"As I mused, the fire burned"

Reflection on life as a person of faith.

Archive for February 2014

Do You Know What Defines a Veteran? It’s Not Just Combat

leave a comment »

Original article published HuffingtonPost Online

Jeff Rose­Martland Author, Citizen Advocate Posted: 10/28/2013 5:14 pm EDT Updated: 01/23/2014 6:58 pm EST

Canada has a whole lot of veterans; a lot more than you might think. According to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman in 2012: There are nearly 750,000 Canadian Forces and RCMP Veterans; 100,000 Canadian Forces members (Regular and Reserve Forces) and 23,000 members of the RCMP.

Doing the math, you get approximately 900,000 and growing. Call it a million for the sake of convenience and you find that 1 in 35 Canadians is a veteran.

If that number seems high, think about how you define a veteran. To many people, a veteran is someone from WWII or Korea. Yes, those men are veterans. But they are not the ONLY veterans. In fact, WWII and Korea service personnel only account for 11 per cent of the total veteran population.

Some argue that combat is what defines a veteran. Think about that for a minute and you’ll realize that such a definition overlooks all the logistics, support, medical, and other personnel. Think about all the aircraft mechanics required in WWII ­­ are they not veterans? Of course they are.

There are all the peacekeeping missions ­­ 33 so far. Let’s not forget that peacekeeping doesn’t mean picket duty; some of those missions were so close to war that only legal definitions can make the distinction. On top of that is the witnessing of genocide in Rwanda, the Balkans, and other places, usually with the inability to respond and defend the victims. Peacekeepers are some of the most scarred of all veterans, but the wounds are often mental.

Don’t forget all the Cold War veterans either: those men and women who trained constantly for Iron Curtain to be overrun, for Soviets pouring over the pole, for full­scale invasion of North America. Remember the Atomic Veterans; those who participated in A­bomb tests and cleaning up nuclear spills. There are all the veterans who never went outside of Canada, but nonetheless served us: doing search and rescue, disaster relief, defending our boarders at sea and in the arctic ­­ countless missions within Canadian territory yet far from the troop’s homes. And ­­ last but not least ­­ there are the Afghanistan veterans.

Don’t overlook the RCMP either. Many Canadians forget that the Mounted is a paramilitary organization. They aren’t so much a police force as a home guard. While they handle policing and security, they serve under almost identical rules to the Forces. They also get sent all over the world: South Sudan, the West Bank, Haiti, the DRC, and yes, Afghanistan as well. Remember when there was a big fuss made about the end of combat operations and the transition to training Afghan police? Guess who got that job? Plus the Mounted also does a lot of high risk, death ­defying work at home in search and rescue, border patrol, maintaining a presence in the remotes corners of our nation.

Of course, part of the problem with understanding that figure has to do with semantics. How do you define “veteran”? We can all give examples of veterans, but even the Minister of Veterans Affairs seems to have trouble figuring out what constitutes a veteran. Even veterans sometimes have trouble figuring it out. I frequently get questions like ‘I served for 10 years but was never sent overseas. Am I a veteran?’ Yes, yes you are. It has taken Our Duty a long time to distill down the different kinds of service, find the common ground, and render this clear, concise definition:

A veteran is anyone who took an oath to be ordered to die for Canada ­­ generally in the Forces or RCMP. Becoming a veteran takes place at the time of the oath.

The common ground of national service and the thing which differentiates the Forces and Mounted from civilian organizations is that: the commitment to sacrifice or be jailed. (In fact, until 1998, Forces troops who disobeyed commands could be executed.) It is that sacrifice ­­ the sacrifice of free will ­­ which sets veterans apart from everyone else. Length of service, deployment locations, number of injuries ­­ these are all by­products of the service, not the determining factor of what is a veteran. “They also serve who only stand and wait.” (Milton)

Where are all these veterans? If 1 in 35 Canadians served, and the average age of the majority is 56, then surely everyone knows at least 1 veteran. More likely, we all know several and don’t know it.

There are several reasons for this. One is that the Forces and RCMP are taught not to discuss internal matter with outsiders; a behaviour which carries over to civilian life. Another reason is humility: bragging about one’s accomplishments is a social faux pas. You discover this when you ask a veteran about his medals, especially if one is a bravery award: ‘Oh, not much. I kept a guy from drowning. It was my job as a SAR tech.’ Later, you discover the veteran jumped out of a helicopter into a raging North Atlantic sea and kept the victim afloat in the frigid waters for hours.

