Boycott Catholic, Anglican, United churches

[Riverwind]

An addendum to Dr. Bryce's 1907 report, dated November 5, 1909, in which Bryce submits more data to show a 50% death rate in Alberta residential schools. The same report states that Indian children were being deliberately exposed to tuberculosis and other communicable diseases, and then left to die unattended by church and residential school staff.

The site you linked has a image of the report with the 50% death statistic but it does provide any image of the claim that the exposure was deliberate. I suspect it is yet another example of gross exagarration on the part of the indian victim industry. If the report actually said what they claim they would have provided an image of that too. Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

The site you linked has a image of the report with the 50% death statistic but it does provide any image of the claim that the exposure was deliberate. I suspect it is yet another example of gross exagarration on the part of the indian victim industry. If the report actually said what they claim they would have provided an image of that too.

If you watched the film you would know the answers to all of your questions. There is an image of deliberate infection. It is in a textbook used in our universities.

The reports were accessed briefly, but were sealed immediately after. They are available (for subpoena, etc.) but they are no longer open to the public.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Posit]

The key to successful genocide is to hide the paper trail that leads the public to question it. This genocide has been hidden from us for generations. And still....the government neither ackonwledges it or takes responsibility for it....

[bush_cheney2004]

...The reports were accessed briefly, but were sealed immediately after. They are available (for subpoena, etc.) but they are no longer open to the public.

Rejoice! ...another conspiracy theory is born.

[raz395]

Rejoice! ...another conspiracy theory is born.

Yes, it is quite a 'theory' with a disturbing amount of evidence. Hard to dismiss.

I found it interesting that the United Church rep in the CTV segment above (from a few years ago I believe) said "Everything should be investigated" and yet I have never heard of that happening. You would think if they have the evidence they would come forward with it.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it is quite a 'theory' with a disturbing amount of evidence. Hard to dismiss.

I found it interesting that the United Church rep in the CTV segment above (from a few years ago I believe) said "Everything should be investigated" and yet I have never heard of that happening. You would think if they have the evidence they would come forward with it.

I know what you mean.....I was shocked that there was no investigation after that film Alien Autopsy.

Edited December 1, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Posit]

I know what you mean.....I was shocked that there was no investigation after that film Alien Autopsy.

Ah, but there was. You just weren't party to it.....

[kengs333]

The key to successful genocide is to hide the paper trail that leads the public to question it. This genocide has been hidden from us for generations. And still....the government neither ackonwledges it or takes responsibility for it....

Hold on a sec... I thought that copies of the incriminating documents were made, and have been released to the public by the former Rev. Annett. If this is the case, then why can't you tell us where we can see these documents?

[kengs333]

Yes, it is quite a 'theory' with a disturbing amount of evidence. Hard to dismiss.

I found it interesting that the United Church rep in the CTV segment above (from a few years ago I believe) said "Everything should be investigated" and yet I have never heard of that happening. You would think if they have the evidence they would come forward with it.

Well, supposedly all of the evidence has been copied, and made public, but strangely no one wants to state where these publically available copies can be consulted.

[kengs333]

My question is ... If the 700 per 100,000 in the villages was "among the highest ever reported in a human population.", then what could more than 10 times that rate be? ... the 8000 per 100,000 death rate in the residential schools?

And why would the medical examiner say in 1908(?) that it was deliberate?

And it only increased after that.

Good grief.

Nice selective manipulation of the statistics; as unfortnate as this aspect of Canadian history is, I think what is more sick is the way that you're warping the statistics to suit your disingenuous agenda.

First of all, it's "up to" 8000/100000 at some residential schools, so what was the rate per school. Was it closer to 500-2000/100000 at most schools? Probably. It may even have been lower in some cases.

Second of all, the "up to" 8000/100000 occured during the 1930s and 1940s, and declined dramatically by the 1960s once the disease could be treated better. The thing is, depending on who you want to believe, there between 100000 to 200000 residential school students throughout the entire time the residential schools existed. So how many children were attending residential schools during the 1930s and 1940s? Well, the total Indian population was about 130000 during this time, so what are we looking at, 20% maybe? So during the 1930s, 26000 children attended residential schools, and if the average was 2000/10000 (although it was probably lower) that means about 525 children died during the 1930s, a similar number in the 1940s, and then it began to decline.

