{"id":2900,"date":"2024-06-13T12:00:23","date_gmt":"2024-06-13T12:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cicp-pcpob\/?p=2900"},"modified":"2024-09-23T12:13:03","modified_gmt":"2024-09-23T16:13:03","slug":"reconciliation-realities-the-tensions-charities-are-navigating","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cicp-pcpob\/2024\/reconciliation-realities-the-tensions-charities-are-navigating\/","title":{"rendered":"Reconciliation Realities: The Tensions Charities are Navigating"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n

\n Reconciliation Realities: The Tensions Charities are Navigating\n <\/h1>\n \n \n <\/header>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Reconciliation is a term with deep historical significance and critical future aspirations, particularly in the context of relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Since the 2015 final report<\/a> from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, sectors across Canada, including philanthropy, have been examining their roles in advancing reconciliation. The Philanthropic Community\u2019s Declaration of Action<\/a> highlighted this as \u201can opportune moment\u201d for Canada\u2019s charitable community to lead in reconciliation. However, reconciliation efforts remain complex within the charitable sector, as revealed in our recent survey<\/a> that explores the roles and challenges charities face in this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charities\u2019 Perceived Roles in Supporting Reconciliation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Responses from our panellists indicate a strong endorsement for collaboration with Indigenous communities as the sector\u2019s role in supporting reconciliation, with 72% of participants supporting this initiative. Although significant percentages also back initiatives for open discussions (61%) and training (57%), a comparatively smaller group (42%) prioritizes direct resource allocation to Indigenous initiatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Open-ended responses from our survey results showcase a broad spectrum of perspectives on charities\u2019 role in reconciliation. A number of comments draw out an important issue – the conceptual boundary between charity and justice. Some believe reconciliation involves systemic change and justice, while others advocate for a role that involves staying apolitical, focusing solely on humanitarian aid:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cEngage in active decolonization and anti-racism work at levels of policy, programs, processes, etc.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCharities cannot be involved in politics – charities are there to help others.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Some panellists added that the role of the charitable sector in reconciliation should be determined by the mission and location of individual organizations, while others emphasize that the appropriate approach should be to treat all groups equally:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cI think that would vary largely depending on the mission and purpose of the organization and its location relative to Indigenous populations.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn discussion with Indigenous clients, I hear that they don’t want to be singled out, simply treated with respect and dignity.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

These varying perspectives highlight that interpretations of the charitable sector\u2019s roles in supporting reconciliation are ideologically charged and highly variable, which is further underscored by their diverse perspectives on the barriers in this process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenges Facing Charities in Supporting Reconciliation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The perceived barriers in supporting reconciliation efforts identified in our survey could fall into four main categories: physical, psychological, emotional, and ideological.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Physical barriers<\/em><\/strong>: Resource challenges are most common, with 42% of our respondents citing insufficient financial resources, 17% noting a lack of awareness of Indigenous-led organizations, and 12% acknowledging limited understanding of Indigenous history and cultures. Additional text responses elaborate on other practical difficulties, such as geographical distances for face-to-face meetings and the challenge of finding Indigenous staff and volunteers:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cThere is no time to devote to doing this meaningfully when you are always scrambling with your regular workload.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOur organization has not directly been involved in supporting reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. However it is mainly due to our limited staffing and funds.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cChallenges finding Indigenous artists and culture bearers who are available for work or who have the skills necessary.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Psychological barriers<\/em><\/strong>: Issues of trust and prejudice are also significant, with 29% of our panel respondents reporting difficulty forming meaningful partnerships with Indigenous-led organizations and 21% facing challenges in building trust with Indigenous communities. As shared by some panellists:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cIndigenous clients won’t self-identify as Indigenous due to fear of being treated differently. They just want to be treated as all people. They appreciate curiosity and are happy to educate and inform those who want to learn.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFirst Nation Councils REJECT any linkage to our charitable organization.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cRacism in the community that supports us. We have both internal and external pressures to not engage. And to be frank, many of these people think any BIPOC or even non white Christian strait long time in Canada communities should be engaged with.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Emotional barriers<\/em><\/strong>: Feelings of guilt or fear of aggravating the situation are also evidenced, with 4% of respondents citing internal resistance to organizational change necessary for reconciliation. As one panellist further explains, they want to do reconciliation right, but they fear that doing it wrong can cause them to appear inactive:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cFear of taking up space, fear of standing in front of rather than supporting from the back. We want to do this right, but our fear of doing it wrong can cause us to appear inactive.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Ideological barriers: <\/em><\/strong>These might be the most significant factor affecting all other barriers. This involves different understandings of the meaning of reconciliation, what it entails, or what the right approach might be. In our survey, this is evidenced by 31% of respondents reporting that they struggle with prioritizing reconciliation amidst other organizational goals and demands. Additional comments also reveal that internal conflicts and differing opinions on the path forward are prominent ideological tensions within charities engaged in reconciliation. For instance, the inclusion of an Indigenous board member whose views diverge from the mainstream can leave the rest \u201cconflicted and confused.\u201d In another case, there is notable resistance among members when it comes to agreeing on reconciliation strategies, which complicates decision-making and implementation:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u201cWe have an indigenous board member but his ideals do not necessary align with the “popular” ones and this leaves us conflicted and confused\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cResistance by section of membership (but not all) or differing opinions of what the \u2018right\u2019 way forward is.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Looking forward<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As analyzed so far, our survey findings raise more questions than solutions about what role the sector should play in supporting reconciliation, particularly the ideological tension between charity and justice. As noted by Senator Murray Sinclair<\/a>, the former head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, reconciliation cannot be achieved \u201cwhen one side sees it as an act of benevolence and one side as a recognition of rights.\u201d<\/em> Perhaps a starting point is recognizing that both justice and charity support one crucial element: human dignity. In the efforts to build a society where everyone truly belongs, we must accept that reconciliation is an ongoing journey, not a finished project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n

\n Author\n <\/h2>\n\n <\/header>\n \n
\n \n\n \n
\n
\n \"\"\n <\/figure>\n \n
\n

\n Nguyen, Thi Kim Quy\n <\/h2>\n <\/header>\n\n
\n