Paper 8: Fostering Citizen Engagement in Indigenous/Non-Indigenous Relations Professor Lynne Davis, Indigenous Studies, Trent University1
Introduction
The TRC Calls to Action
In its Calls to Action, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission challenged different sectors of Canadian society to step up in bringing about changes in the lives of Indigenous peoples and in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relationships.2 Not only are various levels of governments seen to be initiators of structural, policy and program change, but also institutions and professional groups in sectors such as education, health, child welfare and justice. Diverse parties are called upon to respond to longstanding barriers and inequities that have served to perpetuate racism, discrimination and inequalities in the lives of Indigenous individuals and in Canadian society more generally. Governments, institutions, non-governmental organizations and faith communities are called upon to work in concert with Indigenous peoples and organizations to challenge the structural and attitudinal fabric of Canadian society. A broad program of public education is proposed to bring about changes in the education of youth, civil servants, professionals in different fields, and Canadian society as a whole. In Calls to Action #43 and #44, the TRC declares that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the appropriate framework for reconciliation.
These calls to action echo the findings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples whose final report released two decades earlier, concluded that a new relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people must be built based on mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing and mutual responsibility.3 Despite the careful analysis that these recommendations represented, their transformative potential has not been realized. In their specificity, the TRC’s calls to action have provided concrete starting points for different parties to mobilize around particular goals. Indeed, it might be said that the TRC has issued a challenge to which institutions and organizations have felt a moral imperative to respond. As will be discussed in this paper, there has been a surge in initiatives from governments, educational institutions, arts organizations, faith communities and NGOs who have seen this invitation to action as a critical and perhaps redemptive moment in a history marked by cultural genocide, stolen lands, ignored sovereignty, broken treaty promises and racism.
In reflecting on the momentum of the present moment, however, it must be recognized that prior to the TRC report, there have been a long history of political mobilization by Indigenous peoples to assert their sovereignty and their rights and to change relationships with non-Indigenous peoples.4 In response, Indigenous peoples have often been met with settler ignorance, racism, and active denigration of their rights. At the same time, some settler-allies have worked under the leadership of Indigenous peoples or through collaborative processes in support of specific issues or in defense of Indigenous territories. Through relationships of joint action, there has been significant learning over time that provides a foundation for the citizen engagement that is emerging in the wake of the TRC report.
“Citizen engagement” or the related phrase “civic engagement” have numerous definitions, but a common thread is the idea that citizens are actively engaged in organizing to bring about change in their communities.5 These phrases are often used in the context of promoting citizen participation within the context of liberal democracy and in ways that are generally sanctioned by the state (e.g. voting, signing petitions, demonstrations, participating in organizations). Such understandings are very appropriate to describe many of the activities in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples come together. At the same time, in discussing Indigenous-non-Indigenous solidarities, it is important to include also those solidarities that challenge the legitimacy of Canada’s imposition of its settler colonial sovereignty over Indigenous sovereignty. The discussion in this paper has sought to be as inclusive as possible in assessing the “fostering of citizen engagement in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations”.
This assessment is marked by my own location as a non-Indigenous academic and settler Canadian activist who is engaged in an ongoing journey to understand what it means to work with Indigenous peoples in alliances and in solidarity and what my responsibilities are as a person of settler heritage on Indigenous lands. Born at Unama’ki on the East Coast, I now live in the territories of the Michi Saugig, more specifically the Mississaugas of Curve Lake, in territories shared with settlers by the Treaty 20 Nations. At Trent University where I work in the Indigenous Studies Department, I teach courses in Indigenous-Non-Indigenous alliance-building and in “transforming settler consciousness”. The question of “how to change the way settler Canadians think” is central to my research interests.
The paper itself is divided into three parts. The first part outlines a set of issues related to engaging Canadians, including the discourses to which non-Indigenous people are more likely to respond. The second part provides an overview of initiatives that represent a sampling of the kinds of mobilizations in which citizens are engaged. The third part offers a critical assessment of how mobilizations and discourses work together and the implications for a critical approach to Indigenous/Non-Indigenous citizen engagement. The paper draws on diverse literatures, and I recognize that there are many other important scholars, commentators and initiatives whose work would enrich the discussion. I offer regrets for omissions and brief treatment of issues that have many layers and complexities.
Part 1: The Importance of Analyzing Discourses and Narratives
Before considering the many different mobilizations that are taking place in Canada, it is important to reflect upon a number of issues. First, there are diverse understandings of what “reconciliation” means and where it might lead. Second, Canadians are shaped by particular understandings of “Canada” and respond intellectually and affectively to well-
2 rehearsed narratives that are often presented by politicians in phrases like, “Canadians believe that…”. Third, there are different discourses and narratives that drive responses to the TRC calls to action and they lead to different destinations in Indigenous-non- Indigenous relationships. Each of issues will be discussed very briefly in so far as they affect an understanding of “fostering of citizen engagement in Indigenous/non- Indigenous relations.
1. Understandings of “reconciliation”
“Reconciliation” is a contested term, in Canada generally and in Indigenous contexts specifically.6 In its final report, the TRC offers this definition:
To the Commission, “reconciliation” is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. For that to happen, there has to be awareness of the past, acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, atonement for the causes, and action to change behaviour. 7
While the mandate of the TRC was to look at Canada’s history of residential schools, the definition above offers latitude to look at other aspects of Canada’s settler colonial nature, e.g. economy, governance, and land. What is left somewhat unclear is the extent the definition above enables a critical look at the present where settler colonialism remains an ongoing process that needs to be addressed. Yellowknives Dene scholar Glen Coulthard has noted how the federal government has carefully separated colonial actions of the past from Canada’s actions today by drawing a clear temporal line between past and present.8 This gives the impression that injustices belong to the past and that Canada today is not a colonial state.
In the wake of the TRC, reconciliation has become a widespread discourse in Canadian society. Critiques of “reconciliation” as a guiding framework point to the absence of discussions of land, sovereignty and reparations. Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred has been a leading critic of “reconciliation” viewing it as a pathway to avoid the hard questions of addressing Indigenous sovereignty, lands and injustices. The following represents a succinct summary of this position:
Without massive restitution made to Indigenous peoples, collectively and as individuals, including land, transfers of federal and provincial funds, and other forms of compensation for past harms and continuing injustices committed against the land and Indigenous peoples, reconciliation will permanently absolve colonial injustices and is itself a further injustice.9
Mississauga scholar Leanne Simpson warns there is a risk that reconciliation, with its focus on residential schools, may lead people to believe that the “wrong” has now been “righted” and there is no further need to address other historic wrongs nor the many dimensions of ongoing colonialism, including the inability of Canadians to embody treaty relationships or understand dispossession of Indigenous lands.10
3
Skepticism about whether there might be positive results from “reconciliation” is a cautionary reminder to pay attention to the nuances of citizen engagement initiatives, how they are shaped and what results might flow from them. It is also a warning that reconciliation can be used to distract attention away from more threatening discourses such as Indigenous lands and sovereignty.
2. How Canadians Understand Themselves
Arising from scholarship in anti-colonialism, anti-racism, critical white and feminist studies, scholars have analyzed narratives that shape the ways in which Canadians understand themselves. Paulette Regan deconstructs Canada’s “benevolent peacemaker” myth, the contours of which structure Canadians’ understanding of history and self- image in the present.11 The benevolent peacemaker myth guides Canadians to the familiar storyline that Canada brought peace, neutral law, order and good government to Indigenous peoples, and through treaties, avoided the massacres occurring in the unfolding of American society. Regan points out, “The peacemaker myth lies at the heart of the settler problem; it informs, however unconsciously, the everyday attitudes and actions of contemporary politicians, policy makers, lawyers and negotiators, and it remains an archetype of settler benevolence, fairness and innocence in the Canadian public mind.”12 Canadians like to think of themselves as “helpers” and upholders of the rule of law. 13 It can be observed how the Liberal federal government elected in 2015 drew upon these narratives in responding to the Syrian refugee crisis where many Canadians wanted to “help”.14 The benevolent peacemaker myth helps account for the difficulty that Canadians have in understanding structural violence in their relationship with Indigenous peoples, including broken treaty promises, the residential school system and cultural genocide, theft of Indigenous lands, and pervasive racism.
