All Things First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Genocide is not limited to physical eradication. Other mechanisms that serve the ends of reducing or eliminating an identifiable group fit within it too. In this instance there are a couple of different manifestations that would fit legal definitions, forcible transfer of children being one of them.

Daniel Holdhagen wrote a really solid book on the multiple manifestations of genocide a few years back, Worse than War. It’s a bit of a tome, but a good read. On the legal side, Canada criminalizes Genocide under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which codifies both treaty and customary international law, not least the ‘Rome Statute’. The ICC’s publication Elements of Offences is both useful and persuasive in understanding these definitions.

The intent absolutely was to reduce our native population and to convert them into something else from how settlers found them, through forced assimilation, and a multitude of abusive practices. It was genocide. The fact that, at that time in history, our ancestors were the ones who were generally ok with it doesn’t minimize what it was.

When our nation’s erstwhile practices towards the indigenous were first described as ‘genocide’ I scoffed at it, like many. As I’ve continued to learn, and particularly as I’ve become increasingly versed in crimes against humanity, I have reluctantly had to change my views.

Thats great that you decided it was 'genocide', I can't imagine anyone ever thinking anything else then that, but, I say again, IT HAPPENED.........we should be working forward together and not navel gazing backwards.

 

[Remius]

Thats great that you decided it was 'genocide', I can't imagine anyone ever thinking anything else then that, but, I say again, IT HAPPENED.........we should be working forward together and not navel gazing backwards.

Ignoring it is why it’s taken so long to acknowledge it. Part of moving forward is acknowledging what happened and yeah, it will take some uncomfortable “navel gazing” backwards to do that.

 

[Weinie]

Genocide is not limited to physical eradication. Other mechanisms that serve the ends of reducing or eliminating an identifiable group fit within it too. In this instance there are a couple of different manifestations that would fit legal definitions, forcible transfer of children being one of them.

Daniel Holdhagen wrote a really solid book on the multiple manifestations of genocide a few years back, Worse than War. It’s a bit of a tome, but a good read. On the legal side, Canada criminalizes Genocide under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which codifies both treaty and customary international law, not least the ‘Rome Statute’. The ICC’s publication Elements of Offences is both useful and persuasive in understanding these definitions.

The intent absolutely was to reduce our native population and to convert them into something else from how settlers found them, through forced assimilation, and a multitude of abusive practices. It was genocide. The fact that, at that time in history, our ancestors were the ones who were generally ok with it doesn’t minimize what it was.

When our nation’s erstwhile practices towards the indigenous were first described as ‘genocide’ I scoffed at it, like many. As I’ve continued to learn, and particularly as I’ve become increasingly versed in crimes against humanity, I have reluctantly had to change my views.

Granted. No one limits genocide, and I challenge you to find any Canadian gov't policy that was aimed at physical eradication that was enacted.

But there are many narratives that strike an opposing view, and postulate that indigenous communities ,without external assistance, would have disappeared, due to disease.

 

[Remius]

I’ll never understand how anyone can justify or minimise any of this.

 

[Weinie]

I’ll never understand how anyone can justify or minimise any of this.

Ok. I will try. Tubercolosis was the leading cause of death, across many strata. Smallpox was endemic and killed 1 in 5 that it infected.

So, based on the fact that about 180+ died of endemic diseases per 1000, in that time period, that would suggest that the school over the course of the worst of it, would have seen about @2400 deaths. That didn't happen.

Canada: infant mortality rate 1900-2020| Statista

The infant mortality rate in Canada, for children under the age of one year old, was 187 deaths per thousand births in 1900.

www.statista.com

 

[Quirky]

I am of the opinion at this point that solution is to raise the GST two points, give the resultant money every year to a panel of First Nations, no strings attached, and they distribute it under rules that they develop to each and every First Nation.

No more money from government and my tax dollars. How many more untold billions must we throw at the problem? Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Anytime there is any meaningful talk to help these people long term, like cancelling a lot of these incentives to lock them on reserve land, it's deemed racist and heartless and the left wing wants to keep them locked forever. It’s never about reparation, it’s always money.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, actually.

But here is the kicker- nobody in Ottawa to blame if things go wrong. Self-Government means just that.

Oh and questions might start getting asked from below on just how the Band money is being spent.

Dude... don't rile up the Scottish Regimental Senates or we're all dooooomed

 

[Brad Sallows]

Bear in mind that infant mortality statistics are not relevant for a school-age population.

Reconciliation is hard. Monty Python skits aside, indigenous populations displaced, ruled, and abused by colonial powers and immigrants rarely make a measured evaluation of what benefits may have been gained (perhaps with the exception of indigenous populations that were victims of stronger neighbouring indigenous populations). People mostly want to rule themselves.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is part of the problem not the reservation system we have now ? My understanding, and its very minimal, is that our indigenous only get the social and monetary benefits owed to them if they live on a reservation ? Why not simply remove that barrier and then encourage them join our fold at their own pace and design, while allowing them to keep their financial and social benefits. ?

I am not sure throwing more money at this will fix anything, but I would be in favor of a one time, take or leave it, final dump of cash, don't ask for anymore again kind of deal.

 

[Remius]

Ok. I will try. Tubercolosis was the leading cause of death, across many strata. Smallpox was endemic and killed 1 in 5 that it infected.

So, based on the fact that about 180+ died of endemic diseases per 1000, in that time period, that would suggest that the school over the course of the worst of it, would have seen about @2400 deaths. That didn't happen.

Canada: infant mortality rate 1900-2020| Statista

The infant mortality rate in Canada, for children under the age of one year old, was 187 deaths per thousand births in 1900.

www.statista.com

Not even sure what math you are using. Even the Bryce report from that time indicated higher cases of TB than the average population. And that residential schools were seeing higher numbers that normal due to the conditions.

That particular school was closed in 1978. I was alive at that point. This isn’t some far off statistic. And what about the the nutrition experiments conducted on students in the 40s and 50s? Too far back to be bad?

This was a government sanctioned atrocity. If you think native Canadians should thank the government for residential schools you need to educate yourself a bit better about what this was.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... the schools and the Catholic church, at that time, were not considering the eradication of native populations. Rather, they were focused on mass proselytization.

There may be debate about the definition of "eradication of native populations," but that said, while Big Church (and not just Catholic - more here & here) got a chance to sell their approach in the residential schools, when the Minister in 1932 said things like this, one can't help but understand why some might see it as more than just helping Big Church expand the flock ...

.... (Duncan Campbell) Scott firmly supported the assimilationist policies of the Canadian government and advocated a policy of tribal termination, under which the indigenous peoples of Canada were to lose legal recognition and the protections and guarantees of their treaties with the government. The objective of these policies, he told a committee of the House of Commons in 1920, was “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.” ...

Also, this from a PM & government not known for handing out too many apologies, using 2008 cultural norms ....

... Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child” ...

The solution? I'll leave to greater minds than mine, given how tangled the ball of string involved is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There may be debate about the definition of "eradication of native populations," but that said, while Big Church (and not just Catholic - more here & here) got a chance to sell their approach in the residential schools, when the Minister in 1932 said things like this, one can't help but understand why some might see it as more than just helping Big Church expand the flock ...

Also, this from a PM & government not known for handing out too many apologies, using 2008 cultural norms ....

The solution? I'll leave to greater minds than mine, given how tangled the ball of string involved is.

Nicely said. Here's another, pretty good, overview IMHO. Bolded italics mine:

Indigenous Peoples and Government Policy in Canada​

Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. They functioned generally from 1880 to 1996. (Grollier Hall, which closed in 1997, was not a state-run residential school in that year.) The schools disrupted lives and communities, causing long-term problems among Indigenous peoples. (See also Inuit Experiences at Residential School and Métis Experiences at Residential School.)

In 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRRSA). Among other functions, the TRC did research about residential schools and issued a final report. The TRC cites residential schools (as well as the Sixties Scoop) as part of Canada’s legislative “cultural genocide” against Indigenous peoples. (See also Genocide and Indigenous Peoples in Canada.)

Indigenous Peoples and Government Policy in Canada

For most of the history of political interaction between Indigenous people and the Canadian government (and its colonial predecessors) government policy has foc...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

 

[Infanteer]

The linkage is simple. Genocide is not simply defined by mass murder (cases like the Holocaust for which we are familiar with), but by attempting to deny the existence of a group of people. The definition of genocide also cites assimilationist policies as means to genocide, such as "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" (checked that box with reserves) and "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (checked that box with residential schools) . Therefore, by definition assimilation is a form of genocide.

What bothers me is that this whole thing is like a US mass shooting event. Everybody will send out prayers, agree that what happened is terrible, and nothing will get done to fix things in the future. All the tweets and apologies for historical wrongs will do nothing to change the fact that the conditions facing many indigenous Canadians, right here and now, is dreadful. A government of the day should not hesitate to renovate the god-awful "Indian Act", and to broach a Constitutional Convention if required. Everything should be on the table.

Finally, I find the language of "settler/colonizer" to be unhelpful, and I note that some people seem inclined to declare themselves as "settlers." This only exacerbates, in my view, the us vs them distinction. We're all in this boat together, nobody is leaving, and its going to take efforts from all Canadians to sort this out, regardless of whether you or your ancestors happened to come to North America 25,000 years ago, 250 years ago, 25 years ago, or 25 months ago.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That particular school was closed in 1978.

As a day school. Residential ceased in 1969. Keep in mind that most of the worst abuses and neglect most likely occurred in the earliest years of operation.

 

[Remius]

As a day school. Residential ceased in 1969. Keep in mind that most of the worst abuses and neglect most likely occurred in the earliest years of operation.

The 40s and 50s with nutrition experiments wasn’t that far back. Neither was the 60s scoop. The fact is we have people alive today suffering the effects of their time in these institutions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is part of the problem not the reservation system we have now ?

Yes. It's a lottery. Bands sitting on valuable natural resources, high-value land, or adjacent to any good-sized cities have opportunities. Bands sitting in small communities in the vast sparsely populated regions of Canada have nothing. Fellow feeling doesn't extend far enough for the various associations to form any kind of equalization schemes.

One-time payment schemes are risky. Some will put the money to good use. Others will not. Then what? Ignore people living in poverty with sub-standard water and other services?

I doubt any solution which does not end with exactly one class of citizenship for all Canadians, enjoying the same rights and privileges wherever they choose to reside and work.

 

[lenaitch]

The history of one society/culture conquering, assimilating, subjugating or otherwise treating badly the 'others' that they encounter is not particularly a Canadian problem; it has gone on long before the Romans. Part of the reason for the extent of the social conflict was, for want of a better term, the clash of cultures at different points on the social scale (I hesitate to include the term 'evolutionary'). At the beginning of European contact, it was the age of sail and gunpower meeting largely hunter-gatherer societies, many nomadic. By the time colonization got underway, it was the Industrial Revolution while the indigenous societies were still at the hunter-gatherer stage.

Before colonization, not all was sweetness and light in the Americas. War between societies, genocidal intents and slavery were not uncommon.

There may be a general unhappiness with the Indian Act and the 'reserve system', but I am not aware of any consensus on a better version, on either side. I am most familiar with Northwestern Ontario, where there are approximately 30 remote (fly-in/ice road) FNTs with a total population in the area of 10,000 (my number may be off). Most are under 1000 people (some very under), a few are in the low couple of thousand. That is their traditional territory, but in terms of clustering in fixed houses with electricity, an air strip, store, etc.; i.e. 'living Western', there is no economy to support that, and no potential for one, and no desire to turn back the hunter-gatherer clock. Their only hope for any income beyond government handouts is resource extraction income, and they need to remain proximate to their territory for that. Without an economic base to live like now do, social problems abound. The residual effects of the residential school system, probably made them worse, but they would still exist regardless.

