To learn more or purchase a Acts poster, please visit acts. There have been robust discussions this year around reconciliation and we would like to contribute to the conversation. Together, we have written Acts of Reconciliation for the last days of Many of these are small, everyday acts that average Canadians can undertake, but others are more provocative that encourage people to think about Indigenous-settler relationships in new ways.
We encourage you to use Acts to share your engagement with each item on the list.
Free content & tools
To download a printable. Text: Erica Violet Lee. Artwork: Anonymous by request. Her research focuses on the history of residential schools in the Canadian North during the postwar period. Sara Komarnisky is a post-doctoral fellow in History at the University of Alberta and is of Ukrainian settler heritage. Have you looked into translating this document into French?
We would appreciate it if this could be edited. Is this list available in print format and could you post it on this website? This would make it even easier to share far ans wide! Thanks for all the work that went into creating this!!
Hello, I am so into doing some of these! However, personally not sure why supporting BLM is going to help anything with regard to this though? I have been very vocal about peoples rights, but I also do not believe in the tactics used by them nor in the funding they receive from George Soros. I understand that they have been supporting FN but so do many non agressive people too. I have been seeing a lot of external politics being mixed in with FN affairs, on many pages on fb as well.
Asking to support perhaps a non agressive FN organization would have been more apropriate no? Who am I to say though, this is merely a suggestion. But after seeing the article further down that was race baiting on this site, I am wary of posting this now. Thank you for this. Now I have some ideas of how to move forward.
- Managing Self-Harm: Psychological Perspectives!
- Crisis, Reconciliation, and the Personal!
- Economic Sociology: An Introduction.
- The Color of Water!
- Too Much, Too Soon?: Early Learning and the Erosion of Childhood (Early Years Series);
- Emerging Directions in Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing: EUC 2007 Workshops: TRUST, WSOC, NCUS, UUWSN, USN, ESO, and SECUBIQ, Taipei, Taiwan, December 17-20, 2007. Proceedings!
- The Signifying Body: Toward an Ethics of Sexual and Racial Difference (S U N Y Series in Gender Theory).
As non-Indigenous I am struggling with some of the ideas presented here. I am trying to understand how I can support the community but some of this comes across very one-sided. Employee : I'm so sorry to interrupt, but I'm getting messages that we're having a little hard time hearing the question on the phone, so if you could repeat it after giving you a private microphone. Employee : Having federal agencies as clients for decades is great [inaudible] but not a lot of great things that federal agencies do for the people [inaudible].
At what point in time do you decide that this might not be the best decision for the world to see as taking them on as a client [inaudible].
- Meaningful concepts and possible realities!
- Color atlas of clinical dermathology;
- References in: Trust, Our Second Nature: Crisis, Reconciliation, and the Personal - PhilPapers.
- Holy Fools in Byzantium and Beyond (Oxford Studies in Byzantium).
Seifert : So, it's an excellent question. The question is essentially at what point might we decide not to serve a client, or not take on a client because we believe that either what they do or what they represent or how they operate is inconsistent with the standards of how we think most of the clients we serve should be. So we have, this is a real time pervasive issue. So, I helped when the BP business in I completely believed in BP as a company.monoservis.ru/includes/162.php
Acts of Reconciliation for the Last Days of Canada’s – Active History
I knew that BP had issues within their operating practices that were not perfect, from pipeline leaks in Alaska to a terrible explosion in a refinery in Texas City that 12 or 13 people died from, and the ultimate accident of the explosion of Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico.
There were protests, there were people all over the world that thought BP should be shut down. I worked with BP people at every level across the company for around the world and I knew the essentiality of this company. And I think that it is made them a better company and they are an essential part of the energy that the world needs. But there was a counterview that said "don't do business with big oil.
For years, we've had tobacco clients around the world. Very important businesses for us. There were many of us who felt that we should not work for tobacco companies. There were equally strong voices around the world who thought that that was a convenient American point of view and who was America to tell the Chinese, the French, the Germans, that they shouldn't be able to purchase tobacco products. Or, we serve tobacco companies. We have Coca-Cola, we are Coca-Cola's biggest global agency, in terms of assignments. There are many people who believe that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity, to diabetes, to whatever, right?
So, there's almost no client who walks a perfect line of doing nothing but good for the world.
So we make this choice every day. We make this choice everyday. And if we believed that any of these clients were fraudulent, that were knowingly selling products and services that, you know, we thought we could not reconcile in terms of the greater good, then we have a simple choice "don't work for them. Forty years ago when I started, no one was worried about anything but the joy of Coca-Cola and that company is transforming itself into a total beverages company as, you know, tastes change and consumer behavior changes.
So it's an ongoing issue all the time. Now the fact is when we got the assignment to work with Customs and Border Protection, the assignment they wanted for us to work on was very progressive. I don't go through a border in this country, I have to deal with them. I can't get global entry without their services. I can't come into the country without their services. We can't stop drugs and other things coming into the country without what they do. They do many good things. In my personal view, they are not a political organization.
They are overwhelmed by a group of politicians who do not have an effective immigration policy to deal with the number of people who are fleeing countries out of either persecution or poverty or abuse or whatever, and coming to a place they think they'll be safe. So, at the end of the day, my view is that that this organization itself is not necessarily a bad organization.
They are struggling to cope with a problem that has not been dealt with as a comprehensive solution from the US system. And so my view is our work is not the problem. I don't believe at its heart the organization is intended to be a bad organization and do harm to people but I also feel that it's overwhelmed with the challenges it faces and it's not performing well. And that's not the whole organization. That's that part of the organization that's trying to cope with a particular set of issues in this particular domain.
And do I put at risk the trust and confidence that every government agency might have in working with Ogilvy by, in theory, exposing information that I'm not technically allowed to expose? Or do I try and see things, with our strategy, monitor the situation, try and influence the information in a way that would where we would be recognized as not being party to the particular effort that was done, and see how this evolves in terms of how the client handles it, and ultimately, what implications it has for us in terms of clients, employees, so on, because if I were simply to authorize everyone to go out there publicly and say "this was not us," vilify this organization, we tear up our contract and refuse to work with this entity of the government.
I do not believe that would have been in the interest of Ogilvy, our people, or frankly, any of our clients, in terms of what message that would have sent.
Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation: Part II
But I'm happy to hear counterviews. Employee : So I think what I heard is that we're willing to work with companies that have oil spills. We're willing to work with companies that sell big tobacco. We're willing to work with companies that contribute to obesity rates and I guess, what I'm mostly hearing is that we're willing to work with companies that are allowing children to die and that are running concentration camps. Employee : So I don't know, so we'll work with anyone then, is what I'm hearing, and I feel like, I don't understand for me, and I don't understand why we can't pivot.
Seifert : Let me just see if I can help you understand drawing a line — auto companies allow people to die every single year. Employee: But they're responsible. It's on their watch that seven children have died in the last year. They are purposefully not given them what they needed in terms of care. Seifert : I understand but there are mechanisms for addressing that lack of performance that are beyond both the work we do for that client and frankly the accountability that we have for that client in terms of what they have come to Ogilvy for.
So my point is, I wouldn't deny anyone in this room or anyone on the phone their rights to go hold the government accountable or anything that you deem as not serving the public good. That's called peaceful protest, that's called you're exercising your right to vote for better choices. That's called having a voice. I went home yesterday in Grand Central station. There were a group of people with a big rope around them in the middle of Grand Central, who were protesting, saying, you know, "make ICE go away," basically, protesting, right?
And you have this gaggle of photographers that were all around them. At an individual level, I wouldn't deny anyone's right to exercise their voice and their point of view.