The article Apologies to Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective by Michael Tager is an outstanding and well articulated article. Tager puts into retrospect the failed attempts of an apology and the difficulty for the government to apologize for the injustices done to Indigenous people around the world. The history contained within the article gives the reader a look at the injustices that have been done to Indigenous people and the injustices that continue today. This article provides much information about the events that led up to the official apology within Canada, Australia and the issues surrounding the weak apology given by the United States. Michael Tager compares each apology exceptionally and explains how an apology can be …show more content…
in favor of reconciliation. Objectives Michael Tager, in this article takes the reader through the history of attempted apologies to Indigenous people in Canada, Australia and the United States. The writer compares each failed attempt and successful apology for each county in detail and emphasizes the importance of an apology. According to Tavuchis (1991) as cited by Tager “an apology proffered without the proper credentials, that is, lacking the moral imprimatur of the group, amounts to no apology”. (Tager. 2014. Pp. 1) For each country there were many different attempts to apologize for the wrong doings of the government. Ultimately, Micheal Tager invites the reader to review the apologies both failed and successful from each government and offers the reader to “determine whether political elites then take advantage of the opening to make further progress and that a weak apology does not foreclose improving relations with Indigenous peoples.” (Tager. 2014. Pp. 11) Theoretical Framework Micheal Tager’s theoretical framework is strong throughout the article. He uses many resources to support his arguments. Many of his resources are from different eras. This helps with reviewing past apologies and considering written literature from that era. Tager’s framework is based on comparing each of the apologies from Canada, Australia, and the United States. Comparing each apology can help the reader to decide the outcomes of these apologies by reviewing current events among Indigenous people within each country. Within the article Tager goes through many stages of the apologies that took place. Canada’s apologies evolved from an apology that did not acknowledge passed injustice, to enhancing the apology but the Prime Minister did not sign the document to attend the ceremony, to the final apology delivered in 2008 by Stephen Harper. “The official apologies to Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, and the United States occurred within two years of one another between 2008 and 2009, but varied considerably, ranging from Canada’s high profile apology accompanied by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a comprehensive financial settlement to a low profile apology without any aid or promise of further investigation from the U.S. Australia’s high profile apology with limited financial aid occupied a middle ground between the two North American apologies.” (Tager. 2014. Pp. 11) Tager make theoretical assumption in his conclusion that can not be proven as he states “As Canada tries to develop oil and gas and mineral resources on northern lands, the First Nations located there have the potential to present legal obstacles to that activity. Of course, without the strong Canadian apology, the government’s relations with Indigenous peoples might have deteriorated more quickly.” (Tager. 2014. Pp. 11) Although an assumption, people can assume that an apology has helped Canada develop oil, gas and mineral resources. Tager’s framework is ultimately based on the comparison of apologies from the government’s in Canada, United States and Australia. Concepts Micheal Tager clearly defines the concepts within his article. One of Tager’s concepts of the article is to decide if and when the apologies will help with the reconciliation of Indigenous people. He compares the apologies throughout the article thoroughly with dates, names and an interesting conclusion that leaves it up to the reader to decide the outcome. This article compares the apology process in each country and tries to account for the different outcomes, with some concluding reflections about the effectiveness of using apologies to reconcile Indigenous peoples and national governments. (Tager. 2014. Pp. 1) Arguments Micheal Tager’s arguments throughout the article are put into perspective as he takes the reader through the outcome of each attempted apology and successful apology.