A large number of years ago, there were very informal discussions about coalescing many of these into a small number of larger communities, even very distant from 'Western towns', where there could be a road connection, decent infrastructure, hospital, high school, etc. plus a critical mass for some kind of economic base, would be more achievable. There was no appetite for that, on either side.

The current system is very costly. Simply putting in a water system in a remote community that may only have a few hundred people is a multi-million dollar, multi-year venture. We could give each and every man, woman and child a million dollars, but the social problems would still exist.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And the last residential schools closed in the 1990s. They even knew that in the early 1900s that this was bad, the fact that went late into the 20th century is unbelievable. We have survivors that disagree about how acceptable this was.

Stop minimizing this and making excuses. That would be a good start.

It's not minimising, it's understanding the context of the day. Not so long before this school opened the First Nation were actively practising slavery and it was colonists that put a stop to that. The introduction of alcohol into the fur trade by the NWC also destroyed much of the social fabric of the bands.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

What bothers me is that this whole thing is like a US mass shooting event. Everybody will send out prayers, agree that what happened is terrible, and nothing will get done to fix things in the future. All the tweets and apologies for historical wrongs will do nothing to change the fact that the conditions facing many indigenous Canadians, right here and now, is dreadful. A government of the day should not hesitate to renovate the god-awful "Indian Act", and to broach a Constitutional Convention if required. Everything should be on the table.

I agree that tweets and apologies for historical wrongs, or the Prime Minister collectively blaming Canada doesn't change anything. In my view, the first step in terms of concrete action that should be taken is what would happen any time a bunch of bodies are found ... there should be a thorough investigation, those responsible should be determined, and there should be criminal prosecutions.

You mentioned the Holocaust, they are still prosecuting people involved in that today 70 years later. These residential schools were closed more recently, surely perpetrators could be found and brought to justice.

This would just be a start of course. Agree with you that the so-called Indian Act needs to be scrapped or massively overhauled and a Constitutional Convention with indigenous people at the table would make sense.

Finally, I find the language of "settler/colonizer" to be unhelpful, and I note that some people seem inclined to declare themselves as "settlers." This only exacerbates, in my view, the us vs them distinction. We're all in this boat together, nobody is leaving, and its going to take efforts from all Canadians to sort this out, regardless of whether you or your ancestors happened to come to North America 25,000 years ago, 250 years ago, 25 years ago, or 25 months ago.

Again, agreed. I hate the "us vs. them" and "tribalism" that this language engenders. I get that white people want to self-flagellate and therefore label themselves with the term "settler" but it helps nothing and potentially causes more harm for the reasons you've cited. In my view the way forward is the "we're all in the boat together" approach you've advocated. Build bridges rather than burn them more.

 

[Infanteer]

Before colonization, not all was sweetness and light in the Americas. War between societies, genocidal intents and slavery were not uncommon.

Yes. I've even seen the awkward case somewhere in Ontario where a land acknowledgement was made to an indigenous group who had displaced another group from that land. Who do you acknowledge there?

On the other hand, in this case, we have a specific entity, the Government of Canada, that still exists and can still be held to account for actions. That is what makes this different than trying to go back and point the finger at Ghengis Khan or the Roman Senate.

There may be a general unhappiness with the Indian Act and the 'reserve system', but I am not aware of any consensus on a better version, on either side.

And that's the million dollar question. What next? What is a realistic course of action? We aren't turning back the clocks here, and it must be accepted that the solution isn't going to look like any past. This is where some shared vision is required.