Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation, from Canada to Carolina
This week's column:
Armed with what probably was the only Southern accent within several dozen kilometers (maybe more), I spent a recent Friday afternoon before a room full of Canadians ... discussing Greensboro.
The occasion was a conference on the first Truth and Reconciliation project in Canadian history. The site was the University of Calgary, a pristine, leafy-green college campus in the still-rugged western province of Alberta, which borders Montana and Idaho to the south, and whose gentle hills and cool, misty afternoons were a welcome respite from the Carolina heat.
The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation initiative involves a shameful chapter in that country’s history when it forcibly removed First Nations, or Indian, children from their parents and placed them in what came to be known as “residential schools.”
In concert with various churches the Canadian government used these schools to teach First Nations children reading, writing and arithmetic. And to unteach their native language and culture
.
Indian Residential Schools date back to 1857 in Canada, when the Gradual Civilization Act was passed to assimilate First Nations children.
In 1920, the Canadian government mandated by law that all Indian children ages 7-15 attend residential schools.
Priests, Indian agents and police officers were empowered to remove these children from their families.
Many of the students went on to suffer sexual and physical abuse at the hands of the adults in those schools. Some tearfully recalled their experiences, in person and on videotape, at the Calgary conference. Their testimony was as compelling as it was painful.
Each said he or she had taken the scars into adulthood and, in most cases, even old age.
Tears flowed into the tiny eddies of their wrinkled brown faces. Voices cracked.
The reminiscences were so upsetting for some that counselors were on hand to provide comfort.
The Canadian government, for its part, has agreed to a $4 billion settlement with the Indians who attended residential schools, the last of which did not close until 1996.
It has not apologized.
The magnitude of the settlement seems staggering only until you consider the sweeping impact of the residential schools. All told, Canada built 130 residential schools that enrolled 150,000 children. Nine out of 10 Canadian Indians know someone who attended, people who, understandably, are called “survivors” rather than graduates or alumni.
The monetary settlement sets aside $1.9 billion for “common experience” payments that include $10,000 to each survivor for the first year spent in a residential school and $3,000 for each additional year. Those who suffered sexual and physical abuse are eligible for additional compensation.
Interestingly, reparations are only the beginning of the Truth and Reconciliation effort in Canada. The Indians I saw and heard from seemed to care as much about telling their stories as the money. Maybe more.
As for my role in the conference, it was to share my perceptions of the first Truth and Reconciliation initiative in U.S. history. The one in Greensboro.
My focus: the role media and local blogs played in the story.
Some members of the audience, which contained representatives of First Nations tribes from across Canada, plus scores of foreign visitors from Ireland, South Africa, Peru and Australia, knew about Nov. 3, 1979.
They had heard about the ugly clash of Klansmen and Neo-Nazis and Communist demonstrators that left five of the protesters dead and 10 others wounded. And they had heard, incredibly, that no criminal convictions resulted from the incident, which was captured by TV news crews.
Beyond those basics, I briefly summarized how the community had greeted the Truth and Reconciliation effort in Greensboro.
I told them about the heated debate, from day one, on whether such an effort was necessary.
I told them how the community had divided into four basic camps about Nov. 3:
• Those who alleged they didn’t care, yet wrote venomous op-eds and blog comments against the TRC.
• Those who feared such an inquiry would smear Greensboro’s reputation and hurt economic recruitment.
• Those who believed the incident solely involved radical outsiders and had absolutely nothing to do with Greensboro.
• Those who passionately supported TRC, and who worked hard to see it succeed, although they did not agree on the thrust and the findings of the commission.
I told them that the News & Record had editorially supported the Truth and Reconciliation concept, arguing that the commission should be judged on the quality, completeness and accuracy of its findings, not prejudged for asking hard but legitimate questions.
I told them that the Internet and local bloggers had enriched and deepened the discussion from all points of view.
I told them that the newspaper had been vilified for covering TRC too little.
I told them that the newspaper had been vilified for covering TRC too much.
I told them that the TRC’s final report was on the whole, thorough, thoughtful and balanced.
I told them that, yes, I could take issue with some passages, but who couldn’t find something to disagree with in 500-plus pages?
I told them that the City Council had said it would read the report and respond — that it had directed the Human Relations Commission to play a part in that process.
I told them that council then reneged on those directives — and ultimately did nothing.
No apologies.
No acknowledgments.
No nothing.
I told them that the point wasn’t whether the council agreed or disagreed with the findings, but that at least it could react in some meaningful way, yea or nay, to its conclusions.
I told them that the council was turning a deaf ear to TRC even as it continues to wrangle with some of the report’s major themes: distrust of police, distrust of government and distrust of one another.
I told them this doesn’t mean that my hometown is a bad place. It really isn’t. That Greensboro is uncommonly charitable. That it helped spawn the sit-in movement. That most of its citizens are decent and honorable people.
I am not so sure they were convinced.
When it came to TRC, the City Council had covered its eyes and its ears and hoped it would disappear.
Instead of stepping up it had turned its back. And walked away.
