If your news is saying that, your news is wrong. More than a thousand unmarked graves have been found so far but nobody over here is saying "murder". They might have died from abuse or neglect. We don't know.
Did Canada commit ethnic cleansing?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Yes we do know,,
many survivors of these residential schools were abused physicaly and sexualy,so no doubt many were tortured to death or died from malnutrition and sickness.
Btw Catholic priests are known pedophiles even today
And Pope and Catholic church is complicit in crimes by hiding sending abusers rapists elsewhere .
Just more proof theres no Loving god.
We do not "know" that they were "tortured to death". That is speculation. It is probably true - but not known for sure.
Which is what I said. That is not necessarily murder.
The situation is bad enough. You don't need to embellish.
(By the way, I live an hour away from Cowessess and I used to work with a fellow from Cowessess who still has children living at Cowessess. I also used to work with a lady from Kamloops.)
an important point!!!
Conditions in these schools would have been quite horrific by today's 1st world standards.
scorpius,
A school of 400 students would loose at least 100 students to health issues and the remains would have had to go some where.
Being native meant that the children would have been treated as barely human and the Church, in it's misguided way, was attempting to humanize them by raising their capacity to interact with the current European society. The need for individual burials would have been waived due to the sheer numbers of deaths and mass graves would have come to be.
Pedophilia was also endemic in society and not just the Church. Any adult male(s) in a position of power would often be involved in some sort of child exploitation.
To take the information and use it out of societal ( at the time) context is only demonstrating just how far the world has evolved since those dark times and how keen you may be to generate sensational inaccuracies.
Bells
Staff member
Up to over 1000 bodies in mass graves now across several schools.
Still no word yet on the causes of death. These were children who were taken from their families as a form of ethnic cleansing - much like Australia's Stolen Generation.
A report in 2015 found that these children suffered horrific abuse - psychological, sexual and physical abuse while attending these residential schools. And Canada has paid billions in compensation to 28,000 who were abused.
Unfortunately, the 1000+ figure will increase and this horror show will get worse:
Still no word yet on the causes of death. These were children who were taken from their families as a form of ethnic cleansing - much like Australia's Stolen Generation.
A report in 2015 found that these children suffered horrific abuse - psychological, sexual and physical abuse while attending these residential schools. And Canada has paid billions in compensation to 28,000 who were abused.
Unfortunately, the 1000+ figure will increase and this horror show will get worse:
The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation examining residential schools has identified the names of, or information about, more than 4,100 children who died while attending these schools, most due to malnourishment or disease.
Former senator Murray Sinclair, who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) examining residential schools, has said he believes the death count could be much higher because of the schools' poor burial records.
The Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) has recognized 139 residential schools across Canada. However, this number excludes schools that operated without federal support, such as those run solely by religious orders or provincial governments.
Former senator Murray Sinclair, who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) examining residential schools, has said he believes the death count could be much higher because of the schools' poor burial records.
The Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) has recognized 139 residential schools across Canada. However, this number excludes schools that operated without federal support, such as those run solely by religious orders or provincial governments.
And, Nunavut, was made a province solely for military purposes.
Indigenous leaders have been careful to call them "unmarked" graves, not "mass" graves.
The 751 graves here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marieval_Indian_Residential_School, over the 99-year history of the school, doesn't suggest any "need" for mass burials.
What struck me when I heard the news was the extremely callous attitude of the school officials.
My personal experience from about 55 years ago : re: stolen generation, would suggest that forced assimilation and ethnic cleansing by default, to be true.
Our family played a role as "foster home" to an aboriginal boy (about 8 yo) when I was about the same age. I was one of five young children and I guess it was hoped that being a part of "Western-European" family may help the child assimilate better. Loss of ethnic culture was assumed, I guess, but not actually sort. From sketchy memories, the child stayed with us for about 3 months and my parents found it extremely difficult and did not repeat the experience. (no mention about the child's biological parents was ever made I think)
Bells
Staff member
Forced assimilation where you are trying to erase the culture and cultural identity of a group is ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide.
Australia did the same thing to Indigenous Australians for decades, leading to what we call the 'stolen generation', where children with lighter skin or of mixed racial parentage were forcibly removed from their parents and particularly their mothers and placed with white families or group homes to "educate" them - ie - erase their cultural identity and their family ties - leading to generations of irreparable harm.
It was a fairly common procedure in the majority of countries that were colonised. And it was and continues to be a complete disaster.
I think the residential schools were started with "good intentions", with the assumption that assimilation is a good thing. The people who ran the schools believed, like many/most parents of the time, that sparing the rod would spoil the child - so their intentions were good. But their intentions paved a four-lane freeway to Hell.
Today we try to assimilate new immigrants, in the sense of helping them to cope with our culture without losing their own. We've given up trying to "beat the brown off of them". If I was cynical I might say it's because it doesn't work.
