Who are these wingers? Who are their "supporters"? Who appointed them? Who appointed LaForme?

Well... it's just one judge.

If another judge gets appointed and also quits in a snit, then we'll have a problem.

That said, I think I'm with the others on this one (based on the sketchy description of their quarrel) -- first you get truth, then you reconcile.

But I'd have expected the views to go the other way -- that the First Nations justice would be the one who wanted to drag out all the dirty laundry before beginning the reconciling, and the whites would want to sweep it all under the rug...

If you could describe what "the whites" are that might be helpful as I have no idea what that means.

People of pallor with nary a redskin among their ancestors (or perhaps just one or two out of thirty-two great-great-great grandparents).

Or are Brewin Morley and Dumont-Smith also of First Nations ancestry?

If they are, then I really see no point to the post -- it isn't the government's fault if the three commissioners quarrel and one quits in a snit.

I assumed there were racial issues at play.

Then, being quite pink with brown spots myself, I take your assurance that I am not within "the white" and in fact may well be "a redskin". The things one learns through the internets! Wait until I tell the folks.

I'm afraid that I must inform you, sir, that it's all relative.

As someone who is a lightish olive-brown, you're definitely pallorous & of "the white" to me and my dark(ish) kind.

Sorry.

You stigmatize my freckly DNA. You will be sent a reprimand through the postal service shortly.

Go file a complaint at your local Human Rights Commission.

Scots have other ways to deal with such things directly. Like sending reprimands through the postal service.

I with the "sort out the truths first" squad then on with the reconciliations.

Otherwise, you end up with a series of empty governmental apologies for past indiscretions that are as meaningless as "customer appreciation days" and ribbon cuttings.

And by reconciliations I mean brief apologies, promises to not do said things again followed by cheques to living survivors of said inappropriate actions by govt persons and persons put in charge of things by the govt.

The disagreement between the commissioners was not along "racial" lines. Commissioner Dumont-Smith is of a First Nation from Quebec; commissioner Morley is of, what Ben would likley refer to as "the whites."

If the disagreement between the commissioners was not extremely irreconcilable then it was quite irresponsible of Justice LaForme to resign. I agree with Alan that the Residential School's Reconciliation Commission is engaged in some of the most important work that the Federal government is doing right now - to fail would be extremely unfortunate.

Canada was founded in cooperation with the First Nations. Not in 1867 of course, by then all the important work had been done, and the state was infact trying to forget all the significant collaborations of the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries. We are just know starting to recover from the 1830-1995 era and rediscover and reconcile with our Aboriginal foundations. If the work of the Commission fails Alan is right that it will speak volumes. Hopefully a new Commissioner can be appointed quickly, and whatever disagreement has existed can be addressed.

It is interesting the Grand Chief Fontaine emphasised truth of reconciliation in his comments in the article, as well as noting that the Commission does not establish a hierarchy of the Commissioners. It sounded to me as if he was siding with Dumon-Smith and Morley. To me it seems as if truth and reconcilliation must go together, if that is indeed what the argument was about. Further, reconciliation has to go far beyond "brief apologies" and "cheques." (though some of that is needed). Canada has to reconcile itself with its Aboriginal foundations and its significant attempts to ignore and diminish those foundations. Reconciliation has to move us beyond the "us" and "them" attitudes that is too prevalent amongst both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.

I wonder why it is OK to do a Maori dance if you are any sort of NZ athlete but we can't admit that we are an ancient culture ourselves. Unless, as the separatists say, we are not a real country. That could well be, too.

That is exactly it - we do not recognize that we are an acient culture. We want to pretend that we are a "young country" that we were founded at the height of Victorian Empire and that we little more than a colonial adolescent.

As to not being a real country, if we can't recognize and re-engage with our true foundations, then perhaps we are not.

Interesting, you believe Moari is an "ancient culture"? As a Newf then I claim equal status, and trebly so for being an Irish Newf.

To be honest, I agree. And also why the hell isn't Danny Williams claiming the now easy to acquire "nation status" - especially given Newfoundland was last a something like an autonomous nation about...errr...20% of the time since Quebec was.