Upon learning about injustices against Indigenous peoples, it is not unusual to hear Canadians say, “I didn’t know”. Lenapé-Potawatomi scholar Susan Dion has commented upon how classroom teachers often say they know nothing about Indigenous peoples. She calls this claim “the perfect stranger”. She points out that this is a complicated position shaped by what people know, what they don’t know and what they refuse to know. What they do know includes stereotypical representations that reinforce dominant narratives.15
In understanding citizen engagement in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations, it is important to acknowledge that some kinds of engagement reinforce the narratives through which Canadians have come to understand themselves while other kinds of engagement challenge these narratives. For example, there is a difference between perceiving oneself as a “helper” to Indigenous peoples and a self-perception as a settler occupying treatied or unceded Indigenous lands. In assessing Canadian narratives, there are critical questions to be explored with respect to the relationships between Indigenous peoples and “people of colour” and recently arrived immigrants and refugees. In a rich collection of essays edited by Mathur, Dewar and DeGagné, Malissa Phung poses the question, “Are People of Colour Settlers Too?” 16 Within the seams of these
4 conversations, layers of history and complexities emerge, nevertheless pointing to the reality that all settler Canadians inherit benefits from living in Indigenous homelands right here, right now.17
3. Common Discourses
Canadians are motivated to respond to discourses that are consistent with their understandings of themselves and the narratives by which they define their identities as Canadians and the stories they tell about Canada. Discourses are related to power. They are fundamental to structuring the way we think about the world, and have profound implications for how people may choose to engage in an issue. Choosing how issues are “framed” discursively is an important dimension of social organizing and political mobilization. Strategic choices are made about which discourse is likely to attract the most supporters.18
The French philosopher Foucault deeply explored the interplay of discourse and power, and his concept of discourse is well described by Yellowknives Dene scholar Glen Coulthard in Red Skin, White Masks:
Here I employ “discourse” in a Foucaldian manner to refer to the myriad of ways in which the objects of our knowledge are defined and produced through the languages we employ in our engagement with the world and with others. Discursive formations, in other words, are not neutral; they “construct” the topic and objects of our knowledge; they govern “the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about”. They also influence how ideas are “put into practice and used to regulate the conduct of others.” Just as a discursive formation can legitimize certain ways of thinking and acting, they can also profoundly limit and constrain “other ways of talking and conducting ourselves in relation to the topic or constructing knowledge about it.”19
Discourses in Canadian society have been framed in a variety of ways, and at the risk of oversimplifying, I will outline four discourses, with overlapping elements, that have important implications for mobilizing citizen engagement.
1. “We are all equal”. Equality is an important understanding in Canadian society, and is a key driver of civil discourse, despite the reality of economic, social, gender, race and other forms of inequalities and discrimination in Canada. “Equality” is a discourse that Indigenous peoples deploy strategically in the public sphere.
“Closing the gap” is an equality narrative that positions Indigenous peoples as marginalized or discriminated against, and in need of help. A good example of the effective mobilization of equality discourse can be found in the Assembly of First Nations’ use of “closing the gap” to shame the federal government into making more funds available for First Nations education. In this case, the federal underfunding of First Nations education relative to
5 provincial jurisdictions is something that the public can readily grasp as unfair. The same can be said in relation to the underfunding of First Nations child welfare on reserves, a struggle pursued relentlessly by Dr. Cindy Blackstock of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and won when the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favour of Blackstock’s action in January, 2016. 20 It should be noted that the federal government has not yet responded by making appropriate funding available.
The discourse of “equality” has also been used by opponents to challenge Indigenous or treaty rights. In land disputes such the establishment of a reclamation site at Caledonia, Ontario in defence of Six Nations land rights, opponents called upon the police to remove the blockade as there should be “one law for all”.21 Such protests subvert equality discourse to claim a violation of settler rights. The same refrain has been used when Indigenous peoples have asserted their fishing rights, for example, in the case of the Saugeen Ojibway at Cape Croker.22
2. Liberal, social justice discourse. Within this discourse, the goal is to establish a society where differences are respected in a multicultural society. Those who speak within this discourse recognize that there is systemic discrimination and understand that historical wrongs between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples have spilled into the present. Outstanding land and treaty issues need to be resolved, Indigenous rights need to be respected, and legacies of residential schools such as social disruption, lower education levels need to be addressed, and racism needs to be challenged. Bridges can be built between Indigenous peoples and others who experience the inequities in Canadian society, including anti-poverty groups, people of colour, immigrants, those experiencing gender and sexual violence, and other groups in civil society.
On September 9, 1996, Stoney Point activist Dudley George was killed by the OPP while occupying Ipperwash Provincial Park, established on Stony Point lands. When the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash lobbied the provincial government to call an inquiry into what had happened, they had support from unions, municipalities, churches, human rights groups, political parties and many NGOs. The organizers claimed their right as concerned citizens to know what their government had done to influence the killing. This framing of the issue engaged a larger segment of the public than if the Coalition had been focused on expediting a land dispute between First Nations and government.23
3. Anti-colonial, anti-racist, decolonizing discourses. These discourses, which are not homogenous, are highly critical of the state and its interests. Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars use these discourses to highlight that settler colonialism is about the land.24 They see Canada as a settler colonial
6 state with well-developed structural mechanisms to access Indigenous lands and resources, assimilate Indigenous peoples, and preserve settler (aka “white”) privilege. They argue that the state and its institutions (e.g. the courts) act to bring Indigenous sovereignty under Canadian sovereignty. Racism, gender conformity, and regulation of populations through Indigenous status definition and immigration policies are dimensions of a targeted agenda to eliminate Indigenous relationships with their lands to force conformity to state and corporate interests.
4. Indigenous Sovereignty and Resurgent discourses. The assertion of Indigenous sovereignty, the protection of Indigenous lands, and the honouring of treaties are the themes articulated by Indigenous leaders and communities. Beyond academic study, such discourses come into play in everyday actions when Indigenous lands are threatened, when the “duty to consult” has been violated, and when Indigenous peoples are being treated like a “minority” or a “multicultural group” rather than sovereign, Indigenous Nations. Indigenous peoples’ mobilizations may include blockades, reclamations, occupations, and other direct actions.
Leading resurgent Indigenous theorists such as Taiaiake Alfred (Mohawk), Jeff Corntassel (Cherokee), Leanne Simpson (Michi Saugig) and Glen Coulthard (Yellowknives Dene) share a critical analysis of settler colonialism (as above) and also speak of pathways of decolonization based on Indigenous relationships to land and core cultural principles. They caution against being subsumed by the politics of recognition which seeks to subvert Indigenous sovereignty and relationships to land. They promote language recovery and land-based practices. At a grassroots level, resurgence is well-represented by the Idle No More movement which galvanized Indigenous peoples and their supporters opposed to the introduction of Bill C-45 into Parliament, legislation that removed environmental protections for water and fish habitats and which affected Indigenous lands and waterways without consultation.25
There are other important discourses prominent in Indigenous societies that come into play in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations, such as those arising in the Indigenous healing movement and from Traditional communities. There are also discussions of “rights” versus “responsibilities” as an epistemological challenge in framing conversations and actions in terms of human rights.26 “Reconciliation” at the individual and collective levels has also evolved as a discourse with diverse contested meanings.
Reconciliation discourse and the four additional discourses, which have different variants and strands, have been introduced to make the point that these discourses are mobilized in Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations and have multiple and often contradictory impacts on citizen engagement and settler identities. It is possible to see these discourses at work when we look at how organizers of various initiatives frame their work and call upon people to participate. While a particular discourse may encourage a wide range of non-Indigenous people to become engaged in activities to improve relationships and to
7 address inequities, other discourses may take people out of their comfort zone, particularly if they have limited knowledge of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations historically and in the present. I will argue here that these discourses bring people to different destinations. This paper will return to the question of discourses after looking at select initiatives in Canadian society.
Part 2: Initiatives
In this section, examples are offered of what “citizen engagement” looks like at this moment in time. There are many types of projects and initiatives by diverse parties including: . formal curricula . informal education directed at the general public . workshops – professional, on-line, experiential . corporate training . arts, performing arts and literature publications, performances, festivals and gatherings
Initiatives may be organized by Indigenous peoples, governments, NGOs, faith communities, grassroots organizations, and individuals. A scan of select initiatives, based on information from their websites, will be shared here under the headings “Reconciliation – Promoting Relationships”, “For the Earth”, “Campaigns”, and “Education”, thematically chosen to represent different kinds of public participation. No claim is being made regarding comprehensive representation of the many initiatives that have come into existence, except that there has been an attempt to provide an interesting variety.
Reconciliation – Promoting Relationships
Since the TRC issued its calls to action, there has been a groundswell of activities bearing “reconciliation” in their title, organized by NGOs, governmental, public and educational institutions. They appear almost daily, and there will be no attempt to comprehensively cover all the initiatives that are being hosted. However, examples will be described below as an indicator of the types and range of initiatives that are flowing out of the TRC calls to action or because organizers have adopted the current discourse of reconciliation.
1. Reconciliation Canada
Reconciliation Canada was founded by Chief Robert Joseph, a traditional chief from the Gwawaenuk First Nation who is the organization’s leading spokesman.27 The Reconciliation Canada website does not define “reconciliation” but starts from the residential school experience. The reconciliation process is focused on building bridges at individual and collective levels. Reconciliation dialogue workshops bring small groups of people together to share their stories, “discuss visions for a better future, and prepare individual and collective action plans”. In 2013, Reconciliation Canada organized a reconciliation walk involving more than 80,000 participants on a rainy
8 Vancouver day as part of the TRC community events. They work with many kinds of organizations and the corporate sector, and have an “economic reconciliation” program.
Reconciliation Canada has received funding as a Canada 150 Signature Project. It has assumed a leadership role in preparing a ‘national narrative on reconciliation’ report, convening thought leaders on reconciliation, holding a national gathering of spiritual leaders and youth, mobilizing organizations that wish to pursue reconciliation, organizing walks for reconciliation, and celebrating multiculturalism in Canada. Since 2016 they have been hosting national gatherings which focus on a multi-cultural survivors’ panel and break-out groups on the themes of “optimum potential, shared prosperity and social and systemic change”. In their “Reconciliation in Action: A National Engagement Strategy”, they “will examine and document perceptions, actions and aspirations of Canadians in relation to reconciliation. This narrative will recognize our common history, highlight current achievements and create hope for the next 150 years.”
2. Reconciliation Saskatoon, a coalition of over thirty organizations, organized two months of events in May and June, 2016. Events included ceremonies, performances, language learning, residential school-related activities, inspirational speakers, events involving school children events such as a graduation powwow, 4 week reading campaign and Indigenous awareness training. Organizations included City of Saskatoon, Office of the Treaty Commissioner, Aboriginal Friendship Centres of Saskatchewan, Indian and Metis Friendship Centre of Saskatoon, Central Urban Metis Federation Inc., Potash Corporation, Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon Public Libraries, Saskatoon Police Service, Saskatoon Tribal Council, United Church, Catholic Diocese, Anglican Diocese, Saskatoon Public Schools, Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools, Wild About Saskatoon, Great Plains College, City of Warman, University of Saskatchewan, Affinity Credit Union, Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, SaskTel, Gordon Tootoosis Nikaniwin Theatre, Frontier College, Big Brothers and Sisters of Saskatchewan, and Riversdale Love.
3. The National Arts Centre in Ottawa sponsored 8 events on the theme of Indigenous Story-Telling and Reconciliation in January and February, 2016.28
4. {Re}conciliation is an arts-funding program of the Canada Council for the Arts “to promote artistic collaborations that look to the past & future for new dialogues between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada.” The program is a collaboration with the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation.29
One project funded by the {Re}conciliation program is O k’inadas. O k’inadas//complicated reconciliations: an artist residency is an initiative held as part of a Summer Indigenous Art Intensive Program by University of British Columbia, Okanagan. It was part of a larger continuing project called Art + Reconciliation to explore “how artistic practices can engage in questions of reconciliation” in the Canadian context. The residency project provides on-line resources generated through the artistic exchanges during the summer of 2016. 30
9 Another {Re}conciliation-funded project is by the Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre in Halifax. ““This is What I Wish You Knew” brings together 50 Indigenous community artists- youth, adults and Elders-in Halifax, to explore their individual and collective identities and develop the stories they “wish you- the public- knew.” A large Interactive Clay Mural will showcase the artists’ journeys, through individually created tiles linked to films profiling each artist’s story, to build understanding, create a space for dialogue, and lay the foundation for reconciliation.” 31
5. Canadian Roots Exchange, a national organization that brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth in dialogue and leadership development, held its fourth annual conference in Sudbury, Ontario on the theme of “Niigaanzhaadaa: Moving Forward Together: CRE National Youth Reconciliation Conference, March 17-19, 2016. A moving letter from the youth participants in the 2016 Kuujjuaq – Ottawa youth exchange to Prime Minister Trudeau is instructive of what it means to bring Indigenous and non- Indigenous youth into dialogue. The youth also organized the #94 Days for Reconciliation Social Media campaign in November, 2015, inviting youth to choose and write about one of the 94 TRC calls to action.32
6. Project of Heart, a national award-winning educational initiative developed by non-Indigenous Ottawa school teacher Sylvia Smith, engages learners in schools and universities to learn about the history of residential schools. It outlines a six step reconciliation process, including meeting with a residential school survivor and arts- based and social justice components. Students in classrooms across Canada have participated in this initiative, which now lists its home as the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.33
7. Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC is hosting its “President’s Dream Colloquium on Returning to the Teachings: Justice, Identity, and Belong.” Nine prominent speakers, most of them Indigenous, will address the theme in the context of Education for Reconciliation, in fall, 2016. The theme is seen as a response to the TRC’s call for Indigenous knowledge to contribute to a new way forward.34
8. Trent University in Peterborough, ON hosted its 40th annual Elders and Traditional Peoples Gathering on the theme of “Rekindling the Fire: Reconciliation and the Way Forward”. The winter gathering brings together Elders and Traditional Peoples from Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee and other Indigenous Nations.35
9. Universities Canada, representing 96 universities in Canada, has issued a set of 13 principles on Indigenous education and 5 commitments to action. Most are focused on ‘closing the gap’ for Indigenous students and Indigenizing the academy.36
10. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has published a list of territorial acknowledgements for over 80 universities and colleges that are members of the association. The intent is to assist members in properly acknowledging and recognition of First Nations’ territories as a first step to cultivating relationships with
10 First Nations.37 A critical analysis of this resource has been written by Métis lawyer Chelsea Vowel.38
11. University of Alberta Museums in partnership with other University of Alberta programs hosted a public lunchtime lecture series on the theme of “Open Conversations: In the Spirit of Reconciliation” in the winter, 2016.39
12. University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine’s Continuing Professional Education hosted the two-day Indigenous Health Conference: Toward Health and Reconciliation to look at reconciliation and ways to improve Indigenous health. Held in May, 2016, it was aimed at attracting health professionals across a wide range of health sector roles. This was the second such conference and a future conference is being planned.40
13. The Vancouver Dialogues Project, which operated between April, 2010 and July, 2011, brought together First Nations, urban Aboriginal organizations, and immigrant communities in Vancouver to engage in opportunities for cross-cultural understanding and relationship building. The project sought to engage both Indigenous and immigrant communities through dialogue circles, community research, cultural exchange visits, projects involving youth and elders, and legacy projects. The project generated face-to- face discussions, artistic expression, videos and on-site visits. Extensive documentation can be found on their website.41
The initiatives mentioned above are in no way exhaustive. They do provide the ground for some observations about the kinds of initiatives that are being organized in the name of reconciliation and the mobilization of Indigenous/Non-Indigenous people. . They are focused on a positive tone for creating a better future. They use words like respect, dialogue, relationship-building and opportunity. However, guest speakers may draw upon a range of discourses that do not reflect the framing by organizers. . Many initiatives are time-limited. That does not mean that organizations may not plan additional activities in the future but that they have specific boundaries for the events they are hosting. . Organizations like Reconciliation Saskatoon bring together diverse Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties to undertake a common goal. They are very rich in the knowledge and expertise brought to the table. . These initiatives reach out to targeted audiences, from the general public to professional memberships, and they include adults, youth and children. The organizations that are responding have the capability and potential to reach different sectors of society and create different kinds of conversations.
For the Earth
Indigenous peoples’ relationships to their traditional territories, their place-based knowledges and their wholistic spiritual beliefs have positioned them on the front lines of protecting Mother Earth. It should be remember that it was the defence of Kanehsatake
11 traditional territories that led to the confrontation in 1990, ultimately leading to the establishment of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Indigenous actions to protect Mother Earth and traditional territories are diverse and may or may not involve non-Indigenous peoples. The following are actions taken by Indigenous peoples in which non-Indigenous peoples have been invited to stand in solidarity.
14. Water Walks. The Anishinaabe water walking movement began in 2003 when Grandmother Josephine Mandamin began her inaugural walk around Lake Superior to honour the water and to raise awareness of the importance of protecting water as sacred. Since then, a water walking movement has evolved under the leadership of Anishinaabe women. The annual water walking events attract women, men and families both Indigenous and non-Indigenous with the goal of bringing water issues to the fore. Each year, local water walking organizations decide on a water walking route, usually circling a lake or walking along a river. This is a grassroots spiritually-based movement where Indigenous women’s leadership is recognized and non-Indigenous people come to learn and act in solidarity.
From the front lines of defending Traditional territories, Indigenous peoples have found allies in other Indigenous Nations and among settler peoples. From the Kanehsatake to Caledonia, from Nawash to Muskrat Falls, Labrador, from Elsipogtog to Bella Bella to Site C in the Peace River, Indigenous peoples have confronted the settler colonial state when their territories and their responsibilities to their lands and relationships have been threatened. The following are just a few examples of how Indigenous land defenders are engaging with non-Indigenous peoples.
