Talk:Canadian residential school system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] useage of terms

usage of the term genocide is accurate, for it was an attemmpt at destroying the myriad cultures .

usage of the term abduction does imply unlawfulness and it was, so it should stand, but that does not make it untrue, it wa also immoral.

I sasy those two terms should be reinserted.

[user:gabrielsimon|gabrielsimon]

"Genocide: the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation." (Canadian Oxford Dictionary.) Since there was no mass exterminations in residential schools, it was not a genocide. They did attempt cultural assimilation, but not mass murder. Indefatigable 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No about 50% of the kids that attended these schools were murdered. The Canadian government knew about it so why wouldnt it be classified as genocide? The government still let the schools stay up as kids were being abused and killed off. So they were kind of exterminating people. Its debatable. [User:Steveio]

If you have sources providing evidence that 50% of the children were murdered, please post them here so the rest of us can have a look at them. John FitzGerald 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe there's one author who made that kind of assertion, but he's been heavily criticised by people on both sides of the debate. As for Genocide, why not consult the wikipedia entry:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: 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; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Oddly, it's very hard to prove genocide in courts because it's hard to prove intent, which is why Serbian leaders have recently been found innocent. In the case of Canada, I think intent is actually more clearly established.

Now, there is of course, a more common understanding of genocide which means physical annihillation of a people, as in the holocaust, but that's not the official, not the original understanding.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere or cideo - to massacre).

Lemkin said about the definition of genocide in its original adoption for international law at the Geneva Conventions:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

-- TheMightyQuill 18:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the meaning of genocide, I was asking what the source was for the assertion that half the children in residential schools were murdered. John FitzGerald 03:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, but read User:Indefatigable's comments above. -- TheMightyQuill 09:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read them already, and I'm still looking for an answer to my question. Believe it or not, I'm willing to consider the evidence. All anyone has to do is provide it. John FitzGerald 13:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, Kevin Annett tries to prove something like that in his book "Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust" (2005) -- TheMightyQuill 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. John FitzGerald 20:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What's available online about Annett's book is extremely interesting. Certainly it should at least be mentioned in the article. If no one else adds anything I will, but first I want to look into it more. So far I can find no official or scholarly response to Annett's book, which is interesting in itself. John FitzGerald 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This link is to a site which summarizes Annett's work and from which you can download a copy of his report. My next step is to read the report. The evidence on the site is not as detailed as one would hope. A couple of times he posts the title page of a report as if that proved his contention that the report is evidence for his assertions. the page listed as an addendum to the Bryce report is pretty substantial, though. However, he doesn't provide Bryce's discussion of his tables. Nevertheless, at first glance there seems to be evidence that if the schools weren't trying to kill off Indians then things were even worse than Annett claims. John FitzGerald 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems Bryce's report was accepted as accurate at the time. How interesting that it has disappeared from our collective memory. Thanks, Quill and Indefatigable, for bringing this to my attention. i would appreciate any further helpp you could provide in incorporating this material into the article. John FitzGerald 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew I had read some remarks about controversy surrounding the book, but just now remembered where I saw them: Talk:Hidden_from_History:_The_Canadian_Holocaust -- TheMightyQuill 21:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnicide

omnicide is herein made refernece to in that it was heard to be defined as a removal of cultural variety.

The article on omnicide does not have this definition. I fail to see the relevance of the term in the residential school article. Indefatigable 15:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

useage of terms -

[edit] native

in this case native isnt speaking of those born in a country, its speaking of ancestry, natives were ancetrally from canada, even before canda was, so it fits. and pelaes dont make the argument that natives in candaa arent orgionally from canda, the bergiing land brdge theory is shakey at best, but if you go with it, all people are from africa.... so no ones native to anywhere but there.

 the word native should be re inserted.

