What Is The Topic Of Stephen Harper's Formal Apology

The abuse of native populations has been a common theme throughout history, especially for the rising nations of the 1800s. Of the many guilty nations, Canada is one of the few to have apologized for their actions. Canada’s formal apology, titled “Statement of Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools”, was delivered on Canada Day of 2008 by former Prime Minster of Canada, Stephen Harper. This apology speech not only serves as a reminder to Canadian citizens about their past actions as a nation, but also demonstrates how the Canadian perspective on native peoples has changed over one-hundred years from disgust and apathy to respect and sympathy. Specifically, this shift of attitude is demonstrated through Harper’s manner of

address to Canada, the integration of native culture within his speech, and the overtly negative descriptions of Canada’s past actions.
The altering views on aboriginal populaces is expressed through the manner Harper addresses Canada as a whole. The speech begins with a strong statement establishing this manner of address: “The treatment of children in Indian Residential Schools is a sad chapter in our history”. Harper makes the key decision to address this history of neglect towards Aboriginal peoples as “our history” instead of “their history”, “its history”, or “Canadian history”. The collective pronoun “our” emphasizes the shared Canadian identity regardless of ethnicity, while simultaneously ensuring that the issue is not distanced from the audience. This holistic attitude sets the stage for Harper to discuss the issue as more than a strictly Aboriginal problem; he opts to explain that they are responsible “as a Government, and as a country”. Harper understands that the struggle of this minority represent a nationwide problem, and he addresses it as such. This contrasts starkly with the Canada of the 19th and 20th centuries who acted in a less civilized manner. The instances in which natives were addressed were few and far between, with nearly all of their addresses viewing the native populations as a separate, inferior entity who existed to be one of Canada’s pawns. Such an idea is found within the Indian Act, wherein the Canadian Parliament defines that act as “an Act for conferring certain privileges on the more advanced Bands of the Indians of Canada.” The government dehumanizes the Aboriginal peoples by referring to them as bands, a term implying that Aboriginals are nothing more than loosely bound savages. Additionally, the fact that the government “confers” privileges to these people perpetuates the idea that Aboriginal peoples were inferior to their white Canadian counterparts. In short, Harper’s inclusive language and decision to recognize the natives as people rather than inferiors showcases the substantial change in ideology from the late 1800s to now.
Perhaps the most noticeable sign of Canada’s changed opinion lies in the fact that Harper integrates Aboriginal language into his speech.

Harper addresses early on that Canada made a mistake in separating “children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions”. Later on in the speech, he supports his assertion by utilizing the very languages that were ripped from the children of indigenous peoples. Harper reads, in apology to natives for Canada’s shortcomings, “Nous le regrettons. We are sorry. Nimitataynan. Niminchinowesamin. Mamiattugut.” The first two phrases are in the languages of the European settlers, French and English. The following three are languages of the Aboriginal peoples: Cree, Ojibway, and Inuktitut. This addition to Harper’s speech showcases a dedication to the Aboriginal peoples he is working so desperately to liberate. In addition to this, it builds onto the ideology of a united Canada by integrating native languages seamlessly with the European languages. The inclusion of this cultural reference demonstrates how the Canadian outlook on indigenous peoples is no longer one of disdain, but rather one of acceptance for their differing languages, traditions, and

cultures.
On a similar note, Canada’s reformed views are demonstrated as Harper addresses the past mistakes of the country.

Under no circumstances does Harper echo the justifications that his forefathers gave for the lack of humanity with which the native populations were treated. In fact, he outright addresses those who claimed the program to be of help by stating, “While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences…, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse”. Additionally, he utilizes negative language when referring to the past mistakes of Canada. He frequently compares the events that occurred as a “tragedy” and also takes the firm stance that the practices of his predecessors were inexcusable. He accomplishes this by recognizing that the “policy of assimilation was wrong, [had] caused great harm, and [had] no place in [their] country.” Moreover, Harper outlines the ways Canada is reforming and aiding the peoples who they previously harmed with the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission by “educating all Canadian on the Indian Residential Schools System” in an attempt to mend the broken relationship. Contrast this with the views of the previous Canadian government who Indian Reservations as “‘Joint-Ventures’ with Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, [and] United Churches”. This only serves to underscore the fact that Canadians viewed these people and their cultures as nothing more

than objects to be invested in and highlight to what degree the Canadian position on natives has changed.
In short, the Canadian perspective on Indigenous Canadians has undergone a drastic change from antagonism to kinsmanship over the course of the century. Today, the government works hand in hand with indigenous peoples to repair their relationship and empower these people. By apologizing to and working with these individuals, Canada and its citizens have taken the first step towards creating a better world for Indigenous populations. Their actions serve as a beacon of hope in a world that has yet to resolve this issue.