From time to time, the Canadian Historical Review commissions articles that address a particular issue and publishes them together as a Forum. This Forum on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission began rather differently. In 2017, we received Brian Gettler’s piece, “Historical Research at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.” During the peer review process, one reviewer suggested that the Canadian Historical Review devote a Forum to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (trc) to consider its implications for the writing and teaching of history. We thought this an excellent idea and immediately commissioned additional articles, including a number from Indigenous authors. In light of the importance and timeliness of this issue, and in order that the content of these pieces will be as current as possible, the Canadian Historical Review will be publishing these pieces as they are received and proceed through the peer review process. Gettler’s article was published in December 2017 and in this issue, we present two more by James R. Miller and Krista McCracken. Gettler’s article began this Forum by explaining the research processes of the trc. As Miller does in this volume, Gettler reminded readers of the legal and practical constraints in which the trc worked. The trc was mandated by the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (irssa), the culmination of the class action suit brought by Indian Residential School survivors against the federal government and Christian churches. As such, it focused its attention on these historical actors and in so doing tethered itself to a national narrative that flattened out regional variation and ignored the role played by other governmental bodies including provincial and territorial authorities. The trc also operated on a very short timeline. The irssa gave it only two years to complete its work and the trc passed on these time limits to their contract researchers: Gettler, for example, had just under six months to analyse over 80,000 documents provided to him and to write his report on the schools in Quebec. The work was limited in other important ways. Very few documents in the dataset sent to Gettler came from Indigenous sources. Indeed, the research mandate of the trc by the irssa focused on amassing government and church records related to the schools. Moreover, the trc relied upon a database created by a government department, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 100

中文翻译：

---

真相与和解委员会加拿大历史审查论坛简介

加拿大历史评论会不时委派处理特定问题的文章，并将它们作为论坛发布在一起。真相与和解委员会论坛的召开有很大不同。2017年，我们收到了Brian Gettler的文章“加拿大真相与和解委员会的历史研究”。在同行评审过程中，一位评审员建议加拿大历史评审委员会在真相与和解委员会（trc）上设立一个论坛，以考虑其对历史写作和教学的影响。我们认为这是一个绝妙的主意，因此立即委托其他文章，包括来自土著作者的许多文章。鉴于此问题的重要性和及时性，并且为了使这些文章的内容尽可能最新，《加拿大历史评论》将在收到这些作品后将其发布，并继续进行同行评审过程。盖特勒（Gettler）的文章于2017年12月发表，在本期中，我们还将介绍James R.Miller和Krista McCracken的另外两篇文章。Gettler的文章通过解释trc的研究过程而在本论坛开始。就像Miller在本卷中所做的那样，Gettler提醒读者注意trc运作的法律和实际限制。该trc是由《印度住宅学校和解协议》（irssa）所授权的，这是印度住宅学校幸存者针对联邦政府和基督教教堂提起的集体诉讼的高潮。因此，它把注意力集中在这些历史行为者上，从而将自己束缚在一种民族叙事上，这种叙事使区域差异趋于平坦，而忽略了包括省和地区当局在内的其他政府机构所扮演的角色。trc的运行时间也很短。irssa仅用了两年时间就完成了工作，而trc则将这些时限转交给了合同研究人员：例如，格特勒（Gettler）不到六个月的时间就分析了提供给他的80,000多份文件并撰写了他在学校的报告在魁北克。这项工作在其他重要方面受到限制。发送给Gettler的数据集中很少有文档来自土著来源。实际上，irssa对trc的研究任务集中在积累与学校有关的政府和教会记录上。此外，