Notes to Language

Language shapes how we understand the world. At ABM, we choose our words deliberately, recognizing that no language is neutral and no terminology is perfect.

Indigenous and Non-Indigenous

We recognize that the terms “Indigenous” and “non-Indigenous” are imperfect. Every person is indigenous to somewhere. These terms describe political and legal realities in Canada, not identity.

We use them because they are widely understood and provide a common language for discussing the unique rights, responsibilities, and relationships that exist in these territories. They are not intended to divide people into opposing groups, but to help us speak clearly about the historical and contemporary realities that continue to shape Canada.

Our aim is not to reinforce division. Our aim is to cultivate understanding, accountability, and relationships that enable all people to live well together while fully respecting the inherent rights of the peoples whose roots extend into these territories for thousands of years.

Reconciliation

We rarely use the term “reconciliation.”

We recognize that the word carries deep meaning for many people and organizations. It is simply not the language that best describes the work we seek to do.

Reconciliation suggests that there was once a relationship to which we can return because it was equal. We do not believe that this is Canada's reality. The relationship between Indigenous people and the institutions that came to govern these territories has, from its earliest days, been shaped by dispossession, the assertion of Crown authority, and the ongoing fight of Indigenous peoples to protect their right to exist.

Nor do we believe this work is a two-way street.

A significant responsibility rests with those whose roots do not extend into these territories for thousands of years. It is not for Indigenous people to reconcile themselves to colonialism. It is for the rest of us to understand the systems we have inherited, recognize how they continue to shape our institutions and decisions, and determine how to participate in society without threatening Indigenous peoples, cultures, governments, or ways of life.

Stronger words such as “restitution”, “repair,” or “redress” are uncomfortable because they invite costly questions of accountability. They raise the possibility that something may have to be given up: revenues, project development rights, access to land and resources, or assumptions of private ownership over unceded territory. “Reconciliation” is easier to absorb because it can suggest progress without requiring a material shift in power, wealth, ownership, or control.

ABM is less interested in symbolic language than in cultivating people who are critically informed and capable of acting responsibly.

Whether or not the word “reconciliation” is used matters less than whether people understand the realities of these territories and challenge assumptions.

ABM exists to cultivate a critically informed community, relationships, and dialogue required to do the work.