15. Grassy Narrows, whose blockade in opposition to logging in their Traditional territories has been established since 2002, sponsors an annual River Walk to raise awareness of decades-old mercury pollution in their river caused by industry and the Minemata disease that have ensued. Grassy Narrows has been asking for the provincial government to conduct a clean-up of the river. The 2016 River Walk was comprised of a 1700 km walk from Grassy Narrows, followed by a family-oriented rally at Toronto’s Queen’s Park.
16. The Sacred Trust Initiative is empowered by the Tsleil-waututh Nation to stop the Kinder Morgan expansion in their traditional territories. In 2014, they made national headlines when they and allied supporters rallied on Burnaby Mountain. In November, 2015, they held a one day “learning for reconciliation” to celebrate the first anniversary of the Burnaby mountain mobilization. The purpose was “to strengthen Indigenous and settler alliances” in anticipation of their continuing opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.
17. The West Moberly First Nation and the Prophet River First Nation are opposing the flooding of their Peace River territories to build the Site C dam. BC Hydro was approved to begin clearing for the dam by the BC Provincial Government and in 2016, the federal government issued necessary permits, despite a legal challenge now before the courts. This is a serious breach of the duty to consult. Members of the two First Nations
12 travelled to eastern Canada on their “Justice for the Peace” speaking tour to raise awareness and support for their opposition and to attend federal court proceedings in Montreal. The First Nations are supported by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, local farmers, and NGOs such as RAVEN Trust,42 Amnesty International, Leadnow, and Sierra Club of BC, amongst others.43
18. The Unis’tot’en Clan of the Wet’sowet’en in northwestern British Columbia has established a camp at the entrance of their traditional territories. They have said “no” to the Enbridge Pipeline and are defending their lands. Each summer they welcome diverse volunteers to join the Unis’tot’en Solidarity Brigade where they can contribute to priorities of the leaders, participate in land-based activities and learn protocols that respect Indigenous sovereignty.44
These mobilizations led by Indigenous peoples reach across borders and in an era of global communications, can bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples into solidarity very quickly, as demonstrated in Standing Rock, North Dakota resistance. Anti- globalization activists, environmentalists and non-Indigenous peoples engaged in challenging social and environmental relationships have found commonalities in different times and spaces.45 Tuck and Yang point to the incommensurability of struggles and the contingent nature of Indigenous and non-Indigenous solidarities.46 Certainly, there are networks forged on the front-lines of struggle that can be mobilized as new challenges appear.
Campaigns
19. Idle No More offers an outstanding example of the mobilization potential of Indigenous-led movements.47 Organized in December, 2012 using social media, Idle No More galvanized Indigenous peoples and their supporters across the country in peaceful gatherings to protest the oppressive and colonial actions of the federal government in all their manifestations, beginning with proposed legislation Bill C-45 removing environmental protections for waters. This inclusive movement created a common platform for Indigenous peoples engaged in specific land-based struggles and those fighting against colonialism, capitalism and a host of issues grounded in dispossession of Indigenous lands, racism, discrimination, and violence such as the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls campaign. This “round dance revolution” gave presence to Indigenous peoples in urban spaces and drew in thousands of non-Indigenous peoples who shared a frustration with the dictatorial style of the federal Harper government.
20. Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG)
One of the arguably most successful mobilizations of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous women has been in relation to the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG). Violence against Indigenous women has manifested in extraordinarily high rates of murder and disappearance.48 Following the recommendation of the TRC, a national inquiry has been established by the federal government to investigate root
13 causes, to hear from the families and to recommend strategies that will bring about change.
Establishing violence against Indigenous women as a government policy priority came about only after more than fifteen years of organizing by the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). NWAC established the Sisters in Spirit campaign and reached out to form partnerships with non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, KAIROS, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and United Anglican Church.49 NWAC held its first October 4th vigil in 2006, an annual event prompting many grassroots organizations to organize local, spiritually-based vigils. MMIWG has been a cause around which church, social justice, anti-racist and feminist organizations have rallied, under the leadership of Indigenous women. In Vancouver, the February 14th Annual Women’s Memorial March is held in the Downtown Eastside where the serial killer Robert Pickton lured his victims.
Arts-based responses to the MMIWG issue have included Christi Belcourt’s “Walking with Our Sisters” exhibit of 1810 moccasin vamps and 118 children’s moccasin vamps, created by Indigenous and non-Indigenous contributors from across the country.50 Issues related to the MMIWG include colonialism, sexism, sexualities, racism, poverty, violence and other systemic discriminations. Indigenous Elders and scholars have drawn the parallel between how the land and the bodies of Indigenous women are treated in settler society.51 The community-based mobilization to address MMIWG has brought together people who may have diverse analyses but who find common ground in their understanding of injustice.
Education
The need for widespread public education was recognized by The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples as an indispensible element in bringing about change in Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships. Dialogue, cross-cultural education, meaningful interaction and public role-modeling were identified by RCAP as part of a strategy to transform Canadian consciousness.52 Nearly two decades later, the TRC similarly agreed that Canadians of all ages lack an understanding of Indigenous peoples. Call to Action #62 specifically addresses education in public-funded institutions.53 The public school system, colleges and universities are responding, as are NGOS, governments, professional organizations and industry. Because of the wide range of initiatives that aim to educate, a few examples only will be mentioned in this section.
Improving public school education about Indigenous peoples and Indigenous-non- Indigenous relationships has been the incessant goal of Indigenous peoples for decades. There are important variations in each province/territory and of course, the content varies not only because of the difference in Indigenous territories but also in what discourses are being reinforced by the curriculum designers. While each province and territory could be represented here, this short overview simply points to the extensive work that is being undertaken in the education field.
14
21. Both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have implemented treaty education throughout the grade levels, developing curricula in collaboration with Indigenous educators and Elders. Saskatchewan’s “Teaching Treaties in the Classroom” brings mandatory treaty education into the school system from K-12. They have developed outcomes and indicators for each grade level, demonstrating that students will develop an increasingly complex understanding of treaties. In Manitoba, the K-12 treaty education curriculum has been supported with resource kits by the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba.54
22. Following the spirit of the Association of Canadian Deans of Education’s Accord on Indigenous Education in 2010, compulsory Indigenous Studies courses for teacher candidates have been introduced in some schools of education, including Trent University and Lakehead University. Lakehead and University of Winnipeg are implementing mandatory courses in Indigenous Studies for all undergraduates, and other universities are looking for ways to follow suite without incurring backlashes from students.
23. KAIROS, an ecumenical project of the eleven religious denominations that work on social and justice issues, has been engaged with Indigenous solidarity for many years. They created The Blanket Exercise, an experiential introduction to colonization and colonial land policy. The Blanket Exercise has been facilitated in two hour workshops with many grassroots organizations, including adult, youth and children.55
24. Tatamagouche Centre in Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia hosts an annual four day event based on the Peace and Friendship treaties of those territories. The summer gathering offers the opportunity to build relationships and community and to share cultural traditions.56 This is a significant event to build an understanding of the treaty relationships into which ancestors entered.
25. First Story Toronto, operating out of the Native Canadian Centre, turn their research on the history of Indigenous Toronto into public education opportunities. They conduct the Great Indian Bus Tour, where they tell the history of Indigenous Toronto through a school bus tour around the city. Using GPS technology, they have created the First Story app which allows anyone to click on specific locations and hear the Indigenous history of that location.
26. Governments and industry are also sponsoring educational events for employees who need to build positive relationships with Indigenous peoples in order to carry out their work. Such training may involve generic cultural awareness workshops or information- specific seminars on topics such as recent legal cases, regulatory frameworks and duty- to-consult. West Coast consultant Robert Joseph has developed a series of workshops that have become important resources for learning relationship-building skills in government and industry contexts. The Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres delivers custom-designed workshops for civil servants and other organizations. This kind of training reaches employees who make decisions affecting Indigenous peoples.
15 27. The “Transforming Relations” website was created in 2014 by senior Indigenous Studies undergraduate students in the inaugural course called “Transforming Settler Consciousness ”. The website documents over 200 educational initiatives by Indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, education institutions, faith communities, governments, and businesses to shift awareness of Canadians. This collection has been a source for the discussion of “Initiatives” in this paper. Readers are encouraged to learn about additional initiatives that can be found on the site.57
While these few examples do not even begin to scratch the surface of action by Indigenous and Non-Indigenous educators, leaders, communities, governments, teachers, NGOs, and grassroots activists, it points to the different fronts on which there is movement to transform Canadian consciousness and the way Canadians understand their relationships with Indigenous peoples. Although the TRC has catalyzed citizen engagement, KAIROS’s blanket exercise, the Tatamagouche Centre’s Peace and Friendship treaties annual events, and First Story’s public education programs are examples of activities that pre-date the TRC and are part of ongoing social justice work by small groups of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous activists and advocates who wish to improve Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations.