In the end, sadn and unfortunate; but not genocide by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited December 1, 2007 by kengs333

[Posit]

Well, supposedly all of the evidence has been copied, and made public, but strangely no one wants to state where these publically available copies can be consulted.

Much of the documentation - the existence of those documents - have been exposed. Many of them have been copied and will be presented as evidence at the upcoming Truth And Reconciliation hearings. But even then you may not see them because, just like in Caledonia you are automatically excluded to the goings on because you are not a party to the commission.

[Posit]

Nice selective manipulation of the statistics; as unfortnate as this aspect of Canadian history is, I think what is more sick is the way that you're warping the statistics to suit your disingenuous agenda.

First of all, it's "up to" 8000/100000 at some residential schools, so what was the rate per school. Was it closer to 500-2000/100000 at most schools? Probably. It may even have been lower in some cases.

Second of all, the "up to" 8000/100000 occured during the 1930s and 1940s, and declined dramatically by the 1960s once the disease could be treated better. The thing is, depending on who you want to believe, there between 100000 to 200000 residential school students throughout the entire time the residential schools existed. So how many children were attending residential schools during the 1930s and 1940s? Well, the total Indian population was about 130000 during this time, so what are we looking at, 20% maybe? So during the 1930s, 26000 children attended residential schools, and if the average was 2000/10000 (although it was probably lower) that means about 525 children died during the 1930s, a similar number in the 1940s, and then it began to decline.

In the end, sadn and unfortunate; but not genocide by any stretch of the immagination.

Residential schools operated between about 1870 something to 1990 and hundreds of thousands of children passed through them. The rate of death even if at 1% could be as high as 100,000 children. Yet if it was deliberate then it doesn't matter it one died, it confirms it was intentional genocide.

I'm curious why you would want to downplay and dismiss the mass murder of children... Did your family participate in the murders? One would think that even if you disagreed with the actual numbers, your concern would be towards asking the same questions raised here: "Why did so many children not come home from residential schools, and where are they now?"

[kengs333]

In all fairness I think that there should be a "Truth And Reconciliation" commission for Indian barbarity on this continent, as well. If not, then any one-side politically correct commission such as the one you mention has no reason to use the word "Truth". The fact that residential schools, other government initiatives clearly help Indians adapt to a modern world, eliminated certain brutal cultural practices, etc. no doubt will not be addressed.

[noahbody]

According to Dr. Bryce, the facts of these murders were deliberately suppressed by the same staff, in collusion with government Indian agents. (P.D. Bryce, report to DIA Assistant Superintendent Frank Pedley, Nov. 5, 1909, Ottawa)[/i]

Bryce never characterized the treatment as "murders." There is evidence of a policy of assimilation and negligence, but claims of genocide are ridiculous. To the point, if the government was attempting to commit genocide, the last thing they'd do is send the head medical officer of the Department of Indian Affairs to survey the conditions?

[Riverwind]

Residential schools operated between about 1870 something to 1990 and hundreds of thousands of children passed through them. The rate of death even if at 1% could be as high as 100,000 children. Yet if it was deliberate then it doesn't matter it one died, it confirms it was intentional genocide.

If it was intentional - and most likely it was not. Government reports also note that these schools received funding based on the number of students. This meant that they had an incentive to keep kids in the school even if they were sick.

"Why did so many children not come home from residential schools, and where are they now?"

Because they got sick and died from diseases that were common and deadly at the time. It is not very complicated. Why are so obsessed with exaggerating what happened when there are no facts that support your claim? Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[kengs333]

Residential schools operated between about 1870 something to 1990 and hundreds of thousands of children passed through them. The rate of death even if at 1% could be as high as 100,000 children. Yet if it was deliberate then it doesn't matter it one died, it confirms it was intentional genocide.

I'm curious why you would want to downplay and dismiss the mass murder of children... Did your family participate in the murders? One would think that even if you disagreed with the actual numbers, your concern would be towards asking the same questions raised here: "Why did so many children not come home from residential schools, and where are they now?"

