Canada's child victims can't be forgotten

[tango]

It's a fact not well known by Canadians, because it has been hidden from us, that thousands of children died in Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools. Their families only know that children went missing. They were never informed of their deaths: The children simply never came home. Hundreds of families have made inquiries of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission about children who just disappeared - never came home.

Victims can't be forgotten: Group

By MATT KIELTYKA, 24 HOURS

Five years after they first took to the streets, a Vancouver group is still trying to find justice for thousands of children who died while in residential schools.

"We're trying to keep this issue alive," said Kevin Annett, an organizer with the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared advocacy group.

The group was out again yesterday, passing out leaflets to people at the intersection of Burrard and Georgia Streets and holding up a large "All the children need a proper burial" banner.

It's believed about 50,000 aboriginal children died in residential schools and many of them never received proper burials.

Annett and his group want the federal government to do the right thing and force churches to disclose the location of unmarked gravesites.

"They need to disclose the burial sites and give these victims a proper burial, not let them be forgotten," he said. "[The lack of progress] is disturbing, especially since Canada was cited by the UN for this issue."

Natives died in droves as Ottawa ignored warnings

BILL CURRY AND KAREN HOWLETT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — As many as half of the aboriginal children who attended the early years of residential schools died of tuberculosis, despite repeated warnings to the federal government that overcrowding, poor sanitation and a lack of medical care were creating a toxic breeding ground for the rapid spread of the disease, documents show.

Full text here ...

http://www.esnips.com/doc/d02fc5b2-b655-4c...-Articles_-2007

EDUARDO GONZALEZ

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

November 3, 2008 at 11:38 PM EDT

As The Globe and Mail has reported, bodies of aboriginal children lie in unmarked graves across Canada, on the grounds of residential schools where the federal government sought for more than a century to extinguish aboriginal culture. Although the Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigating these schools has hit a roadblock, it remains the best chance the schools' survivors have to tell their stories - and the best chance Canada has to face its past.

...

-Reconciliation cannot be imposed on a society. The most a commission can do is clarify past events and amplify the voices of people who have been stigmatized or silenced. Reconstructing facts without euphemism and restoring the dignity of victims are first steps toward national reconciliation, but they are only the beginning.

Thanks to the Canadian commission, federal researchers are working to identify the thousands of aboriginal children who vanished from the residential schools; many of the children are thought to be in the anonymous graves at the school sites. It is their memory that Canada should honour as it presses forward with its historic truth commission, and works to achieve a healthier, more united country.

Eduardo Gonzalez is deputy director of the Americas program at the International Center for Transitional Justice and a former staff member of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

---------------------------

The churches involved are primarily Anglican, Catholic, United (and a few Presbyterian and Methodist).

The lawsuit against our government was successful and established responsibility for cultural destruction, physical and sexual abuse. There was no mention of children dying.

The Anglican church has apologized to victims, and is the only church to come forward and identify the fact that many children died and request investigation.

The United church has apologized, but has actively denied that any children died and fired the Minister (Kevin Annett) who exposed children's deaths at a United church school.

The Catholic church has never apologized and actively denies any deaths. It has recently been announced that the Pope will apologize for cultural, physical and sexual abuses but again there will be no mention of deaths.

The federal government, which took charge of the church-run schools in 1872, reports that it never requested any records from the schools regarding deaths of children: Only a total number of students enrolled was reported each year for funding purposes. The fact that records were not kept, families were never informed and graves were hidden suggests nefarious motives.

This must be clarified through proper investigation, for there can be no reconciliation without the whole truth.

Due to public pressure, Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has hired a researcher to investigate school records for evidence of children's deaths. However, Canada has no plans to search the most obvious place - the unmarked gravesites known to exist near every former residential school.

Because of this government indifference/coverup, some independent Canadians are seeking independent international financial and technical support to conduct surveys of school grounds to establish the presence of unmarked graves, and approximate numbers of children buried there.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[tango]

A personal story:

My great-grandmother was a medicine woman in Saskatchewan. She travelled primarily by horse-drawn wagon and lived in a tipi. Indian policy in Canada required all status and treaty Indian children to attend residential schools. Following this policy, the local Indian agent and RCMP came and took away all five of my great-grandmother’s children and sent them to residential school. Only three survived. My grandmother’s experiences in the school were drastically different from Martha’s experiences in the story. My grandmother was sexually abused during her first year at school, and although she survived her experience, it affected her psychologically. She turned away from her culture, became an alcoholic, and died young from breast cancer. Her brothers would not survive their first year at school. Both died from diseases. When my great-grandmother, Mrs. Okweehow, came back in the spring to pick up her children, there was no happy reunion as there is in Sterling’s book. She waited in vain outside the school for her two sons to come out. The nuns had failed to inform my grandmother that her brothers had died, and when they eventually informed my great-grandmother that the boys were dead, they would not tell her where they were buried. There are many more stories much like these.

http://www.langandlit.ualberta.ca/archives...ers/desiree.htm

Edited April 17, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

Indigenous people and their ways of life have been and are still being destroyed all over the world. From Colonialism to the Globalism Project, indigenous people have been misunderstood and consequently brutalized for generations.

[bjre]

Nothing is more wicked cruelty than taking kids away from their parents. The very basic human right for kids is under the care of their parents, and the very basic human right of parents is take care of their kids. This is even true for the animals in nature. People from each culture should be respected for their own education method. That is part of their culture. If the government like to change it, it should educate them, instead of just kidnap their kids and waste tax dollars and throw them into danger and let them live or die. This is actually more than a crime than anything the first nation did to their kids.

In a country that there is some law to grant others take away kids from their parents when the kids do not willing to and the parents don’t willing to, anything talk about human rights in this country is totally hypocritical. Nothing can be trust before this kind of laws has been abolished.

[August1991]

It's a fact not well known by Canadians, because it has been hidden from us, that thousands of children died in Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools.

And how many native children died because of the choices of their own parents?

CBC: Reserve mourns girls who froze to death in Sask.

[cybercoma]

And how many native children died because of the choices of their own parents?

CBC: Reserve mourns girls who froze to death in Sask.

How many other Canadian children died because of the choices of their own parents?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

[tango]

In a country that there is some law to grant others take away kids from their parents when the kids do not willing to and the parents don’t willing to, anything talk about human rights in this country is totally hypocritical. Nothing can be trust before this kind of laws has been abolished.

That's the sickening secret of Canada: We are supposedly a leader in human rights, but we have perpetrated many crimes against Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[tango]

And how many native children died because of the choices of their own parents?

CBC: Reserve mourns girls who froze to death in Sask.

Over 50,000 children died in the care of the churches and the federal government.

The destruction of culture, families and communities and the abuse of children and the loss of land resonates in the ill health and social problems of their communities to this day, it is true.

One of the most serious effects was that the childfren grew up unable to love and care for and parent their own children, due to the environment of the schools and their own psychological trauma.

Destruction of culture and family has severe and long lasting, intergenerational impacts, and according to our own courts, we are accountable for our attempts to destroy Indigenous cultures.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[August1991]

Over 50,000 children died in the care of the churches and the federal government.

Cite?

-----

A death of any child is a tragedy. I think however that you are playing a mistaken game of "white guilt".

We are now in the 21st century and many people from around the world live in North America. Simply because some people came here before others does not give them any special rights.

Destruction of culture and family has severe and long lasting, intergenerational impacts, and according to our own courts, we are accountable for our attempts to destroy Indigenous cultures.

Many Jewish families suffered terribly in World War II. And yet, many Jews are successful today.

Tango, these questions are more complex than you pretend.

Edited April 18, 2009 by August1991

[bjre]

Cite?

-----

A death of any child is a tragedy. I think however that you are playing a mistaken game of "white guilt".

We are now in the 21st century and many people from around the world live in North America. Simply because some people came here before others does not give them any special rights.

If as you said why CAS has that special right to ignore kids to death without been charged, and after Harper apologize, they still have that special right?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/441820

http://www.straight.com/article-149353/ste...dential-schools

[August1991]

How many other Canadian children died because of the choices of their own parents?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

Cybercoma, these young soldiers were not children. They freely chose.

I can only add that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are involved in a battle as old as Galileo or older. They are part of a long, and good western tradition. Because of them, we are civilized.

Note to bjre: By asking for a cite, I was asking for Tango's bolded 50,000 statistic.

Edited April 18, 2009 by August1991

[bjre]

Cybercoma, these young soldiers were not children. They freely chose.

I can only add that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are involved in a battle as old as Galileo or older. They are part of a long, and good western tradition. Because of them, we are civilized.

Civilized enough to tell reason to take human life. Nothing better than a wolf cry before eat an human.

[tango]

Cite?

-----

A death of any child is a tragedy. I think however that you are playing a mistaken game of "white guilt".

We are now in the 21st century and many people from around the world live in North America. Simply because some people came here before others does not give them any special rights.