Catholic institutions of all kinds (orphanages, hostels, leper colonies, schools, homes for wayward girls, insane asylums, workhouses and reformatories) have, to say the least, a spotty reputation. That's world wide, not just in Canada. Governments turn social problems over to charity, because it's the cheap and easy solution. Charities run by major Christian denominations are naturally trusted by the general public, so when the government says: "We've entrusted the education of the aboriginals to The Church." everybody relaxes, nobody asks awkward questions, the government can throw a fraction of the cost of building the hospital or school to the relevant agency, give its big financial supporters a tax-break and get on with warring, politicking, railway building or whatever is most important to them and never give the social problem - like a potato famine or native national aspirations - any more precious parliamentary time.
The Church takes the government grant, raises some more in the underserviced parishes and appoints an ageing bishop whose family connections make him eligible for a promotion, but he's too incompetent or dissipated to trust with anything sensitive, to the chairmanship of a committee, and he recruits all the rag-tag priests, monks and nuns who are so hated in their present community that they'll accept a posting in the frontier lands. They don't have to like children, or care about lepers, or even believe in their oath of service - they just have to run the institution on a tight - sometimes impossible - budget, without any reported incidents.
The Church takes the government grant, raises some more in the underserviced parishes and appoints an ageing bishop whose family connections make him eligible for a promotion, but he's too incompetent or dissipated to trust with anything sensitive, to the chairmanship of a committee, and he recruits all the rag-tag priests, monks and nuns who are so hated in their present community that they'll accept a posting in the frontier lands. They don't have to like children, or care about lepers, or even believe in their oath of service - they just have to run the institution on a tight - sometimes impossible - budget, without any reported incidents.
It was also used to promote Catholicism amongst the very poor. The future of the Catholic church depended on it. Today , after a quick google, Catholic followers in Canada are about 29% ( Just over half of all Christian believers) I think with further research we would find that most of the Roman Catholics in Canada are of indigenous origin ( as with Latin America.) Cultural assimilation may be the public view but really it may have been religious (Roman Catholic) assimilation as a primary function.
"If you want dinner be a Roman Catholic" sort of thingo...
" A brutal and destructive form of Roman Catholic evangelism" or something to that effect
"If you want dinner be a Roman Catholic" sort of thingo...
" A brutal and destructive form of Roman Catholic evangelism" or something to that effect
Last edited:
Just for general info (if interested):
About 30 years ago the UN chartered the rights of the child:
https://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/information-for-children/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child
One of the problems with globalization of human rights is the vast diversity of cultures.
To enforce globalization of culture (human rights) is in fact ethnic cleansing, even if well intended.
About 30 years ago the UN chartered the rights of the child:
https://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/information-for-children/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child
One of the problems with globalization of human rights is the vast diversity of cultures.
To enforce globalization of culture (human rights) is in fact ethnic cleansing, even if well intended.
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect too many of the present First nations people to identify as Catholic. Yes, it certainly was high on the church (every christian church) agenda to "save" as many natives as possible in all the colonies, and the RC had both a head start on French missions and government support through the residential school system (I don't suppose the Anglo power elite of the time wanted their congregations to bulk up on Natives!) But I think the size of Canada's current Catholic population is due more to early French colonization and immigrants from Ireland, Italy and eastern Europe.
I don't see how human rights = the enforced globalization of culture, nor how instituting universal human rights would be in any way similar to ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing means the removal from a nation, by deportation, restriction of the necessities of life, sterilization and other reproductive obstacles, or outright massacre - of human genetic variants that do not fit a designated phenotype.
This emphatically does not include assimilation of another ethnic group, since the main objective of ethnic cleansing is to keep the desired genetic strain "pure" - hence, segregation and miscegenation laws in Jim Crow America.If they had just wanted Black people to be the same as everyone else, they'd have mixed the public schools, work-places and housing right after emancipation: by 1950, there would have been no obviously different-coloured people. But they objective was to keep the whites whiter than they actually already were.
Universal human rights include freedom of association and assembly, which covers religious services of every kind. The only way in which it may infringe on cultural values is restricting a culture's mandate for some people to oppress other people, much the same way that any law restricts one person from oppressing another.
Some good points, and you may be correct in your first one. Perhaps I am simply projecting incorrectly the Latin American experience onto Canada.
It is a difficult topic to discuss in short forum speak form, but given that a large percentage of the world does not agree with what we in the West consider Universal rights (eg. 25% adhere to Islamic beliefs) and human rights evangelism by force will not go down well.
By strict definition ethnic cleansing has not occurred in Canada, nor has genocide. However, some would agree that the elimination of cultural bonds, aka forced assimilation ( not integration ), is essentially the same thing.
