Analysis of Apologies to Indigenous Peoples.pdf

Analysis of Apologies to Indigenous Peoples 2014
1 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
How do you know when an apology is sincere? We are socialized in Canada to say “I’m
sorry” whenever we believe a cultural norm has been violated. “I’m sorry” when we invade
someone’s personal space by accidently bumping them in a crowded store; “I’m sorry” when
we think we’ve hurt someone’s feelings by not introducing them immediately in a group
gathering. Couples apologize to each other constantly throughout their relationship for any
situation where the individual’s feelings were not acknowledged, despite “Love Story’s
famous line, “love means never having to say I’m sorry.” The word, “sorry” is used as often
as “excuse me” and has become trivial euphemism to distort all offensive acts ranging from
bumping someone accidently to domestic rape or even assault.
The Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime (n.d.) report that diligent advocates
fought to improve the treatment of victims in the justice system and the movement succeeded
in the creation of the Victim’s Impact Statement. Section 722 of the Criminal Code of
Canada (1985) specifically pertains to the victim’s written account or, as of 1999, a verbal
statement to the court, regarding the physical, emotional or mental harm suffered from the
crime by the perpetrator. The purpose and intent of the Victim’s Impact Statement is to give
the victim a voice in the criminal justice process and is considered by the court when
determining the sentence of the convicted person. This process often becomes a venue for
the victim to hear “I’m sorry” from the perpetrator of the crime and an opportunity to help
the victim move towards emotional closure and healing from the trauma.
Cultural norms in Canadian mainstream society are vastly different from cultural norms
in an Indigenous community within an urban, rural or on-reserve society. Cultural norms are
defined as the agreed upon rules or expectations that a culture uses to guide the behavior of

Analysis of Apologies Brenda St. Germain, MSW, RSW
2 | P a g e
its members in any given situation. According to CliffNotes, (2010) cultural norms vary
between cultures and have been classified into four categories: folkways, mores, taboos and
laws. The definition is expanded to clarify the significance of cultural norms in society with
the following:
Members of a culture must conform to its norms for the culture to exist and function. Hence, members must
want to conform and obey rules. They first must internalize the social norms and values that dictate what is
“normal” for the culture; then they must socialize, or teach norms and values to, their children. If
internalization and socialization fail to produce conformity, some form of “social control” is eventually
needed. Social control may take the form of ostracism, fines, punishments, and even imprisonment.
The Canadian government is historically created on the fundamental principles from
cultural norms of British colonial policies and practices that were sanctioned through
legislation and laws. The Aboriginal Justice of Implementation Commission (AJIC) (1999)
acknowledges in the Manitoba Inquiry Final report that, “It is not merely that the justice
system has failed Aboriginal people; justice also has been denied to them. For more than a
century the rights of Aboriginal people have been ignored and eroded. The result of this
denial has been injustice of the most profound kind. Poverty and powerlessness have been
the Canadian legacy to a people who once governed their own affairs in full self-sufficiency”
(p. 1). The AJIC provides the following quote by Olvide Mercredi regarding Canadian law
and Aboriginal peoples in Canada:
In law, with law, and through law, Canada has imposed a colonial system of government and
justice upon our people without due regard to our treaty and Aboriginal rights. We respect law
that is fair and just, but we cannot be faulted for denouncing those laws that degrade our
humanity and rights as distinct peoples
Language and Policies of Internment for Aboriginal Children
Richardson and Nelson (2007) refer to the colonial residential school system as
“internment” sanctioned through policy by the Canadian government and state, “Under a
policy known as ‘aggressive civilization’ (Wade, 1995, p. 171) Campbell Scott was first