Part 3: ASSESSMENT
In Part 1, this paper has outlined a number of issues (i.e. differences in understanding “reconciliation”, Canadian narratives and discourses) that influence citizen engagement and change. In Part 2, diverse examples have been offered to illustrate what “citizen engagement” looks like at this moment in time and space. No claim is made that the examples are representative or inclusive of the many initiatives that are taking place, but they do demonstrate that there is momentum for change in different sectors of Canadian society and that Indigenous peoples are choosing to partner with and/or educate non- Indigenous peoples.
Part 3 puts forward two themes. The first is a brief review of what we know about learning and change in the context of Indigenous/Non-Indigenous relations. The second is a revisit of the earlier argument that different discourses lead to different destinations. As citizen engagement initiatives draw upon and promote different discourses, the results of citizen engagement can be uneven in achieving the goals of Indigenous peoples, particularly in relation to Indigenous sovereignty, land, and self-determination.
What We Know About Learning and Change
There is an unprecedented amount of information produced by Indigenous peoples in the public domain. Academic literature, creative written and visual works, movies, arts- based performances, interviews, research studies, oral histories, Traditional teachings, Facebook sites, language learning on the web, and apps can be found with ease. Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) broadcasts the national news nightly from coast to coast to coast. The fact that Canadians still know so little about Indigenous peoples and Indigenous-settler relations demonstrates that simply providing more
16 information alone will not change the way Canadians think, a reality acknowledged by RCAP in its report.
There are a number of studies that shed light on the processes of learning and change as they affect settler consciousness. Key research has been conducted by Chris Hiller who studied the experiences of 22 settler activists who have been engaged in issues related to Indigenous land struggles.58 Learning has been an ongoing journey, not something that occurred immediately. At the same time individuals experienced critical moments of insight or turning points that helped or forced them to challenge entrenched Canadian narratives and to understand themselves in a different light. Hiller depicts two intersecting learning spirals. One spiral describes decolonizing one’s own self, realizing that one’s own beliefs and identities have been shaped by colonialism and that one has to learn to see Indigenous-non-Indigenous relationships in a very different way. Understanding one’s own settler history and how one personally benefits from ongoing colonialism are important components of this learning. The other spiral is one of re- learning or acquiring new knowledge, including Indigenous knowledge, an understanding of history from an Indigenous perspective, treaty relations and one’s own responsibilities as a settler beneficiary of treaties. This spiral is also about non-Indigenous people witnessing and confronting historic and ongoing colonial practices that dispossess and displace Indigenous peoples; in other words, it’s also about action against ongoing colonial encroachment of Indigenous peoples. The process of decolonizing and learning go on simultaneously. Hiller reports that these are not simply smooth processes of growing insight and acquisition, but rather involve contradictions as individuals encounter perspectives and knowledge that threaten settler identities and sense of well- being.
Paulette Regan used the term “unsettling the settler within” to reference the process of discovering oneself as a “settler” on Indigenous land. Discomfort arises when one recognizes that the narratives received as “truth” through socialization in family and school are found to be social constructions that support settler interpretations of the world and at the same time, hide the truth of ongoing colonialism and one’s own implication in it. “Moves to innocence” are described by anti-racist and anti-colonial scholars to reference how individuals absolve themselves of connection to historical and contemporary processes of colonialism, racism, racialized privilege, and discrimination, and the personal benefit of occupying Indigenous lands.59 “Moves to innocence” are readily identifiable in everyday speech, for example, “My family has been here for many generations”; “My ancestors weren’t here at the time”; “That happened a long time ago”; “I have Indigenous friends”; “My ancestors were escaping persecution”. “Settler moves to innocence” are an effort to re-establish a sense of comfort. In the words of Tuck and Yang, “settler moves to innocence” are those strategies or positions that attempt to relieve the settler of feelings of guilt or responsibility without giving up land or power or privilege, without having to change much at all.” 60 Tuck and Yang describe different forms of “settler moves to innocence” to illustrate how readily settlers, including the most well-meaning activists, resist shifts in the status quo.61 Learning, then, is not simply a matter of absorbing information. It is a process that engages emotions and identities in complex ways.
17
The literatures on Indigenous-non-Indigenous alliances and allyship point to coalitions as important sites of learning, particularly for non-Indigenous peoples.62 While working together on land issues, racism and other sites of joint action, exposure to different cultural perspectives help individuals to see how their own [colonial] worlds are constructed. Those involved in Indigenous/Non-Indigenous alliances and coalitions have outlined both opportunities and cautions in relationship-building. Relationship tensions include different styles of working and planning, conflicts over goals, differences in the pace of decision-making, non-Indigenous ignorance of cultural protocols and history, arrogance of non-Indigenous allies, and turnover of the parties for continuity of relationship.63 Some authors offer advice for non-Indigenous aspiring allies such as taking time to build trust and respect, learning the history of relations, never assuming the voice of Indigenous peoples, always keeping promises, and assuming the stance of learner.64
Despite the learning that can happen in coalitions, even the process of working in solidarity on various issues cannot guarantee that non-Indigenous people will consider deeper questions of one’s own complicity with the ongoing processes of colonization enacted by Canada in relation to Indigenous lands and peoples. As noted previously, Susan Dion has pointed to an individual’s knowledge as composed of what people know, what they don’t know, and what they choose not to know. Individuals can be willfully blind,65 and turn away from what Deborah Britzman terms “difficult knowledge”.66 This returns to the question of what discourses mobilize Canadians in becoming engaged in Indigenous/Non-Indigenous Relations.
Fostering Citizen Engagement in Indigenous/Non-Indigenous Relations
“Reconciliation” as a broad discourse draws upon related discourses for strength and appeal. “Equality”, “mutual respect”, “recognition”, “walking forward together” and “social justice” are important ideas that have emerged in discussions about reconciliation and are evident in the many initiatives that bear “reconciliation” in their title. This framing of reconciliation is consistent with the predominant way many Canadians see themselves based on dominant settler narratives.
Jeffrey Denis and Kerry Bailey asked 40 settler Canadians attending Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s events about their understandings of “reconciliation” and allyship.67 They report that there were differences in how “reconciliation” and allyship were conceived: “Although participants’ visions of reconciliation generally aligned with core aspects of the TRC’s vision, including an emphasis on respectful relationships, historical awareness, cultural understanding, healing, and ‘closing the gap’ on socioeconomic and health outcomes, most were strikingly disconnected from wider movements for decolonization and Indigenous land struggles.” While most participants shared an understanding of allyship to include building relationships, educating others, lobbying for changes in policies, and confronting racism, few talked about supporting land rights, self-determination and Indigenous sovereignty.
18 Similar concerns were raised by Davis, Hiller, James, Lloyd, Nasca and Taylor when analyzing twenty-five initiatives from entries on the Transforming Relations website.68 They observed an absence of engagement with Indigenous land issues, treaties and Indigenous sovereignty in most initiatives documented on the website. Barker and Lowman describe the complex landscape of emotions, including fear and guilt, that surface when people see the larger picture of colonization, the occupation of Indigenous lands and their own complicity in its continuance. Mackey analyzes settler “structures of feeling”, including settler entitlement and anxiety, as settler relations to land are built on long histories of socially constructed “certainty” which Indigenous claims to their own lands disrupt, creating “uncertainty”. There is a rush by settlers to move to comfort, rather than sitting with discomfort and unsettlement.69 The desire to avoid discomfort and unsettlement perhaps explains why the discourse of reconciliation has mobilized so many Non-Indigenous Canadians who have the privilege of not taking on the identity of “settler” in understanding themselves in Indigenous-settler relations. The umbrella of “reconciliation” allows settler Canadians to engage in relationship-building that does not shift the status quo, a caution advanced by Indigenous resurgent theorists with warnings that “reconciliation” is intended to absorb Indigenous peoples into settler society.
Concluding Comments
“Reconciliation” is a discourse that has been embraced by both Indigenous and non- Indigenous peoples. A multitude of different projects and initiatives have been launched, many of them by grassroots Indigenous and Non-Indigenous peoples. As I write this on September 30th, thousands of Canadian school children have come to school in orange shirts in remembrance of residential school survivors.70 When focused on the past (like residential schools), inequality (need to “close the gap”), cultural awareness and exchange, and social justice (“murdered and missing Indigenous women”), Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are coming together to learn, and to lobby for change in institutional and government policies that obstruct the lives and opportunities of Indigenous peoples. One cannot underestimate also the important relationship-building of informal grassroots networks that have developed amongst artists, writers, musicians, environmentalists and academics, as well as those in community-based organizations and clubs. Idle No More made excellent use of such networks to bring forward a thunderous voice that rocked politicians and the Canadian public through its urgency and sudden emergence.