But... y0u are correct in highlighting the danger of using words that normally would have a very specific meaning in emotional conflated ways.
In South and Central America, the dominant settlers had RC as a very strong state religion; the Catholics were first in; the first known massacre was excused on the grounds of a native chief refusing to acknowledge the crucifix. No competing churches.
In Canada, as in the US, the dominant imperial power was Britain. Even "high church" Anglicans, whose ritual you can hardly tell apart from the Catholics', profess to be Protestant, and despise papists. In Upper Canada, just as in the US, Irish and European Catholics were treated as second-class citizens well into the 20th century. When the US got its first Irish Catholic president in 1960, it was a very big deal. By that time, we had, of course, had had two francophone prime ministers with strong RC voter support.
I realize that. Humane values can't be enforced on autonomous nations; they each have to find their own path. However, when individuals move from one country to another, they must abide by the standing laws and mores of the host nation, rather than expect to have their cultural standards accommodated. If they want changes in attitude, they'll have to bring it about through persuasion and legitimate political representation. They are usually unmolested in their lawful assembly, worship, labours and pursuit of happiness - but they're not allowed to kill, maim or damage their children, who are now - just as they are - members of a different, larger community, which extends them its protection - just as it does to them, when other ethnic or religious minorities take exception to their culture.
Cleansing, no; genocide and attempted genocide, yes. They're not the same thing. Cultural suppression most certainly is an aspect of genocide - it's just a bit more subtle than causing a famine or plague; a lot more subtle than setting a village on fire; almost as subtle as selling whiskey to humiliated and dispossessed men. All of those things were done here, as in the US. Settlers needed land.
I honestly can't imagine the assimilation of a people without integrating the persons.
some interesting insights... thanks...
Unfortunately the European colonists didn't share that view when colonizing Canada, Australia, USA etc..
I do not mean to be glib in the above comment but state that the idea of harmonious assimilation works both ways...it's just a matter of which culture is dominant at the time of colonization. Unless one takes the supremacist view that the migrant colonist culture is somehow supreme.
A good point and I fully agree,. It is just a pity that migrating Europeans ( colonists ) didn't, for various supremacist reasons.
Apologies as I am still having difficulty with the definition of Genocide. to wit:
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
"a campaign of genocide"
(Google : "genocide")
As per definition Canada has no record, I believe, of attempting to eradicate the native population by deliberate "killing". However I need to research this more... In Australia for example one could claim that the indigenous of Tasmania, our most Southern state, were subjected to systematic genocide (mid 1820's to 1832). link provided if interested
Also if interested it may be worth reviewing the landmark Mabo decision of our High Court and consider the ramifications of validating claims of Native Title to lands etc...and the fiction of Terra Nullius ( invasion vs colonization )
My take is something like this:
"Genocide achieves ethnic cleansing by way of killing and not other means such as re-education, forced assimilation, forced pregnancy and group displacement etc."
btw...The limitations on the definition of genocide, I believe has been the subject of much argument over the years. Most claiming the definition I have quoted as being inadequate and too limiting.
I mentioned the word integration to emphasis the distinction for other readers. Sorry about that.
Last edited:
Speaking as a Canadian, yes there was a cultural and ethnic genocide committed against the Native population, and the Catholic Residential Schooling program was a major part of that effort. It was also something that went on for a very long time and didn't completely end until the 1990's I believe.
Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau was in charge when many of these atrocities were occurring- I keep telling other Canadians that he was far from a national hero and, while he did some good things for the country as far as generally advancing individual and human rights, his biggest political accomplishments were only to rack up a giant national debt and to plunder from the western provinces while giving the spoils to Quebec and Ontario to buy their votes (which is a tactic he openly and proudly admitted to). Either he knew what was happening and approved of it, or he was even more of an incompetent buffoon than his political opponents already made him out to be.
Anyhow Canada is far from perfect and we have a great deal to improve on, thousands of Canadians are still suffering directly from atrocities of the past, millions indirectly. So you should try to imagine what it's like when genocides occur in China, North Korea etc. to this very day on a scale of tens of millions, none of these things should be considered acceptable.
Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau was in charge when many of these atrocities were occurring- I keep telling other Canadians that he was far from a national hero and, while he did some good things for the country as far as generally advancing individual and human rights, his biggest political accomplishments were only to rack up a giant national debt and to plunder from the western provinces while giving the spoils to Quebec and Ontario to buy their votes (which is a tactic he openly and proudly admitted to). Either he knew what was happening and approved of it, or he was even more of an incompetent buffoon than his political opponents already made him out to be.
Anyhow Canada is far from perfect and we have a great deal to improve on, thousands of Canadians are still suffering directly from atrocities of the past, millions indirectly. So you should try to imagine what it's like when genocides occur in China, North Korea etc. to this very day on a scale of tens of millions, none of these things should be considered acceptable.