There’s also a very shameful reason why veterans keep quiet: the 1990’s.

The Decade of Darkness. There were massive budget cuts. The Canadian Forces were so under equipped that combat training often resembled a kids’ game, with soldiers literally shouting ‘BANG!’ at each other. But two major scandals in the Forces caused Canadians ­­ wrongly ­­ to turn their back on the troops: the Somalia Affair and subsequent investigation and disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. There were some incidents of civilians spitting on soldiers or shouting at them, which resulted in Forces personnel being ordered not to wear their uniforms except on base. That perception ­­ that displaying your service might provoke a fight with civilians ­­ is still prevalent amongst a sector of the veterans’ community.

The end result is this: veterans hide and citizens don’t learn about them.

Which is why Our Duty launched Veterans Among Us three years ago. We wanted to give veterans the chance to stand proud of their service, no matter what that was. We also wanted to give civilians a chance to ask veterans about what they did, what the medals are for, to learn about what it means to sacrifice for a nation, and to say thanks.

We arrived at a very simple program. TV was already branding November ‘The Month of Remembrance’; we decided to use the beginning and end days for our campaign. The concept is simple: all we ask veterans to do to wear their medals ­­ or insignia or badges ­­ as they go about their day. That’s it. Put on your tin as you head out the door to work, or play, or coffee, or groceries, or wherever you usually go.

For the rest of us non­veterans, the campaign is also simple: look around. See how many veterans you know. Pay attention to the veterans walking among us every day. If you want, ask your friend about their service. Ask what a medal is for. Take a few minutes to say thanks. Heck, buy them lunch if you wish! The point is for us citizens to pay attention.

1 in 35 Canadians sacrificed their free will and committed to die, if ordered.

We should all know about the Veterans Among Us.

Written by sameo416

February 12, 2014 at 6:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Veteran – combat or non-combat?

leave a comment »

I’ve always argued that the combat/non-combat debate around the title ‘veteran’ is inane. I believe this is a discussion mostly promoted by people who don’t understand military service…although I have become aware of a minority of ex-military who did a combat tour who are very jealous in guarding their ‘war vet’ status. I’ve also heard stories of Afghan veterans being told by WW II vets in the local Legion that they weren’t ‘real’ vets.

Those who feel the need to exalt themselves by claiming titles that you prohibit others from holding, I think you’ve really lost the way of the soldier. From the first days I was in uniform I was taught about the humility of the warrior, that those who had done the most often would say they had done the least.

My great-uncle, Lloyd Cummings, who won the MM for valour in the Scheldt Estuary campaign of WW II, when interviewed said he had done nothing special, and that it was ‘his boys’ who deserved all the credit. I’ve met many true heroes, who looked into the eye of the fire and emerged victorious. To a man (and woman) they are dismissive of what great things they have accomplished.

The reason for the deep humility is the understanding that any soldier could have been asked to stand in the shoes you filled. Also that many other soldiers had done even greater things, but had never been recognized or observed for those deeds.

How many ‘unknown soldiers of the Great War’ lie in Flander’s Fields have great heroism behind them, but will never be known because their entire section was wiped out shortly afterwards?

The one thing that links all soldiers together as brothers and sisters in the profession of arms is that unlimited liability to serve. The commitment to give up one’s life if required in pursuit of duty. This is why the highest compliment one can pay a soldier is not a medal, but to say, “You did your duty.”

I find any suggestion that the seven pilots I knew on Squadron who died in safe, peacetime training were not veterans because their death was in Alberta is highly offensive. A soldier trains like they fight. Each exercise is treated like the real thing…if it’s not, that person is not being true to the creed of the warrior. A death in training, is no less honoured than a death in combat.

Now I’ve seen a wonderful article about this exact topic, and written by a civilian journalist, but one who clearly gets the ethos of the soldier. His point – you can’t parse soldiers into different groups. All those who enable a rifleman to walk patrol share in that mission, even while they may be safe behind the wire (or back in Canada). As a fighter maintenance engineer, I knew all too well that my ability to do my job in a combat unit was dependent upon 1,000’s of others throughout Canada. To say that the supply clerk in the depot in Montreal was somehow not a ‘real’ veteran because they weren’t on the pointy end is ludicrous. (this is a copy of that article saved in case the link breaks)

Sure, there are people in uniform who are not worthy to call themselves warriors.  I’ve run into those here and there who sought to get every medal they could without ever having to work a day of overtime.  But, the vast majority of soldiers I served with over 20 years in uniform were dedicated, professional and willing to do whatever it took to get the mission accomplished including pushing their own needs aside.

