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, Inuit, Métis 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: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Canada Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[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)

Indigenous would be something that differs from both Metis and Inuit, and it's technically and politically correct. OldManRivers 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

According to our Government, the term is "Indian". Even Indians still use the word "Indian" to describe themselves. This whole argument is semantic nonsense. We all know what people mean when saying,"Indian, Aboriginal, First Nations, etc." within this context. Matthew Cadrin 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's semantics, but it's not nonsense. Some black people still use the word nigger to describe themselves, but we wouldn't use it on wikipedia. The Indian Act still uses the term indian, but it was written in the 19th century. (The same act also still says native people on reserves in the prairies can't sell any produce without permission...) We in Canada may know what these terms mean, but wikipedia is read outside Canada. - TheMightyQuill 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that just because the Indian Act was written in the 19th century does not make it invalid. The BNA Act was written then too, does it not matter because of when it was written? Legislation does not age, it can change, but it doesn't age. Those reading wikipedia should know then that the term the Canadian Government uses and therefore, the official term when referring to "native" groups in Canada, is "Indians". It is the correct term legally and politically regardless of whether or not you feel it is correct. Matthew Cadrin 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we don't usually describe Canada as a Dominion anymore, do we? So I guess your point about the BNA act isn't a good example. Technically, France is legally/officially "The French Republic" but the article doesn't use that term either. Common & accepted usage counts for a lot here. - TheMightyQuill 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That is quite possibly the worst counter-argument I have ever heard...wait, no it's not, counter-arguments use logic and reason. Maybe you should wiki both, so in the future you'll have a firm understanding of the concepts involved and be able to say something intelligent. Matthew Cadrin 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, understanding the issues at stake in naming cultural groups, esp. those who have suffered profoundly through centuries of colonialism, is not best accomplished by rudimentary relativisms. Arguing that the legal and social traditions of naming Canada's indigenous populations are sound because the Indian Act is still in effect is plainly fallacious. This sort of claim is precisely what the development of the "crime of humanity" after the fall of the Nazis was meant to affect. Anti-Jewish laws were used by perpetrators as an excuse who claimed they were just following orders based on legal principles upheld by the Third Reich. This examples makes clear that law does not rest on moral bedrock but on nomos, on a shared cultural idea. And the shared cultural idea behind coining and perpetuating the name "Indian" is the same that allowed for the legion of disgraceful encounters between Native groups in Canada and its various governments (remember this is an article about residential schools, but maybe you think that they were okay as well)-- that of cultural and racial superiority. One of the easier ways (though arguably less substantial) to lessen the burden of this brutal history is to avoid using the terminology or "voice" of the oppressor. Repeating the term "Indian" in the way you suggest is a classic example of this, and any degree of genuine self-reflexivity and reading of contemporary thought on Canada's colonial history would affirm that. How's that for counter-argument...? Dissonant1 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (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)

A reference to the Gradual Civilization Act is required, i.e., the full text. Please add it Fremte 22:00, 12 October 2007 (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:

boarding school
residential school
summer camp - not sure this fits in, but it does have kids living away from their parents
reform school
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.

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)

By that rationale, the current Franco-Manitoban school division in Manitoba is racist, because you can't get in unless you can prove French heritage. Ditto for a variety of schools in Quebec. 64.4.90.30 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Steve T

Well those ones are racist too then! 99.226.10.146 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (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)

i would say that it promoted cultural destruction, erasure, and genocide ( on a cultural level, not on a biological level)Charred Feathers 15:11, 6 May 2007 (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)

[edit] Names and numbers of residential schools? (etc.)

It'd be interesting to know how many residential schools existed at various times, and to list them.

I'd also be interested to know the number of people who went through the schools at various times.userX 06:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone want to discuss this calmly?

Personally, I think the article should definitely mention the word genocide, because it is often used, HOWEVER, I think it definitely needs to be cited, since it isn't the commonly used definition of genocide (even if residential schools do fit the official definition). I think the terms assimilate, assimilation and forced assimilation should also be used since they are ALSO accurate (forced complete cultural assimilation is genocide) and since the term cultural genocide doesn't work well with every sentence.

Agreed. I full heartly agree. OldManRivers 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard residential schools referred to as apartheid (the pass system, however...) but if someone can find a source for it, fine. Until then, "it has been criticized..." are weasel words.

I haven't heard of the Residential Schools refered to that, but the Indian Act system as a whole I have. OldManRivers 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many children definitely had contact with their families during the summer months. Read "Stoney Creek Woman" by Mary John, Sr. or various other books. Some stayed at school year round, but I'm under the impression their parents were allowed to come get them, if they had the resources to travel etc.

