Boycott Catholic, Anglican, United churches

[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.

Oh pshaw! Duncan Campbell Scott knew exactly what he was doing.

While a few officials and churchmen rejected Bryce's findings and attacked him as a "medical faddist",164 most had to agree with him,165 and no less an authority than Scott asserted that, system-wide, "fifty per cent of the children who passed through these schools did not live to benefit from the education which they had received therein."166 (In 1913)

Not only was this, in the words of Saturday Night, "a situation disgraceful to the country",167 but in the opinion of S.H. Blake, QC, who assisted in negotiations for the 1911 contracts, because the department had done nothing over the decades "to obviate the preventable causes of death, [it] brings itself within unpleasant nearness to the charge of manslaughter."168 The churches too bore responsibility for what Bryce characterized, in a pamphlet published in 1922, as a "national crime",169 but the department had a special responsibility. In the order in council of 1892 and in the 1911 contracts, it had taken to itself the authority to set standards and had instituted a regulation requiring that prospective students receive a health certificate signed by a doctor. This check, which would supposedly prevent tubercular children being taken into the schools, was — like so many other regulations relating to care of the children, such as those regarding clothes, food and discipline — implemented carelessly by the department and ignored by many school and departmental officials. Such laxity even continued, Scott admitted, in the decades after Bryce's report.170

Indeed, in those decades, almost nothing was done about tuberculosis in the schools, so that Bryce's charge that "this trail of disease and death has gone on almost unchecked by any serious efforts on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs",171 was sorrowfully correct. The department did not even launch a full investigation of the system. Again the explanation for this persistent carelessness was, in part, the government's refusal to fund the schools adequately to carry out a program of renovations to improve health conditions, which senior officials themselves proposed, or to undertake special measures, recommended by health authorities, to intervene in the case of sick children.172 In a number of instances it did implement, because it was relatively cheap, a radical course of action — mass surgery, performed on school tables, to remove teeth, tonsils and adenoids, believed to be the frequent seats of infection.173 Not surprisingly, conditions did not improve; schools in 1940 were still not being maintained "in a reasonable state",174 and the few reports extant on the health of the children, which are scattered and sketchy (for the department never set up a procedure to monitor health) point to the continuation of alarmingly high rates of infection.175

The dramatic tuberculosis story, which chronicles what Bryce suggested was the government's "criminal disregard" for the "welfare of the Indian wards of the nation",176 cannot be allowed to distract attention from the fact that the care of the children in almost every other area was also tragically substandard. Throughout the history of the system many children were, as the principal of St. George's testified in 1922, "ill-fed and ill-clothed and turned out into the cold to work", trapped and "unhappy with a feeling of slavery existing in their minds" and with no escape but in "thought".177

- Killing members of the group;

- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It does look like a very ... complete picture.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

Judge without even looking?

I have looked at. The sole purpose of the film it to advance the 'genocide' claim. It does not even attempt to look at the issue from different sides.

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

I gave you a link to RCAP report. That link has links to the various documents that support the conclusions made by RCAP. If you want to talk evidence they you can start there.

One thing to keep in mind: pure good and pure evil only exist in movies - the real world mostly consists of flawed humans making choices that seemed reasonable at the time but can have disastrous consequences for themselves or others. If we want to learn from the past then we have to understand how people who believed they were helping natives ended up running schools that caused so much harm. Trying to paint them as some inhuman caricatures accomplishes nothing.

[Riverwind]

Oh pshaw! Duncan Campbell Scott knew exactly what he was doing.

The objective of these schools was assimilation - not murder. In fact, the prinicipal involved was extremely worthy because the government did have an obligation to provide natives with educational opportunities - even if the methods used were abhorent by today's standards. The deaths were a result of disease and underfunding. Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

The objective of these schools was assimilation - not murder. In fact, the prinicipal involved was extremely worthy because the government did have an obligation to provide natives with educational opportunities - even if the methods used were abhorent by today's standards. The deaths were a result of disease and underfunding.

In your opinion.

[Riverwind]

In your opinion.

An opinion that is supported by the evidence available.

[raz395]

An opinion that is supported by the evidence available.

Well that isn't my opinion at all.

[Posit]

Well that isn't my opinion at all.

There is no doubt in my mind that both kengs333 and Riverwind are holocaust deniers too! At least I know where kengs333 inherited that from......

Say kengs333 was your grand-daddy stationed at Auschwitz?

[jbg]

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.

