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.