Foundation of HKPLTW (Canada)

Hidden Past of Residential School: “The Canadian Holocaust”

August 4, 2021

Terence is a Research Coordinator for the Foundation of HKPLTW with interests in history & traditions, social organization & inter-group relations, culture & religion, and economics & politics of Canadian Indigenous People and Visible Minorities. Follow him on Twitter: @hkpltw

The confirmation of other unmarked burial sites in 2021 made it quite clear that the Residential School system is the undoubted “Genocide”. This act of genocide is now regarded by some as the Canadian Holocaust”.

Residential School: A System found to Carry out a Genocide that killed thousands of children

From the both the eye test from the stories of survivors and unmarked grave discoveries, there are clear evidences that the former residential schools have committed an act of genocide enabled by the federal government and churches. Both authorities were fully aware of the tragedies, but they concealed the truth from the public. These officials and their modern counterparts, “Residential School Apologists,” claim that the children “only” died of natural causes, attempting to whitewash what many survivors and scholars have characterized as genocide. However, the discoveries of unmarked graves and pieces of historical literature on residential school survivors would prove just how disgusting this line of thinking is.

The further revelation of the graves clarifies that the high death rates and numbers of missing children were by no means natural or inevitable. Many First Nation children did die of illnesses. However, many death could be preventable in many cases through balanced nutrition, a sanitary living environment, and proper medical care. With the residential schools suffered from diminishing funds, the mortality rates amongst First Nation students at these schools fluctuated across Canada.

What is indisputable was that the government and churches knew that the poor living conditions in the schools were the leading factor of the high death rate, did nothing, and hide the truth from society. These officials treated the residential schools as the salvation of the savages and felt the wellbeing of the First Nation children was not a high priority. Maintaining the health and wellbeing of these children was not the official’s intention as much as it was to eradicate their heritages and assimilate the children into the supposedly superior Canadian culture.

Like other genocides in history, many children were forcibly taken to schools that sought to break their familial and cultural ties. Students lost their Indigenous languages and connections to their home communities. Many students spent their childhood with abuses and malnutrition, and others died there. Information of a student’s whereabouts or, disturbingly orwhere they were buried was hidden by the schools. For over 100 years, thousands of children have never returned home, and their families had no idea what happened to them.

The Undoubted Genocide: “Canadian Holocaust”

These acts of genocide happened as a cultural annihilation, resulting in missing children, unnatural death, and abuses. The government and churches knew about the poor condition in the residential schools. However, they deliberately underfunded the schools, which chronically caused the high death rates among the children. Furthermore, the state and the church of Canada delicately attempted to assimilate the children and eradicate the Aboriginal cultures through abuse and manipulation. This is an undoubted “Genocide” or even could be considered “Canadian Holocaust.” The Residential school system did extensive and lasting damage to the generations of Aboriginal peoples, both livelihood and cultures.

Bibliography

“Residential School: A History of Residential Schools in Canada”. CBC News Canada. 2021. Accessed 3 August 2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-residential-schools-kamloops-faq-1.6051632

Hanson, Eric, et al.“The Residential School System.” Indigenous Foundations. First Nations and Indigenous Studies UBC, 2020. Accessed 3 August 2021.https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/#survivors-demand-justice

Milloy, John S. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986.University of Manitoba Press, 1999. Xvii, 91–2.

The Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada, “Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust.” The Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples by Church and States in Canada. http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf

Barton, Sylvia, et al. “Health and Quality of Life of Aboriginal Residential School Survivors, Bella Coola Valley”. Social Indicators Research 73 (September 2005): 295-312.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015. Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 2 1939 to 2000. The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Montreal; Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 574.

Smith, Derek. H. “The Policy of Aggressive civilization and Projects of Governance in Roman Catholic Industrial schools for Native Peoples in Canada, 1870-95. Canadian Anthropology Society, vol. 43, 2001, pp. 253-271.

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.