Tager argues what impact the apologies have on reconciliation in each country, and weather or not it has received an apology because each country functions at different levels of reconciliation. “The impact of apologies on reconciliation remains uncertain.” (Tager. 2014. Pp. 10) The United States received a weak apology and yet Savage (2009) as cited by Tager explains that the Obama administration improved relations with Indian tribes by finally settling the Cobell lawsuit for $3.4 billion, (Trager. 2014. Pp. 10) among reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act as part of the Affordable Care Act, and among many other events that improved the quality of life for America’s Indigenous people. Tager continues to argue in his article that despite Canada’s and Australia’s stronger apologies Rudd continued, to the resentment of many Aboriginal peoples, the federal intervention in the Northern Territory and continued ignored demands for Native sovereignty and land rights. (Tager. 2014. Pp. 10) Although throughout the article Tager is explaining the comparison of each apology, the argument about weather or not an apology helps reconciliation is not seen or made clear until the conclusion of the article. Upon reading the argument at the end of the article, Tager makes the argument clear and concise at the
end. Methods and Evidence Micheal Tager uses many different resources to support his arguments and concepts. He gives sufficient information on each apology that was given and easily backs up his arguments and concepts with different scholarly resources from different eras. Tager uses different books, magazines, news papers and websites. The evidence that is used throughout the article is gathered from history, that does not change therefor leaving Tager with a solid foundation on which he built his article. Tager’s evidence on each apology is apparent in his resources but leaves the matter of whether apologies help with reconciliation to the public. Values Throughout the article Tager compares each failed and successful apology. He writes an excellent article that explains each apology and how each apology has affected the society that surrounds it. Tager keeps the writer intrigued by continuously altering though process. He explains how an apology can help reconciliation but then alters thoughts by explaining although the United States had a weak apology they have continued to enhance the quality of life for Indigenous people in their country while Canada and Australia have had their failed issues in improving after the apology was given. Tager’s values increase after the comparison, he makes the reader think about the outcome of each apology and whether it can help to improve reconciliation. Conclusion This article is informational and helps the reader to understand the passed attempts of apologizing to Indigenous people from around the world and how an apology can help with reconciliation. Indigenous people in Canada and Austrailia reacted positively upon receiving the final apology. Press reports of Native reactions to the apologies, especially in Canada and Australia, indicate that they resonated emotionally for many. (Tager. 2014. Pp. 10) It contains history that some readers may not have known as most may have understood the apology here in Canada was given in 2008 by Stephen Harper and may not have known of passed attempts to apologize. Understanding the process of an apology on a government level is vital not to only Indigenous people but the entire country as the injustices that were done were so very wrong. Understanding this vital piece to history, we can now understand why the truth and reconciliation commission exists today. Acknowledging the passed and admitting the wrongs can surely help with reconciliation. This article sets out to explain the difficulty with apologizing on a government level. It took the government many failed attempts and one successful apology to acknowledge that the government was wrong to try and assimilate Indigenous people. This article does open the eyes of the reader to learn on a retrospective level. Tager leaves it up to the reader to determine whether these apologies have helped with reconciliation. The article does support the concept of reconciliation, as an apology is just the beginning of reconciliation. As cited by Tager, Verdeja (2009) considered apologies as part of a multi-dimensional reconciliation process (Tager. 2014. Pp. 1). The article is a great read for those who did not understand the attempts to deliver a rightful apology to Indigenous people, although the article in the end is not convincing that it helps to promote reconciliation as Tager does claim throughout the article that there is no significant evidence to back up that apologies help to promote reconciliation. Tager, M. (2014). Apologies to Indigenous Peoples in Comparative Perspective. International Indigenous Policy Journal,5(4). doi:10.18584/iipj.2014.5.4.7
Glen Coulthard’s “Resentment and Indigenous Politics” discusses the politics of recognition that are currently utilized within Canada’s current framework of rectifying its colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples. Coulthard continues a discussion on reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the state that recognizes the three main methods of reconciliation: the diversity of individual and collective practices to re-establish a positive self relation, the act of restoring damaged social and political relationships and the process in which things are brought to agreement and made consistent.
Fleras, Augie. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Repairing the Relationship.” Chapter 7 of Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 6th ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2010. 162-210. Print.
In August 2008 a ‘Statement of Reconcilliation’ was released by the Hornsby Shire and Council in conjunction with the local traditional custodians. The statement discusses the policies in which the community alleges to follow including; education to all those within the Hornsby district on the topic of Aboriginal history, to respect the survival of the indigenous and protect all indigenous sites. The reconciliation statement concludes with a an apology to the Guringai people and acknowledges the lost and trauma in which they all went through. This in conjunction with the national apology by Kevin Rudd in 2008, displays a major change within society. The country and local communities were educated in the statement “this was their land and water and that they remain its spiritual custodians.” (NSW Reconciliation Council, 2008).