3 | P a g e
noted using the words ‘the final solution’ when deciding to remain inactive to the high levels
of deaths…Annett (2002) estimates that 50% of the interned children died as a result of the
various forms of abuse and disease” (p.77). Richardson and Nelson provoke thought by
providing uncomfortable examples of policy and practices in the existing child welfare
system that emulate the policy and practices implemented through the internment of
Aboriginal children into residential schools. Child welfare systems across Canada utilize the
phrase “in the best interest of the child” when enforcing their policies to justify the rationale
behind removal of children from homes, negating alternative placements with extended
family or the attenuation of children for purposes of adoption into Christian homes. The
question becomes, “Did anything really change in Canada regarding society’s and the
government’s attitude towards Aboriginal peoples?” Did the government and society just
simply update the method of internment through the child welfare system?
According to Coates and Wade (2007), “The strategic use of language is indispensable to
the acquisition and exercise of power, even power that is acquired democratically…The
ability of any group to advance its interests hinges in part on the group’s ability to publicize
its perspectives as more truthful or reasonable than others” (p. 2). Richardson, (2008) quotes,
“Words, said the colonialist writer Rudyard Kipling (1923), are ‘the most powerful drug used
by mankind’” (p. 1).
PRIME MINISTER HARPER’S STATEMENT OF APOLOGY
The general population of the Canadian public didn’t realize the significance of Harper’s
public “apology” in the House of Commons to Aboriginal peoples in 2008. The Prime
Minister apologized for the internment of their Aboriginal children through the colonial

4 | P a g e
policy of the Canadian residential school system. Harper’s official statement contained
seven varying forms of apologies for historic colonial policies designed to remove Aboriginal
children from their homes and the long-term detrimental impacts to the Aboriginal
communities across Canada. Was it enough for the Aboriginal peoples in Canada to hear
“I’m sorry” and why not?
POPE BENEDICT XVI’S EXPRESSION OF “SORROW” TO FIRST NATIONS
Pope Benedict XVI expressed his “sorrow” for abuse at residential schools to an
Assembly of First Nations delegation at the Vatican in April 2009. The Catholic Church
administered approximately 80% of the 132 residential schools across Canada and was
responsible for the care of over 150,000 Aboriginal children who were removed from their
homes and communities. The Catholic Church represents power through their historic
influence, beginning with the papacy’s claim to political supremacy over the Roman Empire,
to medieval times with the popes struggling with monarchy for power over church and state
control. Today, the Pope is the Head of State of Vatican City in Rome with no secular power
and only addresses spiritual matters (Wikipedia, 2010).
FOUR DISCURSIVE OPERATIONS IN LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE
Coates and Wade (2007) identify four significant patterns that demonstrate “how
language is used to (a) conceal violence, (b) mitigate perpetrators’ responsibility, (c) conceal
victims’ resistance, and (d) blame or pathologize victims” (p. 3). The authors contend that
the professionals, academics and journalists present information claiming authenticity under
a flag of objectivity that cannot be neutral or impartial since writers “use the constructive

5 | P a g e
power of language strategically to promote particular versions of persons and events over
other versions in order to influence key decisions” (p. 3). Former Premier of Alberta, Ralph
Klein was well known for his effective communications skills and use of media to promote
controversial policies. Klein, who had a background in broadcasting and was a reporter
during the 1970’s, was often criticized by lobbyists, for utilizing the media to manipulate
public opinion. Armanath (2006) concludes, “Besides his interpersonal skills, there are three
areas where no politician in Canadian history can compete with Klein: his ability to spin
local media in his favor, rebound from potential crises, and generate results for his party
(Gazette). Politicians justify their actions with flair of creative license in the English
language to project a positive impression through the use of media on events that could
potentially create a negative image on the Canadian government. Politicians and
government representatives have often utilized the media as a tool to construct linguistic
devices strategically to execute the four discursive operations of violence towards Aboriginal
peoples.
The four discursive operations of violence; concealing of violence, obfuscating
perpetrators’ responsibility, concealing of victims’ resistance, and blaming or pathologizing
of victims can be applied to Harper’s Statement of Apology and the Pope’s expressed
“sorrow”. Both Harper and the Pope used the media to promote their apologies in order to
project the image of remorse and sorrow towards Aboriginal peoples to the general public.
Several linguistic devices were utilized by the Canadian government and the Catholic
Church to misrepresent the actual violent acts committed in every aspect, (spiritually,
emotionally, physically and mentally) towards Aboriginal peoples in Canada. There were
similar patterns of misrepresentation from both, the Catholic Church and the Canadian