Comments (23)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Allen,
The N&R decided not to take an active role in looking/reviewing carefully the facts around Nov. 3rd over the last five years. You had the resources to review the facts including interviews with participants, legal reviews of the transcripts and records of all three trials. When you say: "I told them that the TRC's final report was on the whole, thorough, thoughtful and balanced" are you saying that the state murder trial was an example of "injustice in the justice system?" Some Greensboro outsiders (and obviously many local TRC supporters) think that the State and Federal trials were sort of comparable to classic southern injustice trials like the trial of Emmett Till.
It seems for one to support your statement one must either accept what the Report says at almost face value or one has to independently research the history of the three trials and other valuable evidence. Any chance that the N&R might actually plunge into the water and research the three trials with careful review of the existing transcripts, records and participants? The GTRC and the GTCRP have started the important conversation about Nov. 3rd. The question remains do we as a community want to continue the conversation that could at some point lead to some community reconciliation.
I think the effort towards community reconciliation requires us to continue the conversation, build upon the Report, critique the Report, find new evidence, carefully research important trial evidence basically overlooked by the Commission, bring in more personal stories from people working in the textile mills and living at Morningside Homes. In other words this ball of community reconciliation may be in all of our courts. It would be wonderful for the N&R to actively engage the process with your many resources and include area history departments, the Elon Law School and the broad Greensboro community. The N&R's full engagement would be far more helpful than any decision reached by the City Council.
Posted on July 1, 2007 2:30 PM
I forgot above to thank you for the report from the Calgary discussion.
Thanks!!
Posted on July 1, 2007 2:35 PM
Allen, Please tell me when the Council voted to direct the Human Relations Commission to be involved in reviewing the TRC report. I think you will find they didn't. While the Mayor might have mentioned it, a majority of the Council told him we did not want to do it in this fashion. I have said many times that if a councilmember wanted us to address any issues mentioned in the report, they should bring up those issues for us to discuss and if the Council wanted to we could ask the HRC to give us input on those issues. I think we have been very clear on our position. You just don't like it
Posted on July 1, 2007 11:33 PM
Forcing kids to a school based on somebody else's politics is always a bad deal, wouldn't you think so, Allen? Unless of course, those politics happen to be yours, in which case you wouldn't think so.
Sigh. (this is something I picked up from you. I like it)
Posted on July 2, 2007 9:15 AM
Mr. Phillips, who are you talking about when you say, "we have been very clear on our position"? It sounds like you mean that the white council members (with the exception, perhaps, of Sandra Anderson Groat) have been clear, but I'm not even sure that is an accurate statement when it comes to intentions about reading and considering the TRC report. In an Oct. 9, 2005 column, Ed Cone quoted Sandy Carmany as saying, "I'm waiting for the report." Florence Gatten said that she had a "responsibility to study and comprehend the end product." And Ed said that you would read the report and quoted you, "If we as a council think it is worthwhile, we'll consider it." When we juxtapose those statements with what has actually happened (or not happened) in the aftermath of the report's release, I'm frankly left quite unclear on what your position, and that of some of your white council colleagues, has been all along. Perhaps you decided that the report was not "worthwhile" after all. If that is the case, don't you have a responsibility to tell us publicly why you judged it so?
Posted on July 2, 2007 11:33 AM
Relevant excerpt from July 18, 2006 meeting:
Mayor: "Is there any desire on anybody' s besides my part to get the Human Relations Commission involved?"
Several council members: "Oh yeah.
Yvonne Johnson: "I think that's a good idea. I think we should, maybe if those of us who want to discuss this further ought to have the Human Relations Commission and us sit down and..."
Mayor: "Oh, I'm happy to attend."
Tom Phillips: "I don't think we should just hand this to Human Relations Commission and say go at it. I think we need to pick out things that we agree and agree upon that we want them to look into and give them a specific charge on specific issues rather than just, here, you guys come back and tell us something, because I don't think we'll make any progress that way, I think we..."
Mayor: [gesturing to Anderson Groat] "Well, it goes back to your - you mentioned about setting some goals and expectations."
Sandra Anderson Groat: "Yes, set some goals and be accountable."
Mayor: "In that case, would y'all mind if I put a few things down on paper and get it to you in the next few days?"
Yvonne Johnson: "And we can call you, and..."
Mayor Holliday: "Yeah, and about here's maybe some frameworks, if I can get some agreement then we'll send that to them?"
[discussion veers into whether HRC has yet reviewed the TRC report.]
Posted on July 2, 2007 1:42 PM
Councilman Phillips:
I believe the ball is in your court?
Posted on July 2, 2007 2:43 PM
if they only would have built the nelson statue..that would have helped so much!
Posted on July 3, 2007 9:17 AM
I've missed you Chewie. The key phrase is "pick out things we agree on". I have suggested to the TRC supporters on the Council that they bring up specific issues they want the Council to address. Instead we only get an "all or nothing" resolution that they knew they didn't have the votes for in the first place. It seems to me that they just wanted to make a political statement. I admit that I haven't seen any issues I want to send to the HRC, but that doesn't mean that they can't be discussed. The ball is actually in the court of the councilmembers who support the TRC.
Posted on July 3, 2007 8:44 PM
With all due respect, what a cop-out, Tom.
