Today is Aboriginal Sunday, and the 27th anniversary of the United Church’s apology to our indigenous peoples. Yes, I know - you’re thinking "The wrongs were done a long time ago. What does it have to do with us now. This isn’t part of Newfoundland’s history.”
Twenty-seven years ago the United Church became acutely aware that its Aboriginal brothers and sisters had something against it. Alberta Billy stood up and expressed the need in her heart for an apology from the United Church for what the church had done to Aboriginal people.
Twenty-seven years ago at the 31st General Council, then-Moderator Robert Smith offered that apology, acknowledging the church's own legacy of attitudes of cultural and spiritual superiority, our own blindness to the values and gifts of native people and their spirituality, our own complicity in the destruction of Aboriginal culture.
Rev. James Scott is the national staff for Aboriginal issues - he writes that in 1988, two years later , Edith Memnook responded to the apology on behalf of the Native community. In the wisdom of the Elders, the apology was received and acknowledged but it would not be accepted until it was lived out in action. The church was being challenged to "walk the talk," to move from acknowledgment to the work of reconciling. A stone cairn was erected on the site of the apology but left unfinished to symbolize that more work on "reconciling" remained to be done.
With each step in our church’s attempt to "walk the talk," we are beginning to understand the length of the road to reconciliation, and how profound a change it must be. I know that Newfoundland was not part of Canada when many of these things occurred, yet as a church, collectively, we are all responsible to further the process of apology.
The first people to come into the mainland of Canada were the traders. They relied heavily on indigenous peoples not only for the fur trade, but for their survival as well. Traders often married aboriginal women, and many of the people became wealthier because of the association. It was a relationship of mutual respect.
However, following the traders were the European settlers, who treated indigenous peoples as either a threat or a nuisance, and the aim was to remove them from the good farmland and settle them on less desirable lands. Together with the settlers were the missionaries, who first came to provide spiritual support for the settlers, but soon decided that conversion would speed the process of assimilation. The attitude was that European ways were far more civilised, and that the best thing which could happen was to convert, teach English, and make indigeous peoples into white people. The fourth group was government. For a time, into the 19th century, colonial and aboriginal interests actually coincided. The British signed valuable treaties for land, and the aboriginal peoples received finances are were able to further their own education and devlopment. As settlers pushed further into the north and west, and it became clear that the aboriginal people were indeed becoming more educated and learning to function as the white men did, attitudes began to shift. So there were then two pieces of legislation - first the Gradual Civilisation Act of 1857, and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. Both acts “assumed the inherent superiority of British ways, and the need for Indians to become English-speakers, Christians and farmers.” The Gradual Civilisation Act would award 50 acres of land to any indigenous male “deemed sufficiently advanced” in elementary education - and would automatically enfranchise him, thus removing all tribal affiliation or treaty rights. This was the beginning of a deliberate policy of extinguishment.
The Davin Report of 1879 stated “the industrial school is the principal feature of the policy know as that of ‘aggressive civilisation’....Indian culture is a contradiction in terms...they are uncivilised - the aim of education is to destroy the Indian.”
Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932 said “I want to get rid of the Indian problem..our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question and no Indian department.”
Our history as a United Church, is one of hand-in-hand support of repressive and racist government policies - we saw it as a way of converting and expanding. We did know, because there were those who told us, that immense harm was being done. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia all had residential schools operated by the United Church. The one school in Ontario, on the Six Nations lands in Brantford - was in fact a boarding school where children received an education but went home to their families in between, and hence grew up learning their language and culture. The schools in the other provinces were far worse. Children went from a diet of vegetables, meat and fruit - to one of bread and porridge. They were beaten and starved, and many were sexually abused. It is estimated that 150,000 children were forcibly removed from their homes and not allowed to return; of those, 50,000 were presumed dead. Many committed suicide, many tried to run away. The numbers cannot be confirmed. The damage done to many generations - not just those children but their families as well - cannot be removed with words of an apology.
What have we done since 1986? We have created the All Native Circle Conference and the All Tribes Presbytery, established Native theological schools, and staff positions at the national level.
We have heard the voices of survivors of the residential schools, we are learning how deeply this public policy tool of assimilation damaged individuals, families, and communities. We have produced educational resources so that congregations can learn about the impact of colonialism and the legacy of residential schools. Yet few congregations use these materials, or see any relevance today. We have worked to develop good working relationships with national Aboriginal organizations added our voices to theirs in calling for justice. We have learned about Native spirituality and sacred ceremony. Yet even in some Aboriginal congregations, Native spirituality finds no place.
We have been a party to negotiation of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for survivors. Yet we know that money alone will not heal emotional and psychological damage, nor by itself will it bring about reconciliation.
Here are words from the 1986 Apology. "Long before my people journeyed to this land your people were here, and you received from your Elders an understanding of creation and of the Mystery that surrounds us all that was deep, and rich, and to be treasured."
What still completely boggles my mind is that the indigenous peoples of this land had a complete view of themselves within Creation. - no one owned land or the things in it - they were placed there by the Creator, for all to share. Isn’t it shaming that the theology of creation we now call ours, was here all along, had we listened instead of assuming superiority?
Many years ago, in conversation with Rev. Alf Dumont, an Ojibway and United Church minister - I asked what was needed to work towards reconciliation. He said “Words are not enough. You need to walk with us together, but it may be a long time.”
The inclusion of the four directions and colours in our crest, and the words “All My Relations” are another step along the way of walking the talk. Akwe Nia’tetewa:neren. We give thanks for this learning on the way. Megwetch.
Sources:
1. The Sermon: The Gift in Apology June 2006 Rev. James Scott, The United Church of Canada's General Council Officer for Residential Schools www.united-church.ca
2. Church, Power and Knowledge: Indian Residential Schools in Canada. Author: Rev. Fran Ota, Power and Knowledge Conference, University of Tampere, Finland, September 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment