Have you ever thought about the fact that North American culture’s solution to conflict is to “talk it out”? From kindergarten, if one child hurts another child, he/she is supposed to tell the other how that made them feel. In professional counseling, the point of sessions is to draw out dialogue about the problem. The concept of “talking it out” is everywhere! Who thought that this was the best way to approach every single problem ever?!
Okay, well, maybe there is some benefit to talking it out. In Whitlock’s book Soft Weapons, she brings up a “talking cure” as the method to healing past hurts, because “truth commissions are based on the premise that dialogue about past crimes, violence, and abuse can alleviate the suffering of victims” (79). Why though? Did the government of Canada ask each ex-student of the residential schools if talking about their pain would heal them? And if they did, did they then base the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the majority who said yes? It is clear that there are some people who think that “talking it out” is not the answer. In the St. Michael’s School exhibit in the Museum of Anthropology on campus, there is an anonymous quote from 1991 that says this: “All we can try to do is get that [abuse] healed so we don’t go on talking about them anymore – that you forgive those people that hurt us in that way.” If some of these Aboriginal people are being pushed to speak out, it could actually hurt them by making them do something they’re not ready for.
In addition, “talking it out” takes two. Let’s be honest here. Talking to yourself can be therapeutic, but we are social human beings, and we need response. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is encouraging ex-students of residential schools to speak out their testimonies, but are they also ensuring that the other side of the discussion is ready to receive it? We, as a nation, are the audience. If we are not ready to hear and own up to all the terrible things that happened in the residential schools, it’s not fair to the school survivors to make them talk.
I really like the idea you have brought up here, and I can see your argument when you question if talking about one’s problems is really the best way to deal with them. You bring up many questions that I have asked myself already like if the government has really gone to every ex-residential school student asking them to talk about their experiences in the residential schools. I would argue though that many of the people who did come out and talk about their experiences were people who felt the need to uncover the reality of what had happened in the residential school. As soon as many of these stories surfaced, the Canadian government found itself against a lot of trouble and discrimination from other countries around what had happened. It was never something that they encouraged people to come out about until recently. Even after stories surfaced, apologies never happened until 2008 showing that for a long time the Canadian government pushed the residential school issues off to side in hopes that it would be forgotten. The 2008 apology happened because of the large numbers of aboriginal people that kept speaking out willingly, and soon after this apology, the TRC, a government run organization, was created on June 1st, 2008. This was the first sign of support for the aboriginal people in regards to the residential schools, which furthers my arguments to say that the Canadian government never encouraged people to come out with their stories until recently.
Michael, you make a good point about the government’s role (or lack thereof) in encouraging the IRS survivors to speak out. You’re right; the government wasn’t all that happy about getting people to tell their stories, and I think it’s because they were afraid of what the Canadian people might say or how they might respond. While “talking it out” could go very well and solve conflicts and resolve misunderstandings, speaking out (the first half of talking it out) could cause a lot of anger and blame from the Canadian people directed towards the government. It took the government a while, but I’m glad that they have decided to assume responsibility for a lot of the terrible things that went on in the IRS by asking people to tell their stories.
I really enjoy your approach to the IRS TRC, it is very insightful. Your commentary on the concept of “talking it out” and how it really is not effective unless there is a response to witnessing is really applicable to many different things. I think that the idea of a nation or perpetrator who is not prepared to listen and respond is very valid in terms of the possibility of the TRC’s ineffectiveness. While there may be many in Canada who are prepared to listen and respond to the statements of the TRC, there are many more who may not be ready to face what has happened. The idea that “talking it out” is the only method for healing can be detrimental to those trying to find solace.
When dealing with concepts of “talking it out” I think that it is crucial that we address who is involved in the conversation and what they get out of it. When I mean is that “talking it out” does not occur only between two parties. The TRC for example, contains dialogues between first-hand residential school survivors and those new to the issue (such as myself,) as well conversations between those survivors to other survivors to undergo what is referred to as “intimate healing”. And also, as pointed out frequently in the responses of the MOA in class, we must account for what the government gains out of holding these sites of dialogue? Is it a sincere apology? or is it a form of separation from their old self who were the “imposers” of the system?
That’s a really good point; talking it out can definitely be between more than just two parties. I think the fact that the IRS survivors can have a community where they can talk to each other is so powerful; all of them have had a type of experience and can help each other cope through it. As for the government, I hate to say this, but I don’t think any government is 100% looking out for their people only. They need to protect themselves too. If Stephen Harper hadn’t apologized on behalf of the government, everyone would still be so mad. Even with the apology, some people are still mad. I think that the by holding these sites of dialogue, the government helps the Aboriginal people deal with their trauma, but they also protect themselves from the wrath of the people.