As a final word, because the journalist mentions this, Cold War warriors bore their own burdens.  I trained for years to operate in an NBCD environment (nuclear, biological, chemical).  As a leader I learned that my job was to fight the war of attrition, sending people out to load and repair aircraft knowing that I would lose a certain percentage each time…there is no second chances with nerve agents, and ionizing radiation eats you up even in controlled doses.  I explained this to one of my more technical co-workers on a long trip up to the PLER in Alberta.  Never having served on a fighting unit, he said with shock, “How do you sleep at night?”  Yet I count him as a veteran because of his willingness to serve.

Those Cold War days have left scars on my soul that still trouble me.  That’s without even bringing up the post-911 things that I still can’t speak about in public.  If you wore the uniform, you are a veteran…and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Written by sameo416

February 10, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Truth and Reconcilitation 3

leave a comment »

Our parish is moving toward an evening event on March 15 where we’ll bless prayer shawls, have a meal, do some drumming, some praying in Cree and consider the question of identity (at least partly through my family history, which is a story of suppressed identity in response to the racism of the era. I’m working through some of the thoughts for that talk here. It’s rambling and un-organized at this point, be warned.

The history of the Red River Métis is an instructive area to consider, for what happened to them is reflective of the overall focus of the era. Prior to the North-West rebellion, the Métis were a dominant force in what we now call Western Canada. They were the shapers of the land and the primary contact between Europeans and the Indigenous peoples. In many ways the plight of the Métis has arisen from that place, caught between the settlers and the Indigenous peoples, but not really part of either world.

After Riel’s execution (murder), the force that was the Métis scattered – much as the leaders of the rebellion scattered. I’m thinking of Gabriel Dumont, who ended up touring with Wild Bill’s western show. The Métis became a broken people, who were quickly overwhelmed by the white (and predominantly Protestant) settlers moving west from Ontario (or Upper and Lower Canada). As a result the Métis diaspora started, with the core of the community moving further westward to escape the settlers and to continue living a traditional lifestyle. When I look at the Red River census through that time, I can see that the bulk of my family relatives disappear from the Red River settlement. Some re-appear on the later census documents from further west – Prince Albert, for example. The man considered the founder of PA, James Isbister, was a relative by marriage.

It was in this era that the Métis became known as ‘the road allowance people’. Maria Campbell’s book “Halfbreed” is a startling story of growing up in that period, and particularly highlights the wide-spread racism present in the west. Road allowance people were those who lived in the band of road allowance along highways, because they had no land. Campbell’s book is startling to read of how nasty the general population was toward the Métis, and the Indigenous peoples.

The sad part of that story, is that the echoes of that racism are still present in Western Canada today. I’ve seen that our western provinces have this thinly-veiled racism that guides how we operate. It’s more hidden now because it’s not acceptable to be overtly racist, but still present in little ways. After I obtained my Métis card, formal recognition by my community of my heritage and my intention to live back into that lifestyle, the reactions of some acquaintances was telling. The comments all had the same bent – you may want to pretend that you’re somehow aboriginal, but you know that you’re not really aboriginal (with the subtext – you’re like us, not them). The people who say such things don’t even realize how that is received by someone who is grieving the lost history of family heritage suppressed…

My family suppressed that history out of self-protection. When the times turned so that being country-born was no longer a benefit, but a liability (about the time of the crushed rebellion, and the shift in the Red River from predominantly Métis/indigenous to predominantly white). Our relatives fled Red River to go westward, and we stayed and decided to live as Europeans, and the lie was born.

This is a dramatic reversal of the narrative of my family, and as far as I can discern, that continued up into modern days (meaning the 1980s).

Why was it the settlers of the late 1700’s in the west intermarried? The dominant narrative suggests that such marriages were a step up for the indigenous women, that they improved their lot in life by marrying the ‘civilized’ settlers. The reality is much different. In the early years, having access to the indigenous store of knowledge was a literal matter of survival. In later years, the intermarriage permitted the European to have access to trade with the birth tribe of the spouse. When you look at the marriage records, the other thing that strikes you is that most marriages were between rather low-ranking labourers and clerks (or a tailor in my family’s case). These settlers were the ones who were marrying up, for an aboriginal spouse gave them improved status in the European community – because of the economic status they gained through the relationships created by marriage.