At the same time, our current federal government has not been in a hurry to unpack its understanding of “nation-to-nation”. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with its many possibilities to move forward on issues of sovereignty, has not been central to public educational initiatives or policy discussion to date, except the more limited imperative of free, prior and informed consent.71 Sovereignty is a difficult discourse in Canada and Indigenous sovereignty would be seen by many to be a direct challenge to the agenda of bringing Indigenous sovereignty under Canadian sovereignty72. It disrupts the notion of “our Indigenous peoples”, a phrase that is often heard in mainstream media.
19 It cannot be ignored that settler Canadians have and do mobilize against Indigenous Nations on land and resource issues related to Indigenous Traditional territories, as was demonstrated in the watershed moment of Kanehsatake (Oka). Eva Mackey has done an in-depth analysis of the Caldwell First Nation’s struggle to secure a land base against concerted backlash from Chatham-Kent settlers in southwestern Ontario.73 On Pigeon Lake, where I live, cottagers have mobilized against Michi Saugig wild rice harvesters. There are numerous examples of land and resource-based oppositions and tensions from coast to coast to coast.
Michi Saugig scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson has observed, ‘Land is an important conversation for Indigenous peoples and Canada to have because land is at the root of our conflicts’.74 It remains to be seen whether the present reconciliation engagements will provide the foundational knowledge and experiential base to sustain a deep conversation about land and decolonization. Eva Mackey has noted:
Settler colonialism – including philosophy, settler jurisprudence, legislation and settler “structures of feeling” – pivot on axiomatic assumptions about settler entitlement and certainty in land, property and settler futures, as well as on materializing “settled expectations.” The question, then, is whether decolonization, for settlers and settler law, may entail embracing particular forms of (likely uncomfortable) uncertainty, in order to imagine and practice relationships and power in new and creative ways.75
Sharing the land, sharing a future requires a certain level of individual and collective self- awareness that settler Canadians and Canadian society do not yet possess. Citizen mobilization in Indigenous/Non-Indigenous relations can make an important contribution if there is enough courage to recognize “O Canada – our home on Native land”. That is the truth, simply stated, on a teeshirt one can buy at a powwow. There is work to be done in imagining what sharing the land would look like so that new imaginaries can form within the consciousness of Canadians. This historic moment has presented an opening and possibilities that require real leadership – Indigenous and Non-Indigenous – to realize.76
Notes
1. The title of this paper reflects the mandate of the assignment to prepare a paper on citizen engagement in the context of Indigenous/Non-Indigenous relations. A variety of terms used in this paper flow from differences in ideological orientation and commitments. “Aboriginal” is the term used in relation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, but it has been critiqued by many Indigenous people who consider the term to be colonial as it is embedded in Canada’s Constitution Act and responsibilities that arise from it. “Indigenous” is the term used to refer to Indigenous peoples in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and is generally used in an
20
international context. More problematic are the terms “Non-Indigenous” and “settler”. “Indigenous/Non-Indigenous” are often critiqued because the binary oversimplifies complex identity identities. “Non-Indigenous” also masks the reality of settler colonialism in Canada as an ongoing set of practices and processes, including occupation of Indigenous lands, from which settlers benefit. The use of the term “settler” facilitates a conversation about settler colonialism in the present and the responsibilities to change Canadian society in structure and process. Adam Barker and Emma Lowman make the case for using the term “settler” in Chapter 1 of their volume Settler Identity and Colonialism in the 21st Century (Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2015). Jeff Corntassel, in ‘Re-envisioning Resurgence: Indigenous Pathways to Decolonization and Sustainable Self- Determination’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 no.1 (2012): 86-101, has suggested using the term that are used in local Indigenous Nations to refer to settlers. As this paper is not specific to particular Traditional territories, the term “settler” has been used to reference non- Indigenous people in general but also to invoke the settler origins of the Canadian State and its ongoing practices of occupying Indigenous lands, trying to subsume Indigenous sovereignty and asserting control over Indigenous peoples in a multitude of ways. For a deep analysis of settler colonialism, see Taiaiake Alfred, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005); Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, ‘Decolonization is Not A Metaphor’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 1-40; Patrick Wolfe, ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native’, Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387-409; Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010); Eva Mackey, Unsettled Expectations: Uncertainty, Land, and Settler Decolonization (Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publications, 2015). 2. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Calls to Action (Winnipeg: TRC, 2015), http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf 3. Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, People to People, Nation to Nation: Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1996), 20-1. 4. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, ‘First Words’, in Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non- Indigenous Relationships, ed. Lynne Davis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), xiii-xiv. 5. There are many organizational definitions of citizen engagement, civic engagement, and citizen participation. According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, “Citizen engagement is the meaningful involvement of individual citizens in policy or program development. To put it simply, citizens are "engaged" when they play an active role in defining issues, considering solutions, and identifying resources or priorities for action.” CIHR, ‘Citizen Engagement’, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, last modified January 9, 2012, http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41592.html; According to the Parliament of Canada, “Generally speaking, civic engagement results when citizens acquire behaviours and attitudes that express their will to get involved in their society or community in a manner consistent with democratic principles. This can include involvement in community and volunteer organizations. Civic engagement is broader than political engagement in that it can include service to the community through involvement in health, in education and in charitable organizations. Political engagement is a more targeted aspect of civic engagement and is expressed through voting, demonstrations, signing petitions and work with political organizations.” Marion Ménard, ‘Current Publications: Social Affairs and Population: Youth Civic Engagement’, Library of Parliament, last modified 2012, http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/ResearchPublications/2010-23-e.htm. 6. Jennifer Henderson and Pauline Wakeham, eds., Reconciling Canada: Critical Perspectives on the Culture of Redress (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013), 8. 7. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Canada’s Residential Schools: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, vol. 6 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill- Queen’s Press, 2015), 3. 8. Glen Sean Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014), 121. Coulthard applies his analysis to the Gathering Strength statement of the federal government in response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Here there is a clear distinction relegating Canada’s colonial actions to the past.
21
9. Taiaiake Alfred, ‘Restitution is the Real Pathway to Justice for Indigenous Peoples’, in Response, Responsibility and Renewal: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Journey, eds. Gregory Younging, Jonathan Dewar and Mike DeGagné (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation Research Series, 2009), 181. 10. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, Dancing On Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence and a New Emergence (Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press, 2011), 22. 11. Paulette Regan, Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010), 83-110. 12. Ibid., 87. 13. Lynne Davis et al., ‘Complicated Pathways: Settler Canadians Learning to Re/Frame Themselves and their Relationships with Indigenous Peoples’, Settler Colonial Studies 7, no. 3 (forthcoming), 1-17. 14. This point is punctuated by Prime Minister Trudeau’s first speech to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 19, 2016. He ended by saying, “We know it will be hard work. But we’re Canadian. And we are here to help.” 15. Susan D. Dion, Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal Peoples’ Experiences and Perspectives (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009), 178-9. 16. Malissa Phung, ‘Are People of Colour Settlers Too?’, in Cultivating Canada: Reconciliation through the Lens of Cultural Diversity, eds. A. Mathur, J. Dewar, and M. DeGagné (Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2011), 289. 17. Barker and Lowman, Settler Identity, 18. 18. David Snow et al., ‘Frame Alignment Process, Micromobilization and Movement Participation’, American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-81. 19. Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks, 102-3. Coulthard draws upon the explanation of Stuart Hall in outlining an understanding of discourse, as elaborated by Foucault. 20. Tim Fontaine, ‘Canada discriminates against children on reserves, tribunal rules’, CBC News: Indigenous, last modified August 2, 2016, http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/canada-discriminates- against-children-on-reserves-tribunal-rules-1.3419480 21. Tom Keefer, ‘Contradictions of Canadian Colonialism: Non-Native Responses to the Six Nations Reclamation at Caledonia’, in Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-non-Indigenous Relations, ed. Lynne Davis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 80-3. 22. Rick Wallace, Marilyn Struthers, and Rick Cober Bauman, ‘Winning Fishing Rights: The Successes and Challenges of Building Grassroots Relations Between the Chippewas of Nawash and Their Allies’, in Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-non-Indigenous Relations, ed. Lynne Davis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 91-113. 23. For a case study of the Coalition for an Inquiry into Ipperwash, see Lynne Davis, Vivian O’Donnell and Heather Shpuniarsky, ‘Aboriginal-Social Justice Alliances: Understanding the Landscape of Relationships through the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash’, International Journal of Canadian Studies 37 (Fall 2007): 95-119. 24. Tuck and Yang, ‘Decolonization is Not A Metaphor’, 1-40; Leanne Simpson, ‘Land As Pedagogy: Nishnaabeg Intelligence and Rebellious Transformation’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, and Society 3, no. 3 (2014): 1-25; Alfred, Wasáse. It should be noted that clustering diverse discourses in this discussion runs the risk of oversimplifying; it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss their differences in depth. 25. See, for example, Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks, 160; Simpson, ‘Land as Pedagogy’; Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel, ‘Being Indigenous: Resurgences Against Contemporary Colonialism’, Government and Opposition 40, no. 4 (2005): 597-614. 26. Corntassel, ‘Re-envisioning Resurgence’, 92. 27. Reconciliation Canada, ‘Reconciliation Canada’, Reconciliation Canada – A New Way Forward Society, last modified 2015, http://reconciliationcanada.ca 28. National Arts Centre, ‘Spotlight on Indigenous Storytelling and Reconciliation’, National Arts Centre, last modified January 4, 2016, http://nac-cna.ca/en/stories/story/spotlight-on-indigenous-storytelling- and-reconciliation 29. Canadian Council for the Arts, ‘Reconciliation’, Canadian Council for the Arts, last modified 2016, http://canadacouncil.ca/aboriginal-arts-office/reconciliation
