In Naomi Angel’s article, “Before Truth: The Labors of Testimony and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission” she discusses testimony, memory, and remembering in relation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Though we had discussed the TRC earlier in the year in ASTU as well as in Sociology, reading this article now after gaining more of an understanding of issues related to the TRC (such as remembering, identity, and silences) made me look at the issue differently. One of the main points that I took away from the article was the connected roles of being both a witness and testifier of trauma. In relation to Angel’s article one definition of being a witness could be that someone has gone through and experienced oppression, “surviving violent conflict and injustice” (Angel 200). While a definition of being a testifier could be, someone who breaks the silence of the oppression, there by giving voice to the “long denied” ( Angel 200).
In the article it is brought up that naturally people can “occupy this dual role” (Angel 200), especially through initiatives such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission National events, the Belkin Art gallery exhibit – “Witness: Art and Canada’s Indian Residential Schools”, as well as the exhibit “Speaking to Memory: Images and Voices from St. Michael’s Residential School” at the Museum of Anthropology (MOA). In all three of these initiatives aboriginal people can both voice their stories and highlight the fact that they have experienced oppression, there by occupying both the role of the witness and testifier. I found this to be particularly true at the MOA exhibit, because of the way the space allowed for aboriginal people affected by the St. Michael’s residential school to take on both roles. On one wall there were quotes from some of the students of the school, as direct testimony of their experience, and on a second wall facing the quotes hung pictures taken by Beverly Brown, as photographic testimony of the children who witnessed the atrocities, but may not outright testify their experiences. 
One of Beverly Brown’s photographs on display in the exhibit “Speaking to Memory: Images and Voices from St. Michael’s Residential School” at MOA.
What I found very interesting in Angel’s article was the explanation of a third role – listener. She writes that “in many cases, non – indigenous Canadians were not the intended audience for these testimonies. Indigenous family members and communities were often the direct audience with non – indigenous Canadians playing an in direct secondary role as listeners.” ( Angel 209) I found that this idea could be applied to Wah’s Diamond Grill, because of the way the novel’s intend audience appears to be his family, and people who too feel as through they are “living in the hyphen” (Wah 53). Wah writes the testimony of his life, and families life directed to his family, while other readers could be perceived as the “listener” to his story, much like some of the TRC events. It becomes apparent that all there roles: witness, testifier and listener are needed in order to work towards reconciliation.
Claire, you definitely bring up an excellent point about the need for the three roles of testifier, witness and listener to coalesce in order to make progress towards reconciliation. Indeed, the weight of responsibility in the TRC events should not just fall on the testifiers, as those that are bearing witnessing trauma must be willing to actively recognize the injustices inherent in the treatment of Aboriginal communities. They must be open to acknowledging their own involvement within this past and to examine how they themselves perpetuate the exclusion of these minority groups. At the same time, I agree with your argument that some TRC exhibitions like the one that we saw at the Museum of Anthropology are now breaking down those seemingly fixed roles, allowing the exchanging of stories and thus enabling listeners to take on the role of testifiers. For instance, the memory books and the memory box in the MOA exhibition gave the audience the opportunity to reflect on the events and thus contribute their own thoughts. Personally, regardless of the roles taken, it is this form of genuine critical engagement in the hardships of marginalized communities that is necessary for reconciliation to occur.