That sort of arrangement, economic relationship through marriage, was well-known to the indigenous people of Canada. This was a standard practice between indigenous nations to strengthen ties, to improve trade and to reduce conflict.

So the reality is these minor functionaries working for ‘The Company’ (Hudson’s Bay) or the Northwest Company, were greatly improving their lot in life by taking an aboriginal wife. In the early days, such intermarriage was encouraged by The Company, because of the economic benefits.

This narrative is dramatically different from what I remember in school – which was the myth of European supremacy, civilizing the savages by doing them the favour of marriage.

The horrible part of that narrative is what happened when employees of The Company reached the end of their contract. They were entitled to a trip home at the end of the contract – for them. This led to a number of the settlers who decided to return to the UK abandoning their country families – in some cases returning to their existing wife and children in the UK. The abandoned spouse and children sometimes merged back into the tribe, remarried into another family. Others chose to stay.

Many of the marriages done in Canada were so-called ‘country marriages’, which followed the tradition of the First Nations. You would declare your marriage and co-habitate. The ones who decided to remain in Canada eventually had a church wedding. In my family’s case, James Anderson undertook a country marriage to Mary, a 22-year-old Saulteaux woman who worked in the same Company store. It was only about 19 years later that Mary and the children were baptised, and then church married one month later. This was typical.

There was a change in the relationship after the settlements became established, and particularly when the primarily Protestant (orangemen) settlers began arriving from points east. The policy of Empire and ethnic purity began to assert itself, and although we can see these colonial attitudes as racist today, this was the dominant mode of thought. So there was a shift from seeing the country marriages as good and necessary gradually moving to a place where the marriages became increasingly distasteful. Under those increasing pressures it was unsurprising that people began to declare their loyalties, some choosing to live as European, and some remaining Métis. The tricks of genetics made this possible, and particularly for the Scots Métis who carried fair skin and red hair. I do wonder what happened in the families when there was a genetic combination that came up as highly aboriginal.

The story is one of dramatic reversals of the narrative, for a variety of reasons. Riel, the traitor, hanged for treason, becomes the father of the Province of Manitoba. Pardoned and lauded…but still a victim of government action. My Métis family, in another reversal of the narrative, becomes Scots – a narrative that continued into the 1980s.

It even becomes clear in the records from the 1800-1900 period. My family members declare to the census taker that they are Scots. The same family members, around the same time frame, are signing Script affidavits declaring they are half-breeds…to obtain the promised land grant. It is certainly a story of ethnic expediency…but what were the pressures that made it so?

This is where the two narratives: my family and the residential schools have some parallels around the question of identity. The res schools were intended, by government policy, to strip away people’s identities to make them civilized little Europeans who would become productive members of the new body politic that was to be Canada. My family, to avoid the sting of raging racism, turned away from who they were to become white. It may have been a concious and pragmatic choice, or it may have just been an unspoken tacit shift, I’ll never know. It was inarguably a loss of identity that my daughter and I are now seeking to restore. But, it causes some problems.

Now the broader question is how many of these reversals of the dominant narrative have there been in our history? What follows closely on the heels of that question is a more disturbing one: if those elected officials of the past were convinced of the righteousness of their actions with respect to the indigenous people of Canada, what things are we doing today that we’re absolutely convinced are correct and righteous, but in 150 church groups will sit around and shake their heads saying, “How could they have thought that was right?”

The reversal of my family identity away from the truth likely permitted later family members to succeed as clergy in a church that had many racist overtones. This has been documented (the article of personal interest is the one titled “ARCHDEACON THOMAS VINCENT OF MOOSONEE AND THE HANDICAP OF “METIS” RACIAL STATUS”.

The author notes that Thomas Vincent was passed over for bishop in favour of an inexperienced priest from England, that he believes was because of the known country-born heritage of Vincent.  I’ve written about this article previously, and the really horrific comments the author collected from Vincent’s superiors…about the country-born children being stupid.  What I find particularly interesting is that both the authors of the article referenced by Prof John Long were Métis themselves, and one (my great-grandfather, Archdeacon Anderson) was related to Vincent, but there is no mention of this in the original article they penned on Vincent in 1920.