6 | P a g e
government, whenever the topics of Indian Residential Schools and Aboriginal peoples were
present.
Coates and Wade (2007) explain, “the more strident the abuse of power the more effectively
it must be justified or concealed by perpetrators and their supporters” (p. 2).
The constant reference to “students” and the institutional name given to “Indian Residential
Schools” implies Aboriginal children attended a boarding school for education, similar to the
societal norm for British children during the 1800’s who were sent to “classic British” boarding
schools. The key difference between Indian Residential Schools and the classic British boarding
schools was in the administration of the children. British boarding schools provided an academic
environment focused on education with residential advisors who were responsible for a certain
number of students, a housekeeper and tutors for each sex. Historic records from residential
school survivors contain individual statements of the atrocities committed against them; rape,
molestation, buried bodies of newborn children, hidden graves, physical abuse, denial of their
language and culture, starvation, malnourishment, untreated illnesses, forcible removal from
homes, child labor, and deceptive lies about the deaths of family members to stop them from
missing home.
Harper (2008) states, “Most schools were operated as ‘joint ventures’ with Anglican,
Catholic, Presbyterian or United churches. The government of Canada built an educational
system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes, often taken
far from their communities” (CBC, para. 8). This statement misrepresents the government’s
intent of the schools which was “to kill the Indian in the child” rather than to provide an
education to the children. The statement implies that the Canadian government had good
intentions with the schools but “something or someone” forcibly removed the children from

7 | P a g e
homes. Harper starts with a disclaimer to remove government responsibility by stating they were
in “joint ventures” to present the impression of a business transaction between the government
and various religious organizations in the administration of the residential schools and not
responsible for the actions of the contractors. Harper’s statement obfuscates the government’s
responsibility of the maltreatment of Aboriginal children when he implicates the Churches by
specifically naming all denominations.
Many survivors report they received Christian indoctrination and little education. The Pope
(2009), “’offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity” to those whose anguish was caused by
some church members” (CBC, para. 2). The word, “some” implies only a few clerical members
actually committed atrocities rather than using research data that confirms the depth and extent
of abuse by Catholic priests and nuns. The Pope doesn’t use the word, “priests” or “nuns” but
rather chooses the phrase “church members” to remove direct responsibility of the Pope from the
actions of Churches’ priests and nuns. “Church members” implies that the perpetrators could
have come from local communities. “Prayerful solidarity” creates a sense of mutuality between
the church and residential school survivors in their desire to pray together for healing.
The common denomination between the Canadian government and the Catholic Church is
the justification of violence that education was necessary to “civilize the savage” based from the
premise that colonization policies was the most effective strategy to inform Aboriginal people of
how superior Europeans were over them. The statements above are examples of how atrocities
were concealed with ambiguous linguistic devices in order to maintain power and control by
political governments. Church and government effectively concealed the violence, obfuscated
their responsibility and pathologized the victims until they were forced by political pressure from