Several council members suggested that they would reserve comment on the report until it was complete and they'd had a chance to read it.
Well, it was completed.
They say they read it.
A response to the report, pro or con, is a reasonable expectation of the council from a group of citizens.
You're saying there is absolutely nothing in the report that merits further discussion, in your opinion?
Posted on July 4, 2007 10:09 PM
Allen, Read my comment. I didn't say I wouldn't discuss issues. You need to talk to Yvoone, Goldie or Diane. Why do they refuse to bring up specific issues in the report. I don't think they really want to. Goldie's resolution had failed before it was even introduced and she knew it. I believe it was political posturing so they could get credit without having to do anything.
Posted on July 5, 2007 12:44 AM
OK, Tom, you're a straight shooter. So let's cut to the chase: Did you read the TRC report and, if so, what are your reactions ... and why?
Posted on July 5, 2007 10:26 AM
Allen,
Again, is there not some more direct role the N&R could play to help attract a broader community discussion around the history and background of Nov. 3rd?
Posted on July 5, 2007 11:39 AM
What do you have in mind, John?
Posted on July 5, 2007 11:57 AM
My understanding is that the Human Relations Commission had no real energy or general support among its own members to move forward with broader discussions around the T&R Report. The previous three "community discussions" held by the GTCRP and to some extent the Greensboro Public Library have remained somewhat just singing to the GTRC choir.
I still hold out some hope for some broader community discussions that allow the huge diversity of opinion around Nov. 3rd to gather a few times for an attempt at dialogue and even a flicker of community reconciliation. The Ireland Healing Through Remembering Project (see -- http://www.healingthroughremembering.org:80/ ) had as a main goal to honor the deep social and political differences.
I realize that the blogs and some op-ed pieces have provided some outlet for alternative perspectives but can the N&R along with others help put together some attempts at better dialogue across the barricades.
Posted on July 5, 2007 2:21 PM
John, isn't this the purpose of the town hall meetings they've been holding? How would this differ?
Posted on July 5, 2007 2:31 PM
John, isn't this the purpose of the town hall meetings they've been holding? How would this differ?
Posted on July 5, 2007 2:32 PM
Allen, no doubt that community reconciliation around Nov. 3rd will require ongoing dialogue with the GTCRP and using some valuable information in the T&R Report but the broader community has not been engaged by the three town hall meeting. Some in depth investigative journalism, some interviews with former Morningside Home residents, some interviews with former textile employees who had interactions with the WVO/CWP, some interviews with people who observed the trials and participated in the trials could help add greater clarity around Nov. 3rd. Also if the N&R hosted a few community conversations, along with some other co-sponsoring groups, and you actively tried to reach out and gather a broader group of participants and attenders I think you may be more successful getting broader community representation. It may also be that I am overly optimistic and that little interest exists around the ongoing struggle for some community reconciliation and healing concerning Nov. 3rd.
Posted on July 5, 2007 5:50 PM
John, as you may know, we're already doing this in a broader sense in the One Guilford initiative. We had the first meeting in May at High Point University and the next is scheduled for Guilford College in October.
Some of the same themes have emerged that were in the TRC report, as we try to help the community work toward a common vision.
As for your suggestion about investigative journalism, John Robinson would have to address that. That's his department.
Posted on July 5, 2007 5:58 PM
Allen, I read the executive summary which I felt was very biased and I saw no need to read any further. I find the discussion about community involvement interesting. This project has been trying to get traction unsuccessfully since day one. Nelson Johnson is trying to relate anything and everything to TRC, for example TDBS, to try and keep it alive. It's time to take it off life support.
Posted on July 6, 2007 1:12 AM
What did you find biased in the summary? Did you read Bob Peters' concurring opinion?
Do you think it's entirely fair to dismiss the TRC as "a crock" without reading the whole report?
By the way, I agree with you about Nelson. He's connected dots where there are none.
But he didn't write the report.
Posted on July 6, 2007 10:09 AM
I do agree with you ,Allen, that Bob Peter's differing opinion is important and that some valuable information is found in some of the details of the complete Report. But to get to a balanced interpretation you need to also read the statements given to or presented before the Commission.
The chapter "Injustice in the Justice System" is not balanced and fair without also reading Judge Long's statement, the statements given by defense attorneys Percy Wall, Bob Cahoon and Hal Greeson and the statements given by Mike Schlosser and other prosecuting attorneys. If all that information is read and absorbed (and it does not exist in the Report) then we begin to get a balanced picture. Allen I disagree that the chapter "Injustice in the Justice System" is "thorough, balanced and fair."
Scatter around in several locations are most of the transcripts of the State trial. Those transcripts are crucial to any fair understanding of how the jury rationally reached its conclusions. We will have even more balance and much more knowledge once the transcripts themselves are sufficiently researched. Hey what a great project for the N&R!
Posted on July 6, 2007 12:17 PM
John:
I don't disagree with you. I said the report was thoughtful and balanced, "on the whole." In 500 pages, you can find plenty to disagree with. I certainly did. I even disagree with part of the executive summary.
But I find a lot of the report helpful and insightful.
Posted on July 6, 2007 1:32 PM