Christian Voices
In Defense of Our Churches
13 Facts You Probably Didn't Know About Residential Schools, Mass Graves and Treaty Violations in Canada.
By: Drew Eldridge Posted: 07/20/2021
That’s an excellent question, Susan. Thank you for writing in! Yes, it’s certainly true that this is a common charge made against Christians in Canada. The popular narrative we’re told is that European Christians came to North America, stole the land from the native indigenous peoples, committed genocide against them and then imposed things like residential schools on the survivors as a kind of assimilative “cultural genocide.” Children were torn from their parents’ arms and dragged to schools where, if they survived being systematically starved, raped or murdered, were forced to abandon their native spiritually and convert to Christianity. It is something Christians are constantly reminded that we should experience a personal sense of shame and guilt about and which we, as the beneficiaries, should make amends for with regular public apologies, declarations of land recognition, demonstrations of solidarity, and advocacy of extensive material reparations. It also fuels the resentment that leads to the kinds of hate crimes against Christians that you’ve pointed out. But is it really true?
Well, Susan, I think the answer to that question is complicated, and I’m not sure I have time at the moment to provide you with a full and detailed answer. But what I will do, since you asked, is at least lay out a list of facts with links to sources that might help you figure out the answer for yourself. For I believe that much of the confusion that you and other Christians are feeling about this matter is due to many things has been either ignored, forgotten or altogether omitted from the media, academia, politicians and even from the pulpit. There are some things that many people are simply unaware of that make this narrative seem plausible, and which we’ve unfortunately seen lead to violence. As surprising and disturbing as some of these facts may be, I hope that people you share them with will understand that their purpose is to help bring some truth to “truth and reconciliation.” They are not intended to be provocative, but merely heard, reflected upon and digested. Nor are they meant, as triggering as many may be to some, to downplay anyone’s experience of abuse or defend residential schools in any way, shape or form. They should always be presented in our conversations as gently and respectfully as possible, in a spirit of love.
I will begin with a fact about colonialism and the myth about the state of affairs that European Christians supposedly robbed the native population of, and that we are often told they are now missing out on because of us. For this is the first great lie that gets in the way of truth and reconciliation in Canada. It’s what’s beneath most of the rhetoric and what grounds the notion of indigenous culture and self-governance as things that are beautiful, dignified and worth restoring. As modern archeology and other relevant primary sources have proven, this is at best only half true.
​
Fact #1: The Indigenous People of Canada Indulged in Immeasurable Amounts of Mass Killing, Mass Burial into Unmarked Graves, Theft, Land Seizure, Rape, Gang Rape, Torture, Slavery, Kidnapping, Child Abuse, Religious Indoctrination and Breaking of Land Agreements For Centuries Prior to European Arrival.
The popular narrative often told begins with the notion that indigenous people were more or less living in harmony, sharing the land and enjoying an abuse-free, genocide-free existence until white Christian Europeans arrived and essentially spoiled it. Tragically, however, everything from scientific archeological evidence to the journals of explorers confirms that, like everywhere else in the world, precolonial North America was a mixed bag of good people and bad people— with most being somewhere in between.
In the journals, which are widely available for anyone to read, explorers praised and complimented many indigenous tribes, especially for their kindness, generosity, bravery and sense of justice. Often, they would remark how the virtues displayed of indigenous people often put the average European to shame. However, these explorers also documented how there were other indigenous tribes in America who were very different, and who often bullied and preyed upon the gentler, less warlike ones. Slaughter and burial into mass unmarked graves was one of these common indigenous traditions.
Graves like these were very common. It might even be the case that graves found around residential schools were there before the schools were even built. Genocidal blood feuds were also common, just as they were in many other parts of the world— The Battle of Crow Creek being one of the most disturbing and heartbreaking examples:
There is a little-known place called “Skull Tower.” It was place of such reported brutality and savagery that many people believed it was myth. The mass unmarked grave was discovered by archeologists in 2015:
Explorers were horrified to witness something called “The Scalping Dance” that some indigenous tribes perfomed after slaughtering rivals:
Innocent women and children were torn from their parents’ arms after having witnessing them being mutilated, and were taken as sex slaves. But even in many of the more humane tribes, explorers noticed that women and children were often treated poorly. Here is just one account by the explorer Alexander Mackenzie. Before prejudging him as biased, keep in mind that he writes this after putting his own bias aside and praising the indigenous peoples for other things:
_JPG.jpg)
In other words, Susan, it is entirely a myth that indigenous people were living in peace and harmony prior to contact. It's because of this myth that there is outrage when mass graves are found near residential schools. When unmarked mass graves are found near residential schools, they are called evidence of a genocide. But when they are found anywhere else they are merely called "indigenous burial grounds." There is no outrage and there are no apologies or reparations called for.
Invasion, displacement and disposition was another traditional indigenous custom, Susan. It may be the case that indigenous tribes like the Sioux were wrongfully displaced through colonization. But Sioux took the same land from the Cheyenne, who probably got it from someone else. The idea that this land was shared peacefully is entirely mythical. It was not something introduced by the European Christians. This brings me to the next myth.
