievances are legitimate and should be addressed but they are not unique to our indigenous population.

Methods of punishment in indigenous residential and day schools may have been harsher and more arbitrary than in other schools but let's not forget that corporal punishment - "the strap" - was a reality for everyone for my generation, indigenous or otherwise.

Now I'll briefly discuss the thorny issue of religion and spirituality. My family were not churchgoers, at least not when I was a child. But during the 1960s in Canada, even in the so-called "public" and supposedly nondenominational schools, religious instruction was part of the educational system, once or twice a week. You were assumed to be a Christian, probably a Protestant. If you took your lunch to school, somebody was appointed to say grace before lunch, at least in elementary school. We heathens were essentially outcasts, who learned not to say we didn't believe in God. This was the case up to around grade six or seven, at which point the former church-goers suddenly morphed into Borrn-again Atheists, making fun of anyone who was still (or newly) a believer!

I know I've had a fortunate life so far. I readily acknowledge that I haven't suffered the same pain, heartaches and indignities as most indigenous folk. I'm just looking for some perspective here. Can we coexist in harmony or at least acceptance without always thinking in terms of "us and them" scenarios? Can we acknowledge a few good actions and initiatives rather than always dwelling on the negative? We've looked at Truths in all their ugliness but we can't change the past. Whither the Reconciliation part?

So anyway. Let's move forward on those 94 Recommendations. But at the same time, let's not waste time on another sesquicentury of Mea Culpas!

According to the latest Census information, the indigenous population (especially youth) has grown rapidly over the past decade, whether on account of higher birth rates, longer life expectancy, more self-reporting, or other factors. It's now cool to be indigenous.

But how much reconciliation is possible or even, dare I say, desirable? And to what extent is truth a relative or subjective or historically-shaped concept?

It is now considered almost heresy to say that there might have been any positive aspects to the residential school system. I consider this to be part of a disturbing trend towards quelling and chilling freedom of expression in various educational, political, social and cultural forums which might once have been thought of as exemplary sites of informed debate and discussion.

Disagreement should be respectful, yes. But a well thought-out argument, whether based on scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence, upbringing, education and years of experience, emotion, faith or personal conviction is not the same as name-calling, ad-hominem and ad-feminam and ad "them"-um attacks, nor should it automatically be equated with harassment, bigotry or hate-speech!

In the early and even later days of the residential school system, it was not so easy to connect, either physically or electronically, with other like-minded and like-needed people. Even today in many small communities in southern Canada, some young people have to travel long distances just to access secondary schools, let alone postsecondary education. Now imagine the challenges that would have been faced in the remote northern communities of fifty years ago!

Back in the summer of 1967, my family was one of a number of Ottawa families that hosted Inuit kids from Iqaluit, then known as Frobisher Bay. As I recall, the twelve-year-old was in grade 4 and the thirteen-year-old (who turned 14 while she was staying with us) was in grade 5. I was twelve or thirteen and about to go into grade nine. Of course, their schooling at the time was in English, which was a second language for all of them. Add to that the fact that many of the Inuit girls were thoroughly boy-crazy - seemingly it was part of their culture to date, mate and propagate very early in life - and you can easily understand the difficulties they would face in getting a decent education. Perhaps we can also begin to understand why cultural preservation and sensitivity might have been considered unaffordable luxuries not just by the white majority but also, I suspect, for many indigenous people hoping for a better life for their children and for generations to come.

We live in a different world today. But if we insist on stifling all discussion and debate about not just the negatives, but also the positives (or at least the inevitables, the necessity-as-mother-of-invention type of aspects) of past practices, then how can we hope to reach a consensus on what is needed moving forward?