22
30. ‘O K’inadas // complicated reconciliations: an artist residency’, O K’inadas, last modified 2016, http://rmooc.ca 31. Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, ‘This is What I Wish You Knew’, Mi’kmaw Native Friendship Centre, last modified 2016, http://www.mymnfc.com/programs_research_tiwiwyk.php 32. Canadian Roots Exchange, ‘Canadian Roots’, Canadian Roots Exchange, last modified 2015, http://canadianroots.ca 33. Project of Heart, ‘Project of Heart’, Project of Heart, last modified July 1, 2016, http://projectofheart.ca 34. Simon Fraser University, ‘President’s Dream Colloquium on Returning to the Teachings: Justice, Identity and Belonging’, Simon Fraser University, last modified 2016, http://www.sfu.ca/dean- gradstudies/events/dreamcolloquium/DreamColloquium-Reconciliation.html 35. Trent University, ‘Truth and Reconciliation Theme for 40th Annual Elders and Traditional Peoples Gathering at Trent University’, Trent University Daily News, last modified February 23, 2016, http://www.trentu.ca/newsevents/newsDetail.php?newsId=14861 36. Universities Canada, ‘Universities Canada Principles on Indigenous Education’, Universities Canada, last modified June 29, 2015, http://www.univcan.ca/media-room/media-releases/universities-canada- principles-on-indigenous-education/ 37. Canadian Association of University Teachers, ‘CAUT Guide to Acknowledging Traditional Territory’, Canadian Association of University Teachers, last modified 2016, http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/professional-advice/list---territorial-acknowledgement-by- province.pdf?sfvrsn=12 38. An analysis of issues related to territorial acknowledgement has been written by Métis lawyer Chelsea Vowel, ‘Beyond Territorial Acknowledgements’, âpihtawikosisân / Law, language, life: A Plains Cree speaking Métis woman in Montreal, last modified September 23, 2016, http://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/09/beyond-territorial-acknowledgments/ 39. University of Alberta, ‘Lunchtime Series: Open Conversations in the Spirit of Reconciliation’, University of Alberta Museums, last modified 2016, http://www.museums.ualberta.ca/ProgramsAndEvents/Events/TRC_Lunchtime_Series.aspx 40. University of Toronto, ‘Indigenous Health Conference: Towards Health and Reconciliation’, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, last modified 2016, http://www.cpd.utoronto.ca/indigenoushealth/ 41. City of Vancouver, ‘The Dialogues Project’, last modified October 24, 2016, http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/dialogues-project.aspx 42. RAVENTrust, ‘RAVENTrust’, Twitter, last modified October 14, 2016, https://twitter.com/RAVENtrust 43. Amnesty International Canada, ‘Site C’, Amnesty International, last modified 2016, http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/campaigns/site-c 44. Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade, ‘Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade | Camp News and Registration Site’, Unist’ot’en Solidarity Brigade, last modified 2016, https://unistotensolidarity.com 45. An excellent example can be found in the video by Idle No More on the Peoples Climate March in New York City, September 22, 2014. As one speaker pointed out, Indigenous peoples led the march, an indication that environmentalists had come to understand that Indigenous peoples are on the front lines of defending the planet. Idle No More, ‘Idle No More at the Peoples’ Climate March’, Idle No More, last modified Sept 22, 2014, http://www.idlenomore.ca/idle_no_more_at_the_peoples_climate_march 46. Tuck and Yang, ‘Decolonization Is Not A Metaphor’, 28. 47. For a variety of voices and perspectives on Idle No More, see The Kino-nda-niimi Collective, The Winter We Danced: Voices from the Past, the Future, and the Idle No More Movement (Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2014). For ongoing priorities and information, the Idle No More website is an excellent source of information: Idle No More, ‘Idle No More’, Idle No More, last modified 2016, http://www.idlenomore.ca 48. Native Women’s Association of Canada, ‘Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls – NWAC’, Native Women’s Association of Canada, last modified 2015, https://nwac.ca/mmiwg/ 49. The National Coalition for Our Stolen Sisters was formed in 2002 with NWAC, KAIROS, Amnesty International, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and the United Anglican Church. Amnesty supported a pilot
23
project to undertake research and documentation on MMIWG, produced an international report in 2004, and established a campaign called Stolen Sisters. 50. Christi Belcourt, ‘Walking With Our Sisters | Christi Belcourt’, Christi Belcourt.com, last modified 2016, http://christibelcourt.com/walking-with-our-sisters/ 51. Idle No More, ‘Idle No More at the Peoples’ Climate March’. A speaker in this video makes this point explicitly. 52. Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 5 (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1996), 91-116. 53. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Calls to Action. Call to Action #62 states: “We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in consultation and collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal peoples, and educators, to: i. Make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal peoples’ historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for Kindergarten to Grade Twelve students. ii. Provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms. iii. Provide the necessary funding to Aboriginal schools to utilize Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods in classrooms. iv. Establish senior-level positions in government at the assistant deputy minister level or higher dedicated to Aboriginal content in education. 54. Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba, ‘What Is the Treaty Education Initiative?’, Treaty Education Initiative, last modified 2016, http://www.trcm.ca/treaty-education-initiative/what-is-the- treaty-education-initiative/ 55. KAIROS Canada, ‘Blanket Exercise Workshop’, Indigenous Rights, last modified 2016, http://www.kairoscanada.org/what-we-do/indigenous-rights/blanket-exercise 56. Tatamagouche Centre, ‘Peace and Friendship Gathering “JIKSITUI” 2016’, Tatamagouche Centre, last modified July 2016, https://www.tatacentre.ca/index.php/programs/details/2408 57. Transforming Relations, ‘Transforming Relations: A Collaborative Collection’, Transforming Relations, last modified 2016, https://transformingrelations.wordpress.com 58. Chris Hiller, ‘Tracing the Spirals of Unsettlement: Euro-Canadian Narratives of Coming to Grips with Indigenous Sovereignty, Title, and Rights’, Settler Colonial Studies (forthcoming). 59. Janet McWhiney, ‘'Giving up the Ghost': Disrupting the (Re)production of White Privilege in Anti- racist Pedagogy and Organizational Change’ (Master’s Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 1998). Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0008/MQ33991.pdf; Megan Boler and Michalinos Zembylas, ‘Discomforting Truths: The Emotional Terrain of Understanding Difference’ in Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003), 110-36; Tuck and Yang, ‘Decolonization is Not A Metaphor’, 1-40. 60. Tuck and Yang, ‘Decolonization is Not A Metaphor’, 10. 61. Ibid., 10-28. Tuck and Yang’s “moves to innocence” include settler nativism; settler adoption fantasies; colonial equivocation; “free your mind and the rest will follow”; a(s)t(e)risked peoples; and re-occupation and urban homesteading. 62. See, for example, Davis, O’Donnell and Shpuniarsky , ‘Aboriginal-Social Justice Alliances’; Rick Wallace, Merging Fires: Grassroots Peacebuilding Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Peoples (Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2014). 63. For discussion of relationship tensions, see case studies by Paula Sherman, Justin Richland and Patricia Sekaquaptewa, and by Merran Smith and Art Sterritt in Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non-Indigenous Relationships, ed. Lynne Davis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010). See also Lynne Davis, ‘Home or Global Treasure? Understanding Relationships between Environmentalists and the Heiltsuk Nation’, B.C. Studies 171 (October, 2011): 9-36; Lynne Davis, ‘The High Stakes of Protecting Indigenous Homelands: Coastal First Nations’ Turning Point Initiative and Environmental Groups on the B.C. West Coast’, International Journal of Canadian Studies 39 (Spring, 2009): 137-59. 64. Lynne Davis and Heather Shpuniarsky, ‘The Spirit of Relationships: What We Have Learned About Indigenous/non-Indigenous Alliances and Coalitions’, in Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non-
24
Indigenous Relationships, ed. Lynne Davis (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 340-43; Regan, Unsettling the Settler Within, 228; Chris Hiller, ‘Placing Ourselves in Relation: Euro- Canadian narratives of grappling with Indigenous sovereignty, territory, and rights’, Wilfred Laurier University, last modified 2016, https://legacy.wlu.ca/documents/57334/Hiller.pdf; Lynn Gehl, ‘Ally Bill of Responsibilities’, Lynn Gehl, last modified 2016, http://www.lynngehl.com/uploads/5/0/0/4/5004954/ally_bill_of_responsibilities_poster.pdf; Anne Bishop, Becoming An Ally: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression in People, 3rd ed. (Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2015). 65. I am indebted to Cherokee scholar Eber Hampton for drawing my attention to the role of “willful blindness” in the process of transforming consciousness, and for recommending the following book: Margaret Heffernan, Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious At Our Peril (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2011). 66. Deborah Britzman, Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998). 67. Jeffrey S. Denis and Kerry A. Bailey, ‘“You Can’t Have Reconciliation without Justice”: How Non- Indigenous Participants in Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Process Understand their Roles and Goals’, in Non-Indigenous Responsibility to Engage: Scoping Reconciliation and Its Alternatives, eds. Tom Clark, Ravi Da Costa, and Sarah Maddison (London: Springer, forthcoming). 68. The results of this analysis are reported in Davis et al., ‘Complicated Pathways’, 1-17. 69. Barker and Lowman, Settler Identity, 90-107; Regan, Unsettling the Settler Within. 70. Phyllis Webstad, ‘Phyllis Webstad Orange Shirt Day Presentation’, YouTube, last modified September 24, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3vUqr01kAk.This video is hosted by Phyllis Webstad who tells the story of her punishment for wearing her new orange shirt while attending residential school. 71. The UNDRIP has been critiqued by some Indigenous scholars as inadequate because Article 46 excludes “any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.” 72. Coulthard does a thorough examination of the “politics of recognition” in Red Skins, White Masks. He is not the only academic to raise these issues, but he gives a clear account. 73. Mackey, Unsettled Expectations. 74. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, ‘Land and Reconciliation: Having the Right Conversations’, Electric City Magazine, last modified March 5, 2016, http://www.electriccitymagazine.ca/2016/01/land-reconciliation/ 75. Mackey, Unsettled Expectations, 36. 76. I would like to extend sincere gratitude to Dr. Chris Hiller for critical and insightful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper, and to Amy Champagne for timely technical assistance. Miigwech!