8 | P a g e
pending class action suits and exposure through Kevin Annett’s (2006) documentary on the
planned genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada through residential schools.
The Pope’s private discussion with the First Nations delegates and directive that no
cameras or recordings were allowed during the conversation, alludes to the secretive nature and
concealment of sexual molestation and violence in the schools. The fact that the Pope did not
provide an official apology still projects the obfuscation of the Churches’ responsibility for the
violent actions of the priests and nuns towards the Aboriginal children. CBC (2009) interviewed
Archbishop Weisgerber, who attended the private meeting and shared his thoughts on the Pope’s
private meeting. He reports that the Pope was “very attentive”, “spoke from the heart”, and
“clear this was very important to him” (para 15-17). These comments leave us questioning what
was important to him and why was he so attentive since he did not offer an official apology. We
are enlightened when the clue is provided by Weisgerber’s next statement “The Catholic Church
has got to be involved in working to help the Aboriginal people be recognized, and to end a lot of
the injustice” (para. 18) clarifies to the reader that the Catholic Church will not accept their
responsibility as perpetrators, wish to still conceal the violence and still pathologize Aboriginal
people as victims who have to be helped by the Church to fight for social justice, reflecting
blame onto the Canadian government. Weisgerber adds “he hoped the historic meeting would
‘jolt’ people into recognizing the importance of the legacy of residential schools and draw
attention to the poverty and racism some Aboriginal Canadians face to this day” (para. 17)
effectively obfuscating the Church’s involvement in the violence with linguistic devices through
the words “jolt people” to distance the Church from the violence and divert attention to other
issues i.e. poverty and racism. Weisgerber’s statements are spoken in the third person in an

9 | P a g e
attempt to project objectivity as a by-stander in the Catholic system and shocked by the actions
of the Canadian government.
Coates and Wade (2004) explain that violence is an interpersonal interaction between at least
two people and “is most accurately understood when it is examined in context, that is, when we
consider both the offender’s actions and the victim’s responses to those actions” (p. 501). The
interaction between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian society has been directly impacted by
governmental colonial policies designed to maintain dominance over Indigenous peoples through
oppression. Political and legal discourse have been designed to project Aboriginal peoples as
victims and the violence experienced was sanctioned through the reformulation of atrocities with
linguistic devices in the six tenets described by Coates and Wade (2004): 1) violence as social
and unilateral; 2) violence as deliberate action; 3) ubiquity of resistance; 4) misrepresentation;
5) fitting words to deeds; and 6) four-discursive-operations.
Harper’s and the Pope’s apologies are clear examples of political discourse to cloak or mask
the sanctioned violence towards Aboriginal peoples. Harper and the Pope’s actions attempt to
distance their heads of state’s responsibilities from the deeds, thus removing the impression that
there was any deliberate violence towards Aboriginal children or their families. The government
and the Church contain statements to reflect mutuality in their relationships because Aboriginal
people desired more education and religion. Such statements are a misrepresentation of the
relationship since the colonial policy was created to oppress and assimilate Aboriginal peoples.
The contextual analysis of violence experienced by Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian
residential school systems and the gravity of insincere apologies becomes more significant if we
juxtapose Coates and Wade’s (2004) third tenet, ubiquity of resistance, and combine ubiquity of
oppression into the equation of factors. The extent of oppression is embedded and reflected

10 | P a g e
through historical documentation containing statements by politicians to “kill the Indian in the
child” through assimilation and imperialistic legislative acts designating Aboriginal people
forever as wards of the state. The “church” hid under the cloak of secrecy based on their
religious dogma and still exists as demonstrated with the Pope’s directive that no media or
reporters are allowed with his Aboriginal audience in Rome.
The government and church employed aggressive tactics with a ferocity of violence towards
Aboriginal peoples that was sanctioned through oppressive policies that affected their children,
families and communities. Aboriginal people demonstrated simple acts of resistance, whether it
was through individual behaviors or through collective acts of resistance from families or
communities even with the onslaught of oppressive tactics by the government, society and the
churches. Individuals recalled their experiences in the residential schools and tell how they
would refuse to cry when they were struck or how they shared their food with each other when
they were hungry, giving more to the younger children because they didn’t understand what was
going on in the schools.
Survivor’s of residential schools demonstrated their resistance through their testimonies in
the Aboriginal Royal Commission Report (1996). There are accounts of how the children were
violently punished if they were caught by the nuns or priests, speaking their language or
practicing their culture. Adults recount their experiences of trauma from molestation or
survivor’s guilt at conferences, sharing circles, workshops and sweat lodges. Aboriginal
survivor’s boastfully share stories of how they kept their language by talking at night under the
blankets or grouping together far away from the school building to talk about families when new
children arrived from their communities. Testimonies include stories of how parents went further

