Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Argus]

You ignored the question No wonder, if you think child abuse is hilarious.

This post is even more actively dishonest than is usual for you

[Je suis Omar]

How many died on the reserves? How many died in white society?

One of the definitions of genocide is to forcibly take children away from their families, the purpose of which is to exterminate a culture. That was the express purpose of the Canadian government, the churches and society at large.

Elements of Transfer: Legislative Intent

What did the founders of the IRS system intend? Nicholas Flood Davin together with a swathe of Shognosh political leaders later in the century, were keenly interested in using the schools as a vehicle for the destruction of Aboriginal identity. Davin, an early influence on the IRS system, took 45 days to research and write a report, which he submitted in 1879. Davin recommended (in contradistinction to the American system) forging a partnership between government and churches, partly for cost savings, but more importantly to affect a more thorough level of assimilation. He concluded that since the IRS “would undermine existing spiritual and cultural beliefs,” it would be important to not to destroy a child’s faith “without supplying a better” one: Christianity. Davin was clear that residential schools were preferable to day schools on reserve since “the influence of the wigwam was stronger than the influence of the school.”

Davin’s report found support in Ottawa. Superintendent General of Indian Affairs Hector Langevin made it clear to Parliament in 1883 that residential schooling would enable Aboriginal children to “acquire the habits and tastes…of civilized people.” The intention of ending the separate existence of Aboriginal peoples as Aboriginal peoples was expressed in 1887 by John A MacDonald, when he argued: “The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion, as speedily as they are fit for the change.” To this senior Indian Affairs official Hayter Reed expressed his department’s perspective in the 1890s; the IRS system should make “every effort ... against anything calculated to keep fresh in the memories of the children habits and associations which it is one of the main objects of industrial education to obliterate.”

Then we move to Duncan Campbell Scott, the now infamous Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs, who opined similar sentiments about ending the separate existence of Aboriginal peoples. In 1915, Scott described his vision for the department: “the happiest future for the Indian Race is absorption into the general population, and this is the object of the policy of our government. The great forces of intermarriage and education will finally overcome the lingering traces of native custom and tradition.” Scott later gave his famous speech in 1920: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem … Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department…”

One could amass a large collection of these statements and musings which would provide, in anecdotal form, snapshots of the zeitgeist of the IRS founders and their intentions. Such snapshots are useful in demonstrating several recurring elements:

1. A discourse motivated by a desire to destroy Aboriginal peoples as Aboriginal peoples, or in other words, to destroy the group as such in whole or in part.

2. A belief that destruction was creative in that it would save individual Aboriginal people with the genetic capacity to excel once they had been freed from the shackles of their inferior cultural background.

3. A belief that no matter how difficult the process of removal and assimilation might be in the short term, in the long term, the visionary goals of Shognosh IRS boosters would be vindicated.

Ibid

[jacee]

I think it's useful to understand the residential school policies and programs in the larger context of the times and other policies imposed on Indigenous communities:

when-canada-used-hunger-to-clear-the-west

Canadian officials used food, or rather denied food, as a means to ethnically cleanse a vast region from Regina to the Alberta border as the Canadian Pacific Railway took shape.

For years, government officials withheld food from aboriginal people until they moved to their appointed reserves, forcing them to trade freedom for rations. Once on reserves, food placed in ration houses was withheld for so long that much of it rotted while the people it was intended to feed fell into a decades-long cycle of malnutrition, suppressed immunity and sickness from tuberculosis and other diseases. Thousands died.

Sir John A. Macdonald, acting as both prime minister and minister of Indian affairs during the darkest days of the famine, even boasted that the indigenous population was kept on the verge of actual starvation, in an attempt to deflect criticism that he was squandering public funds.

Within a generation, aboriginal bison hunters went from being the tallest in the world, due to the quality of their nutrition, to a population so sick, they were believed to be racially more susceptible to disease. With this belief that aboriginal people were inherently unwell, their marginalization from mainstream Canada was, in a sense, complete.

Clearly 'physical' genocide was conducted in Canada.

Clearly malnourishment and untreated disease were used as strategies, bragged about at the highest levels.

And the TRC report indicates clearly that those policies were implemented in the 'Indian' Residential Schools too.

.

[jacee]

How many other kids died who weren't natives? How many natives died on the reserves?

Look it up.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is there more interest in talking about the meaning of 'genocide' than talking about what to do with this report moving forward ?

[Smallc]

Why is there more interest in talking about the meaning of 'genocide' than talking about what to do with this report moving forward ?

Okay, what do we do with it (beyond what has already been done)

And the discussion at hand (the meaning of words) is important to the discussion of what happened and what to do about it.

[Je suis Omar]

Why is there more interest in talking about the meaning of 'genocide' than talking about what to do with this report moving forward ?

Because the widespread ignorance has to be countered, Michael. The notion that this was just a benevolent policy that didn't quite work out as planned is also part of the widespread ignorance. Full disclosure is never a bad thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, what do we do with it (beyond what has already been done)

I really don't know. I'm looking to read some knowledgeable people on here to discuss it.

And the discussion at hand (the meaning of words) is important to the discussion of what happened and what to do about it.

Well, I agree with that but at some point we should move forward right ? This isn't a facilitation thing - if the conversation needs to spend a lot of time on this definition then that's what needs to happen - but I feel like I'd like to hear arguments about the way forward by now.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I agree with that but at some point we should move forward right ? This isn't a facilitation thing - if the conversation needs to spend a lot of time on this definition then that's what needs to happen - but I feel like I'd like to hear arguments about the way forward by now.

What's so special about now compared to the last 20 years ? Suddenly it's a big hurry ??