Susan, amidst the rhetoric in the demands in the news for the Pope to apologize, you may be led to believe that the Catholic Church supported or encouraged the European displacement of native indigenous people. But is this really true? Historians have discovered documents that reveal what they really believed and taught. Here is Pope Paul III in his own words:
Letter to the Editor
"Hi, Drew! I'd like to ask you about the residential schools, the bodies discovered and the recent violent reactions to it. Did Christians commit cultural genocide? What is your opinion about all this?"
-Susan T.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Top Stories
On Social Media
Previous Article
Our Publication
Podcasts
​
It was an echo of the same thing Pope Eugene IV declared sixty years earlier, long before Europeans even discovered America. Abuses had been observed by him by religious hypocrites, and he decided to make it perfectly clear what the appropriate action of every true Catholic should be:
Far from supporting things like slavery, displacement or subjugation, the church was strongly and vocally against it, often threatening to excommunicate people who engaged in it. It’s a part of why the indigenous people of Canada so often abandoned their older spiritual traditions. They saw the goodness of Jesus and the superiority of Christian morality to what they’d been taught. This brings me to the next matter— the myth of forced conversion.
Fact #2: Prior to the Formation of Canada, Christian Missionaries Were Generally Welcomed by Indigenous People. Mass Conversion Was Common and Entirely Voluntary.
I’ve mentioned the journals of explorers. But there are also reports of missionaries written over the centuries. Far from going place to place imposing Christianity on people, they typically went completely unarmed. The indigenous people of Canada were often known for their curiosity about the creator and open mindedness about other religions. The teachings of Christianity sometimes weren’t even that different from their own. Many discovered and welcomed the idea that Christianity was a completion of, not a replacement for, their traditional religions. Today, the majority of indigenous people have chosen to embrace Christianity. Christianity doesn’t mean letting go of all indigenous traditions. But it does, of course, mean that at least some things have to change.
Fact #3. From the Beginning of the Formation of Canada, the Canadian Government Offered Full Equality to the Indigenous Peoples. Some Accepted and Some Rejected the Offer. The Infamous Indian Act Was the Result of That Rejection.
“Indian” didn’t necessarily mean “an indigenous person” back then. It was a word used to describe indigenous people who didn’t want to be treated free and equally under the law alongside white people. There is a commonly held belief that the Indian Act was created because the Europeans were racist and wanted to treat them differently. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of the evidence we have shows that the colonies believed indigenous people had the full potential to live peacefully and productively as equals to them under a common law. The Indian Act was established in spite of, not because of, what most of them believed about indigenous people. Some indigenous people accepted the invitation. They didn’t want to be an “Indian.” They just wanted to be people. Others did not and wanted special treatment. For that reason, the Indian Act was established.
The offer for full enfranchisement was offered until 1985, when it was abolished. Today there is no path to any such equality. Indigenous people, or “Indians” as the government identifies them as, are now an officially permanently dis-enfranchised group. I called the department myself and asked because I could hardly believe it. There is now no way for an indigenous person to just be a person. I don’t know why the indigenous community isn’t outraged by this. It’s an even greater mystery to me why no one even seems to notice or care.
Fact #4: Treaties Were Violated by Both Sides. Canada’s “Violation” Were Often Responses to Violations Made by Others First.
​
If you make a deal with someone and they don’t follow through on their side, then the deal might become null and void. Sometimes violations of treaties have been due to deception and betrayal. Someone might sign a treaty, but really have other plans up his sleeve. The treaty is a lie that they were planning on tricking someone with.
Other times, treaties are broken because some members of a group the treaty is about don’t feel like they actually consented to it. Not everyone indigenous person who was affected by treaties felt like indigenous leaders of the day legitimately represented them. Consequently, treaties didn’t always play out the way leaders on both sides expected or hoped.
On some occasions, violations were simply due to misunderstanding and confusion. Traditional indigenous cultures and languages were often very different. And just because a few people at the top might have understood what was being negotiated or what exactly the implications were, it didn’t mean that people on the ground always did. News traveled slow back then. People interpreted things differently. It simply wasn’t the case that everyone was on the same page when treaties were made.
Often, this resulted in people violating treaties without even knowing it. Nevertheless, these kinds of violations affected the validity of the deals made by the people who made them. Accident or not, a deal was a deal. This is why we believe it’s fair to return and not pay for our food in a restaurant when they make mistakes with our orders. It happened back then with treaties as well, and it wasn’t only one side making mistakes or being irresponsible. The debates about who broke what can be found in the primary sources. It’s not always clear who was right, who was being most honest or who had the best intentions.
One example would be Treaty 1, which applied here in Manitoba. A part of the agreement was the forbidding of alcohol to indigenous people on the lands. The treaty reads that “…the undersigned Chiefs do hereby bind and pledge themselves and their people strictly to observe this treaty…” Was this strictly observed? The treaty was also conditional upon them to “not interfere with the property or in any way molest the persons of Her Majesty’s white or other subjects.” Was this always observed? Again, it wasn’t always clear. But one thing that is clear is that it was complicated and that most folks generally tried to get to the truth and wanted what was best for everyone.
What I am saying, Susan, is that no matter what you choose to believe about these things, it isn’t as simple as “Canada violated treaties.” Often in these situations, promises were broken because it was believed that the other side had broken theirs first.
Fact #5: The First Residential Schools in Canada Were Voluntary, Welcomed and Even Requested by Indigenous Parents and Leaders.