People who dismiss education as "Eurocentric" should wonder who, other than educated and literate people, can fund welfare benefits.

[jbg]

There is no doubt in my mind that both kengs333 and Riverwind are holocaust deniers too! At least I know where kengs333 inherited that from......

Say kengs333 was your grand-daddy stationed at Auschwitz?

Godwin's law (link) at work.

[raz395]

One thing to keep in mind: pure good and pure evil only exist in movies - the real world mostly consists of flawed humans making choices that seemed reasonable at the time but can have disastrous consequences for themselves or others. If we want to learn from the past then we have to understand how people who believed they were helping natives ended up running schools that caused so much harm. Trying to paint them as some inhuman caricatures accomplishes nothing.

This is an interesting comment. Can you expand on this?

we have to understand how people who believed they were helping natives ended up running schools that caused so much harm."

I am curious about HOW you think this came about, whether by accident or policy. You mentioned "underfunding" which is a matter of policy. Can you be clearer about how this may have happened?

Another issue ... considering previous posters requests for comparable stats for deaths among Indians and the general population ... in Dr. Bryce's very interesting 1922 book "The Story of a National Crime, Being An Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada, The Wards of the Nations, Our Allies in the Revolutionary War, Our Brothers-in-Arms in the Great War", one finds:

The memorandum prepared by the writer in 1918 further showed that the city of Hamilton with a population greater than the total Indian population had reduced the death rate from tuberculosis in the same period, from

1904 to 1917, by nearly 75 per cent, having in 1916 actually only 68 deaths. The memorandum further states, "If a similar method had been introduced amongst the bands on the health-giving uplands of Alberta, much might have been done to prevent such

a splendid race of warriors as the Blackfeet from decreasing from 842 in 1904 to 726 in 191,6, or, allowing for natural increase, an actual loss of 40 per cent, since they should have numbered at least 1,011."

And

Thus we find a sum of only $10.000 has been annually placed

in the estimates to control tuberculosis amongst 105,000 Indians

scattered over Canada in over 300 bands, while the City of Ottawa,

with about the same population and having three general hospitals

spent thereon $342,860.54 in 1919 of which $33,364.70 is devoted

to tuberculous patients alone. The many difficulties of our problem

amongst the Indians have been frequently pointed out, but

the means to cope with these have also been made plain. It can

only be said that any cruder or weaker arguments by a Prime

Minister holding the position of responsibility to these treaty

wards of Canada could hardly be conceived...

The degree and extent of this criminal disregard for the treaty

pledges to guard the welfare of the Indian wards of the nation

may be guaged from the facts once more brought out at the meeting

of the National Tuberculosis Association at its annual meeting

held in Ottawa on March 17th, 1922. The superintendent of the

Qu'Appelle Sanatorium, Sask., gave there the results of a special

study of 1575 children of school age in which advantage was taken

of the most modern scientific methods. Of these 175 were Indian

children, and it is very remarkable that the fact given that some

93 per cent, of these showed evidence of tuberculous infection

coincides completely with the work done by Dr. Lafferty and the

writer in the Alberta Indian schools in 1909.

It is indeed pitiable that during the thirteen years since then

this trail of disease and death has gone on almost unchecked by any

serious efforts on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs,

placed by the B. N. A. Act especially in charge of our Indian

population, and that a Provincial Tuberculosis Commission now

considers it to be its duty to publish the facts regarding these

children living within its own Province.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[raz395]

This 2004 book presents an interesting perspective: The role of accounting in 'holocausts'.

Accounting and the holocausts of modernity

Author(s): Dean Neu, Cameron Graham

Journal: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

ISSN: 0951-3574

Year: 2004 Volume: 17 Issue: 4 Page: 578 - 603

DOI: 10.1108/09513570410554560

Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Abstract: The current study explores the ambiguity of accounting technique in the context of a historical study of the Canadian Indian Department under the direction of Deputy Superintendent D.C. Scott at the beginning of the 20th century. Starting from the work of Bauman and his commentators, we argue that modernity viewed as a set of practices and thought patterns, facilitates bureaucratic constructions of the “Indian problem” In turn, this cultural milieu and bureaucratic construction operated as an ideological circle, encouraging the use of accounting techniques of governance that permitted both the distancing of bureaucrats from indigenous peoples and the downplaying of other vantage points. However, as our analysis highlights, numerical re-presentations also provided the tools and rhetorical spaces for challenges to government policy.

'protected' from our own history.

This topic is more disturbing all the time.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

This topic is more disturbing all the time.