Incorrect. The claim that many children definitely had contact.. is a bit farfetched. I could just as easily say, "Many children didn't have contact with their families..." In some area across the country, it may be true, to both statements. In cases, their parents were not allowed to take their children out for fear of attacks, threats, and loss of rights (what little they had already). OldManRivers 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I just mentioned this in response to the recent edit "Most students had no contact with their families for the duration of thier incareration." which I don't think is fair. Many students had no contact with their families sure, but most? I'm not sure anyone has collected information to see what percentage had contact, etc... The previous statement, "Most students had no contact with their families for up to 10 months at a time ... Often, they did not have contact with their families for years at a time" is accurate, as far as I know. TheMightyQuill 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Assembly of First Nations website says: "1920 - Compulsory attendance for all children ages 7-15 years. Children were forcibly taken from their families by priests, Indian agents and police officers." Does anyone have any evidence that is is not true?

Using the direct quote "to take the Indian out of the Queen's Red Children" means it should have a citation. I've looked for a copy of the gradual civilization act online, but can't find one. It should definitely have a fact tag. - TheMightyQuill 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a copy by, the way, and as skookum suggested above, the phrase does not appear in the document. I can email a PDF copy to anyone who wants it, especially if someone wants to transcribe it and put it on wikisource. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unspeakable , genocide

I think that the corporl punishment should be called unspeakably severe, any punishment that would result inthe death of the punished is well, frankly unreasoably unspeakably severe... expecially since his kinda thing was done to children, who were often beaten to within an inch of thier lives for uttering one word of hier native language. did you know that to particiapate in a native ritual or ceremony was an arrestable offense for many years in canada? tell me, is arreestng people and trying to crush the culture not termable " cultural genocide" an active attempt to destroy the beleif system, which includes arresting practitoners, stealing chidlren of practitioners and sequestering pracitoners in oisolated communities? 142.167.127.98 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Find sources for these assertions (should be easy) and put them in. As for theu use of inspeakably, the severity is obviously speakable. Anyway, besides being arguably POV, I think using unspeakably would actually make the corporal punishment seem less unspeakable (by making it seem as if its unspeakableness was not apparent). It would help if you logged in. John FitzGerald 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

better?Charred Feathers 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Much :) OldManRivers 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stolen vs forcibly removed

forcibly removed sounds like they did it forthe childrens own good, like a social worker forcibly removing children from an abusive parents home, when this is totally not the case in the case of children taken fro thier homes in this situation, so i think stolen is more in keeping with what went on here. therafore i will add the word stolen.142.167.127.98 14:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cultural damage and destruction

i would like to adda section on how much this system, coupled ith the oulawing of native customs and ritual, and the isolation caused by the revervation system, and the need for natives to get a pass to exit the resevres damaged and destroyed many cultures that had been thriving without governmental interferance but i dont think i can be unbiased enough for the section to hold.142.167.127.98 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical trauma? Yes, that would be good to add one. Intergenerational trauma. But I do agree, I don't know how you could make that unbiased. OldManRivers 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

maybe something like "the century and a half of cultural persecution has severely damaged most of the first nations cultures, largely because they were based on oral traditions, and without someone to tell the younger community members of th ier culture, thier history, thier stories, much knowldge was lost with the pasing of elders."Charred Feathers 02:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, it goes way deeper then that. Imagine being raised by these molesters, these lunatics, these murders, in all actuality, these psychos. Then imagine, that the people who raised you and taught you how to behave as a human being, are the ones you found knowledge on how to raise children. Then imagine being raised by these same people. Hereditary alcoholism. Epidemic wide sexual abuse and violence. And that just the tip of the ice bergs. Lest we forget about the cultures that were beaten out of these people. Where children would kill themselves because of their heritage. Children, killing themselves. Or children trying to bleach themselves to turn white. Children who if even uttered a word of their language, would have to have their feet put in bubbling boiling mustard, or strapped to a furnace. OldManRivers 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

uhhh.. i know, my grandfather got that, o and that IP is me. im just trying to start from the least emotional standpoint i can.Charred Feathers 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone who was a douche bag, raise their hand.

/Raises hand OldManRivers 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

s all good man, we are still waiting for many jesuits and " schoolteachers" to raise thiers.Charred Feathers 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charred Feathers Please Acknowledge Reading This

First, it's not my job to weigh the merits of your additions. If, as an editor of Wikipedia, you want to add something, it is up to you to provide citations and proof to support your claim. Anything that you add that does not have this sort of citation can be fairly removed by another editor.

Second, if you're having real problems with spelling, please paste your edits into Microsoft Word or another editor that will spell check for you. It isn't the responsibility of anyone else to fix your spelling. Occasional typos and misspellings are always going to happen, but when it's as pervasive as your errors are, people are going to revert large edits of yours based on the fact they are poorly spelled. Wikipedia is not just a blog, or a casual place where people pop around to browse a little; it does get used by people as a research springboard, some schools are tentatively allowing cites from it, etc. As such, it is important that things published here are usable. Some editors will look at an entry with a massive number of spelling errors, and respond with, "I don't have time to fix all those errors, and since I don't know when anyone else will see this, I need to protect Wikipedia's reputation by deleting those."