Gabrielsimon

I'm not saying Aboriginal people are not natives, but I'm saying that it's not useful to call them that because it does not distinguish them from most of the other residents of the country, because they are natives too: they were born there. Even if you look at nations instead of individuals, it's still problematic: the Québécois nation is definitely native to Canada, but not an Aboriginal nation; the Acadian nation is native to Canada, but not Aboriginal; even the Canadian nation is arguably native to Canada. The more specific and unambiguous term Aboriginal is the much better term. What do you think is wrong with Aboriginal and why do you prefer native? Indefatigable 04:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Isn't First Nations currently the preferred term? - SimonP 04:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree that First Nation is the preferred term. 'Native' is still acceptable. I agree that 'native' has the problem of general usage conflicting with the dictionary usage. However, in Canada, general usage for 'native' as first nation is very well established. Aboriginal has never been widely accepted and is more of an anthropological term than a used term. (I know there are a few exceptions, such as the Aboriginal Youth Network, and Aboroginal TV) Most Canadians think of aboriginal as a Australian. -- Webgeer 06:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

the word aborigional stems from origoional fropm somewhere else, accoring to the latin transations, so it implies that the natives arent from here origionally., and therein lies my problem with the word. GabrielSimon


Its etymology is just the opposite of what you assert: "ab + origin", means "from the beginning", i.e. "from the beginning of time". Indefatigable 22:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


then i have been misinformed. not the first time, and not the last.

GabrielSimon

I'm looking at the Department of Indian Affairs website, and it uses Aboriginal to refer to "First Nations" as well as Metis and Inuit. -Joshuapaquin 01:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • First Nations should probably be used whenever possible (but note: this phrase does not include Inuit or Metis). In a more informal sentence or description, native seems to be okay. Aboriginal seems to be primarily used as an adjective in more formal descriptions, as described above (Aboriginal Youth Network) or to replace First Nations if you are talking about Inuit, Metis and other native people together. Thus, you could say something like Aboriginal politicians to describe a group that included politicians from all native groups.
  • Native is almost always taken to refer to Aboriginal people in Canada. It would only be taken otherwise is if it described a noun like: "native Montrealer". There are more comprehensive divisions at the AINC website, but these seem to be the fundamental ones.--Simon.Pole 08:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] gradual civilisation act = blantanly racist

ever read the act? i fid it to be pretty clear that its batantly racust, considering " take the indian out of Her magesty's Red Children" is an actual quote from it, also I do find, that the standards of education were nearly always subpar, so tht wording seemed justified.Gavin the Chosen 04:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Royal Commission's report, the Gradual Civilization Act was in effect for only 19 years (1857 to 1876), and doesn't seem to have been focused on schools. This article needs an edit to tone down the amount of weight put on the Gradual Civilization Act, but I don't feel qualified to do it myself. Indefatigable 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scope change

Cut from text (after page move):

The term residential school generally refers to any school at which students live in addition to attending classes.

[edit] Kinds of residential schools

There are various kinds of residential schools. They are distinct in nature depending upon the scope or functional aspects of its organization. The most common type of residential school are boarding schools. Other forms of residential schools include resident schools for disabled pupils (e.g. for students who are blind), special needs residential schools (e.g. for mentally challenged students), and the Israeli kibbutzim, where children stay and get educated in a commune, but also have everyday contact with their parents at specified hours.

[edit] Mandatory residential schools for Aboriginal children

In Canada, the term usually refers to

The above had very little to do with boarding schools in general. But I'd love to see something that relates the following:

  1. boarding school
  2. residential school
  3. summer camp - not sure this fits in, but it does have kids living away from their parents
  4. reform school
  5. public school - i.e., British prep school: Eton, Goodbye, Mr. Chips

Great start, just needed a scope change. Uncle Ed 20:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for saying that the canadian residential school system was racist.

  1. http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/residential_schools.htm
  2. http://www.united-church.ca/residentialschools/vision.shtm
  3. http://collections.ic.gc.ca/shingwauk/Section4/section4_1_5.html
  4. http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=print&article=7
  5. http://www.bcma.org/public/bc_medical_journal/BCMJ/2001/march_2001/ResidentialSchoolSyndrome.asp - healing subsection

I believe these should suffice.Gavin the Chosen 21:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It was obviously racist because because one's schooling was made dependent on one's race. John FitzGerald 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Act and assimilation

Does the Indian Act really promote assimilation? It seems to me it promotes segregation – setting aside reserves and establishing benefits which Indians have to live on reserve to receive. John FitzGerald 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Having received no replies to my question I have removed the following two sentences:

The Indian Act and the Gradual Civilization Act, though the latter is now defunct, are both attempts by the involved churches and governments at cultural erasure and assimilation. The Indian Act is still in operation today, and although much more low key, it continues working towards cultural assimilation.