Your stories are always the same. Bureaucrats failed to act on warnings and people died. Yet you seem to insist, without a shread of proof, that this inaction was part of a deliberate policy to exterminate natives. The government and the churches wanted natives to assimilate - the historical record is very clear on this point. There was no policy of genocide (assimilation is not genocide no matter what the politically correct yahoos want to claim today).

There are many other examples of bureaucrats failing to act on warnings or governments allowing people to die through inaction. The tainted blood scandal is a more recent example. Do you argue that the bureaucrats in charge of the blood system intended to kill people?

[raz395]

Your stories are always the same. Bureaucrats failed to act on warnings and people died. Yet you seem to insist, without a shread of proof, that this inaction was part of a deliberate policy to exterminate natives. The government and the churches wanted natives to assimilate - the historical record is very clear on this point. There was no policy of genocide (assimilation is not genocide no matter what the politically correct yahoos want to claim today).

There are many other examples of bureaucrats failing to act on warnings or governments allowing people to die through inaction. The tainted blood scandal is a more recent example. Do you argue that the bureaucrats in charge of the blood system intended to kill people?

Who knows what their motivations were. It is quite possible there is a murderer among them. Each situation requires its own investigation.

It is the matter of "intent" that must be addressed.

I see, of course, that the government policy was assimilation. Assimilation by choice is not genocide, perhaps, but how does one evaluate whether free choice was provided?

I think that is the issue in terms of the distinction. When assimilation becomes a policy, can it any longer be a 'free choice'? I don't think so. It appears that mandatory attendance at the residential schools was a large part of the policy, and such attendance was a death sentence for half of them, by DC Scott's own report. DC Scott found this not a reason to change the policy of the Department. It appears that deliberate exposure was rampant in the schools as well, for half a century, well beyond the time when methods to contain opoutbreaks were known and used elsewhere, and in spite of Dr. Bryce's exhortations of school and Ministry staff to implement these. At what point does deliberate negligence become mass murder?

It also appears, from the film, that involuntarily sterilization of Indigenous leaders (funded by the government) was part of the 'program'. I can't see how that is 'free choice' nor how it is consistent with 'assimilation'.

It is extermination.

Also, Dr. Bryce's decades long campaign suggests reason for concern. Inaction is 'intent' if it is deliberate. Dr. Bryce's belief, from his observations of the inaction from the government and the churches was that it was "deliberate".

The information certainly suggests a need for a full and impartial investigation, which is all that Kevin Annett is asking for. I certainly agree. The United Church also voiced that need, and I believe the Anglican Church has also expressed concern about the issue of the children who died in the schools.

I don't see how anyone could deny the need for an investigation of criminal intent. It is pretty clear.

Edited December 1, 2007 by raz395

[Riverwind]

I think that is the issue in terms of the distinction. When assimilation becomes a policy, can it any longer be a 'free choice'? I don't think so. It appears that mandatory attendance at the residential schools was a large part of the policy.

Mandatory attendance at schools is a policy that was applied to all children of all backgrounds. Children of other backgrounds were subjected to the same kind of mandatory assimilation as the natives except they got to go home to their parents after each day. You cannot claim that a policy applied to all groups was intended to murder members of a single group.

The last thing that you seem to forget is assimililation was perceived to be a good thing that would help the individuals affected. The 'all-cultures-are-equal' mantra of our politically correct times cannot be applied to people in the past. This means that you cannot claim that the schools were 'intended' to harm.

It also appears, from the film, that involuntarily sterilization of Indigenous leaders (funded by the government) was part of the 'program'. I can't see how that is 'free choice' nor how it is consistent with 'assimilation'.

More unsupported factoids that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Involuntarily sterilization of people classed as criminals or mentally unfit was a policy applied to people of any racial group and had no relationship to the residential schools issue.

It appears that deliberate exposure was rampant in the schools as well, for half a century

Again - there is no evidence that the exposure was deliberate. You can't make a point by repeating a false or unproven statement.

Inaction is 'intent' if it is deliberate.

No it is not. Our court system makes a clear distinction between murder one, murder two and criminal negligence causing death. The historical record makes a strong case for 'criminal negligence causing death' but it does not come close to the evidence required to claim it was 'murder one'. As you said, no one knows what was really going on their minds. Edited December 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[raz395]

Mandatory attendance at schools is a policy that was applied to all children of all backgrounds. Children of other backgrounds were subjected to the same kind of mandatory assimilation as the natives except they got to go home to their parents after each day. You cannot claim that a policy applied to all groups was intended to murder members of a single group.

