Recognition, Redistribution, and Representation: Assessing the Transformative Potential of Reparations for the Indian Residential Schools Experience
Introduction Through treaty settlements reached with Indigenous[2] nations beginning in the 1800s, the government of Canada was invested with responsibility for the education of Indigenous children. Therefore, policies related to the education of Status Indians fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government and these policies were later expressed in the establishment of the Indian residential school (IRS) system (Episkenew 2009). During the residential school era, approximately from the 1830s to the 1990s, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit children, along with their relatives and communities, suffered wrongs committed against them by the Canadian government and churches. These wrongs include but are not limited to: widespread sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse; bullying (student-on-student abuse); the aggressive assimilation of Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture; substandard living conditions at IRS; and neglect resulting in death and disease (Milloy 1999). Various attempts at reconciliation, such as the 1998 Statement of Reconciliation, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA 2006), and the 2008 Statement of Apology, have been introduced to redress the IRS experience and acknowledge the harm done. The heretofore lack of conflict resolution success demonstrates the complexity and seriousness of the legacy of IRS, as well as the inadequacy of the previous processes to heal the resulting damage.In the context of IRS reparations, of particular interest are the 1998 Statement of Reconciliation and the corresponding 1998 Gathering Strength report on the one hand, and the 2008 Statement of Apology and the IRSSA on the other. These are the primary focus of this paper because they embody the federal government's responses that, with varying success, have been directed at resolving the former IRS students' calls for reparations and could also be considered the major milestones in the history of IRS legal battles. By critically evaluating these responses, this paper seeks to assess their ability to address the issues that are at the genesis of the Indigenous-settler colonial state relations in the post-IRS era. More precisely, the question that I pose here is, "Do these mechanisms of redress have the potential to challenge and destabilize the foundations of colonialism?"Scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred (1999; 2005; 2009), Matt James (2008), and Paulette Regan (2010) draw connections and critically evaluate the intersections between state-issued reparations such as apologies, monetary compensation schemes for historical injustices, and decolonization. Chrisjohn, Young, and Maraun (2006), for example, note that in order to right a historical wrong like IRS, a complete acknowledgement and recognition of the harm done must occur. Others advance that apologies must be coupled with monetary compensation or any appropriate type of reparations in order to be considered meaningful or risk being disregarded as empty words (see, for example, Corntassel and Holder 2008). Furthermore, Corntassel, Chaw-win-is, and T'lakwadzi (2009) observe that colonial injustices, such as IRS, are often intertwined and interrelated with other injustices, which must be resolved collectively. They go on to argue that in Canada, the IRS experience is often treated in isolation and separate from the issue of land and therefore "ignor[es] the fact that the issues [IRS] survivors[3] contend with from the residential school era are rooted in the forced removal of entire families and communities from their homelands" (p.8).Political theorist and philosopher Nancy Fraser suggests that in order to resolve systemic wrongs like colonialism, a theory of justice must first conceptualize them as unjust (Nelund 2011). As such, comprehensive and holistic remedies are required not only for symptoms of systemic injustices such as the IRS system, but they must also address the deeper structural and institutional causes of these injustices. …
Acknowledging the Past to Heal the Future: the Role of Reparations For Native Nations
45. Ivison, Patton, and Sanders (2000: 9). And Dianne Otto has said-in her (1995: 97), -that all this just reflects the tendency of liberalism 'to conflate broad human experience into rigid dichotomous stereotypes'. She goes on: 'To recognize multiplicities would free indigenous peoples from the current imper­ ative to present themselves as a unified category. It would enable a construction of indigeneity that was diverse, multi-layered and shifting: 46. Tully (2000: 47). 47. Oliver (1998: 223). 48. See Waldron (2004). ,
For everything there is a season.
doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.05.031 Iwould like to thank the nominating committee and the members of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery for honoring and entrusting me with the presidency of this prestigious academic organization. I have to share this honor with my colleagues from Toronto General Hospital for supporting me and sharing my views on patient care, teaching, and research for so many years. I am indebted to the late Dr Bill Bigelow, a past president of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the person responsible for bringing me to Canada. I am grateful to Bob Jones, Cindy VerColen, Bill Maloney, and their supporting staff for helping to make my tenure as president interesting, rewarding, and painless. Finally, I must thank my wife, Jacqueline, who has put up with me for more than 30 years with understanding, grace, and compassion, which I am not sure I always deserved. Jackie has supported my professional growth unconditionally and never imposed any interfering demands. Jackie, I am grateful, admiring, and sometimes astonished. Jackie single-handedly raised three wonderful human beings: all three, fortunately, are much like her, our daughters, Adriane, Carolyn, and Kristen. This address is about changes in cardiac surgery and my views on excellence in patient care. The title was borrowed from the book of Ecclesiastes, which contains the thoughts of a philosopher who reflected on how short and contradictory life was. I read the Bible as a child, but the meaning of the words “for everything there is a season” made no sense until I was 14 years old. Two painful events occurred within a few months that year: my parents sent me away from home to attend high school, where initially I felt lost and abandoned, and my paternal grandfather died. It was then that I learned that “for everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven”—that life is a dynamic process, and its only certainty is change. It changes not only when we leave our homes or lose a loved one, but in all aspects. We who practice medicine know that changes are happening all the time as new drugs, concepts, and techniques emerge. Much more than that, the way we practice medicine is changing. The truth is that medicine is no profession for the status quo. Cardiac surgery is no exception. In fact, our work is at the epicenter of change in all aspects. Clinical volumes are declining, cardiologists now treat many patients with devices that can be deployed percutaneously, and so on. Furthermore, accountability is at an all-time high. These are the realities we have to live with and adjust to as best we can. One of the most dramatic changes in cardiothoracic surgery occurred in the late 1960s, when coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was introduced into the treatment of coronary artery disease. Cardiothoracic surgeons who operated on lungs, esophagus, and heart valves had to acquire a new set of skills to perform myocardial revascularization. They did it and did it very well. Within a few years, a new breed of thoracic surgeons emerged—the CABG surgeon—and the number of