I am open to argument that the Indian Act promotes assimilation, but I don't see it myself and think that if it does the way in which it does so needs to be stated in the article. John FitzGerald 14:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I don;t see how the residential schools can have promoted both assimilation and apartheid. John FitzGerald 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

Could someone supply examples of people who have argued the residential schools were similar to apartheid schools, and of how they thought they were similar? The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks separate, while the goal of the residential schools was to assimilate First Nations children into white culture. The adoption programs had a similar goal. The provisions of the Indian Act bear a strong resemblance to apartheid, but the schools seem definitely assimilationist. John FitzGerald 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to this request, I took out the phrase "and similar to apartheid" from the end of the sentence beginning "Because morals have changed". The article states that the schools have been proven to be assimilationist, so calling them apartheid institutions is inconsistent. John FitzGerald 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong/weak pressure

I reverted the "slight changes" to the section about seventeenth century schools until some evidence can be provided for the exertion of strong pressure to attend them. I don't see how "European communities" could have exerted strong pressure at the time, but am willng to be proved wrong. Certainly there was strong pressure in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. John FitzGerald 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

From the article

"However, the First Nations people did not wish to be converted and were under little pressure from the European communities to attend the residential schools. Consequently, only few Aboriginals ever attended them. Most schools did not last over a decade."

The original version of the article gives the impression that the low attendance of aboriginals was due to "Little pressure " from the European communities which is incorrect. SO the sentence should mean something like " Inspite of the pressure from the European Community, the aboriginals resisted the conversion attempts. For that "slight" modification of some words are necessary there.Bharatveer 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But what is your source for the assertion that the First Nations were under pressure? The current wording is probably accurate in a very broad sense, but what is the evidence that the original wording was wrong? John FitzGerald 12:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that Bharatveer has changed the article again, but without providing any justification for his edit. So I'm leaving the tag on. John FitzGerald 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer has replied to my request on my talk page, telling me my request for evidence is "funny." Well, I'll see what evidence I can fin. Until then I'll leave the tag on. John FitzGerald 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this will resolve your dispute, but J.R. Miller concludes his chapter on residential schools in New France with this: "The French tried and failed to create a system of European residential schooling for a small minority of the indigenous people in New France. The effort failed because the Indians rejected it and because the missionaries came to the conclusion that it was not essential to evangelization. Merchants, along with the military, did not favour the sort of assimilative campaign of which residential schooling was, or might have been, a part. The crown, for its part, quickly gave up an initial enthusiasm for assimilation, miscegenation, and social integration in the face of indigenous resistance, the indifference of missionaries and merchants, and the imperatives of military requirements." J.R. Miller, Shingwauk's Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1996), p. 60. Miller's writing suggests that Europeans did exert such pressure as they could on the Natives to get them to send their children to the residential schools, but it also suggests that they usually ended up paying (with gifts) for the right to teach these children.

However you resolve this dispute, I question the premise that the first Canadian residential schools were established by colonial France. Firstly, the article rightly defines residential schools as boarding schools run by churches and funded by the Canadian government. In New Fance, the colonial government didn't fund residential schools until after 1663. A variety of Catholic orders established and ran very small residential schools before that without state funding. The French government provided funding for a few schools in the 1660s and 1670s. I would consider these to be French residential schools. Secondly, the French residential schools differed in important ways from what most Canadians think of as Native residential schools. Very few of them (if any) were segregated, meaning that colonial French children attended these schools alongside Native children. After 1639, the Jesuit residential schools (or seminaries, as the Jesuits themselves referred to them), accepted adult students. The French residential schools in this era were very few and very small, usually with fewer than 10 Native students.--PeasantScribbler 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but I think the information about early schools is historically relevant. That is, I don;t see excising it but rather cleaning it up to make our points. John FitzGerald 11:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag

Since Bharatveer hasn't come up with any argument for saying that Europeans were exerting strong pressure on members of First Nations to attend residential schools, I've added the Disputeabout tag and reverted to the last version which has the statement that pressure was weak. I don't know which position is true but I don;t think the statement should be changed without evidence being offered. Bharatveer simply states that it's incorrect. John FitzGerald 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This article presently contains statements like " Students were required to stay in residences on school premises, which were often walled or fortified in some manner, and were often forcibly removed from their homes, parents, and communities. Most students had no contact with their families for up to 10 months at a time due to the distance between their home communities and schools. Often, they did not have contact with their families for years at a time. The locations of the schools were planned deliberately to ensure a "proper distance" from the reserves. They were prohibited from speaking Aboriginal languages, even amongst themselves and outside the classroom, so that English or French would be successfully learned and their own languages forgotten. Students were subject to often unreasonably severe corporal punishment for speaking Aboriginal languages or practising non-Christian faiths. It is because of this that the residential school system (and indeed the entire Gradual Civilization Act) have been called blatantly racist by native rights groups and have been severely criticized as culturally insensitive or even inhumane. It has also been proven to have been a government and church sponsored attempt to assimilate the Aboriginals into the European-Canadian culture, and it was at least partially successful in many cases."

From this it is pretty clear that the pressure was strong and not "little" as the other editor tries to portray.The lead section of such an article should not be ambiguous .This part "were under little pressure from the European communities to attend the residential schools..." is highly misleading due to the fact that it white washes the impact of the cultural genocide. So I am going to delete the 'little pressure' and retain the dispute tag. Bharatveer 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your quotation does not refer to the seventeenth century. I am also not trying to portray the pressure as weak – I'm trying to find someone who can provide evidence it was one or the other. John FitzGerald 11:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite from Gradual Civilization Act needed

The schools' purpose was "to take the Indian out of the Queen's Red Children" according to the Gradual Civilization Act which implemented the system.

I strongly doubt that's the language of the Act; it's very un-Parliamentary and doesn't sound like legislative language at all; more like paraphrase, or from a newspaper article/editorial perhaps. Please find the act (which should be online or otherwise available from the Parliamentary Secretary of the National Archives) and cite the passage in question, or remove it.Skookum1 04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I can't believe this discussion is even taking place. Of course, the pressure was strong. Children were forcably removed from their homes to attend Residential schools. If you need references, read "A National Crime", "Resistance and Renewal" or other books by people with a PHD in Native Studies.

Also, why is there so much left out regarding the residential schools? Did you know that of the 100,000 chilren that attended residential schools, over HALF died inside the schools? That might be an interesting statistic you may want to include in your description. Also, the primary goal of the residential schools was to eliminate all aspects of native culture and identity within the children. ie: assimilation into a euro-centric colony.

I suggest that you guys read some books that deal with residential schools, rather than getting all your information from the Government. They sanctioned the schools, so their version of history is BIASED. But the truth is undisputed, that's why Canada and all the churches issued public apologies for the schools.

If you have this information why not add it to the article yourself, with citations? John FitzGerald 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attendance pressure dispute

The disputed sentence seems too confusing and should be clarified. It currently reads: Even under strong pressure from the European communities to attend the residential schools[citation needed], only a very few Aboriginals ever attended them. While this sentence's paragraph seems to refer only to French colonial schools in the seventeenth century, some users on this talk page seem to think it refers to the residential school system as a whole (including the much later era of compulsory attendance). I propose changing the sentence to read: Even under strong pressure from the French colonial community to attend the residential schools[citation needed], only a very few Aboriginals ever attended them.PeasantScribbler 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is not not about the number of aboriginals who attended but about the degree of pressure. The original text said that pressure was weak; Bharatveer changed it to say that the pressure was strong, but has provided no evidence. His argument seems to be that it could not have been weak. What this section needs is not re-wording but a citation to confirm one assertion or the other. So even if you changed the wording as you suggest (which I have no objection to) the disputeabout and fact tage would still be necessary. John FitzGerald 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I just checked and found that the original assertion about weak pressure was made by an anonymous user, so if anyone else has the same idea of finding the user who made the original assertion and asking them to provide a citation, don't waste your time. John FitzGerald 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I found a definitive reference. I think everyone's right. I'm going to change the text now. John FitzGerald 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Bryce

I haven't had time to look into Kevin Annett's work properly – that's going to require a look at his sources. I have added a few sentences about Peter Bryce's book and report, since they seem to be generally accepted as valid. I could be wrong, but that's why this is an open text encyclopedia. John FitzGerald 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanadian_residential_school_system_2474.html"