The last thing that you seem to forget is assimililation was perceived to be a good thing that would help the individuals affected. The 'all-cultures-are-equal' mantra of our politically correct times cannot be applied to people in the past. This means that you cannot claim that the schools were 'intended' to harm.

More unsupported factoids that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Involuntarily sterilization of people classed as criminals or mentally unfit was a policy applied to people of any racial group and had no relationship to the residential schools issue.

Again - there is no evidence that the exposure was deliberate. You can't make a point by repeating a false or unproven statement.

No it is not. Our court system makes a clear distinction between murder one, murder two and criminal negligence causing death. The historical record makes a strong case for 'criminal negligence causing death' but it does not come close to the evidence required to claim it was 'murder one'. As you said, no one knows what was really going on their minds.

My point is simply that the issues are important, and unclear enough to warrant a full and impartial investigation, especially since this has been called for by the families of children who died in the schools. I see no reason to deny a public hearing on these issues.

[ScottSA]

My point is simply that the issues are important, and unclear enough to warrant a full and impartial investigation, especially since this has been called for by the families of children who died in the schools. I see no reason to deny a public hearing on these issues.

So should we have a public hearing on whether man landed on the moon too? After all, there are a good many more people who believe we didn't than there are who believe *scoff* that genocide was committed on Indians. Should we have public hearings on something everytime some interest group brings up some pet fabrication and tries to flog it as truth?

The second thing is your terminology. No one is "denying" a public hearing. You can go out tomorrow and round up a few conspiracy theorists and hear till you're blue in the face. It's just that no one wants to pay for such nonsense.

Try to understand...500 years ago westerners were proud of their society, and their religion, and set out to make the world a better place by converting the heathen. 100 years ago that attitude had softened somewhat, yet we knew intuitively that living in western society so far outweighed the tribulations of living in semi-savage conditions in skin tents at subsistence levels, that we cast about for ways to do what we thought was right; and one of those things was to integrate Indians out of the stoneage and into the 19th and 20th centuries. Were we wrong? Probably not, since Indians apparently like 21st century amenities just fine, but now we have become relativistic, living so well off our forefather's endeavours that a significant number of us can't stand themselves, but prefer to blame in on generations gone by than on their own mental confusion. Through the lens of this pervasive self-guilt, all actions we took before, no matter how altruistic they were at the time, become a sinister crime.

These people were doing the best they could at something they thought was right. The fact that a few may have had a taste for bum meat doesn't mean it was widespread, and it certainly doesn't mean it was some sort of "genocide" or other silly hysterical hyperbolic fabrication. If we had wanted to kill the Indians, we would have simply done it, like the Indians tried numerous times to do to us. What stopped us from doing it was a Judeo-Christian heritage and a post-Enlightenment view of "progress." The residential schools were an attempt to do the right thing as we saw it at the time. Indians should say thank you. In fact Indians should thank their lucky stars it was Europeans who ventured along and not the Chinese, Mongols or, for that matter, the Aztecs.

[raz395]

So should we have a public hearing on whether man landed on the moon too? After all, there are a good many more people who believe we didn't than there are who believe *scoff* that genocide was committed on Indians. Should we have public hearings on something everytime some interest group brings up some pet fabrication and tries to flog it as truth?

The second thing is your terminology. No one is "denying" a public hearing. You can go out tomorrow and round up a few conspiracy theorists and hear till you're blue in the face. It's just that no one wants to pay for such nonsense.

So we are agreed an impartial investigation is necessary, because that is the only issue really.

Try to understand...500 years ago westerners were proud of their society, and their religion, and set out to make the world a better place by converting the heathen. 100 years ago that attitude had softened somewhat, yet we knew intuitively that living in western society so far outweighed the tribulations of living in semi-savage conditions in skin tents at subsistence levels, that we cast about for ways to do what we thought was right; and one of those things was to integrate Indians out of the stoneage and into the 19th and 20th centuries. Were we wrong? Probably not, since Indians apparently like 21st century amenities just fine, but now we have become relativistic, living so well off our forefather's endeavours that a significant number of us can't stand themselves, but prefer to blame in on generations gone by than on their own mental confusion. Through the lens of this pervasive self-guilt, all actions we took before, no matter how altruistic they were at the time, become a sinister crime.