The Horror of Residential School

August 4, 2021

By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW

The recent discoveries of 215 unmarked graves at former residential schools in Kamloops, BC, horrified all Canadian communities, from the English-speaking, First Nation, the Québécois, Asian, and Black. This discovery shows this country’s history of violent oppression and the horror of the residential school system, which included the disappearance of children in suspicious circumstances, widespread illnesses, abuses, and malnutrition. The escalating number of recovered unmarked graves points the Residential School system to something even darker than an attempted “cultural genocide.”

Poor Living Condition: Leading Factors of Death Rates

The health and quality of life in the residential school was poor, as abuse was widespread and living condition was unhealthy. The primary purpose of the residential school was to europeanize or eliminate all aspects of First Nation culture. Students were strictly forbidden to speak Indigenous languages or to practice Indigenous customs.

First Nation children lived every day in fear that they might be abused or someone they know die and robbed of their identity. Abuses, both sexual and physical, were given out as punishments for speaking their native languages or disobeying orders. Education was non-existent in the schools, as most time were spent on practical skill trainings and forced labor rather than focusing on advancement in the classrooms.

On top of that, the schools were underfunded and overcrowded, so student well-being was the school’s lowest priority. The inadequate food and medical facilities, along with improper ventilation and lousy sanitation, resulted in high death rates. A report by Peter Bryce in 1907 made it quite clear that the death of the children buried at these schools was by no means natural or inevitable. In his report, Bryce stated that the school’s poor ventilation and health care cause the diseases to spread amongst the student population. Bryce reported that

“25 percent of previously healthy students had died in the school. This number did not include students who died at home, where they were sent when critically ill”. (Hanson et al.)

Why the Deplorable Conditions persisted?

The warning about the unacceptable living conditions in the schools has repeatedly been issued by Indian agents, doctors, school principals. However, like Bryce’s report, many who spoke out were met with silence, and their warnings were officially buried along with accusations and withholding information on the student’s deaths. The Canadian government was fully aware of the tragedies and death rates at the schools, but they chose to do nothing and write off these students “only” died of illnesses or natural causes on records. It seems that the wellbeings was not the government’s plan as much as it was to separate the First Nation children from their families and instill a new set of whitewashed beliefs. With the government concealing the truth, this system was able to continue to wound generations of Aboriginal peoples for 100 plus years with little oppositions.

Canada’s Genocide

The residential school system, as I argued throughout the article, committed genocide amongst the First Nation peoples in an attempt to eradicate their culture and wellbeing. There were children went mysteriously missing, and others died due to the poor living conditions forced upon them. Were all of the deaths natural? Unlikely. Many students did die from illnesses. However, it is indisputable that the Canadian government intentionally underfunded the residential schools, which chronically caused the high death rates among First Nation students. With further recoveries of unmarked graves on school grounds, the truth will bring to light — “Residential School was more than a cultural assimilation, but was an inevitable ‘Genocide.’”

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.

Bibliography

Truth and reconciliation Society. “The Final Report, Volume 4.” Canada’s Residential School: Missing Children and Unmarked Burials. McGill-Queen University Press, 2016. http://www.trc.ca/assets/pdf/Volume_4_Missing_Children_English_Web.pdf.

Barton, Sylvia, et al. “Health and Quality of Life of Aboriginal Residential School Survivors, Bella Coola Valley”. Social Indicators Research 73 (September 2005): 295-312.

“Residential School: A History of Residential Schools in Canada”. CBC News Canada. 2021. Accessed 3 August 2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-residential-schools-kamloops-faq-1.6051632

Milloy, John S. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986.University of Manitoba Press, 1999. Xvii, 91–2.

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by the author.

The Road to Political Organizing and Activism For First Nations

July 23, 2021

By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW

How Did it start?

In the mid 20th century, the efforts to organize politically drove the diverse Indigenous people to combine. These political bodies might differ on specific issues, were desired to assert more control over their affairs. Their political and social campaigns resulted in policies that mattered greatly to them. On the one hand, they were concerned about everyday problems such as inadequate education and housing and health care that prevented them from succeeding in the contemporary world. On the other hand, they were motivated to pursue self-determination, land, and aboriginal rights.