11 | P a g e
into the bush to hide their children from the bounty hunters collecting children or father’s who
chose to be put into jail instead of relinquishing custody of their children to the government.
They attribute their Aboriginal sense of humor to the resiliency they had as children and the
reason some of them are able to confront their emotional demons demonstrates their resistance
to the violence. The children’s ability to laugh could have been inaccurately interpreted as
“adjustment” by the perpetrators instead of the actual hidden transcript as a form of resistance
used by the children. Scott (1990) explains hidden transcripts as “discourse that takes place
‘offstage,’ beyond direct observation by power holders… through speeches, gestures, and
practices that confirm, contradict, or inflect what appears in the public [transcript]” (p.4). The
acts of resistance could have been either behavioral or cognitive since the children would have
created various forms resist the violence they were witnessing and experiencing in the residential
schools.
The enormity of oppression in political and religious systems surrounded and overwhelmed
Aboriginal peoples and yet, Aboriginal peoples demonstrated various acts of resistance despite
threats of continued violence. There are two perspectives that could apply to Harper’s public
apology and the Pope’s private audience with Aboriginal delegates in Rome when he “expressed
his sorrow”. The first perspective would be from a cynic’s point of view that the government
and church only apologized for appearances sake because of public pressure from Annett’s
documentary and from media releases regarding the financial compensation awards to
Aboriginal survivors of residential schools. The other perspective would be from an optimistic
outlook that perhaps there has been a societal shift towards acknowledgement of the devastation
to Aboriginal peoples from colonial policies. We can only hope that the shift is reflected through
changes in policies affecting our Aboriginal children in foster care systems.

12 | P a g e
References
Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. (1999). Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
of Manitoba. Winnipeg: Statutory Publications.
Armanath, Ravi. (2006, November 2). Ralph Klein: Dignified despite disasters. (Letter to the
Editor). The Gazette: University of Western Ontario. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from
http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Opinions&articleID=1153.
Annett, K. (2006). Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada’s Genocide. (Documentary).
Canada:
CBC News. (2008, June 11). PM cites ‘sad chapter’ in apology for residential schools. Retrieved
February 02, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/aboriginal-
apology.html.
CBC News. (2009, April 29). Pope expresses ‘sorrow’ for abuse at residential schools.
Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/29/pope-first-
nations042909.html.
CBC News. (2008, June 11). Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s statement of apology. Retrieved
February 02, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/pm-statement.html.
Canada. 1996. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa, ON: Queens Press.
Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime. (n.d.) Victim Impact Statements. Retrieved
February 02, 2010, from http://www.crcvc.ca/docs/VictimImpactStatements.pdf
CliffsNotes.com. Cultural norms. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from
<http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-26957,articleId-26853.html>.
Coates, L. and Wade, A. (2007). Language and Violence: Analysis of four discursive operations.
Journal of Family Violence, 22(7) pp. 511-522. New York: Sprinter Netherlands.
Coates, L. and Wade, A. (2004). Telling it like it isn’t: Obscuring perpetrator responsibility for
violent crime. Discourse Society, 15(3), pp 3-30.
Criminal Code of Canada. (1985). Sentencing: Procedure and evidence, Part XXIII, Section 722.
Ottawa: Department of Justice.
Richardson, C. and Nelson, B. (2007). AChange of residence: Government schools and foster
homes as sites of forced Aboriginal assimilation – APaper designed to provoke thought
and systemic change. First Peoples Child & Family Review. 3(2). Pp. 75-83.

13 | P a g e
Richardson, C. (2008). A word is worth a thousand pictures: Working with Aboriginal women
who have experienced violence. in Lynda R. Ross (Ed.), Feminist Counselling:
Theories, Issues and Practice. Toronto: Women’s Press.
Scott, J.C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. London: Yale
University Press.
Pope. (2010, February 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 20, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope&oldid=346608346

Analysis of Apologies to Indigenous Peoples.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Erin Taylor

More from Erin Taylor (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis of Apologies to Indigenous Peoples.pdf