Canada at a Crossroads by Jeffrey Denis

Author:Jeffrey Denis
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of Toronto Press

Although this interviewee was wary of partnering with resource- extraction companies, he still saw economic interdependence in a broader sense as one of the greatest (potential) bridges between Indigenous and settler communities. In his words, “our fates are intertwined.”15

Conclusion

Overall, Rainy River District residents readily described numerous institutions, ideas, activities, and interests that brought Indigenous and non-Indigenous people together in positive, mutually beneficial relationships. However, many of these bridges did not in themselves counteract the group positioning processes and structural inequities outlined in previous chapters. Indeed, Indigenous and white residents tended to think about bridges in ways that reflected and reinforced their respective senses of group position.

Despite the relative consensus about some sources of cooperation, white residents were more likely to emphasize bridges that would require Indigenous people to assimilate to settler society, whereas Indigenous residents were more likely to highlight opportunities for settlers to learn about Indigenous history and culture. Many Anishinaabe and Métis residents also discussed the need for mutual accommodation, as well as personal characteristics (humility, empathy, etc.) that disposed some individuals to seek more just and equitable relationships.

Moreover, some institutions (such as the Catholic Church) and activities (such as hunting and fishing) were considered bridges by some residents but boundaries by others. Many whites viewed shared Canadian citizenship as a potential bridge, whereas many Anishinaabe did not identify as Canadian and were more likely to emphasize nation-to-nation treaties and Indigenous cultural teachings as a way of bridging (but not homogenizing) the various nations in Canada. Still other Indigenous residents cautioned against an exclusive focus on “bridges,” asserting that “real peace and harmony” in the long run will require (hopefully non-violent) conflict in the short run.

Finally, even when Indigenous and white interviewees named the same bridges, they often meant different things. Referencing our “common humanity” as a bridge, for example, whites often inferred that we should “treat everyone the same,” whereas Indigenous residents emphasized the values of autonomy and respect for diversity.

In short, these divergent ways of framing bridges represent another barrier to overcoming the dominant sense of group position and the persisting structural inequities that are rooted in settler colonialism. Nevertheless, the interpretive lenses in question do not follow rigid group lines; in the thoughtful responses of many interviewees emerged the seeds of an alternative social order, one that strives to transcend “us versus them” thinking while maintaining respect for the dignity, diversity, and sovereignty of each group. In the next set of chapters, I will assess the benefits and limitations of some of the most frequently discussed bridges, both in my interviews and in the academic literature: contact, education, apologies, and collective action.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.