Bibliography
Alfred, Taiaiake. ‘Restitution is the Real Pathway to Justice for Indigenous Peoples’. In Response, Responsibility and Renewal: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Journey, edited by Gregory Younging, Jonathan Dewar and Mike DeGagné, 179-87. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation Research Series, 2009. Alfred, Taiaiake. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005. Alfred, Taiaiake and Jeff Corntassel. ‘Being Indigenous: Resurgences Against Contemporary Colonialism’. Government and Opposition 40, no. 4 (2005): 597-614. Barker, Adam and Emma Lowman. Settler Identity and Colonialism in the 21st Century. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2015.
25
Bishop, Anne. Becoming An Ally: Breaking the Cycle of Oppression in People, 3rd edition. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2015. Boler, Megan and Michalinos Zembylas. ‘Discomforting Truths: The Emotional Terrain of Understanding Difference’. In Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change, 110-36. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003. Britzman, Deborah. Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. People to People, Nation to Nation: Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply & Services, 1996. Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 5. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1996. Corntassel, Jeff. ‘Re-envisioning Resurgence: Indigenous Pathways to Decolonization and Sustainable Self-Determination’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 no.1 (2012): 86-101. Coulthard, Glen Sean. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014. Davis, Lynne, ed. Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non-Indigenous Relationships. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Davis, Lynne. ‘Home or Global Treasure? Understanding Relationships between Environmentalists and the Heiltsuk Nation’. B.C. Studies 171 (October, 2011): 9-36. Davis, Lynne . ‘The High Stakes of Protecting Indigenous Homelands: Coastal First Nations’ Turning Point Initiative and Environmental Groups on the B.C. West Coast’. International Journal of Canadian Studies 39 (Spring, 2009): 137-59. Davis, Lynne and Heather Shpuniarsky. ‘The Spirit of Relationships: What We Have Learned About Indigenous/non-Indigenous Alliances and Coalitions’. In Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non- Indigenous Relationships, edited by Lynne Davis, 334-48. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Davis, Lynne, Vivian O’Donnell and Heather Shpuniarsky. ‘Aboriginal-Social Justice Alliances: Understanding the Landscape of Relationships through the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash’. International Journal of Canadian Studies 37 (Fall 2007): 95-119. Davis, Lynne, Chris Hiller, Cherylanne James, Tessa Nasca, and Sara Taylor. ‘Complicated Pathways: Settler Canadians Learning to Re/Frame Themselves and their Relationships with Indigenous Peoples’. Settler Colonial Studies 7, no. 3 (Fall 2016), 1-17. Denis, Jeffrey S. and Kerry A. Bailey. ‘“You Can’t Have Reconciliation without Justice”: How Non- Indigenous Participants in Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Process Understand their Roles and Goals’. In Non-Indigenous Responsibility to Engage: Scoping Reconciliation and Its Alternatives, edited by Tom Clark, Ravi Da Costa, and Sarah Maddison. London: Springer, forthcoming. Dion, Susan D. Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal Peoples’ Experiences and Perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009. Heffernan, Margaret. Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious At Our Peril. Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 2011. Henderson, Jennifer and Pauline Wakeham, eds. Reconciling Canada: Critical Perspectives on the Culture of Redress. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Hiller, Chris. ‘Placing Ourselves in Relation: Euro-Canadian narratives of grappling with Indigenous sovereignty, territory, and rights’. Wilfred Laurier University. Last modified 2016. https://legacy.wlu.ca/documents/57334/Hiller.pdf Hiller, Chris. ‘Tracing the Spirals of Unsettlement: Euro-Canadian Narratives of Coming to Grips with Indigenous Sovereignty, Title, and Rights’. Settler Colonial Studies (forthcoming). Keefer, Tom. ‘Contradictions of Canadian Colonialism: Non-Native Responses to the Six Nations Reclamation at Caledonia’. In Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-non-Indigenous Relationships, edited by Lynne Davis, 77-90. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. The Kino-nda-niimi Collective. The Winter We Danced: Voices from the Past, the Future, and the Idle No More Movement. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing, 2014. Mackey, Eva. Unsettled Expectations: Uncertainty, Land, and Settler Decolonization. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publications, 2015.
26
McWhiney, Janet. ‘'Giving up the Ghost': Disrupting the (Re)production of White Privilege in Anti-racist Pedagogy and Organizational Change’. Master’s Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 1998. Available at: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0008/MQ33991.pdf Phung, Malissa. ‘Are People of Colour Settlers Too?’ In Cultivating Canada: Reconciliation through the Lens of Cultural Diversity, edited by. A. Mathur, J. Dewar, and M. DeGagné, 289-298. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2011. Regan, Paulette. Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010. Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. Dancing On Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg Re-Creation, Resurgence and a New Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Press, 2011. Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. ‘First Words.’ In Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-Non-Indigenous Relationships, edited by Lynne Davis, xiii-xiv. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. ‘Land and Reconciliation: Having the Right Conversations’. Electric City Magazine. Last modified March 5, 2016. http://www.electriccitymagazine.ca/2016/01/land- reconciliation/ Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. ‘Land As Pedagogy: Nishnaabeg Intelligence and Rebellious Transformation’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 3, no. 3 (2014): 1-25. Snow, David, E.B. Rochford, S.K. Worden and R.D. Benford. ‘Frame Alignment Process, Micromobilization and Movement Participation’. American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 464-81. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Calls to Action. Winnipeg: TRC, 2015. http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Canada’s Residential Schools: The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, vol. 6. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press, 2015. Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. ‘Decolonization is Not A Metaphor’. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society 1, no. 1 (2012): 1-40. Veracini, Lorenzo. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Vowel, Chelsea. ‘Beyond Territorial Acknowledgements’. âpihtawikosisân / Law, language, life: A Plains Cree speaking Métis woman in Montreal. Last modified September 23, 2016. http://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/09/beyond-territorial-acknowledgments/ Wallace, Rick. Merging Fires: Grassroots Peacebuilding Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Peoples. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2014. Wallace, Rick, Marilyn Struthers, and Rick Cober Bauman. ‘Winning Fishing Rights: The Successes and Challenges of Building Grassroots Relations Between the Chippewas of Nawash and Their Allies’. In Alliances: Re/Envisioning Indigenous-non-Indigenous Relationships, edited by Lynne Davis, 91-113. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Wolfe, Patrick. ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native’. Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (2006): 387-409.
27