Nope. Even pro-Indian sources claim that at most 200,000 children passed through residential schools, which means that according to your 1% hypothesis at most only 2,000 ever died. Like I said, this is unfortunate, but not genocide.

I think the problem is that when people like you start playing politics with the issue and make such ridiculous claims and use spurious statistics, you force most people into a position where they can't agree because it would mean accepting your lies as the truth.

Incidently, if you're so concerned about "genocide" then I suppose you should be reminded that it is also a human rights violation to deny children a proper education. In Canada we have a high standard of living because we have universal education; because in the western world we have had this for several generations now, we have managed to solve a number of medical problems which have had a direct positive benefit for Indians in this country.

Also, the other day I watched a program on TV about a child genius from India who at the age of 12 or so is attending university and is becoming a leading expert in finding a cure for cancer. This kid comes from an impoverished, rural family, yet had the intelligence to learn English at a very young age, and to not associate a "colour" with knowledge. So rather than dismissing education as "Eurocentric" "white mans" "brainwashing" this kid has clear goals about what he wants to do with his life, and he will no doubt one day do much to make life a little better for people throughout the world.

[raz395]

If it was intentional - and most likely it was not. Government reports also note that these schools received funding based on the number of students. This meant that they had an incentive to keep kids in the school even if they were sick.

Because they got sick and died from diseases that were common and deadly at the time. It is not very complicated.

They likely kept kids on the roll even after they were deceased.

They died at rates 10x the "highest ever recorded" (which was their families).

I just keep trying to absorb what that means.

It can't be 'natural causes'. It just can't.

[raz395]

Nope. Even pro-Indian sources claim that at most 200,000 children passed through residential schools, which means that according to your 1% hypothesis at most only 2,000 ever died. Like I said, this is unfortunate, but not genocide.

I think the problem is that when people like you start playing politics with the issue and make such ridiculous claims and use spurious statistics, you force most people into a position where they can't agree because it would mean accepting your lies as the truth.

Incidently, if you're so concerned about "genocide" then I suppose you should be reminded that it is also a human rights violation to deny children a proper education. In Canada we have a high standard of living because we have universal education; because in the western world we have had this for several generations now, we have managed to solve a number of medical problems which have had a direct positive benefit for Indians in this country.

Also, the other day I watched a program on TV about a child genius from India who at the age of 12 or so is attending university and is becoming a leading expert in finding a cure for cancer. This kid comes from an impoverished, rural family, yet had the intelligence to learn English at a very young age, and to not associate a "colour" with knowledge. So rather than dismissing education as "Eurocentric" "white mans" "brainwashing" this kid has clear goals about what he wants to do with his life, and he will no doubt one day do much to make life a little better for people throughout the world.

We are just talking about the film. Would it be impolite of me to suggest that if you are not interested in this thread topic, find another one?

In Canada we have a high standard of living because we have universal education;

In the context of this topic, I find this amusingly 'unaware': The economy of Canada and our "high standard of living" depend entirely on natural resources from traditional Indigenous land, of course.

Know your roots. And your StatsCan.

Canada's economy is resource dependent and resource RICH, but it is a bit of a house of cards. Most economists agree on that.

I also find it amusing that you seem to suggest they were better off dying in the schools than being uneducated. Do you believe that is true of everyone? yourself too?

Not a well thought out position, I think.

Again I feel I am reiterating the film for people who discuss it without watching it apparently.

Genocide is deliberate destruction of a culture, not just in the residential schools. There is no other explanation for one aspect related in the film more than once: The selective sterilization of traditional leaders. That really makes intent undeniable, it seems to me.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

I just keep trying to absorb what that means.

It can't be 'natural causes'. It just can't.

You finally admit that your claim regarding 'intention' is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Disease killed many people in the first part of the 20th century - especially children. You cannot compare the death rates among a population that includes adults and a population that is entirely children. One would expect the death rates to be much higher in the population consisting of children.

I realize that you thinking it was intentional makes your feel better for some reason but such a claim is extremely serious and should not be taken seriously unless there evidence to support it. The high death rate in itself does not provide any evidence of 'intention'.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

You finally admit that your claim regarding 'intention' is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Disease killed many people in the first part of the 20th century - especially children. You cannot compare the death rates among a population that includes adults and a population that is entirely children. One would expect the death rates to be much higher in the population consisting of children.