The Emerging Political Organization and Activism

Aboriginal peoples were motivated by a common desire to fight for their control over their affairs and fight against the politics of the Canadian government, which have been oppressively and systemically denying their rights.

The Indian Act has been paternalistic, as it overarched political control and imposed governing structure on communities in the form of band councils to control their traditions and culture. For example, discriminatory legislation in the act made it illegal for Aboriginal people to organize politically or to hire legal counsel to further land claims.

It enabled the government to determine the land base of the Aboriginal peoples in the form of reserves, defining who qualified as Indian in Indian status. The act treated the Aboriginal peoples as second-class citizens or children, with the government being the adult to administer in their day-to-day lives and affairs.

1951 Amendment

There were revisions made to the Indian Act by the 1951 amendments. However, these changes, such as allowing the Aboriginal peoples to practice their traditions, were just PR moves in response to Canadians and the world becoming more aware of the concept of human rights after the Second World War. As the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples notes that taking away some of the more oppressive and ultimately unsuccessful amendments, the government rendered the act similar to the original Indian Act (RCAP, 310).

The White Paper

Aboriginal Peoples’ concerns have frequently been taken a back seat to other issues on Ottawa’s plan. The White Paper Policy in 1969 was proposed to abolish the problematic Indian Act.

This policy sounded great on paper, as it stated that it would give Aboriginal peoples equalities that other Canadians have. However, it was a lazy political move by the federal government. It did not recognize the Aboriginal Peoples’ special rights, deal with grievances like the title to lands, and facilitate Indigenous participation in policymaking. In other words, the White Paper’s elimination of the “Indians status” was not the means to archive equality but was the cumulation of the federal government’s policy to assimilate Aboriginal peoples into mainstream society.

The White Paper failed to meet any promises made to the First Nation, as the government was absolving itself from previous injustices suffered by the Aboriginal Peoples. It, like Indian Act, was still an attempt at assimilation to avoid dealing with past wrongs and unsettled land claims, as it implied that the Aboriginal peoples would be part of the Canadian society and would own land as individuals.

Thus, it argued that there would be no more land claims entitled to people with “Indian status.” Instead of amending the Indian Act or provide compensation, the government disregarded Aboriginal peoples’ status concerns, land claims, and the proposal for Aboriginal participation in policymaking expressed during the consultation process.

Conclusion

Throughout the mid 20th century, for aboriginal peoples in Canada, the Aboriginal political organizing started as a combined effort to abolish the paternalistic policies of the federal government. After the 1951 Amendment and the White Paper, we see that interest in politics and activism has grown in the First Nation communities. The White Paper, especially, could be considered as a decisive milestone when the federal government finally abandoned their policy of assimilation for a policy geared toward establishing constitutionally protected rights for Aboriginal peoples (Milloy).

Although there were still many unsettled issues, the growth in Aboriginal politics contributed to a surge of political organizing and movements toward recognizing Aboriginal rights.

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.

Bibliography

RCAP. Report on the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 1: Looking Forward, Looking Back, 1996.

Milloy, John. “Indian Act Colonialism: A Century of Dishonour. 1869-1969.” National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008. http://fngovernance.org/ncfng_research/milloy.pdf

Lagace, Naithan and Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair. “The White Paper, 1969”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 10 June 2020, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969. Accessed 23 July 2021.

“Indian Act”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 16 December 2020, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act. Accessed 23 July 2021.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. “Chapter 9: The Indian Act,” in Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Volume 1. Ottawa: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996. 235-308.

Perceptions of Indigenous Identity in Canada

July 22, 2021

By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW

Complex and Challenging Task

The terminology related to Indigenous identity in Canada can be complex, as identification can be self-identified and defined by the state. Identification based on connection to land and territory can become very difficult. Many Indigenous peoples lost their land base, or the terms for a community have often not been selected by Indigenous peoples themselves but instead imposed on them by the government and colonizers.

