Guest editorial: Chasing truth and (Re)Conciliation: navigating contexts, tensions and consequences

Citation

Colbourne, R. and Peredo, A.M. (2024), "Guest editorial: Chasing truth and (Re)Conciliation: navigating contexts, tensions and consequences", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1001-1006. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2024-430

Since the 1970s, many governments have been forced to address the demands of thousands of victims of historical systemic violence. Commissions in search of the truth and considering means of reconciliation were established in many countries, including Argentina, Uganda, Chile, El Salvador, South Africa, Guatemala, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Ghana, East Timor, Peru, Rwanda, Morocco, Liberia and Canada, among others. These commissions typically focus on documenting the truth of what happened during periods of conflict, repression or systemic injustice, providing a platform for victims to share their experiences and recommending ways to address the consequences of these abuses. The underlying assumption of these efforts is that a shared understanding of past wrongs is crucial for reconciliation and the rebuilding of trust within societies.

However, the relationship between uncovering the truth and achieving reconciliation is complex and not always straightforward. While knowing the truth can be an essential part of healing, it does not automatically lead to reconciliation. Factors such as the nature of the disclosures, the responses from the perpetrators and the broader community and the social and political climate can influence the outcome. Moreover, the processes of these commissions can sometimes reopen old wounds or be perceived as insufficient or biased, complicating efforts toward national healing.

It was not until South Africa in 1995 that the word “reconciliation” was added to the title of commissions aimed at truth-seeking. It seems that the word “reconciliation” not only broadened the scope of these commissions but also added a level of accountability and possibilities for action, which heightened expectations regarding their outcomes. It suggested a dual commitment: to uncover the factual past and to actively facilitate the healing of societies torn by conflicts and injustices. Hayner states, “A truth commission can promote reconciliation, outline needed reforms, allow victims a cathartic airing of their pains, and represent an important, official acknowledgment of a long-silenced past” (1996, p. 19). In other words, reconciliation has been seen as a potential tool to deliver justice for people, communities and nations to live in the present and to move into a better future.

While reconciliation represents a significant global response against systemic violence and a tool for justice and lasting peace, each commission’s approach, successes and challenges vary, highlighting the nuanced and contextual nature of seeking truth and reconciliation in societies striving to overcome painful pasts.

In Canada, Indigenous community members and their allies gathered in 2021 during the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to reflect on residential schools' dark legacy and call on all Canadians to understand and act on the legacies of colonization. Murray Sinclair, former Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, stated that “getting to the truth was hard, but getting to the reconciliation is going to be harder” (Sinclair, 2021). Wakerakatste Louise McDonald Herne, Bear Clan Mother for the Mohawk Nation Council, called on Canadians to “know the history of this country and the corruption it was built upon. You need to correct the wrongs, and you have to own your own truth” (CBC, 2021). Algonquin Elder Claudette Commanda observed that the discovery of unmarked graves near former residential school sites has awakened the country to its history, “Two-hundred and fifteen little voices woke the country, 215 voices spoke to the world,” (CBC, 2021). National Chief RoseAnne Archibald declared that acknowledging the past is only a first step toward reconciliation and that “[t]rue reconciliation is about learning, sharing and growing as a country.” Governor-General Mary May Simon avowed that Canadians need to face

uncomfortable truths … [and that as] we strive to acknowledge the horrors of the past, the suffering inflicted on Indigenous peoples, let us all stand side-by-side with grace and humility, and work together to build a better future for all … [r]econciliation is a way of life, continuous, with no end date. It is learning from our lived experiences and understanding one another. It is creating the necessary space for us to heal. It is planting seeds of hope and respect so that our garden blooms for our children (CBC, 2021).

The Elders are highlighting the fact that true healing and moving forward can only occur when society collectively acknowledges its past and commits to rectifying historical wrongs in a manner that honors the dignity of those affected. Younger Indigenous Peoples in the classroom are asking whether reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada is just about to turn the page and decrease barriers to full participation in mainstream Canadian society.

What does reconciliation really mean? These experiences and sentiments are not unique to Canada’s Indigenous Peoples. Globally, the lived experiences of Indigenous Peoples are characterized by a shared history of dispossession (loss of land, resources, sovereignty, language and culture), delegitimization and suppression (Indigenous ways of knowing and being), anti-Indigenous racism, forced assimilation and formal systemic exclusion (limited or no access to socioeconomic participation, education and engagement) (Alfred, 2023; Colbourne, 2017; Henry et al., 2017; Newhouse, 2001; Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Peredo, 2023). Indigenous Peoples and communities worldwide are demanding a reckoning and a dismantling of anti-Indigenous racist settler-colonial institutions and compensation and return of lands. Truth and reconciliation commissions have been established in many countries with large populations of Indigenous Peoples such as Peru, El Salvador and Guatemala (Peredo, 2019). Indigenous Peoples and their communities in these regions have been the target of political violence, while populations and elites in big cities were unaware of Indigenous genocide taking place in marginalized rural and urban areas (Degregori et al., 2012). In Australia, a mobilization of Aboriginal Peoples in 1972 called attention to their situation of dispossession and the danger of their cultural survival, which led to the creation of the Council for Reconciliation of Indigenous Peoples and the establishment of the Sorry Day in 1998 (Short, 2003). Countries such as Uganda set up truth commissions after the displacement; more than 1.6 million people (Quinn, 2006), many of them probably Indigenous, were legally recognized by the government.

While TRC commissions as tools symbolize hope for a new start and have been implemented in diverse socio-cultural contexts, their effectiveness has been questioned. Over the past 30 years, settler states have responded with settler state-centric commissions or institutional mechanisms of “truth” and “reconciliation” that seek to move past and draw a line under legacies of colonization (Coulthard, 2014). These commissions are characterized by (1) conflicts and tensions related to recognizing the breadth and depth of historical settler-colonial injustices and the cross-generational effects on Indigenous Peoples, (2) government attempts to reassert sovereignty and legal authority over Indigenous Peoples and their claims (Coulthard, 2014) and (3) attempt to legitimate anti-Indigenous policies and practices and delegitimize Indigenous Peoples' perspectives and critiques of colonization and oppression (Corntassel et al., 2009, p. 139; Jung, 2010). In reality, while truth and reconciliation commissions might signal a commitment to addressing historical wrongs and challenging anti-Indigenous systemic barriers that perpetuate settler state injustices, the lack of clear calls for action and accountability serves to silence Indigenous voices, reinforce state sovereignty and (re)colonize the Indigenous Peoples it was meant to reconcile with (Alfred, 2023; Corntassel et al., 2009; Coulthard, 2014). The articles appearing in this special issue highlight the critical role of truth recovery, recognition and reconciliation efforts in addressing historical and ongoing injustices of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. By examining diverse contexts – from epistemic coloniality in Latin America, and settler colonialism in Palestine, to the Victorian treaty process in Australia – they underscore the necessity of inclusive and transformative approaches to reconciliation. These discussions are essential for fostering understanding, healing and building a better future for all communities affected by colonization.

Firstly, “Yoorrook: truth telling in the Victorian Treaty process,” authored by Kevin James Moore, Pauline Stanton, Shea X. Fan, Mark Rose and Mark Jones, critically examines the Yoo-rook Justice Commission within the context of the Victorian Treaty process in Australia, which represents a significant step toward recognizing the sovereignty of traditional owners and promoting self-determination and empowerment. Moore et al. identify three key challenges for the Yoo-rook Commission: (1) the persistent resistance within influential sections of the Australian community to acknowledge and accept responsibility for colonial violence, (2) the trauma experienced by those who recount their painful histories and (3) the pervasiveness of institutional racism that infects and poisons all Australians. Despite these obstacles, the Yoo-rook Commission presents a unique opportunity to advance the self-determination of First Peoples by capturing their lived experiences and holding government officials accountable. The paper situates Yoo-rook within the broader international context of truth and justice commissions, emphasizing the importance of contextually appropriate, locally focused approaches that can address both historical and contemporary injustices. By examining the experiences of Indigenous peoples in Canada, the USA and New Zealand, the authors argue that truth-telling processes must challenge neoliberal models of transitional justice that often fail to address long-term structural inequities and colonial harms. The Victorian Treaty process and the establishment of Yoo-rook are further contextualized within the national landscape, highlighting the rejection of the 2023 referendum for a First Peoples Voice to federal parliament. This outcome underscores the necessity of truth-telling in fostering a national reckoning with Australia’s colonial past. Moore et al. conclude by emphasizing the critical role of the Yoo-rook Commission in holding senior government officials to account, supporting those who share their traumatic stories and advocating for institutional and policy reforms. Through these efforts, Yoo-rook contributes to the broader goals of self-determination and decolonization for First Peoples in Australia, offering a model for other states to follow.