My great-grandfather’s son went on to be Bishop of Rupert’s Land (suffragen) and then on to Bishop of British Columbia, where he died too young in 1969 (likely because of the massive wounds he sustained as a chaplain with the Canadian Grenadier Guards in WW II).  He might have been the first Métis bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada…but this will likely never be known conclusively (although I have had urges to write the national church historian to ask the question – who was the first Métis bishop in Canada?)

I find it likely that the family heritage was tacitly ignored beginning in the mid-1800’s or earlier, as the tenor of relations in the settlement changed.  That was not helped by the Rebellion, as the Scots and English Métis tended to not support Riel, as they were more loyalist in their leanings.  Those who became white, and supported the state, likely reinforced that choice as the aftermath of the Rebellion hit Red River, with overt oppression of those who were obvious Métis.  There likely wasn’t even a moment of choice, but just the continuation of a trend that had started years earlier.

Written by sameo416

February 9, 2014 at 5:38 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Truth and Reconciliation 2

leave a comment »

What is it that provides you with your identity?

If you were to think about the things you could lose that would cause the most harm to your sense of self, what would those things be?

As a sideways path into that question, if I was to ask you, “Who are you?” what would be your first response?

In the first world, people who have employment outside the home often draw a large portion of their sense of self from the job.

For a long time in my life I would answer the “Who are you?” question by saying…an engineer, a soldier. Later on my first response would shift to be a child of God, as my self-identity expanded beyond my education. It is a question I still reflect on, as who we are is such a fundamental part of our being. (I had a friend who was a stay-at-home parent, but had a professional career before marriage and children. The first time I met my friend, she introduced herself as a engineer even though she had not worked in the field for a few years)

So, make up that list of the things that are the foundation upon which you rest your sense of self. It might include education, job, faith, family, children, volunteer actions, music, body art, car or motorcycle, hobbies, career, language, culture…whatever bits we draw out of our lives to place up on the wall as signs marking out place.

It might even be worthwhile following one of the distasteful management practices of the 90’s: the mission statement, but doing it for yourself. What is your mission? That too is tied into that question of self.

I might form that list for myself to include faith, father, husband, vocation, honour, courage, service above self, heritage.

Now comes the tough part.

Imagine now that I come to get you first thing in the morning, before you’re fully awake. I have helpers with me, and we take you from your home and take you away…whether you wish to come with us or not.

When the journey ends, you’re in a place 100’s of miles from home. You’re surrounded by people just like you, but you’re not allowed to be who you are. Instead we introduce you to a new faith, a new language, a new way of dressing. If you slip back into your old patterns, there are consequences, both physical and emotional.

No longer are you allowed to grasp the things which previously made you who you are…none of it. There is a new self-identity being forced upon you.

That’s the basic impact of the residential school experience. While in some cases there were good things that arose out of it, at its core was a philosophy of re-education and re-engineering of the self.

What strikes me from the thought exercise is the degree of damage that can result from that loss of self. I remember graduating from military college, after a hard 4 years (my daughter was shocked to hear I had more credit hours in a semester than she does in the entire year). After the bright lights and parade I was struck with a profound grief. For those 4 years I had a strong sense of self and where I belonged, and suddenly it was all gone.

The legacy of the res schools, quite apart from the abuse issues, was nothing less than the loss of self-identity for several generations of Canadian aboriginals. The schools operated for about 100 years – that’s 10 generations of children passed through that process of re-engineering of the self.

It certainly makes me think. It also helps me to understand (a bit) why my family may have decided at one point to pick the European path over the Metis path.

Written by sameo416

February 3, 2014 at 8:27 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Truth and Reconciliation Links

leave a comment »

A Cautionary word…

There is one important point to accept before starting on a process of discovery into this chapter of Canadian history. The stories can be very horrific, and the cost to multiple generations of Canadians is immeasurable. Particularly as people of faith, it can be painful to read about other’s suffering, and especially when that suffering was at least partly at the hand of the church. There is the potential that we will be traumatized by reading about the trauma of others.

However, the exercise in learning, in witnessing to the truth of the past, in participating in the present and future reconciliation and journey together, is not supposed to be one of guilt and shame. As one teacher said to me: I don’t want your tears or your guilt, I want our healing, and reconciliation so we can learn how to live together on the land. We both need this healing, as we have both been harmed.

Our reaction to the stories and the pain is to come forward, and to participate in the new relationship that can exist on the other side of reconciliation…and not to stay in our homes wracked with guilt and inactive. As with all calls, it is a call to action.

