This working paper explores divergent conceptions of reconciliation in the context of relations between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. It begins with a brief discussion of the nature of conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and the range of legal responses to such conflict. A narrower conception of reconciliation is often premised on the assumption that the conflict giving rise to the harm is over – that we are in a post-conflict situation, and that reconciliation requires an apology for past wrongs, acceptance of the apology, forgiveness, and adequate compensation.
Pursuant to this vision, reconciliation often focuses more on the past and on individual apologies and forgiveness in interpersonal relations …show more content…
At this historical juncture in Canada, however, recurrent tensions can be observed between different approaches to reconciliation, and even the rejection of the possibility of reconciliation by some.
An important starting point for understanding different conceptions of reconciliation is the recognition of divergent understandings of the nature of conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
A narrower conception of reconciliation is often premised on the assumption that the conflict giving rise to the harm is over – that we are in a post-conflict situation, and that reconciliation requires an apology for past wrongs, acceptance of the apology, forgiveness, and adequate compensation. Pursuant to this vision, reconciliation often focuses more on the past and on individual apologies and forgiveness in interpersonal relations rather than the reshaping of collective relationships or redress for broader structural and systemic harms. A broader conception of reconciliation is often linked to the view that Indigenous peoples are still …show more content…
to requiring Aboriginal peoples to become reconciled to limitations on their rights in a post-colonial Canada.21 Thus, for some justices, reconciliation is about Aboriginal peoples reconciling their rights with the proclaimed sovereignty of non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 22 For others, reconciliation speaks to the need for non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada to develop harmonious and just relations with Aboriginal peoples by acknowledging the unfairness of the colonial assertion of sovereignty, assimilation policies and denials of self-governance.23 Although the courts have articulated a preference for negotiation and dialogue in the resolution of continued conflicts over land and resources, litigation continues to be a critically important mechanism for resolving disputes and uncertainty. Beyond conflict over land and resources, conflict between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples has concerned grievances over the extreme mistreatment of Aboriginal children,24 structural poverty, inadequate social services, food insecurity, and sub-standard housing and living conditions on reserves. 25 Responses to these concerns have also included both political and legal approaches. At
Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. It begins with a brief discussion of the nature of conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and the range of legal responses to such conflict. A narrower conception of reconciliation is often premised on the assumption that the conflict giving rise to the harm is over – that we are in a post-conflict situation, and that reconciliation requires an apology for past wrongs, acceptance of the apology, forgiveness, and adequate compensation.
Pursuant to this vision, reconciliation often focuses more on the past and on individual apologies and forgiveness in interpersonal relations …show more content…
At this historical juncture in Canada, however, recurrent tensions can be observed between different approaches to reconciliation, and even the rejection of the possibility of reconciliation by some.
An important starting point for understanding different conceptions of reconciliation is the recognition of divergent understandings of the nature of conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
A narrower conception of reconciliation is often premised on the assumption that the conflict giving rise to the harm is over – that we are in a post-conflict situation, and that reconciliation requires an apology for past wrongs, acceptance of the apology, forgiveness, and adequate compensation. Pursuant to this vision, reconciliation often focuses more on the past and on individual apologies and forgiveness in interpersonal relations rather than the reshaping of collective relationships or redress for broader structural and systemic harms. A broader conception of reconciliation is often linked to the view that Indigenous peoples are still …show more content…
to requiring Aboriginal peoples to become reconciled to limitations on their rights in a post-colonial Canada.21 Thus, for some justices, reconciliation is about Aboriginal peoples reconciling their rights with the proclaimed sovereignty of non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada. 22 For others, reconciliation speaks to the need for non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada to develop harmonious and just relations with Aboriginal peoples by acknowledging the unfairness of the colonial assertion of sovereignty, assimilation policies and denials of self-governance.23 Although the courts have articulated a preference for negotiation and dialogue in the resolution of continued conflicts over land and resources, litigation continues to be a critically important mechanism for resolving disputes and uncertainty. Beyond conflict over land and resources, conflict between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples has concerned grievances over the extreme mistreatment of Aboriginal children,24 structural poverty, inadequate social services, food insecurity, and sub-standard housing and living conditions on reserves. 25 Responses to these concerns have also included both political and legal approaches. At