These people were doing the best they could at something they thought was right. The fact that a few may have had a taste for bum meat doesn't mean it was widespread, and it certainly doesn't mean it was some sort of "genocide" or other silly hysterical hyperbolic fabrication. If we had wanted to kill the Indians, we would have simply done it, like the Indians tried numerous times to do to us. What stopped us from doing it was a Judeo-Christian heritage and a post-Enlightenment view of "progress." The residential schools were an attempt to do the right thing as we saw it at the time. Indians should say thank you. In fact Indians should thank their lucky stars it was Europeans who ventured along and not the Chinese, Mongols or, for that matter, the Aztecs.

You are INCREDIBLY naive. The churches brought Christianity to the 'savages' so the churches could take possession of their land, sell it and make a bundle of money, which they have. So have governments and corporations, and EVERY CANADIAN who benefits from our healthy economy. The only people who never benefited from Indigenous land were the titleholders themselves.

They did want to kill them and they did. Watch the film, if you have the courage, because you certainly need an education in these aspects of your own history.

That is now changing, and about time.

[kengs333]

So we are agreed an impartial investigation is necessary, because that is the only issue really.

You are INCREDIBLY naive. The churches brought Christianity to the 'savages' so the churches could take possession of their land, sell it and make a bundle of money, which they have. So have governments and corporations, and EVERY CANADIAN who benefits from our healthy economy. The only people who never benefited from Indigenous land were the titleholders themselves.

They did want to kill them and they did. Watch the film, if you have the courage, because you certainly need an education in these aspects of your own history.

That is now changing, and about time.

This kind of cynicism, complete misrepresentation of the Christian faith of course would not be tolerated in any other manner...

It's just so impossible nowadays to understand that what these people were trying to accomplish was something that they rightfully felt was the just and proper thing to do? The fact that someone can assert that people who wanted to teach people about Christ were bent on "killing" them is so utterly preposterous and simpleminded.

In watching "Reservation Soldiers" today it was interesting to see that the one kid used to have a father who was a violent alcoholic; this man became a Christian years ago, and has completely turned his life around and his son now looks up to him as the father figure he should always have been. One can only wonder what governs you if you make such hostile remarks, if you wish to discourage people from saving themselves and becoming a good and moral person.

[Posit]

This kind of cynicism, complete misrepresentation of the Christian faith of course would not be tolerated in any other manner...

It's just so impossible nowadays to understand that what these people were trying to accomplish was something that they rightfully felt was the just and proper thing to do? The fact that someone can assert that people who wanted to teach people about Christ were bent on "killing" them is so utterly preposterous and simpleminded.

In watching "Reservation Soldiers" today it was interesting to see that the one kid used to have a father who was a violent alcoholic; this man became a Christian years ago, and has completely turned his life around and his son now looks up to him as the father figure he should always have been. One can only wonder what governs you if you make such hostile remarks, if you wish to discourage people from saving themselves and becoming a good and moral person.

Christianity corrupts, absolutely. It serves a purpose for those who cannot think for themselves and is nothing more than a business and a borderline cult....

[White Doors]

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!

Hi Jennie!

[White Doors]

Christianity corrupts, absolutely. It serves a purpose for those who cannot think for themselves and is nothing more than a business and a borderline cult....

Wow. You hate white people, Christians.. Who else now?

Sure is alot of hate there.

You hate blacks too? Asians?

[Posit]

Wow. You hate white people, Christians.. Who else now?

Sure is alot of hate there.

You hate blacks too? Asians?

Why? Are you recruiting for the KKK?

Why would I hate myself? I follow the teachings of Christ in the manner there were given to us and abhor the corruption by the Church.

Blacks? Asians? I'm not sure who you are talking about.

[jbg]

Wow. You hate white people, Christians.. Who else now?

Sure is alot of hate there.

You hate blacks too? Asians?

In retrospect, the "Christianizing" of the FN's may have been unfortunate. Not the efforts to give the secular parts of the education, though.

[Posit]

In retrospect, the "Christianizing" of the FN's may have been unfortunate. Not the efforts to give the secular parts of the education, though.

Perhaps, then you would like to tell the room how a Priest with his finger down a 8 year old's pants is an appropriate "secular" education?

[White Doors]

Why? Are you recruiting for the KKK?

Why would I hate myself? I follow the teachings of Christ in the manner there were given to us and abhor the corruption by the Church.

Blacks? Asians? I'm not sure who you are talking about.

Now you are a Christian? You that Christianity corrupts. You mention nothing about the church.

You can't even keep your story straight