Truth and Reconciliation Resources

For anyone who wishes to explore the history of aboriginal affairs, residential schools and the TRC process in Canada, what follows is a list of resources.

Internet Resources

A map of all residential schools.

A listing of the particular Anglican-run residential schools in Canada, with a link to the history of each school.

Archbishop Michael Peers’ apology to the residential school survivors on behalf of the Anglican Church.

A site focused on sharing stories.

Aboriginal Healing Foundation, many resources and papers on residential schools. 

UBC has an aboriginal art website that has many good descriptions of history and the legal aspects. A few are referenced below, but this site makes for good reading.

One aboriginal nation’s resources on the residential schools. Many secondary links. Includes a curriculum on the residential schools.

Print Resources

A set of books produced with the stories of survivors, available for order or to read online.  The summary reader will be available in the parish shortly.

A TRC book titled, “They Came for the Children” that explains the history and impact of the residential schools.

Maria Campbell, Halfbreed, 1973. Available in the EPL. Still one of the most disturbing books about the Métis in the ‘in between’ years when many were known as the ‘road allowance people’. A clear study of those without land, and of the racism present in Western Canada.

Mixed Media Resources

A good video about water in Alberta, seeking to find the parallels between science and the traditional First Nations teachings about water. A fascinating comparison.  This includes teaching resources.

A powerful website containing many resources under the title, “Where are the Children?”. This includes access to the online exhibit of history through images. This includes teaching resources.

The Legacy of Hope Foundation was formed to continue to educate and inform around the question of the residential schools. There are a number of print resources that can be ordered or downloaded. There are also resources for educators who wish to add portions of the history to their curriculum. The website offers online tours of a number of travelling historical exhibits.

Volunteer Opportunities

There will be opportunities to volunteer either as a member of the Anglican Church, or to provide direct support, and a large number of helpers are needed. The Anglican volunteer opportunities have not been opened just yet, but you can register through the TRC website.

Important Historical Documents

1. Royal Proclamation of 1763

2. An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of Indian Tribes, 1857

3. Indian Act, 1876

4. Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds, 1879

5. Dr. P. H. Bryce, The Story of a National Crime, 1922 (big file)

6. White Paper, 1969

7. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples [RCAP] Final Report, 1996

Suggested Books

John Ralston Saul, A Fair Country: Telling Truths about Canada, (Penguin Canada, 2009)

Jeremy Bergen, Ecclesial Repentance: The Churches Confront Their Sinful Pasts (T & T Clark, 2011)

Roland Chrisjohn and Sherri Young, with Michael Maraun, The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada (Theytus Books, 1997)

Tomson Highway, Kiss of the Fur Queen (Doubleday Canada, 1998)

Steve Heinrichs, editor., Buffalo Shout, Salmon Cry: Conversations on Creation, Land Justice, and Life Together (Herald Press, 2013)

Rita Joe, Song of Rita Joe: Autobiography of a Mi’kmaq Poet (University of Nebraska Press, 1996)

Thomas King, The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America (Random House, 2012).

J. S. Miller, Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (University of Toronto Press, 1996)

John Milloy, A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986 (University of Manitoba Press, 1999)

Ronald Niezen, Truth & Indignation: Canada’s Truth and Residential Commission on Indian Residential Schools (University of Toronto Press, 2013)

Paulette Regan, Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada (University of British Columbia Press, 2010)

Shelagh Rogers, Mike DeGagne, Jonathan Dewar, Glen Lowry, eds., Speaking My Truth: Reflections on Reconciliation & Residential Schools (Aboriginal Healing Foundation, 2012)

Rupert Ross, Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice (Penguin Canada, 2006 [1996])

Richard Wagamese, Indian Horse (Douglas & Mcintyre, 2012)

Written by sameo416

February 1, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Urbane Adventurer: Amiskwacî

thoughts of an urban Métis scholar (and sometimes a Mouthy Michif, PhD)

Joshua 1:9

Reflection on life as a person of faith.

Engineering Ethics Blog

Reflection on life as a person of faith.

asimplefellow

Today, the Future and the Past all kinda rolled up in one.

istormnews

For Those Courageous in Standing for Truth

âpihtawikosisân

Law, language, life: A Plains Cree speaking Métis woman in Montreal

Malcolm Guite

Blog for poet and singer-songwriter Malcolm Guite

"As I mused, the fire burned"

Reflection on life as a person of faith.