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
Residential schools had a negative impact on Aboriginal people, many children suffered greatly. The government had thought Aboriginal people’s history and culture were not worth preserving.This resulted to loss of culture and assimilation, because they were stripped out of their traditional ways, and taken away from their families.Stephen Harper apologized to the former students enrolled in Indian Residential schools on behalf of the government of Canada. What
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
The proud Canadian denies the fact Canada oppressed the Aboriginal peoples. The fact is that time has not been assisting in the progress of the Indigenous peoples from discrimination. “Tidings of
Living in Canada, there is a long past with the Indigenous people. The relationship between the white and First Nations community is one that is damaged because of our shameful actions in the 1800’s. Unnecessary measures were taken when the Canadian government planned to assimilate the Aboriginal people. Through the Indian Act and Residential schools the government attempted to take away their culture and “kill the Indian in the child.” The Indian Act allowed the government to take control over the people, the residential schools took away their culture and tore apart their families, and now we are left with not only a broken relationship between the First Nations people but they are trying to put back together their lives while still living with a harsh reality of their past.
Stanton, Kim. "Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Settling the Past?" The International Indigenous Policy Journal 2, no. 3 (August 30, 2011): 1-20. Accessed May 18, 2014. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=iipj.
In its broadest sense ‘Reconciliation’ is the Australian term that refers to the unity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To support reconciliation means working to overcome the separation and inequality between all Australians (Australia, n.d.). In 1992, then Prime Minister Paul Keating, delivered the Redfern Park speech that publically acknowledged European soldiers were responsible for many crimes against Indigenous communities, "We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice (Government, 1992)." Since 1993, Reconciliation Week is a national event that celebrates a positive and respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It enables all Australians to close the gaps, and to achieve a shared sense of fairness and justice. The ultimate goal of the week is to build a strong and trusting relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and other Australians, as a foundation for success and to enhance national wellbeing (Australia, n.d.). However, this advocacy for Indigenous rights and recognition was advanced be civil right activists in the 1950’s and 1960’s. One significant activist from this period and until her death in 1993 was Oodgeroo Noonuccal. Oodgeroo Noonuccal has significantly contributed to the civil rights of the Indigenous people in Australia due to her tireless campaigning to educate non-Indigenous Australians and enact political change that would not only recognize Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander people within the census but further understand their rich and diverse culture. Noonuccal’s contribution can be seen through her significa...
The Indian Residential schools and the assimilating of First Nations people are more than a dark spot in Canada’s history. It was a time of racist leaders, bigoted white men who saw no point in working towards a lasting relationship with ingenious people. Recognition of these past mistakes, denunciation, and prevention steps must be taking intensively. They must be held to the same standard that we hold our current government to today. Without that standard, there is no moving forward. There is no bright future for Canada if we allow these injustices to be swept aside, leaving room for similar mistakes to be made again. We must apply our standards whatever century it was, is, or will be to rebuild trust between peoples, to never allow the abuse to be repeated, and to become the great nation we dream ourselves to be,
The next policy brought in was the policy of self determination this, was very welcomed by the aboriginal community, as it gave the aboriginals back some of their rights. As the relationship between non-indigenous Australians and indigenous Australians improved, there was a high demand for reconciliation. With many opinions including why the people of today should say sorry for the past Australians injustices. The affects from reconciliation were caused by the controversial approach; there have been numerous speeches, activities and ‘sorry days’. The affects from all the policies varied greatly, due to the differences in the policies. The affects caused change the path of history and have gotten us where we are today.
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
Approximately one quarter of Canadians believe that they have no personal responsibility in the reconciliatory process, and only 11 percent see their accepting blame for Residential School abuses is essential for reconciliation. This, of course, is problematic and reflective of widespread public ignorance of the detrimental impact of colonialism that continues to have on Indigenous populations. This ignorance is a serious hindrance to meaningful reconciliation as it facilitates the assuaging of Settler guilt and reinforcement of Canada’s peace-maker
1999: The Federal Parliament passes a Motion of Reconciliation expressing “deep and sincere regret over the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents" but stops short of apologising.