Now, I genuinely don't care about this subject. I probably should, as a Canadian, but it's only a vague, 'read it in a history text' subject to me. I have no vested interest in it, unlike others. Here are my issues:

'Stolen' is a loaded word. You're trying to evoke an emotional response by using it. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and we need to use neutral terms where possible. 'Forcibly removed' *is* the proper way to refer to the event of children being removed from their homes in this context. If you have a quote from someone, ("They stole my child,", "I was stolen," etc.), that would be the appropriate place to quote it to get the context you want. However, it is not up to an editor professing a neutral point of view to use the word stolen, regardless of how you feel when you're not wearing your editor's hat.

The federal government noticed that the Protestant efforts complemented their aim for assimilation - the government did not aim for genocide, even if that was the result. Changing the word there is again, a contextual point of view. If you wish to state the end result was genocide (provided you bring the cites to back it up), fine. But if their stated intent was assimilation (and indeed, the enfranchisement acts indicate it was, even if only one man took them up on it the whole time), you can't state their intent was genocide.

Thus many native people were arrested for wanting to keep thier families whole. is, again, a loaded sentence. The previous sentence says they were threatened with prison; so your added sentence doesn't actually add to the facts. If any of them were jailed, this is the ideal place to cite an experience of that.

It was also openly acknowledged that the schools were an attempt by government and church churches to commit cultural genocide against first nations, and it was at least partially successful in many cases. - This needs to be backed up, in either version of the page, as anything that is 'openly acknowledged' needs to be. What you can say on Wikipedia is limited to what you can find in a citable source; if a church or government offical has stated this, excellent, but you need to deal with what the open acknowledgement is, not what you infer from it.

Now, based on that, please go ahead and see what you can dig up. You certainly have access to a lot of stuff, likely more than I do if you have texts that discuss this. If you can rein in your rightful upset over these issues, and take your time with the pages instead of changing things whole hog, I think you'll add some good things. --Thespian 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

ill concede the point oin everything buthte ue o the word stolen, "forcibly removed" is what social workers say when they do it for the childs better interests, stolen seems to fit here for me, because it was only a cultural bias that provoked the removal of the children in quesion, ill see what i can find otherwise.Charred Feathers 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks a lot for coming over here. I do think you have good things to add to this subject, and likely to others in the future.

I tend to think 'removed' is a social services term; 'forcibly removed' does indicate it was against the wishes of the person. 'Stolen' is a term that is used for inanimate objects, and while the emotional effect might have been the same, it's not 'kidnapping'. If you find sources that you think show what you want to prove, feel free to holler for me on my talk page - citations are really one of the things I'm best at here. --Thespian 17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Stolen" means to me that someone took something that wasn't theirs because they wanted it, whereas what we have here is people taking things (children) for non-(directly)-selfish reasons -Rebent 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Residential School: White Calf/Lebret?

Someone just made an edit suggesting White Calf Collegiate was the last residential school, closed in 1998. According to The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan WCC is none other than Lebret Residential School. The Residential school, however, "was signed over to a First Nations school board in October 1973."

Does it continue to count as a residential school when it's being run by a First Nations school board? - TheMightyQuill 22:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "residential school" is about the nature of the school, not who owned it. If it was owned by anyone, it is still a residential school. Just like my car is still a car, whether I give it to you and now it is your car. Fremte 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but perhaps the problem lies in the title here, as the intent of this article is the infamous system of residential schools for the assimilation/de-culturation of First Nations and Inuit children; it is ture that many of those schools are now part of indigenously-run education systems/programs, but the term "residential school" is too broad without more specification; otherwise the private boarding schools around the province qualify, even certain high schools which maintain dormitories (Lillooet and Lytton, still, and no doubt others in the North), and also the Seminary of Christ the King at Westminster Abbey in Mission. Somewhere above tor on the list's talkpage there's a discussion (I started) about All Hallows and St. Anne's/Victoria; if they're in, then so should Sacred Heart be, and Vancouver College, etc. In re White Calf Collegiate/Lebret Residential School I'd say the name change warrants a separate article, as different administrations and purposes are at play; as with different buildings/facilities owne successively by different companies, if it's an architectural item then the building could be separate as an article also, although to me that would tend to be in the "original name" article. My proposal: rename this article with some kind of aboriginal qualifier in the title ("First Nations" I suppose....but were Inuit children aslo in teh system; that's the usual name in the national consciousness/media though). As for the closing-date thing....hmmmm; again it's an issue of the context of the article; what were conditions like between 1973 and 1998 at WCC? Does that fit with the context of what we usually mean by "residential school" in Canada? Or is the specific-specific meaning going to be applied, just because it's the (current) title??Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lawyers and controversy

Should maybe be that lawyers and their very large fees, and also some of the shady tactics to get people to sign up with them should be noted. It's like there was inappropriate things in the schools and then the subsequent inappropriate things lawyers did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)