I realize that you thinking it was intentional makes your feel better for some reason but such a claim is extremely serious and should not be taken seriously unless there evidence to support it. The high death rate in itself does not provide any evidence of 'intention'.

I beg pardon? No that's not what I said at all. Good grief, you have a strong denial-wish there fella!

I said a death rate that high cannot be natural - i.e, must have been deliberately engineered I think. I mean ... come on ... the kids died at 10x the rate of their families, and the families died at the highest rates ever recorded?

10x the highest recorded 'natural' ... is not an accident, not with the other evidence presented.

[Riverwind]

10x the highest recorded 'natural' ... is not an accident, not with the other evidence presented.

There you go again - you just admitted you are just making up the bit about intention. No one denies that the schools were poorly managed and that the kids should not have died - but negligence does not equal intent no matter you much you wish it to be so.

If you disagree then please present some evidence to support your claim that a 10x death rate is proof positive of intent. I already explained that the rate of death in a population of children would be higher that then death rate among adults. In my opinion, that is rational explaination that is consistent with the other information we have about the schools.

Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

There you go again - you just admitted you are just making up the bit about intention. No one denies that the schools were poorly managed and that the kids should not have died - but negligence does not equal intent no matter you much you wish it to be so.

If you disagree then please present some evidence to support your claim that a 10x death rate is proof positive of intent. I already explained that the rate of death in a population of children would be higher that then death rate among adults. In my opinion, that is rational explaination that is consistent with the other information we have about the schools.

You are entitled to your opinion, though it would be interesting to hear your response to the information in the film directly, rather than demanding my impressions of it to dump on. sheesh!

Obviously what I think about it is not the critical factor: it is the information itself that is critical to YOUR understanding.

knock yerself out fella!

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

You are entitled to your opinion, though it would be interesting to hear your response to the information in the film directly, rather than demanding my impressions of it to dump on. sheesh!

I am simply responding your spurious claims that the deaths must have been intentional. The film appears to be an opinion piece and needs to be taken with a grain a salt.

Here are some facts from the RCAP report: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg30_e.html#103

Paget's 1908 report revealed the legacy of such a policy. The majority of the 21 schools he inspected were, like St. Paul's boarding school near Cardston, Alberta, "quite unfit for the purpose it is being used", with faulty heating, drainage and ventilation. The schools were "not modern in any respect." Moreover, his comments drew out what had become a tragic commonplace in the department — the connection between the condition of the buildings and disease, particularly the scourge of tuberculosis.154 From early in the history of the system, alarming health reports had come into the department from local officials and doctors tracing out a pattern of interwoven factors contributing to "the present very high death rate from this disease": overcrowding, lack of care and cleanliness and poor sanitation.155

Overcrowding, the most critical dynamic in the spread of tuberculosis, was systemic,156 a predictable outcome of underfunding and of the per capita grant arrangement that put a premium on each student taken from a community. Senior church officials lobbied the government constantly not only for higher rates but for implementation of a compulsory education regime that would ensure that the schools earned the maximum grant possible.157 For their part, the principals, unable to make ends meet, as rates were rarely increased to the level of real costs, pushed to have their authorized enrolments raised.

I feel this supports the view that deaths by disease were the unintentional consequence of negligence on the part of the government. Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

I am simply responding your spurious claims that the deaths must have been intentional. The film appears to be an opinion piece and needs to be taken with a grain a salt.

Here are some facts from the RCAP report: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg30_e.html#103

I feel this supports the view that deaths by disease were the unintentional consequence of negligence on the part of the government.

Well as I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is simply not as clear as you paint it ... and it is clear that you are attempting to 'paint it' rather than consider the evidence.

"It appears to be an opinion piece?"

Judge without even looking?

Reject reports of human personal experience as ... opinion?

And you are overly insistent that this just can't be true.

Well perhaps in your world, but sheesh...

Can those of us who are interested at least discuss the evidence here on the board in public?

This is civilized discourse, after all?

[ScottSA]

This thread has become as insane as the 911 conspiracy thread, with more freaks crawling out of the woodwork, making up stats, stretching facts, and generally making a mockery of history. What crap.