Category Archives: Indigenous–Indian Residential Schools

Conservatives Reaction to the Toppling of Statues

 

I found the reaction of Conservatives, such as Brian Pallister and others, to the toppling of statues on the Manitoba legislative grounds telling. First, Conservatives have not been loud opponents of residential schools. They have been content with formulaic statements without much vigor or apparent sincerity. Ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (‘TRC ‘) issued its report in 2015, which outlined an astonishing history of abuse, not just by a few bad apples, but decades of systemic abuse, the Conservatives seldom, to my knowledge called strongly for the 94 calls to action of the TRC to be implemented. Nor did they berate the government for their lack of action. Just like most Canadians, they were quietly acquiescent with the largely inactive file on the part of the Canadian government. Few people in Canada were calling for action.  They were silent in other words. That is what I mean when I say that Canadians were largely silent. They seemed to be satisfied with the fact that Prime Minster Harper apologized on their behalf (though some Canadians thought he went too far), but they were also satisfied that nothing was being done to implement or fulfill the calls to action. Very few were calling for action in other words.

The Liberals, as they tend to do, were quick to endorse the report of the TRC and quick to say all 94 calls to action should be implemented, but then did little to actually do what they promised to do. Again Canadians by and large did not hold the Liberals to account, any more than they held the Conservatives to account. Canada largely ignored the TRC report, until 2021 when unmarked graves began to be discovered on the grounds of various former residential schools in Canada.

Yet when a few statues were toppled Conservatives, like my own Premier Brian Pallister and my own Member of Parliament Ted Falk, were quick to loudly claim that the indigenous miscreants or their allies, ought to be held “accountable”. To me it seemed the Conservatives, like so many Canadians, were much more interested in the loss of property than they were interested in the loss of lives at residential schools.

In an editorial  the Carillon News actually got it right. As editor Greg Vandermeulen said,

“The toppling of the Queen Victoria statue at the Manitoba Legislature on Canada Day  has revealed we still have a long way to go when it comes to reconciliation. Yet that realization wasn’t from the vandalism itself, but from the reactions of we’ve seen from politicians and many Manitobans…

To be clear, there are no significant people  that are defending vandalism. But there is still a very big difference in how the news was greeted.

Premier Brian Pallister demonstrated a massive lack of leadership in his July 2 statement. In it, he said nothing about understanding where the anger was coming from, nor did he point out that the loss of a material thing like a statue has absolutely no comparison to the horror of human lives being snuffed out.

Instead, he simply lashed out, saying the vandalism was “unacceptable” and a “major setback” for those working toward real reconciliation. He advocated that those who did the vandalism be “pursued actively” by the courts.

His reaction, captured in his statement showed his priorities, and it’s frustratingly clear he’s not the only one.”

As I said about Judge Giesbrechts comments, these comments by our Premier are wooden-headed, wooden-hearted, or both. They demonstrate the profound ignorance of powerful and comfortable whites who are blind to their own privilege.

Today I heard Premier Pallister repeat the comments he made and which were instrumental in part in his Minister of Indigenous Affairs resigning. Pallister said we should build together. What he does not get is that although there is nothing wrong with this statement, for him to suggest that settlers or their successors always built together with Indigenous people is just not true. Pallister just does not get it. Frankly, I think he speaks for other Manitobans in this respect. They just don’t get it either.

 

Attacks on Churches

 

Manitoba has for awhile become the centre of attention around Canada and even the world as a result of rebellion by indigenous people and their supporters. Some of those rebels toppled monuments on the grounds of the Manitoba legislatures. In other places the rebels even attacked or burned churches.

Some Manitobans have been quick to denounce the “violent” rebels and have demanded that they be held accountable.

I do not endorse the destruction or desecration of churches, by anyone, even indigenous rebels. It is not justified in a country that is meaningfully democratic, even one as far from a perfect democracy as that of Canada. But this does not end the issue of indigenous assaults on Christian churches. If you leave it at that it is like saying Jewish people who violently resisted their destruction by Nazis in Germany and Europe during the Second World War were wrong if they employed violent means to defend themselves.  The Jews had a right to rebel. I would submit, they even had the right to resist with violence.

Similarly, American rebels who resisted the imposition of taxes on the American colonies by England were entitled to resist by dumping tea in Boston Harbour, even though that entailed the destruction of private property.

In both case, tyrannical power brought about violence resistance. Those who imposed the tyranny were more at fault than the violent resisters. I see indigenous rebels more like them than criminals.

This reminds me as well of current attitudes among many conservatives of many stripes, where  they see clearly the damage to property caused by rebels such as members of Black Lives Matter or Antifa, but cannot see the injustice against which they are rebelling, even though it is usually much more serious.