“Indigenous people who locate themselves in this manner may not have any affinity or use for terms such as “Indian” or “Aboriginal,” which can be regarded as the impositions of an external and hostile system of authority. Others retain their family or clan identifiers within their communities, but use the name of a band or larger cultural group.” (Aboriginal Identity & Terminology)

With this in mind, terms related to ethnic and cultural identity all have sensitive nature— spellings, identity and names can be acceptable to some while being offensive to others. It is most respectful to use the most specific term for a community or a person when possible. First Nation communities prefer to identify themselves by their specific cultural group because they are distinct and to remain sensitive to the respective identity of each.

Do Canadian First Nations Recognize the Identification?

The identification is complex, one is based state legislation and the other build on family tradition and community practice, are always in conflict.

More generally, though, the “Aboriginal” and “Indigenous” as preferred terms in Canada. Still, “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous” can be regarded by some to be derived from colonial sources or have a negative connotation when used in any setting involving interactions with people outside of communities or invoking government policy.

I will admit that these terms can be problematic in specific contexts. However, I firmly believe that their meanings are constantly shifting and are determined by how they use them. These terms are still being used with specificity in different circumstances. First Nation people in Canada still use them with varying degrees to identify themselves as part of a more significant collective identity, shaped by a shared history both of long ancestral traditions on the land and of long and similarly troubled relations with colonialization and conflicts with the Canadian government.

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.

Bibliography

Kessler, Linc. “Aboriginal Identity & Terminology.” Indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca, 2009, https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_identity__terminology/. Accessed 22 July 2021.

What is the Most Appreciate Terminology: Aboriginals, Indigenous Peoples, First nations?

July 21, 2021

By Terence Ho | Foundation of HKPLTW

NO “All-Encompassing” Term

There is no single term that is ‘Fits All’ or ‘politically correct’ when describing Indigenous people — Aboriginal, native peoples, and First Nations in Canada. Across our nations, there are over 630 distinct Indigenous communities, which represent more than 50 nations and 50 Indigenous languages. Thus, it is impossible to come up with one term unanimously.

Which One to Use?

To those curious or new to Canada, our general guidelines are to avoid using the terms ‘Indian’ or ‘Amerindian’ because these terms have colonial connotations for the Indigenous people in Canada. Although most Canadians have avoided using these sensitive terms, incorrect usage is still common. Because of this, misunderstandings happen, and many people do not feel confident using specific terms when referring to Indigenous peoples. To be informed, this article provides a basic guide that help people to understand and be comforable with the terminology.

According to official terminology on the Government of Canada website: “Canadian constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (more commonly referred to as First Nations), Inuit and Métis. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs”. (Indigenous People and Communities)

While the term “Indian” is used on Government of Canada’s website, our government and people acknowledge the importance of terminology, as we generally replace the term ‘Indian’ with ‘First Nation.’ The terms ‘Indigenous’ is also used, for instance, using ‘Indigenous’ in the name of distinct departments such as Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Furthermore, the term ‘Aboriginal’ is widely accepted and used. While the terminology given by the government can be a good guideline for understanding the Indigenous people, I firmly believe that the best guidelines come directly from Indigenous people. It is essential to know that Indigenous communities are distinct, and to remain sensitive to the respective words, terms, and things.

“Indigenous peoples is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Often, ‘Aboriginal peoples’ is also used”. (Indigenous People and Communities)

Conclusion

All in all, there is no perfect term to describe Indigenous People. There is no strict consensus on when or where to use certain terms. However, I believe that it is a sign of respect to Indigenous people to understand the basic guidelines. By understanding the general guidelines, we can help ourselves avoid any confusion related to terminology and ensure an adapted approach that promotes mutually beneficial relations.

This is an opinion article; the views expressed by me.

Bibliography

“Indigenous People and Communities. ” Government of Canada. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 2021, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303. Accessed 21 July 2021.