Many Jewish families suffered terribly in World War II. And yet, many Jews are successful today.

Tango, these questions are more complex than you pretend.

I don't believe in guilt, so that's not my issue but perhaps yours, and the term 'white gui9lt' is sickening as it is intended as dismissal.

I believe in truth and facts and taking action.

Many Indigenous people are successful today too.

Of course there is no 'official' government or church citation for the deaths of children in the residential schools, because they are still covering it up.

However, we know that well over 100,000 children attended the schools, and we know that for the period 1907 to 1940, at least half of the children died and no efforts were made to prevent the spread of disease: Sick and well children were housed together despite decades of warnings.

The research was initially done by Kevin Annett, and was recently replicated and confirmed by the Globe and Mail, using National Archive data. (see G&M link above)

They are very complex questions. However, government and church accountability for the policies and practices of the residential schools has been established in our own courts, resulting in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is supervised by the UN/ICTJ (See link in op).

http://www.trc-cvr.ca/

We know about the rampant abuse in the schools.

Now we need to know the truth about the children who died.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[August1991]

Possible thread hijack ahead.

Civilized enough to tell reason to take human life. Nothing better than a wolf cry before eat an human.

To defeat Hitler, some people died while killing other people.

bjre, do you think that we could have defeated Hitler without the loss of human life? Perhaps, but 1935, I put you down as more Chamberlain than Churchill.

Of course there is no government or church citation for the deaths of children in the residential schools, because they are still covering it up.

However, we know that well over 100,000 children attended the schools, and we know that for the period 1907 to 1940, at least half of the children died.

The research was initially done by Kevin Annett, and was recently replicated and confirmed by the Globe and Mail, using National Archive data. (see G&M link above)

So, half the children in residential schools died?

Tango, you harm your legitimate argument because you exaggerate.

Edited April 18, 2009 by August1991

[tango]

I would appreciate it if you would stop hijacking this thread topic.

Start another thread please!!

[tango]

So, half the children in residential schools died?

Tango, you harm your legitimate argument because you exaggerate.

Did you read the Globe and Mail link in the op?

They conducted an independent investigation.

50,000 is a very conservative estimate because some churches have not provided their school enrolment data.

No, there is no exaggeration. If anything, an underestimate.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[bjre]

Possible thread hijack ahead.

To defeat Hitler, some people died while killing other people.

bjre, do you think that we could have defeated Hitler without the loss of human life? Perhaps, but 1935, I put you down as more Chamberlain than Churchill.

It is different, Hitler aggressively kill others first.

The native people did not aggressively kill other people before the government grant some people aggressively rob their kids.

For the chance, I did not study that history deeply, although I guess it could be better way, I guess Chamberlain encourage Hitler to attack east first make him lost the chance of loose less lives. (Just like the US encourage Saddam to attach Iran before he attack Kowet). And even before that, I guess that could be ways to prevent Hilter, for example, if the other countries good enough to make themselves strong enough, how dare Hilter to attack them? I guess each country has many selfish people in govenment, they don't care about country, they care only themselves or their own interest groups.

Edited April 18, 2009 by bjre

[cybercoma]

We are now in the 21st century and many people from around the world live in North America. Simply because some people came here before others does not give them any special rights.

It depends on your perspective. Residential schools destroyed the native way of life, which had been developed over centuries for sustainable living and survival in the Canadian wilderness. The government thought enough of the rights of indigenous people to give the Inuit their own territory (Nunavut).

That doesn't mean you're wrong to say that cultural and ethnic nationalism is outmoded and we should pursue a more homogenized global identity. Of course, that denies the Quebecois their claim to nationalism as well, so I'm not sure if that's the perspective you want to apply to these scenarios.

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[tango]

Canada is a Nation of Nations!

[cybercoma]

Canada is a Nation of Nations!

So are a lot of other countries. Bosnia found out the hard way what that means.

Let me ask a question of everyone. What do you feel is more important: patriotism or nationalism?

My answer is a bit of cop-out, but I can only say that I don't know at this point in my life.

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[August1991]

That doesn't mean you're wrong to say that cultural and ethnic nationalism is outmoded and we should pursue a more homogenized global identity. Of course, that denies the Quebecois their claim to nationalism as well, so I'm not sure if that's the perspective you want to apply to these scenarios.

For me, Canada is largely a practical question. I don't expect Ojibway to become an Official or even a National language.

Yet, French is an Official language. We must all deal with this modern world, including CAW members at Chrysler.