The first residential schools in Canada were optional. Indigenous children didn’t have to go unless their parents made them. Even the Truth and Reconciliation Report confirms this. In chapter thirty, the section on parental resistance, it says the main ways some parents resisted was to “refuse to enroll students, refuse to return runaways, or refuse to return students at the end of summer holidays.” The keyword here is “enroll.” The examples given of resistance make it even more evident that these institutions were voluntary.
In 1904, some indigenous parents are on record for attempted to remove their daughter from a residential school. The response and argument of the principal, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Report, was in pointing out that the parents had “signed the admission form giving the government the right to determine when their daughter would be discharged.” The parents left with the child. The principal warned them that there might be legal consequences. But the key thing to notice here is that they had signed them up. Parents, and even disappointed parents, were signing their children up for Christian residential schools.
But what about children being torn from their parents back in those days? Doesn’t the Truth and Reconciliation Report address that? It certainly does. But if you look closely, it’s actually talking about something completely different. Take, for instance, the section called “Separating Children from Parents.” The very title sounds menacing. It makes it sound like the government was going in and dragging the children away. However, if you read closely, you will find that the word “separating” isn’t actually referring to “forced removal.” It’s used in the geometrical sense of creating distance. Specifically, it is referring to a trend of preference among educators for long distance learning. The section could have just as easily been entitled “The Growing Trend Amongst Educators in Favor of Optional Long Distance Boarding Schools for Indigenous People.” The reason why it was given the menacing description “Separation Children from Parents,” Susan, is something I’ll leave to you to decide. But it’s one reason why it’s so important to look at the primary sources when studying history.
Here is another example. The Truth and Reconciliation Report goes on to cite how Bishop Grandin wrote letter to the Indian commissioner to “help him stop parents from taking their children” out of schools like Lac La Biche. But when you look at the actual letter of the bishop himself, Susan, what you’ll find is that he was asking the commissioner to try and persuade parents, not force them. This was the nature of parental resistance and school counter resistance when there was any. But the important thing to take away from this is that they were enrolling and unenrolling their children. It would be peculiar of people who wanted to commit a cultural genocide to offer such choices.
Fact #6: It’s True John A. MacDonald Called for Assimilation of Indigenous People. But it’s Also True that Many Indigenous People Did. At the Time, the Vast Majority of Indigenous People Were Christian and Wanted Christianization.
We’ve all heard the quote of Sir John A. MacDonald endorsing assimilation. But it’s important to remember that assimilation wasn’t really considered to be bad word at the time. It wasn’t something most indigenous people found insulting. Especially indigenous Christians. For all assimilation really meant was the plan to aim for a society where white people and indigenous people could live side by side as equals under the rule of law. Education was considered one of the means to that end, just as it is today.
Interestingly, the truly controversial position for a white person to have was that indigenous people should be left alone. The reason was because such indigenous people often lived in extreme poverty. Sovereign communities developed very serious problems, such as alcoholism and disease. They also had a great deal of difficulty competing on the global market of trading. It was something they weren’t used to doing on their own. Worst of all, this often ended up being cyclical. Education was considered to be a way of breaking the cycle.
Sir John A. MacDonald is often accused of white supremacy. But wouldn’t a true white supremacist just adopt a policy of letting them die off? Why pour all those resources into trying to integrate them? And what kind of white supremacist wants non-white people to be assimilated into their society in the first place? Today, Susan, he might be called a white supremacist and perpetrator of cultural genocide for his endorsement of assimilation. But back then he would have been called these things if we were against assimilation. We know because poverty and disease in isolated indigenous communities was sometimes so rampant that non-interventionists would be accused of letting the indigenous people go extinct.
Fact #7: The Increase of Residential Schools was Caused by the Increasing Demand for Them by Indigenous Parents and Pressure Put on the Government by Indigenous Leaders.
While it may be the case that these optional residential schools had a slow start, they soon became so popular amongst indigenous parents that the schools were often over crowded. Complaints about over-crowding and underfunding put pressure on the government to provide more. In economics, there is something called the law of supply and demand. In the case of residential schools, the government and churches provided the supply and the parents provided the demand. For better or worse, the evidence overwhelming indicates that residential schools were places where indigenous parents were increasingly wanting their children to be.
In fact, you can read how the indigenous peoples of Canada were often so defensive of Christianity that their leaders even went as far as to call people who wanted to change them “fascists.” It’s in official court documents:
Parents also got together with their representatives and complained that children who came home from residential schools were so undisciplined that children would come home and have to have discipline literally whipped into them by their fathers.
It seems to have been argued that, if only the schools could be more disciplined, fathers wouldn’t have to resort to this. The government responded to these kinds of complaints and did their best to enact stricter disciplinary measures in residential schools over the coming decades.
Fact #10: Residential Schools Never Became Mandatory for Indigenous Children. School in General Did. Prominent Indigenous Leaders and Representatives of the Day Advocated and Supported the Forceful Removal of Indigenous Children from Their Homes into Residential Schools.
Susan, you might have been told that the government imposed residential schools on indigenous peoples and forced children to attend. In reality, it was simply school in general that was made mandatory. It became mandatory for all children, not just indigenous ones. Residential schools would only be mandatory for indigenous children who had no other option, and who came from communities who either didn’t want or weren’t capable of opening schools of their own. Often, these were places where there was much neglect and abuse. This is partially why even the indigenous community supported the forced removal of children from their parents when necessary. They agreed with the Canadian government that it was better for a child to be removed and sent to a Christian residential school for assimilation than to remain with their parents, where they might be neglected and either die, turn to crime or get caught up in cyclical poverty. Even the infamous “60’s scoop” was conceived of by listening and responding to petitions of indigenous leaders such as Ahab Spence made in decades leading up to it:
Fact #11: In General, Indigenous Parents and Leaders of the Day Who Were Opposed to Residential Schools Opposed Them Because of the Distance, Not Because of What Was Taught. Such Parents Preferred Sending Children to Day Schools Instead of Residential Schools Because They Felt Day Schools Led to More, Not Less, Assimilation.
Cultural and religious assimilation wasn’t controversial back in those days. It was something many indigenous leaders openly advocated for. Documents like these show that the main issue parents had with residential schools, besides the lack of discipline or funding, wasn’t what was taught, but the long distances from home and rare visitations. Quite understandably, parents tended to prefer being closer to their children. There are actually records of residential school staff complaining about parents coming and comping out near the schools so they could see their children. Parents weren’t generally coming to take their children out of that kind of education system, but they did make petitions to the government to either open day schools in their communities. When they were asked if they preferred well-funded day schools that were far away or residential schools that were close and that allowed visitation, they said they’d prefer the closer residential schools.
So, it generally wasn’t about what was happening inside them, Susan. It was about children and parents missing each other. I think every parent can relate and sympathize with that. The Canadian government did, too. They strove to make some changes. Though, funding was always difficult because much of this happened while wartime measures were in place, or during events like The Great Depression. There wasn’t always a large budget. Christian charity didn’t always cover everything either. That’s the main reason why children often had to help out with work while at residential schools. Groundskeepers, maids and cooks were luxuries that were difficult to provide at the time.
Fact #12: In 1969, at the Height of the Period of Reported Abuse in Residential Schools, the Canadian Government Proposed to Abolish the Racist Indian Act, Which Would Have Meant Total Racial Equality the End of Residential Schools. Indigenous Leaders, Represented by Indigenous Parents, Strongly Opposed It. So, the Schools Remained Open.
Today, a person might be accused of cultural genocide if they are in favor of the Indian Act and continuation of things like residential schools. But back then you’d be accused of it for wanting to abolish them. The Canadian government wanted and proposed abolishing the Indian act that residential schools were founded upon. All indigenous people would be equal. They would be free to either embrace or move away from their traditional indigenous culture, as they saw fit. This was done in the same spirit of equality as the civil rights movement happening in The Untitled States at the time. The difference was that, in Canada, these ideas of civil rights and equality were rejected by the parents and leaders of the people they would be extended to. As a result, institutions like residential schools had to remain open.
Fact #13: There Have Been Many Reports of Positive Experiences in Residential Schools that You Can Read
"You may have heard stories from 7,000 witnesses in the process that were negative," says residential school attendee Thomas Highway, "But what you haven't heard are the 7,000 reports that were positive stories. There are many very successful people today that went to those schools and have brilliant careers and are very functional people, very happy people like myself. I have a thriving international career, and it wouldn't have happened without that school." Similar endearing sentiments have been reported in letters that many have tried to ignore and cover up.
​
​
​
​
Book Recommendations
Articles of Note
​
​
​
​
In Defense of Our Churches
13 Facts You Haven't Been Told About Residential Schools, Mass Graves and Treaty Violations in Canada.
By: Drew Eldridge Posted: 07/22/2021
That’s an excellent question, Susan. Thank you for writing in! Yes, it’s certainly true that cultural genocide is a common charge made against Christians in Canada. The popular narrative we’re told is that European Christians came to North America, stole the land from the Indigenous peoples, wiped out many of their communities and then imposed things like residential schools on the survivors as a kind of assimilative “cultural genocide.” Children were torn from their parents’ arms and dragged to schools where, if they survived being systematically starved, raped or murdered, were forced to abandon their native spirituality and convert to Christianity. We are told that we should experience a personal sense of shame and guilt about this and take appropriate action. As the beneficiaries of that past, we should make amends for cultural genocide with regular public apologies, declarations of land recognition, demonstrations of solidarity, and advocacy of extensive material reparations. These accusations fuel resentment that can lead to the kinds of hate crimes against Christians that you’ve pointed out. But is it really true?
Well, Susan, I think the answer to that question is complicated, and I’m not sure I am interested in putting forth and defending a competing narrative at this point. But what I will do, since you asked, is lay out a list of facts that I've discovered, with links to sources that might help you figure out the answer for yourself.
I believe that much of the confusion that you and other Christians are feeling about this matter is due to many things that have been either ignored, forgotten or altogether omitted from public discourse. There are some things that many people are simply unaware of that make this narrative seem plausible, and which has unfortunately led to violence.
As surprising and disturbing as some of these facts may be, I hope people you share them with will understand their purpose is to help bring more truth to “truth and reconciliation.” They are not intended to be provocative, but merely heard, reflected upon and digested. Nor are they meant to downplay anyone’s experience of abuse or defend residential schools in any way. They should always be presented in our conversations gently and respectfully, in a spirit of love.
I will begin with a fact about colonialism and the myth about the state of affairs that European Christians supposedly robbed the native population of, and that we are often told they are now missing out on because of us. This is the first misconception that needs to be addressed. It’s what’s beneath most of the rhetoric about guilt and what grounds the narrative about cultural genocide as a whole.
​
Fact #1: The Indigenous people of North America regularly engaged in mass killing, mass burial into unmarked graves, theft, land seizure, rape, gang rape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, child abuse, religious indoctrination and breaking of land agreements for centuries prior to European contact.
The popular narrative begins with the notion that indigenous people were more or less living in harmony, sharing the land and enjoying an abuse-free, genocide-free existence until white Christian Europeans arrived and spoiled it. Tragically, however, everything from scientific archeological evidence to the journals of explorers confirms that, like everywhere else in the world, precolonial North America was a mixed bag of good people and bad people— with most being somewhere in between.
In the journals, explorers praised and complimented many Indigenous tribes, especially for their kindness, generosity, bravery and sense of justice. Often, they would remark how the virtues displayed by some Indigenous people often put the average European Christian to shame. However, these explorers also documented how there were other Indigenous tribes in North America who were very different, and who often bullied and preyed upon the gentler, less warlike ones. Slaughter and burial into mass unmarked graves was one of these common practices:
"Hi, Drew! I'd like to ask you about the residential schools, the bodies discovered and the recent violent reactions to it. Did Christians commit cultural genocide? What is your opinion about all this?"
-Susan T.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Top Stories
On Social Media
Previous Article
It might even be the case that graves found around residential schools have nothing to do with Christians and were there long before the schools were even built. Archeologists have methods of determining these things. Genocidal blood feuds were common as well, just as they have been in many other parts of the world. The Battle of Crow Creek is one of the most heartbreaking examples. Archeologists have dated it to the fourteenth century.
There is a little-known place called “Skull Tower.” Many believed it was myth. The mass unmarked grave was discovered by archeologists in 2015:
Explorers witnessed something called “The Scalping Dance” that some indigenous tribes performed after slaughtering rivals:
After the men were ritually mutilated, women and children were taken as sex slaves. But even in many of the more humane tribes, explorers noticed that women and children were often treated poorly. Here is just one account by the explorer Alexander Mackenzie. Keep in mind that he writes this after praising these Indigenous people for other things.
Our Publication
Podcasts
​
In other words, Susan, it is entirely a myth that Indigenous people were living in peace and harmony prior to contact with European Christians. One effect of this idea is that when unmarked graves are found near residential schools, they are called "evidence of a genocide." But when they are found anywhere else they are merely called "Indigenous burial grounds." This difference in judgement reveals the assumptions we make about what happened in these places.
Another documented traditional Indigenous custom was invasion and dispossession. It may be the case that indigenous tribes like the Sioux were wrongfully displaced through colonization. But the Sioux took the same land from the Cheyenne, who got it from someone else. The idea that this land was shared peacefully is entirely fabricated. Conquest was not something introduced by the European Christians. This brings me to the next myth.
Amidst demands for the Pope to apologize, you may be led to believe that the Catholic Church supported or encouraged the European displacement of Indigenous people. But is this really true? Here is Pope Paul III in his own words, writing in 1537:
This is an echo of the same thing Pope Eugene IV declared sixty years earlier, long before Europeans came to North America. He had been observing abuses in the Canary Islands and decided to make it perfectly clear what he thought the appropriate action of every true Christian should be:
Far from supporting things like slavery, displacement or subjugation, the Catholic Church was strongly and vocally against it, often threatening to excommunicate people who were involved. This is partly why the Indigenous people of Canada so often abandoned their older spiritual traditions. They saw the goodness of Jesus and the appeal of Christian morality. This brings me to the next matter— the myth of forced conversion.
Fact #2: Prior to the formation of Canada, Christian missionaries were generally welcomed by Indigenous people. Mass conversion was common and entirely voluntary.
I’ve mentioned the journals of explorers. But there are also reports of missionaries written over the centuries. Far from going place to place imposing Christianity on people, they typically went completely unarmed. The Indigenous people of Canada were often known for their curiosity about the creator and open mindedness about other religions. The teachings of Christianity sometimes weren’t even that different from their own. Many discovered and welcomed the idea that Christianity was a completion of, not a replacement for, their traditional religions. Today, many Indigenous people have chosen to continue embracing Christianity. Being a Christian doesn’t mean having to let go of all Indigenous traditions.
Fact #3. From the beginning of the formation of Canada, the Canadian government offered full equality to the Indigenous peoples. Some accepted and some rejected the offer. The infamous Indian Act was the result of that rejection.
“Indian” didn’t necessarily mean “an Indigenous person” in the 1800's. It was a word used to describe Indigenous people who didn’t want to be treated as free and equally under the law. There is a commonly held belief that the Indian Act was created because Europeans were racist and wanted to treat Indigenous people differently. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of the evidence we have shows that the colonies believed Indigenous people had the full potential to live peacefully and productively as equals to them under a common law. The Indian Act was established in spite of, not because of, what most of them believed about Indigenous people. Some Indigenous people accepted the invitation. Others did not. For that reason, the Indian Act was established.
Full enfranchisement was offered until 1985, when it was abolished. Today there is no path to any such equality. Indigenous people, or “Indians” as the government identifies them as, are now celebrated by our government as an officially permanently dis-enfranchised group.
Fact #4: Treaties were violated by both sides. Violations of the Canadian government were often in response to perceived violations made by others first.
​
If you make a deal with someone and they don’t follow through on their side, then the deal might become null and void. Sometimes violations of treaties have been due to deception and betrayal. Someone might sign a treaty, but really have other plans. Other times, treaties are broken because members of the represented group don’t feel like they actually consented to it. Not every Indigenous person who was affected by the treaties felt like Indigenous leaders of the day legitimately represented them. Consequently, treaties didn’t always play out the way leaders on both sides expected or hoped.
On some occasions, violations were simply due to misunderstanding and confusion. Traditional Indigenous cultures and languages were often very different. And just because a few people at the top might have understood what was being negotiated or what exactly the implications were, that didn’t mean that people on the ground always did. News traveled slowly back then. People interpreted things differently. It simply wasn’t the case that everyone was on the same page when treaties were made.
Often, this resulted in people violating treaties without even knowing it. Nevertheless, these kinds of violations affected the validity of the deals made by the people who made them. Accident or not, a deal was a deal. This is why we believe it’s fair to return and not pay for our food in a restaurant when they make mistakes with our orders. It happened back then with treaties as well, and it wasn’t only one side making mistakes or being irresponsible. The debates about who broke what can be found in the primary sources. It’s not always clear who was right, who was being most honest or who had the best intentions.
One example would be Treaty 1, which applied here in Manitoba. A part of the agreement was the forbidding of alcohol to Indigenous people on the lands. The treaty reads that “…the undersigned Chiefs do hereby bind and pledge themselves and their people strictly to observe this treaty…” Was this strictly observed? The treaty was also conditional upon them to “not interfere with the property or in any way molest the persons of Her Majesty’s white or other subjects.” Was this always observed? It's also important to remember that these post confederate treaties were signed under the pretense of gradual assimilation. This is what the Queen and newly formed Canadian government told them they were signing up for. It's why they agreed to fund things like schools. However, this means that any resistance to gradual assimilation would have been perceived as violations.
What I am saying is that no matter what you choose to believe about these things, it isn’t as simple as “Canada violated treaties.” Often in these situations, promises were broken because it was believed that the other side had broken theirs first.
​
Fact #5: The first residential schools in Canada were voluntary, welcomed and even requested by Indigenous parents and leaders.
The first residential schools in Canada were optional. Indigenous children didn’t have to go unless their parents made them. Even the Truth and Reconciliation Report confirms this. In chapter thirty, the section on parental resistance, it says the main ways some parents resisted was to “refuse to enroll students, refuse to return runaways, or refuse to return students at the end of summer holidays.” The keyword here is “enroll.” The examples given of resistance make it even more evident that these institutions were voluntary and refusals were possible.
In 1904, some Indigenous parents are on record for removing their daughter from a residential school. The response and argument of the principal, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Report, was in pointing out that the parents had “signed the admission form giving the government the right to determine when their daughter would be discharged.” The parents left with the child. The principal warned them that there might be legal consequences. But the key thing to notice here is that they had signed them up. Parents, and even disappointed parents, were signing their children up for Christian residential schools.
But what about children being torn from their parents back in those days? Doesn’t the Truth and Reconciliation Report address that? It certainly does. But it's worth taking a closer look at the language. Take, for instance, the section called “Separating Children from Parents.” The very title sounds menacing. It makes it sound like the government was going in and dragging the children away. However, if you read closely, you will find that the word “separating” isn’t actually referring to “forced removal.” It’s used in the geometrical sense of creating distance. Specifically, it is referring to a trend of preference among educators for long distance learning. The section could have just as easily been entitled “The Growing Trend Amongst Educators in Favor of Optional Long Distance Boarding Schools for Indigenous People.”
The Truth and Reconciliation Report goes on to cite how Bishop Grandin wrote a letter to the Indian commissioner to “help him stop parents from taking their children” out of schools like Lac La Biche. But when you look at the actual letter of the bishop himself, what you’ll find is that he was asking the commissioner to try and persuade parents, not force them. This was the nature of parental resistance and school counter resistance when there was any. But the important thing to take away from this is that they were enrolling and unenrolling their children.
Fact #6: It’s true John A. MacDonald called for assimilation of Indigenous people. But it’s also true that many Indigenous people did too. At the time, the vast majority of Indigenous people were Christian and wanted Christianization.
We’ve all heard the quote of Sir John A. MacDonald endorsing assimilation. But it’s important to remember that assimilation wasn’t really considered a bad word at the time. It wasn’t something most Indigenous people found insulting- especially Indigenous Christians. For all assimilation really meant was the plan to aim for a society where white people and Indigenous people could live side by side as equals under the rule of law. In this respect, Sir John A. MacDonald wasn't all that different from Martin Luther King Jr. Education was considered one of the means to that end, just as it is today in all public schools.
Interestingly, the truly controversial position for a white person to have was that Indigenous people should be left alone. Many Indigenous communities lived in extreme poverty. Sovereign communities developed very serious problems, such as alcoholism and disease. They also had difficulty competing on the global market. It was something they weren’t used to doing independently. Worst of all, this often became cyclical. Education was considered to be a way of breaking the cycle and empowering these communities.
Sir John A. MacDonald is often accused of white supremacy. But wouldn’t a true white supremacist be against integrating non-white people into their society? Think of all the money and time put into it. Today, Sir John A. MacDonald might be called a white supremacist and perpetrator of cultural genocide for his endorsement of assimilation. But back then he would have been called these things if he we were against assimilation. Poverty and disease in isolated Indigenous communities was sometimes so rampant that non-interventionists would be accused of letting the Indigenous people go extinct.
Fact #7: The increase of residential schools was caused by the increasing demand for them by Indigenous parents and pressure put on the government by Indigenous leaders.
While it may be the case that these optional residential schools had a slow start, they soon became so popular amongst Indigenous parents that the schools were often over crowded. Complaints about over-crowding and under funding put pressure on the government to provide more. In economics, there is something called the law of supply and demand. In the case of residential schools, the government and churches provided the supply and the parents provided the demand. Here is an example of one such petition. Notice that this is an all-Indigenous union. Notice that they are asking for more and better schools that will help prepare their children for "civilized life."
Click on Photos to View Sources
Fact #8: Indigenous parents and leaders are on record for wanting and even sometimes demanding specifically Christian residential schools. People who didn’t want to support Christian residential schools were called “fascists.”
As I mentioned earlier, Christian missionaries had been reaching out to the natives for a very long time. In large numbers, the Indigenous people of Canada were persuaded to choose Christianity over their traditional religions. These missions were so successful that by 1899 a census showed that over 70% of Indigenous people in Canada identified as Christian. It should be no surprise then, that we find records of Indigenous parents and leaders insisting so passionately, and in such large numbers, that their children’s schools be Christian in the twentieth century.
In fact, you can read how the Indigenous peoples of Canada defended Christianity to the point that their leaders called people who wanted to change them “fascists.” It’s in official court documents:
The debates were less about whether Christianity should be taught, and more about what kind of Christianity. They were also about who should teach it and who should have the power to make the decisions. Complaints were more about incompetence, power dynamics and bureaucracy. But there was little resistance to the teaching of Christianity itself.
Fact #9: There are official records of Indigenous parents and leaders criticizing residential schools for being too relaxed, and pressuring the government to increase discipline.
One thing you might have been told was that residential schools were unusually strict, and the sorts of places that Indigenous parents would resist or speak up against it. What you might not have been told is that residential schools were often criticized for being too relaxed and giving too much freedom. Here is just one complaint that was issued about the excess of freedom and lack of discipline. There are more you can find in official archives.
Parents also got together with their representatives and complained that children who came home from residential schools were so undisciplined that children would sometimes have to have discipline whipped into them by their fathers.
The government responded to these kinds of complaints and did their best to enact stricter disciplinary measures in residential schools over the coming decades.
Fact #10: Residential schools never became mandatory for Indigenous children. School attendance in general did. Prominent Indigenous leaders and representatives of the day advocated and supported the forceful removal of Indigenous children from their homes into residential schools.
It's been said that the government imposed residential schools on Indigenous peoples and forced children to attend. In reality, it was simply school in general that was made mandatory. It became mandatory for all children, not just Indigenous ones. Residential schools would only be mandatory for Indigenous children who had no other option, and who came from communities who either didn’t want or weren’t capable of opening schools of their own. Often, these were places where there was much reported neglect and abuse. This is partially why even the Indigenous community supported the forced removal of children from their parents when necessary. They agreed with the Canadian government that it was better for a child to be removed and sent to a Christian residential school for assimilation than to remain with their parents, where they might be neglected and either die, turn to crime or get caught up in cyclical poverty. Even the infamous “60’s scoop” was conceived of by listening and responding to petitions of Indigenous leaders made in decades leading up to it:
Fact #11: In general, Indigenous parents and leaders of the day who were opposed to residential schools opposed them because of the distance, not because of what was taught. Such parents preferred sending children to day schools instead of residential schools because they felt day schools led to more, not less, assimilation.
Cultural and religious assimilation wasn’t controversial back in those days. It was something many Indigenous leaders openly advocated for. Documents like these show that the main issue parents had with residential schools, besides the lack of discipline or funding, wasn’t what was taught, but the long distances from home and rare visitations. Quite understandably, parents tended to prefer being closer to their children. There are actually records of residential school staff complaining about parents coming and camping out near the schools so they could see their children. Parents weren’t generally coming to take their children out of that kind of education system, but they did make petitions to the government to open day schools in their communities. Well funded residential schools that were close were preferred to day schools that were too far.
Parents missed their children. I think every mother or father can relate and sympathize with that. The Canadian government did, too. They tried to make some changes. Funding, however, was always difficult because much of this happened while wartime measures were in place, or during events like the Great Depression. There wasn’t always a large budget. Christian charity didn’t always cover everything either. That’s the main reason why children often had to help out with work while at residential schools. Groundskeepers, maids and cooks were luxuries that were difficult to provide at the time.
Fact #12: In 1969, a time when there was frequently reported abuse, the Canadian government proposed to abolish the racist Indian Act, which would have meant total racial equality and the end of residential schools. Indigenous leaders, represented by Indigenous parents, strongly opposed it. So, the schools remained open.
