Zach LarkinsWHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?
My friend, Jim Stillman, recently wrote an article about apologies and reparations for all the terrible things done to people in the past. You know, he made some good points. I followed it up with my own article some time later and heard a few comments about it. But it really came to the forefront a few days ago when I read an article in the National Post on this very subject.
Susan Martinuk wonders if we even know what an apology is any more. Though pertaining to one particular subject, I think it can be equally applied to every injustice, real or imagined, that has taken place in the past.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said that there will be no apology to survivors of native residential schools. Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? The invading white man ripped little Indian kids from their homes and sent them to schools to slap a democracy and civilization on them, all in the name of making them conform to the white European way of thinking. Many of these children were abused at these schools, physically, mentally and sexually in some cases. But Prentice says he will not apologize for any of it.
Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, in a National Post column dated April 3, 2007 claimed that Ottawa's refusal to apologize was akin to "Holocaust denial." He said that the government's position "diminishes and discredits the lives of those who experienced the pain and suffering of residential schools." One can only assume the lives of these children are worth nothing without an apology. However, Fontaine, in a comment made in December of 2006, said that he believed "we have in this agreement recognition that harm was done to our people and those who harmed our people are prepared to accept their responsibility." In his acceptance of the 1998 Statement of Reconciliation that was issued by the then-governing Liberals, he was quite willing to accept the statement as an apology, saying, "It took (the government) some courage to take this historic step, to break with the past and to apologize for the historic wrongs and injustices committed against our people. It is therefore a great honour for me, on behalf of the First Nations, to accept the apology of the government and people of Canada." So here he is, seven years later, demanding an apology for one that he has already accepted. Could it be he's now looking for money?
In the accepted Statement of Reconciliation, the government of Canada acknowledged "the role it played in the development and administration of residential schools." The government also made amends by providing $350-million for a comprehensive "healing strategy to assist individuals and communities in dealing with the consequences of this sad era of our history." That would seem to cover it as far as I am concerned. Maybe Fontaine is just looking for even more money. The SOR stated that, "We must ensure that the mistakes which marked our past relationship are not repeated. To those of you who suffered this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry." Sure sounds like an apology to me.
However, all this document did was to open the door to a flood of lawsuits that has occupied the government ever since. Billions of taxpayer dollars will go to compensation, and billions more have already been paid to sustain a bureaucracy to deal with the lawsuits. The focus is now on ratifying a $2-billion compensation package that will apparently compensate every ex-student, not just those who suffered abuse. Many churches (the institutions that actually ran the schools) have made formal apologies and gone to the brink of bankruptcy to pay compensation. So if apologies have been made, and large sums have been paid out for native healing, why is Fontaine still crying out for an apology? Obviously, compensation hasn't brought healing and political/legal solutions haven't taken away the bitterness. More apologies won't do the trick.
Sorry isn't such a hard word to say. It seems it is a hard word for the likes of Fontaine to accept. When the apology seems to go stale, in the eyes of the offended, reparations can't be too far behind. And they will cost a bundle.
Sources: Susan Martinuk 'Sorry' National Post
Susan Martinuk wonders if we even know what an apology is any more. Though pertaining to one particular subject, I think it can be equally applied to every injustice, real or imagined, that has taken place in the past.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said that there will be no apology to survivors of native residential schools. Sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? The invading white man ripped little Indian kids from their homes and sent them to schools to slap a democracy and civilization on them, all in the name of making them conform to the white European way of thinking. Many of these children were abused at these schools, physically, mentally and sexually in some cases. But Prentice says he will not apologize for any of it.
Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, in a National Post column dated April 3, 2007 claimed that Ottawa's refusal to apologize was akin to "Holocaust denial." He said that the government's position "diminishes and discredits the lives of those who experienced the pain and suffering of residential schools." One can only assume the lives of these children are worth nothing without an apology. However, Fontaine, in a comment made in December of 2006, said that he believed "we have in this agreement recognition that harm was done to our people and those who harmed our people are prepared to accept their responsibility." In his acceptance of the 1998 Statement of Reconciliation that was issued by the then-governing Liberals, he was quite willing to accept the statement as an apology, saying, "It took (the government) some courage to take this historic step, to break with the past and to apologize for the historic wrongs and injustices committed against our people. It is therefore a great honour for me, on behalf of the First Nations, to accept the apology of the government and people of Canada." So here he is, seven years later, demanding an apology for one that he has already accepted. Could it be he's now looking for money?
In the accepted Statement of Reconciliation, the government of Canada acknowledged "the role it played in the development and administration of residential schools." The government also made amends by providing $350-million for a comprehensive "healing strategy to assist individuals and communities in dealing with the consequences of this sad era of our history." That would seem to cover it as far as I am concerned. Maybe Fontaine is just looking for even more money. The SOR stated that, "We must ensure that the mistakes which marked our past relationship are not repeated. To those of you who suffered this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry." Sure sounds like an apology to me.
However, all this document did was to open the door to a flood of lawsuits that has occupied the government ever since. Billions of taxpayer dollars will go to compensation, and billions more have already been paid to sustain a bureaucracy to deal with the lawsuits. The focus is now on ratifying a $2-billion compensation package that will apparently compensate every ex-student, not just those who suffered abuse. Many churches (the institutions that actually ran the schools) have made formal apologies and gone to the brink of bankruptcy to pay compensation. So if apologies have been made, and large sums have been paid out for native healing, why is Fontaine still crying out for an apology? Obviously, compensation hasn't brought healing and political/legal solutions haven't taken away the bitterness. More apologies won't do the trick.
Sorry isn't such a hard word to say. It seems it is a hard word for the likes of Fontaine to accept. When the apology seems to go stale, in the eyes of the offended, reparations can't be too far behind. And they will cost a bundle.
Sources: Susan Martinuk 'Sorry' National Post
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
As I said in my own blog, there are really only two classifications of human beings: assholes and non-assholes. No one race, creed, color, or gender has a monopoly on assholes; they are pretty much well-distributed throughout the world.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Political Minds
sometimes u just have say no more PC crap!!
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern