Apologies: Better late than never

[ShadowHM]

Today, my federal government issued a long-overdue apology for the forced relocation of a number of Inuit families into the High Arctic in the 1950's. It was done for the sake of ensuring our sovereignty in the north for what probably seemed like good reasons at the time.

Indian and Northern Affairs Minister John Duncan issued a formal apology on Wednesday for the government's controversial High Arctic relocation program, in which a total of 19 Inuit families from northern Quebec were moved about 1,200 kilometres to the far northern settlements of Grise Fiord and Resolute, in what is now Nunavut.

There were many more than just the 19 families mentioned. These people were lied to, forced to move and given no support in an area where they had no knowledge of local conditions or wildlife. They were abandoned. When harsh conditions resulted in one woman becoming dangerously insane some were forced to conduct an execution for which they were later prosecuted by the Canadian justice system. The result was the death penalty, by virtue of sending the two men to an overcrowded prison in Yellowknife (more thousands of kilometres away) where they died of tuberculosis.*

So it is about time to see their suffering acknowledged. Better late than never.


*that particular story is outlined, with appropriate outrage, as The Dark Odyssey of Soosie in The Snow Walker, by Farley Mowat

[Jester]

Good to hear we've apologised. The things we thought (and to a large extent, still think) we're entitled to do simply on the basis of territorial sovereignty are atrocious.

How, exactly, moving a bunch of families from one place to another is an issue of territorial integrity, or whatever else, I don't think I will ever understand.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Good to hear we've apologised.

I guess. Given that it has been only 60 years, some of the perpetrators and some of the victims might still be alive. I'd be more impressed if the apology were in person between those two groups.

Beyond that, I find it pointless and slightly ridiculous. Jeff Davis pardoned by Jimmy Carter -- about 80 years after he died. The Catholic Church apologizing to Galileo -- a few centuries late. People who have not offended apologizing to people who were not offended for what happened between their respective ancestors.

Empty words. A cheap gesture. Much more impressive would be world leaders who really try to do what is best for all. That would indeed challenge my opinion of humanity.

--Pete

[Jester]

Empty words. A cheap gesture. Much more impressive would be world leaders who really try to do what is best for all. That would indeed challenge my opinion of humanity.

Sure. But better the empty words and cheap gestures than nothing, forever. Doing the right thing in the future is of course much better, but the second law of thermodynamics prevents us from doing that for the past.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

Empty words. A cheap gesture. Much more impressive would be world leaders who really try to do what is best for all. That would indeed challenge my opinion of humanity.

Sure. But better the empty words and cheap gestures than nothing, forever. Doing the right thing in the future is of course much better, but the second law of thermodynamics prevents us from doing that for the past.

-Jester

I agree.

Coming from Austria I have a hard time understanding why I should apologise for what Hitler did decades before I was born. I understand however that our highest politicians apologising in Israel is a different thing altogether. The holocaust and other Nazi crimes have been swept under the rug for ages, out of denial, political agendas and lots of other, equally ridiculous and despicable reasons.

I welcomed the change in attitude, even if it was decades late. You have to start eventually as a matter of "national hygiene" or something like that. Of course, a considerable percentage of my countrymen would rather go on with their imaginary past but that's a different problem.

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

I agree.

Me too. I understand what Pete is saying though. I would like to see more direct Truth and Reconciliation Commission approach to the US transgressions of the past. I too, being a descendant of immigrants, have no ancestry to the direct victimization of our indigenous people, or our nations participation in the slave trade. For years, the US BIA has cheated Native Americans from their property, and owe the tribes many millions of dollars. But, I feel my ancestors, and therefore I have profited at the their loss.

German, Japanese and Italian Americans suffered some persecution though while my parents were alive. It would be healing to have a commission detail the "sins" and ask for forgiveness. But, like Pete, I'm not for a blanket apology, or compensation for harms unless the victims and perpetrators are face to face.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I welcomed the change in attitude, . . .

I would welcome the change of attitude, if I thought any of those gestures actually represented a change of attitude. Yes, our leaders cry crocodile tears for what happened in the past and no longer effects us directly. And, when the situation arises, they revert to the same tactics they've used all along. Show me a world where repression, genocide, ethnic hatreds are really being addressed by the countries who can afford to address them. Show me a world where peace is maintained by peaceful means (even if that means some type of international police force) and where peace is being spread by education, economic support, and public pressure. Show me a world where expenditures for the common good is greater than that for warfare. Show me those worlds, and I'll believe those apologies.

For now, I remain skeptic.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Hi,

I welcomed the change in attitude, . . .

I would welcome the change of attitude, if I thought any of those gestures actually represented a change of attitude. Yes, our leaders cry crocodile tears for what happened in the past and no longer effects us directly. And, when the situation arises, they revert to the same tactics they've used all along. Show me a world where repression, genocide, ethnic hatreds are really being addressed by the countries who can afford to address them. Show me a world where peace is maintained by peaceful means (even if that means some type of international police force) and where peace is being spread by education, economic support, and public pressure. Show me a world where expenditures for the common good is greater than that for warfare. Show me those worlds, and I'll believe those apologies.

For now, I remain skeptic.

--Pete

I can perfectly understand what you're saying. However, the "change in attitude" was at least accompanied by new laws being passed concerning the returning of stolen goods and working out some compensation for surviving holocaust members (among other things). As little as it was and as late as it happened, it still beats the policy that went before it. Which was to either ignore the past or mold it into something that was bearable and could be exploited come election time.

I'll take an insincere apology (and I think it was actually heartfelt) any day if it comes with a changed policy and actual attempts at compensation.

I'll keep looking for the world you describe though anyway, in case it's just around the corner.

take care
Tarabulus

[--Pete]

Hi,

I can perfectly understand what you're saying. However, the "change in attitude" was at least accompanied by new laws being passed concerning the returning of stolen goods and working out some compensation for surviving holocaust members (among other things). As little as it was and as late as it happened, it still beats the policy that went before it. Which was to either ignore the past or mold it into something that was bearable and could be exploited come election time.

I'll take an insincere apology (and I think it was actually heartfelt) any day if it comes with a changed policy and actual attempts at compensation.

I don't doubt the apology was sincere. And, yes, restoration and compensation are good. My point is that while Germany might never persecute Jews again and the USA might never slaughter Native Americans again, I can conceive situations where mobs in Europe (including Germany) are lynching Muslims while their American cousins are doing the same to Latinos.

I think that an apology for what is passed is no reparation for what is present.

I'll keep looking for the world you describe though anyway, in case it's just around the corner.

And I hope we meet coming around that corner. But read you sig.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

My point is that while Germany might never persecute Jews again and the USA might never slaughter Native Americans again, I can conceive situations where mobs in Europe (including Germany) are lynching Muslims while their American cousins are doing the same to Latinos.

The US Federal government still has an agency which acts as overseer of Indian affairs. How would we feel if that were other Hypenated-Americans? If the statistics showed that the BIA actually advanced the interests of Native Americans, but, statistics actually show the opposite. The agency exists to secure government interests. Demographics for Native Americans are dismal across the board, (such as degree's awarded by race).

At least Sen. Inouye, Sen. McCain, and Rep. Udall pressed forward with the Indian Gaming Act, and Reagan signed it giving them a somewhat exclusive monopoly on gambling, which allows some tribes (by virtue of location) to raise enough money to rise up out of their reservation slums, and perhaps buy back some of their former holdings. The ironic part is that the $200 billion dollar Indian Gaming Industry began here in Minnesota, where one Indian family challenged why they had to pay the State $147.95 in property taxes for their trailer home on Indian land and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. I haven't seen yet where this has done much to bring Native Americans out of poverty.

Meanwhile, the BIA is emerging from a century of mismanaging Indian owned natural resources.

In 2007, four nations voted against the UN “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples", they were the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Interestingly, the 4 were all former colonies of the British Empire. 143 voted for it, and 11 nations abstained. (text)

In April, 2009, Australia endorsed it, then Canada's governor general spoke last March, saying they would be endorsing it. New Zealand endorsed the UN declaration last April. The US also stated in April 2010, that they will also review their position regarding the Declaration.

I think the US is a far cry away from reconciling with the Native People, and while I tend to agree generally with your view on not slaughtering American Indians, it's mostly due to the fact that there aren't many left (~1% of the population).