Today, a person might be accused of cultural genocide if they are in favor of the Indian Act and continuation of things like residential schools. But back then you’d be accused of it for wanting to abolish them. The Canadian government wanted and proposed abolishing the Indian act that residential schools were founded upon. All Indigenous people would be equal. They would be free to either embrace or move away from their traditional Indigenous culture, as they saw fit. This was done in the same spirit of equality as the civil rights movement happening in The United States at the time. The difference was that, in Canada, these ideas of civil rights and equality were rejected by the parents and leaders of the people they would be extended to. As a result, institutions like residential schools had to remain open:
Fact #13: There have been many reports of positive experiences in residential schools that you can read.
"You may have heard stories from 7,000 witnesses in the process that were negative," says residential school attendee Thomas Highway. "But what you haven't heard are the 7,000 reports that were positive stories. There are many very successful people today that went to those schools and have brilliant careers and are very functional people, very happy people like myself. I have a thriving international career, and it wouldn't have happened without that school." Similar sentiments have been reported in letters that many have tried to ignore and cover up.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The Government saying they are sorry is meaningless. They didn't have a clue of the impact of their decisions at the time and they don't have now. Most of the older generation that did suffer are long dead and gone or have forgiven. It seems to me that many of the new generation just want to be victims and feel money would solve their pain. We need to understand that very few people wanted to live in the north under the isolated conditions at the time just to help out with a few indigenous peoples. After the federal government took over the school system, most of my junior high school teachers were immigrants from the British Commonwealth (India, England Ireland and other countries) as no Alberta teachers wanted to live up there when they could live in or near a city with a doctor, bank, good grocery store, ambulance and my goodness even Policeman. The quality of my education suffered because all of a sudden the nuns were not qualified to teach us in 1967 thus I had to try and take lessons from teachers with a very heavy accent and hard to understand and wanting to move close to the cities as soon as they could. Thank goodness the missionaries were there for the past 300 years. Were they all good? No, but many were wonderful and now that seems to be forgotten.
Please believe me when I say that the missionaries were not a bunch of evil persons out to kill little children like it sounds in today's media. That is not what I witnessed. The missionaries knew that the ancient peoples of our land could not continue to exist in a nomadic and isolated society, so they tried to educate them and of course change their culture to be more compatible with the conditions of the times. Were they right? Maybe, I don't know, but at least they were willing to try and help.
Like I tell my children, I cannot become indigenous like them but they can become Canadians like me and they are. There are more success stories out there than even you realize. The missionaries did not just throw bodies into the ground. Most were marked by a small wooden cross made by the brothers of the mission or parents of the child. Those crosses are long gone. Sad but true. I can also take you to the unmarked graves of many people that were not indigenous as well if you want. That was the way of the north.
​
Sources:
​
1. Canadian Parliamentary Historical Records
4. The Jesuit Relations: Natives and Missionaries in Seventeenth-Century North America by Allan Greer
5. The History of the Catholic Church in Canada 1659-1895 by Adrian Gabriel Morice
6. North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence by Richard J. Chacon and Rubén G. Mendoza
7. War before Civilization by Lawrence Keelay
8. Cannibalism, Headhunting and Human Sacrifice in North America: A History Forgotten by George Feldman
9. Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879 by Thomas Goodrich
10. First Peoples in Canada by Allan McMillan
11. Converging Worlds Text and Sourcebook by Louise Breen
12. Bloody Mohawk: The French and Indian War & American Revolution on New York's Frontier by Richard Berleth
13. The First Frontier: The Forgotten History of Struggle, Savagery, & Endurance in Early America by Scott Weidensaul
14. Conquests and Cultures: An International History by Thomas Sowell
15. Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson
16. The Four Voyages of Christopher Columbus: Being His Own Log-Book, Letters and Dispatches with Connecting Narratives by Christopher Columbus
17. The Journals of Alexander Mackenzie: Exploring Across Canada in 1789 & 1793 by Alexander Mackenzie
18. Archaeological Perspectives on Warfare on the Great Plains by Andrew Clark
19. Indian Fights and Fighters: The Soldier and the Sioux by Cyrus Brady
20. Why You Can't Teach United States History without American Indians by Susan Smith
21. Cahokia: Ancient America's Great City on the Mississippi by Timothy Pauketet
22. Indians of the Yosemite Valley and Vicinity, Their History Customs and Traditions by Galen Clark
23. Cherokee Mythology: Gods, Myths, Legends and Spiritual Beliefs of the Cherokee Tribe by Jim Barrow
24. Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the North-West Territories by Alexander Morris
25. Indian Treaties in the United States: An Encyclopedia and Documents Collection by Donald Fixico
26. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly by Francis Prucha
27. Revolutionary America, 1763-1815: A Sourcebook by Francis Cogliano
28. The Indian Act of Canada: Consolidated Acts 1868 - 1985
30. Since the Time of the Transformers: The Ancient Heritage of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah by Alan McMillan
31. Prehistoric Lakeheaders: The 90-Century Story of Pre-Contact Thunderbayans by Alan Wade
32. Letters to Former Senator Beyek
33. actforcanada.ca
35. Treaty 1
36. The Truth and Reconciliation Report
37. CBC Archives
38. The White Paper
39. The other Side of the Residential School Question by J. Fraser Field
40. The Popes and Slavery: Setting the Record Straight by Joel Panzer
​
Book Recommendations
Articles of Note
​
​
​
​
​