[Michael Hardner]

Because the widespread ignorance has to be countered, Michael. The notion that this was just a benevolent policy that didn't quite work out as planned is also part of the widespread ignorance. Full disclosure is never a bad thing.

Unfortunately, your response speaks to (in my mind) the failure of a lot of left-of-centre thinking... It's easier and more comfortable, morally, to speak about broad values and righteous proselytizing than to get to the matter at hand.

There were policy recommendations made. We can talk about those details, about the budgetary considerations, about tracking implementation success and so on... or we can put our fists in the air, figuratively, cry solidarity and forget about all of this in a few years.

The latter approach is what will happen if we only moralize about this, and the irony is ... that kind of ignorance brought this disaster upon us in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

What's so special about now compared to the last 20 years ? Suddenly it's a big hurry ??

A 20-year thread ? Now you're talking....

[bush_cheney2004]

The latter approach is what will happen if we only moralize about this, and the irony is ... that kind of ignorance brought this disaster upon us in the first place.

Wasn't ignorance at all....it was economic and cultural malice.

[Michael Hardner]

Wasn't ignorance at all....it was economic and cultural malice.

I feel like we're arguing from different sides of the table here. My take on it was that it was well-thinking social engineering gone wrong, a pock mark on the idea of 'progressivism', that became especially pernicious when people trusted the do-gooders to do their thing away from the public gaze.

[TimG]

I really don't know. I'm looking to read some knowledgeable people on here to discuss it.

Here are some links on opinions worth reading:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/fixating-on-the-past-makes-progress-difficult/article24759214/

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-overly-sweeping-reconciliation-commission-report-misses-chance-to-be-effective

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clifton-rubenstein-debunking-the-half-truths-and-exaggerations-in-the-truth-and-reconciliation-report

IMO, the commission forgot about the "reconciliation" part of their mandate and should have known that choosing deliberately provocative words would derail the discussion and completely undermined their credibility.

i.e. why should anyone believe the commission report is a fair and accurate accounting of history given there desire to be needlessly political in their presentation?

Edited June 3, 2015 by TimG

[PIK]

And who's idea was to build these schools.

[bush_cheney2004]

I feel like we're arguing from different sides of the table here. My take on it was that it was well-thinking social engineering gone wrong, a pock mark on the idea of 'progressivism', that became especially pernicious when people trusted the do-gooders to do their thing away from the public gaze.

No, I think there may have been a thin veneer of "progressivism", like using religion to justify slavery. Underneath it all were the far stronger and intentional purpose of economics and power. Did you ever wonder where the term "railroaded" came from ?

Edited June 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Underneath it all were the far stronger and intentional purpose of economics and power. Did you ever wonder where the term "railroaded" came from ?

I never did until now. Interesting.

[Je suis Omar]

Unfortunately, your response speaks to (in my mind) the failure of a lot of left-of-centre thinking... It's easier and more comfortable, morally, to speak about broad values and righteous proselytizing than to get to the matter at hand.There were policy recommendations made. We can talk about those details, about the budgetary considerations, about tracking implementation success and so on... or we can put our fists in the air, figuratively, cry solidarity and forget about all of this in a few years.The latter approach is what will happen if we only moralize about this, and the irony is ... that kind of ignorance brought this disaster upon us in the first place.

This has nothing to do with any left/right notions. This has to do with the policies of the Canadian government which fall clearly under the internationally accepted definitions of genocide.

It's immoral to engage in confabulation just to allow oneself to ease the burden on one's mind. You only want to talk about talking about "We can talk about those details, about the budgetary ... ".

"I don’t see why a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil which produced this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.”

Adolf Hitler discussing German expansionism in Table Talk

[Je suis Omar]

I feel like we're arguing from different sides of the table here. My take on it was that it was well-thinking social engineering gone wrong, a pock mark on the idea of 'progressivism', that became especially pernicious when people trusted the do-gooders to do their thing away from the public gaze.

That hardly qualifies as full disclosure, Michael.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never did until now. Interesting.

Also, recall my assertion that South Africa explored and imported Canada's reserve system with a different objective....South Africa badly needed black labourers, but Canada did not need or desire native folk in such a capacity, preferring to import mostly European emigres, Asians, etc.

Edited June 3, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

IMO, the commission forgot about the "reconciliation" part of their mandate and should have known that choosing deliberately provocative words would derail the discussion and completely undermined their credibility.

i.e. why should anyone believe the commission report is a fair and accurate accounting of history given there desire to be needlessly political in their presentation?

Maybe. I agree with Michael Den Tandt, I think:

That said, for all the reconciliation commission report’s visceral power, its voluminous recommendations – 94 in total, ranging from sports policy to funding for the CBC – have done aboriginal Canadians a disservice, it seems to me. The reason is that, in demanding change just about everywhere, to just about everything, the authors have made it all the easier for politicians and the majority of voters to toss the lot on the shelf with all the previous reports, there to gather dust. A pragmatic, tightly focused set of demands, with a few key priorities uppermost, could have had more lasting impact, particularly in an election year.

[Michael Hardner]

That hardly qualifies as full disclosure, Michael.

Disclosure of what ?

[Je suis Omar]

Disclosure of what ?

Deja vu all over again.

"We can talk about those details, about the budgetary considerations, about tracking implementation success and so on..",

Everything but the genocide.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[jacee]

Why is there more interest in talking about the meaning of 'genocide' than talking about what to do with this report moving forward ?

Understanding and accepting the past is necessary for moving forward.

However, most of the people responding in this thread (not you Michael) are and will remain adamantly opposed to both because of their own prejudices, so there isn't any constructive discussion about positive ways of moving forward to be had here.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Does that constitute proof in your book? That phrase was uttered almost 150 years ago.

And it was continued for the subsequent 100 years.