Defenders of the status quo often don’t see the injustice because that is how privilege works. Privilege disguises injustice as just deserts.

As well, we must remember that Christian churches are not innocents here.  Even though some of them have apologized, while others did not, they were a vital part of the oppression of indigenous people and in particular indigenous children during the 19th and 20th centuries. They were not innocent bystanders. They were actors directly involved in the oppression.

The federal government with its Christian church partners tried to destroy indigenous culture, indigenous religion, and indigenous children. It came close to doing that. It is hardly surprising that indigenous descendants of residential school students and their allies have a lot of distrust and animosity to both of those institutions. We can hardly be surprised either by the lack of action on the 94 calls for action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  The actions of indigenous rebels must be understood in this context.

Trauma that started with a Knock on the Door

 

 

“The trip to the residential school often started with an ominous knock on the door.” That is a quote from the executive summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report of 2015.  A painting by Ken Monkman that was on display in the Winnipeg Art Gallery showed this well. It was the start of what by the UN analysis was genocide—i.e. the forcible removal of children from their families. That is considered genocide. Not the same as Nazi genocide, but all genocides are different. We should remember that. Often we don’t.

 

These were acts of unforgivable and despicable arrogance that often created horrendous trauma for the children. Much of this trauma created post-traumatic stress that in turn ruined the lives of the children and their children. It flowed from generation to generation like a poisoned stream.

Monkman’s painting shows a small wooden house: a simple bungalow with multicoloured tiles stretching to roof. Dense bush and open fields flank the home to the east, and to the west, dark and foreboding clouds form in the sky.

Three children run from the home at full sprint. Their backs are turned to the viewer as they race for the bush in the distance. Birds look as ominous as those in Alfred Hitchcock’s film The Birds. The scene they are fleeing — the one transpiring in front of the house — is pure chaos. Terror is immanent. It soaks right through the paint. It touches us as viewers.

Seven Mounties are dressed in traditional clean red uniforms  mainly used for ceremonies. One of them stands on the house’s front porch with his arm extended to the side, pointing at three children trying to escape. Their backs face us. Will they escape? This can’t end well.

The other police officers are spread out in front of the home.  One of them stands to the side holding a rifle. Why does he hold a rifle? What does he need that for? The others are snatching Indigenous children away from their wailing mothers. Perhaps they think of them as savages. Two priests and two nuns help carry out the kidnappings. Who are the savages in this painting?

In the centre of the frame is a mother wearing a long blue dress. She lunges forward, reaching out for her child, who is being carried off by a bearded priest in an ominous black robe  with a large wooden crucifix dangling from his neck. Think about that—a child kidnapped from his loving mother and delivered by police into the arms of a priest in a black robe. We know what happened after such events.  The horror runs deep.

One mother’s fingers  clasp air while her child eludes her.  Two Mounties restrain her, grabbing her dress her arm and her  hair, taking hold of anything they can to separate her from her child. What would you think if you were that mother?  What would you have done? Would you have been destroyed for life? The Mounties are committing a crime authorized by law. It is a national crime. A shame on the country.

The mouth of one mother is open. You can see the deep horror in her face. Her face is frozen in to a scream like the painting by Edvard Munch. She is fighting against all odds to save her child.  There is nothing that can be done.  Law and power are not on her side. There are other mothers too, fighting to save their children. Perhaps they will succeed. Perhaps not.  Perhaps the children fleeing to the bush will escape their would-be captors. What do you think?   At least one mother seems to have given up hope.  It seems certain. Her child will be taken. How do you fight the law?

The children look terrified.  The law and religion are after them and they mean them harm. They don’t see any “good intent” around them. Only terror.

In Manitoba today I read about 7 Conservative politicians who as far as I know never uttered a word about such horrors. But today they are horrified at the lawless destruction of property. That concerns them deeply. Today they claim that people should be held  accountable for pulling down a couple of statues of 2 English queens. Some people have also set fire to churches. I condemn that too. Let me be clear, I don’t advocate destruction of property, whether public or private, but is this really the most important thing we should worry about right now? Is this what we should be horrified about?

I also saw a post on Facebook today that  said: “Be thankful, we only come for your statues, when you came for our children.’  The “crimes” hardly seem comparable. What do you think?

Does Canada want to know the truth about Residential Schools?