But we aren't an ancient culture, we being non Native Canadians, depending on your definition of ancient I guess. Native Canadians are of course pretty much a given as an ancient culture, and as they are a separate nation from us by their own definition, for the rest of us to assume ownership of their ancient status is about as silly as a person from Brazil wearing a Kiss Me I'm Irish t-shirt on March 17th.

And Matthew, what exactly do you think we need to do beyond apologies, promises and cheques? if we are not going to do the bad things ever again, we make the usual empty apologies for the actions of of forefathers bad deeds and we try to make some form of monetary recompense to the sufferers, what else is there to do? Are you suggesting we do away with the First Nations and simply have a great big happy melting pot attitude of a nation like the one that functions so well down south?

No, Canadianness without the First Nation are not ancient as a unique unified community. Otherwise we are just straggling bit from elsewhere.

And, Matthew, don't answer the second paragraph. Speaks for itself.

Ummm ... I was more getting at that the Moiri colonized NZ post less than 700 years ago, and is as new a culture as anything you see these days. But yes to the rest...

Confidential to Al: our opinion of ourselves doesn't depend on mainlander's. ;-)

For me, given the fluidity of culture, 700 years is ancient enough. Hell, there were not real Scots as they are now known that far back.

I still say that truth precedes reconciliation.

Reconciliation isn't possible when you don't know what the truth is -- see, what happens is, you "reconcile", then more "truth" comes out, and you're not reconciled any longer. Cart before horse, etc., etc.

Why do you assume that Maori (or any other aboriginal) culture hasn't evolved as much!?

Why do you ask questions ending in "!?" that contain red herrings? What does cultural evolution to do with cultural integrity!?

Ben: you clearly have never been married.

Sean, despite Alan's warning about not responding...

What is there to do beyond apologies and cheques? For a start:

1. Stop defining Aboriginal peoples as victims and as a "problem"
2. Accept First Nations as the Canadians we want to be, as is being done in Nunavut, northern Quebec, the Nisga'a land, Haida Gwaii, and other places
3. Recognize our nation's history pre-1867, especially how the First Nations have shaped Canada and Canadians, not just that we have "survived" and "adapted" from colonialism.

A melting pot attitude? No. The very opposite.
Canada is not, never has been a monolithic nation like the United States and most European nations attempt to be.

From the very beginning and for hundreds of years we were a roughly equal partnership of many nations, religions, languages, cultures, and ideologies. It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that we began to lose this balance and tried to re-form ourselves uncharacteristically into something we were not. We continue to live with the consequences of trying to subsume our Aboriginal and French foundations.

A proper approach and recognition of what our country actually is would not involve "assuming ownership" of First Nations culture, but instead recognizing and accepting its contribution to who we are.

Al! You don't like (i.e.) _my_ use of punctuation?!!

But to address your question -- I don't particularly care for the word "ancient" (1) as it certainly denotes superiority through authencity (2) often isn't applicable, as per the Maori. Since you bring up the issue of "cultural integrity" ... do you think there are many Canadian aboriginals today who would recognize their ancenstor's culture of around (say) 1800, let alone be able to communicate with them.

Try "olde" then. I don't carry that baggage with the concept.

And yes. Way more than Newfs, say, and Newfs have, too. But I have sat in group meals much like scallop potato and ham church dinners except the ladies were all gossiping in Mi'kimaq. But modernity exists even for old(e) cultures. It's a path not a plaque on the wall. Best Mohawk joke I've heard: you know what the three sisters are? Corn, beans and squash...you know what the three brothers are? Pizza, chips and coke.

Nice work Matthew! I find I am agreeing with what you are saying and it sure sounds like you know what you are talking about.

Matthew, you must have ate all of your granola and hugged a lot of trees today...

"Accept First Nations as the Canadians we want to be"

The first nations of a few hundred years ago or the one of today? I'm just wondering which you believe we should aspire to emulate. Because seriously, I don't think very many people want to regress to live without a written language or the wheel. Hecj, my native friend's main complaints about our society is that they have trouble being assimilated without repression from both racists and academic people who seem to think that its mystical and magical to live in a hide coverer huts.

See?