----

Cybercoma, you raise a good question, relevant to this thread. Aboriginals in Australia or North America inevitably face the future, just like CAW workers, and people in Quebec or English Canada or Idaho.

How best should anyone cope with the changes of the future? Deny them? Force others to pay for the future's changes?

Edited April 18, 2009 by August1991

[bjre]

Aboriginals in Australia or North America inevitably face the future, just like CAW workers, and people in Quebec or English Canada or Idaho.

How best should anyone cope with the changes of the future? Deny them? Force others to pay for the future's changes?

Totally hypocritial, when the gov talk about Aboriginals, those people have to face future. When they talk about Tibet, Chinese need to respect their culture. Actually, Chinese governement did much better in protect Tibet culture.

So what future aboriginals inevitably face, CAS continue rob their kids? NO HUMAN RIGHT AT ALL.

[cybercoma]

August,

The aboriginal people lived off the land and were accustomed to sustainable survival in our harsh climate. European settlement destroyed their way of life, and is the definition of ethnocentrism to think that native peoples should just adopt to our way of life and "advance" their societies. The reason they need to adapt is that we have stolen their way of life and made it nearly impossible to fulfill when we settled their lands, destroyed their natural environment, introduced non-native wildlife and overpopulated the land (such that we could not live their sustainable way of life ourselves). Residential schools were a fundamental part of that destruction of their cultural autonomy and subsequently their way of living. Perhaps they shouldn't adapt. They survived for hundreds of years on the land and they could continue to do so, if we would just give them the freedom and respect that they arguably deserve.

Here's my point about perspectives. To the Quebecois question, you (actually, I'm not sure if YOU personally do, but Quebec nationalists do) respond by promoting national (that is to say cultural, not state) autonomy, if not outright sovereignty. You first identify with being a Quebecer and support cultural autonomy. The primary goal is decentralization of power from a multinational state, so that national/cultural autonomy can be realized. However, you do not hold that position for other nations within Canada. You hide behind historical and institutional precedence (which is biased against aboriginals) as a reason it should not be afforded to others, yet the aboriginals were here first. The stance is inconsistent.

There's nothing wrong with believing in cultural autonomy, or even sovereignty. That belief, however, should be applied equally to all cultures. (What I mean here is not so much cultures, but nations with national identities.) What's wrong is believing in integration (state or global primacy), for one nation, but not for another.

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[tango]

Totally hypocritial, when the gov talk about Aboriginals, those people have to face future. When they talk about Tibet, Chinese need to respect their culture. Actually, Chinese governement did much better in protect Tibet culture.

So what future aboriginals inevitably face, CAS continue rob their kids? NO HUMAN RIGHT AT ALL.

Absolutely.

Canada pretends to support Indigenous Peoples ... in other countries ... citing China's human rights offences against Tibetans, as bjre said.

But the United Nations cites Canada for inaction and abuse of human and land rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada.

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Document...6_4_CAN_3_E.PDF

C. Institutional and human rights infrastructure

9. Joint Submission Six (JS6)21 noted the federal Government claims that difficulties in

federal/provincial/territorial relationships present obstacles in fulfilment of treaty obligations, but remarked that when Canada signs an international human rights treaty, all levels of government are bound by it.22

Joint Submission One (JS1)23 recommended development of a coordinated and

accountable process for monitoring implementation, involving both levels of government,

indigenous peoples and civil society.24

And bjre, your point is well taken that children continue to be taken from Indigenous families much more often than the general population.

90 children died in care in Canada this year. They said it's the first time they've ever looked at that information. Some children in care have life threatening illnesses, it's true.

But the information warrants further investigation.

Since over 50,000 children (were) disappeared, and are still unaccounted for, from Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools, I want to know how many children 'in care' in Canada today are currently unaccounted for.

I want to know that ... but they don't know ... because this year is the first time EVER that they have even looked at the information about how many children DIED in care in Canada each year.

:angry:

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[tango]

So are a lot of other countries. Bosnia found out the hard way what that means.

Let me ask a question of everyone. What do you feel is more important: patriotism or nationalism?

My answer is a bit of cop-out, but I can only say that I don't know at this point in my life.

You raise an interesting issue, but I think you've asked the wrong question.

There is no limit to love.

One can love one's country, where we all live together the same but different, and also love one's nation(s) of people.

They aren't always the same, especially not for all of us immigrants.

Country is association by contiguity - living side by side - and nation is genetic and cultural roots.

We don't have to choose between loving our land(s), and loving our people(s).

imo

peace

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango