Sharing the Land, Sharing a Future: The Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples ed. by Katherine A. H. Graham and David Newhouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Sharing the Land, Sharing a Future: The Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples ed. by Katherine A. H. Graham and David Newhouse Adam Thomas Murry Sharing the Land, Sharing a Future: The Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Edited by Katherine A. H. Graham and David Newhouse. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2021. ix + 487 pp. Figures, tables, index. $31.95 paper. Sharing the Land, Sharing a Future is an essential read for any scholar, government official, or student that is interested in the ways the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (RCAP, 1996) has influenced efforts to improve Indigenous services, status, and policies in Canada. To many, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (2015) report is front and center for guidance on how to address the effects of hundreds of years of assimilationist policies, the racist and oppressive colonial ideologies that justified them, and the inequities they produced. What many do not know is that Canada already had volumes of insight and consultation from Indigenous leaders and community members in the RCAP; this book does well to detail them. Following the RCAP report, a series of papers were written to explicate how recommendations from the report could be actualized. This text is a collection of these papers, covering governance, health, economic development, education, child welfare services, policy, counseling and therapy, research, and public engagement. The first section of the book contains two chapters that outline the context of the RCAP and the definitions RCAP produced around sovereignty, self-determination, and self-governance, particularly in terms of health governance, jurisdiction, and responsibility, asserting the joint responsibility of First Nations and the Canadian government. This section also reviews important constitutional sections, legal decisions, and treaty agreements that empower First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities in our era, as well as the complexities and challenges given the lingering authority of the Indian Act. The second section contains eight chapters, or eight letters, presented at the 2016 conference Sharing the Land, Sharing a Future: A National Forum for Reconciliation, which commemorated and reflected on the 20 years since the RCAP report was published. Written by the RCAP cochairs, national chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, presidents of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Métis National Council, and Native Women's Association of Canada, and the minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the letters present leaders' perspectives on the vision and intentions of RCAP, the history since it was released, how it has been used along with other reports to advance self-determination and self-governance at the local level, and what remains to be done to establish healthy and collaborative Nation-to-Nation relationships between Indigenous Nations and the Crown and federal government. The third section, which comprises most of the text, are chapters written by Indigenous scholars and non-Indigenous partners in concentrated areas affected by RCAP's recommendations. Topical areas include education, poverty, economic development, health and wellness, cultural safety, child services, healing, and research. With an impressive list of co-authors, such as Jo-ann Archibald, David Newhouse, Caroline Tait, and Amy Bombay, each issue is discussed both in terms of cutting-edge perspectives as well as RCAP recommendations. Central across all domains is the duty for governments to consult with the affected Indigenous communities in question before and during policy and program development, for localized solutions to be born out of respect for communities' self-determined goals, grounded in their right for survival as distinct cultural peoples, and with the long-term commitment to foster independent, healthy, and financially stable Nations. The fourth and final section, appropriately named "Moving to Action," is a set of chapters dedicated to raising public awareness and engagement, improving research funding opportunities and standards, writing and rewriting policy, and shifting public opinion. Despite the numerous ways this text documents our failures to achieve the vision set forth by RCAP, it simultaneously demonstrates [End Page 60] the many concrete ways progress has been made, with a hopeful eye toward the future. Adam Thomas Murry Department of Psychology University of Calgary Copyright © 2023 Center for Great Plains Studies
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".