 

Dr. Peter Bryce who was non-indigenous prepared a series of annual reports for the federal government in the early part of the 20th century, warning them in one of those reports that the schools in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories had very high rates of tuberculosis because of overcrowding and poor ventilation. He found that nearly 25% of students in residential schools died there.  In some cases even more died. Dr. Bryce  knew there was a reason for this, but he did not, as Manitoba Judge Giesbrecht did, use it as an excuse for why so many indigenous children were dying. There was a reason why so many were dying. Dr. Bryce demanded that the government find an “immediate remedy.” But, of course, the government did not act. As Amy Dempsey reported in the Toronto Start and reprinted in the Winnipeg Free Press,

“Bryce felt certain that the public, hearing his account of conditions in residential schools, would demand change from the government. That didn’t happen. The story faded from the headlines and the public consciousness.”

 

Although the public lost interest, as they so often do unless the story leads to dramatic violence, it did catch the attention of government officials at the federal department of Indian Affairs like the by now infamous Duncan Campbell Scott, who ensured that life for Dr. Bryce became difficult at the department because he was standing in the way of civilizing the natives. As Dempsey said, “Bryce was sidelined for being a whistleblower and ultimately pushed out of public service.” As Dempsey also  reported,

“Bryce faced career repercussions for speaking out. The government suspended funding for his research, prevented him from speaking at international conferences, and blocked him from positions within the federal civil service. Forced into retirement in early 1920s, he wrote a tell-all book lamenting that this ‘trail of disease and death has gone on almost unchecked.’”

 

Bryce wrote that Duncan Campbell Scott, a high official with Indian Affairs, and others like him, were counting on the ignorance and disinterest of the Canadian public. They were right. Canada did not want to know the truth. And it certainly did not want the truth broadcast. It did what it could to shut him up. Will Canada continue to ignore what it has learned about its history, or will that now change? Time will tell. Each of us can make a difference to how Canada deals with what it has learned.

Cultural Genocide Part II

 

When I went to school I was told that Prime Minister John A. MacDonald was one of the heroes of Canada. We thought he should have been awarded the status of saint John. He appointed himself as the Minister Responsible for Indians in his cabinet. If you think the expression “cultural genocide” is too strong to describe what Canada did with the imposition of its Indian Residential Schools on indigenous people consider this statement he made in the House of Commons in 1883:

“When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages: he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write his habits, and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write.  It has been strongly impressed on myself, as the head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.”

 

The Prime Minister did not misspeak. He meant it. This was government policy. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission  explained this in this way:

“These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct people and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will. Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott outlined the goals of that policy in 1920, when he told a parliamentary committee that “our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic.” Canada did not do this with “good intent” as some suggest.”

 

As the TRC said,

“the Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources. If every Aboriginal person had been “absorbed into the body politic,” there would be no reserves, no Treaties, and no Aboriginal rights.”

 In fact, then there would be no Aboriginals.  The genocide would be complete. The final solution would be realized.

 

How Patriotic are You?

 

This Lynne, one of the kindest gentlest people I know. I think you can figure out where she stands.

Today was Canada Day and I asked a number of my friends, ‘How patriotic are you?”  In other words, was it appropriate to celebrate Canada Day after all that has happened in on Canada in the last few weeks?  Who feels comfortable celebrating Canada Day.  Some say they were not comfortable with that. I know someone who said she will not celebrate Canada Day again. Others felt it was appropriate to celebrate, but with some important qualifications.

This is Jenn and Kel. They are funny, kind and empathetic.

I love my country. I always have and probably always will.  Yet, I am bothered by recent history I have learned, particularly since I read the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2015. That disturbed me a lot. Since then I have tried to learn more about the history of the country I love. Some of that history is not something to be proud.  As a T-shirt said that I saw recently, “No pride in genocide.”  I do not like it when our country is lumped in with the genocides of Nazi Germany, Russia, China, Serbia, Rwanda, and the United States. That bothers me and I admit I was a bit reluctant to celebrate today.

My lovely wife Chris, reluctant to celebrate, but ready to enjoy life.

It really depends on your point of view. If you are looking at our country from a comfortable pew, as Pierre Burton called it, the country looks pretty good. We have a lot to be thankful for. We have freedom and opportunity to earn and enjoy a good life. Yet if you are looking from the line at our local soup kitchen or if you are one of the many indigenous children in care of the state where they put you in a foster home or even worse a hotel, things don’t look quite so good. They have less to be thankful for than I do. For indigenous children who suffer from intergenerational trauma life is not so good. Too often people from the comfort of good jobs, safe homes, and communities where we are respected find it easy to enjoy Canada. Sometimes we don’t see our own privilege.

Lynne and her radical husband ready to start the revolution–tomorrow.  2 of the finest.