In “From infamy to truth. Epistemic coloniality and knowledges in resistance: an approach to the cases of Inés Fernández Ortega and Valentina Rosendo Cantú,” Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez examines the regime of truth within institutional commissions, highlighting their role in perpetuating epistemic coloniality and epistemic violence. These commissions, intended to restore history with democratic, equitable and inclusive criteria, often reinforce colonial and hegemonic power structures by maintaining social hierarchies based on race, class and gender. Through the cases of Inés Fernández Ortega and Valentina Rosendo Cantú, Indigenous women from Guerrero who endured sexual assault by military personnel, Martínez exposes the material conditions and prejudices that reproduce serious human rights violations. Despite facing epistemic violence, such as language barriers and systemic discrimination, Inés Fernández Ortega and Valentina Rosendo Cantú sought justice through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ruled in their favor and mandated accountability from the Mexican state. The author reveals how truth commissions in Mexico are intertwined with mechanisms of power that perpetuate established relationships based on race, social class and gender. Martínez critiques these commissions for legitimizing the state’s narrative while marginalizing the voices and experiences of the victims, thereby perpetuating epistemic violence. The author emphasizes the need for decolonial approaches that recognize and address the ongoing impacts of epistemic coloniality on Indigenous populations. The perseverance of Inés Fernández Ortega and Valentina Rosendo Cantú in seeking justice illustrates how truth and justice can challenge and dismantle colonial and patriarchal power structures. It underscores the importance of ongoing advocacy and resistance against systemic injustices rooted in epistemic violence, highlighting the need to dismantle the epistemic regimes that sustain these injustices.

Brendan Ciarán Browne’s article, “Reclaiming truth recovery against the backdrop of ongoing Zionist settler colonialism in Palestine,” argues for a reorientation of truth recovery practices amidst the persistent violence of Zionist settler colonialism. Browne critiques the prevailing approach that often prioritizes the expression of settler guilt over meaningful reparative conversations. They emphasize that since 1948, Israeli governments have systematically marginalized Palestinian narratives to delegitimize justice demands, especially the right of return, employing methods such as historical revisionism, destruction of physical evidence and the criminalization of Nakba commemoration. Browne highlights the vital role of grassroots NGOs like BADIL Resource Center, Grassroots Al Quds and Zochrot in documenting and preserving Palestinian history, challenging state-sponsored erasure. They challenge the Western-centric transitional justice model, arguing it often reinforces rather than disrupts colonial structures. Effective transitional justice, Browne asserts, should elevate Palestinian life and resist settler colonial logic. In examining the contested narratives of 1948, they note that Israeli state narratives frequently downplay or deny the extent of violence and displacement, underscoring the power dynamics in the politics of memory. Brown concludes that truth recovery must be part of a broader decolonial effort to reverse and repair the damage inflicted by Zionist settler colonialism. This effort should be led by Palestinians, incorporating diverse voices to ensure comprehensive and meaningful decolonial discourse. Browne calls for a critical reflection on the role of truth recovery in ongoing settler colonial contexts, advocating for practices that genuinely support decolonial objectives and disrupt Zionist settler colonialism, thereby fostering structural changes necessary for true decolonization.

Collectively, these articles enhance our understanding of the intricate processes of truth recovery and reconciliation within settler-colonial contexts. They underscore the critical importance of recognizing and rectifying historical injustices, supporting Indigenous sovereignty and promoting inclusive and transformative reconciliation strategies. The discussions in this special issue are vital for advancing understanding, facilitating healing and constructing a more equitable future for all communities impacted by colonization. They underscore the reality that reconciliation is a dynamic, ongoing process demanding persistent effort and dedication. Through our contributions, we aim to enrich the ongoing dialog on reconciliation, emphasizing that it is a continuous journey that necessitates steadfast commitment and proactive engagement.