If you think Canada is the best country what are you doing to make it so?  If you recognize that life could surely be a lot better for those less fortunate what are you doing to help them?

This is your faithful scribe, trying to meander towards truth and justice but finding it difficult.

When we celebrate Canada Day we must make sure that we do so with eyes wide open, not denying or ignoring the suffering of others. We must not avoid Canada’s sins.  They are more than blemishes. No matter what we think the evidence is clear: we can do better? We should do better.

Cultural Genocide Part I

 

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (‘TRC’) found that Canada was guilty of cultural genocide. Because of legal constraints, it was not allowed to say that Canadians were guilty of genocide. What does that mean? How did it reach that conclusion?

First of all, the TRC had meetings and events around the country. It gathered mountains of information. Anyone who wants to deny its conclusions had better come with mountains of data too.

The TRC pointed out that Canada ignoring the fact it had no such legal authority,

“Canada asserted control over aboriginal land. In some locations, Canada negotiated Treaties with First Nations; in others the land was simply occupied or seized. The negotiation of Treaties, while seemingly honourable and legal, was often marked by fraud and coercion, and Canada was, and remains, slow to implement their provisions and intent. On occasion, Canada forced First Nations to relocate their reserves from agriculturally valuable or resource-rich land onto remote and economically marginal reserves.”

 

For example, in Manitoba, at the behest of white farmers, moved a First Nation from rich farmland to much less desirable land One of the things that Canada did that attracted the attention of racists from as far away as South Africa and Nazi Germany was the “pass system.” Under that system indigenous people were not allowed to leave the reserve without permission from the federal government representatives—i.e. the Indian agent.

Canada also did its best to eliminate indigenous systems of government. They were so successful at this that many Canadians never realized that indigenous people had systems of government and law  before Europeans arrived. Canada did that because it wanted to control indigenous people. As the TRC said, “Canada replaced existing forms of Aboriginal government with relatively powerless band councils whose decisions it could override and whose leaders it could depose.” It did all that even though no mention of this was made when Canada negotiated treaties with First Nations. In fact, in many cases, as soon as treaties were signed Canada actively tried to get around those treaties. Where was the supposed “good intent” of Canada? The answer is clear—it was absent.

At the same, Canada “disempowered Aboriginal women, who had held significant influence and powerful roles in many First Nations, including the Mohawks, the Carrier, and Tlingit.” Canada preferred white male supremacy. After it emasculated aboriginal government, “Canada denied the right to participate fully in Canadian political, economic, and social life to those Aboriginal people who refused to abandon their Aboriginal identity.”

Of course, most horrendously Canada took brutal measures to separate children from their parents and family and sent them to foreign schools, often in distant places, where they were forbidden to speak their language, wear their favoured clothes, while they were falsely taught that their parents were ignorant and uncultured brutes. Only ignorant and uncultured brutes would do that!

Then those schools turned out to be places of horrendous physical, sexual, and emotional abuse where the law protected the abusers and disregarded the abused. As the TRC concluded, “This was not done to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity.

That was what the residential school system was all about.

A national Crime: the Bryce Report

 

There are some bright lights in this dark story. Dr. Peter Bryce, a physician working for the federal government, at great cost to his own career, spoke out about the horrendous conditions in Canada’s Indian Residential Schools. Eventually that led him into conflict with government officials who did not want the bad news so he was driven out of government.

When Dr. Peter Bryce was preparing his report for the federal government in 1906 he had given the principals of various residential schools a questionnaire regarding the health of their aboriginal students. He got responses from 15 different schools and found that of the 1,537 pupils in their schools “nearly 25 percent are dead.” Remember these were young children who had a long life expectancy and 25% were dead!  Dr. Bryce also reported about 1 of those schools where 69% of the ex-pupils were dead.

Dr. Bryce recommended that the federal government take over the schools, as clearly the churches had failed. It could hardly have been clearer that this was the right conclusion. Yet the federal government, notwithstanding death rates of 25% fatalities decided that the plan should be rejected because “it was viewed as too costly.” The lives of aboriginal children were not worth much.

Briefly, the federal government actually increased funding to the schools, but that fell by the wayside during the Depression. Soon the schools were again underfunded. As the TRC reported, “underfunding created by the cuts guaranteed that students would be poorly fed, clothed, and housed.  As a result, children were highly susceptible to tuberculosis.”

In one report Dr. Bryce said, “We have created a situation so dangerous to health that that I was often surprised that the results were not even worse than they had statistically proven to be.”  25% fatality rate is not high enough?

Dr. Bryce called residential schools “a national crime.”  Some have called it genocide. Who disagrees with that?