First Nations in Canada

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is also a pretty major boulevard and exit off the 401 that bears his name there.

If it gets renamed, it should be named after Gord Downie.

Ottawa also has a parkway named after SJAM.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I remember back in 2013 that statue getting doused with red paint - and at the time it was dismissed as vandalism.

Several years later a pub named after him changed its name, and at the time it was highly controversial in the community.

Yes. Incidentally, that pub is located in his old law offices.

As is quite typical with such controversies, ~5 years later, I feel like people barely remember the change, let alone care about it. Maybe that's just my impression though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

If it gets renamed, it should be named after Gord Downie.
.

I think you just won the contest.

[esquire]

Pretty much a given at this point that Bishop Grandin Boulevard, an expressway through South Winnipeg, is going to undergo a name change. Bishop Grandin was a significant figure in Western Canadian history but perhaps best known for his role as an architect of the residential school system.

[Airboy]

St Albert just outside of Edmonton has a moratorium on school names now. They are reviewing all names. But the city also has a main street and district named Grandin. But there is a very strong Metis influence in the city that I figure may be expanded on. One of the founding families still lives in the area.

[Acajack]

Maybe buying stocks in sign companies in 2021 will become a mini-version of what stocks in vaccination companies were in Feb. 2020?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

A pretty stark statistic that someone reminded me of this week: the odds of a child dying in a residential school were higher than that of a Canadian soldier dying in WWII (1 in 25 vs 1 in 26).

This was over the lifetime of the program, meanwhile during the early years the death rate was 50%.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/0...n_7491120.html

I certainly don't mean to belittle ANYTHING related to the residential schools, but statistics like this are very difficult to understand. In 1900, in Canada the overall child mortality rate was 296/1000. Since it is unlikely that numbers were tracked back then for FN youth, we can assume that this number was for "non-FN" Canadians. So from 1900 to 1940 the child mortality rate for "white" Canadians averaged 150/1000, so these kids had a 1 in 7 chance of dying.

Basically before WW2 "white kids" had roughly 4 times a greater chance to die than soldiers did in WW2.

Again, not trying to belittle anything, just highlighting that picking numbers may not actually provide any useful insight.

The residential school system did unspeakable things to FN children. Many died within it. Lets focus on redressing that without extraneous hyperbole to distract.

Source

[milomilo]

Those sorts of "shocking" statistics are always very easy to tear apart and be proved incorrect and meaningless, but if you dare do so the one that came to the table with the statistic will cry like a toddler about how mean you are being and stamp their feet about how it doesn't matter, despite them being the ones that made the comparison.

In this case, 1.1 million Canadians served and 42,000 died, so there's your 1 in 26. Except more than half of those didn't leave Canada, and who knows how many went on to actually fight in theatre, so the casualty rate of what people would be thinking of to serve in combat in WWII is going to be much higher.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by shreddog

I certainly don't mean to belittle ANYTHING related to the residential schools, but statistics like this are very difficult to understand. In 1900, in Canada the overall child mortality rate was 296/1000. Since it is unlikely that numbers were tracked back then for FN youth, we can assume that this number was for "non-FN" Canadians. So from 1900 to 1940 the child mortality rate for "white" Canadians averaged 150/1000, so these kids had a 1 in 7 chance of dying.

Basically before WW2 "white kids" had roughly 4 times a greater chance to die than soldiers did in WW2.

Again, not trying to belittle anything, just highlighting that picking numbers may not actually provide any useful insight.

The residential school system did unspeakable things to FN children. Many died within it. Lets focus on redressing that without extraneous hyperbole to distract.

Source

It's worth noting that you're talking about children under the age of five, as per your source. Children were not forced into the residential school system until they were 6-7, an age at which child mortality was significantly less likely (though more so than today). I know you're not making a direct comparison, but others might be tempted to do so without this important context.

[dreambrother808]

If you read the article you would see that this wasn’t hidden knowledge at the time either. For example, in 1913 the official from Indian Affairs department is quoted as saying that half the children in these schools were dying.

Also:

According to Saturday Night magazine, reporting on residential schools, Nov. 23, 1907: "Indian boys and girls are dying like flies.... Even war seldom shows as large a percentage of fatalities as does the education system we have imposed on our Indian wards."

The comparison to WW2 references the lifetime of the program, including after such statistics for the entirety of the population were reduced dramatically. So comparisons are in fact shocking, whether or not some are adult enough to tolerate that reality.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

If you read the article you would see that this wasn’t hidden knowledge at the time either. For example, in 1913 the official from Indian Affairs department is quoted as saying that half the children in these schools were dying.

You seem to have the approach of presenting a "holier than though" attitude. I think all of us who have been posting in this thread are very familar with the facts posted about the sentiment in the early 1900's wrt "Industrial Schools" without your prompting.

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

None of this is new. The Government of Sir Wilfred Laurier had a detailed report of the appalling conditions in the Residential Schools in the Prairies and did nothing. The Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Indian Affairs P.H. Bryce did two reports, 1907 and 1909....

The war reference is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst. Why do you feel compelled to present a distorted analogy when we all agree that that what was done was horrific and we must address it. Further, why must you feel the urge to attack those that wish to do right with ad hominems?

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

...So comparisons are in fact shocking, whether or not some are adult enough to tolerate that reality.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by shreddog

You seem to have the approach of presenting a "holier than though" attitude. I think all of us who have been posting in this thread are very familar with the facts posted about the sentiment in the early 1900's wrt "Industrial Schools" without your prompting.The war reference is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst. Why do you feel compelled to present a distorted analogy when we all agree that that what was done was horrific and we must address it. Further, why must you feel the urge to attack those that wish to do right with ad hominems?

I referred to “adults” in comparison to being called a “toddler”, so take that as you will if you want to accuse me of dipping into that territory. I am quite sure that you are adult enough to understand, as that wasn’t really in reference to you.

You assert that the comparison posted is disingenuous and extraneous. You accuse me of presenting distorted analogies when I’m just posting something that a friend shared with me, that is also posted on reputable news sites online. You can quibble over details as to why that is wrong but you are also cherry-picking reference points. As I have clearly stated the children’s statistic covers the entirety of the program, even after conditions for all children dramatically changed last century and in the beginning, half the children were apparently dying. That is shocking, in comparison to WW2 or any period pretty much, even if it were only partially true. That is also not an attack and I have no idea why that needs to be met with “oh well it’s not THAT bad.”

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I referred to “adults” in comparison to being called a “toddler”, so take that as you will if you want to accuse me of dipping into that territory. I am quite sure that you are adult enough to understand, as that wasn’t really in reference to you.

You assert that the comparison posted is disingenuous and extraneous. You accuse me of presenting distorted analogies when I’m just posting something that a friend shared with me, that is also posted on reputable news sites online. You can quibble over details as to why that is wrong but you are also cherry-picking reference points. As I have clearly stated the children’s statistic covers the entirety of the program, even after conditions for all children dramatically changed last century and in the beginning, half the children were apparently dying. That is shocking, in comparison to WW2 or any period pretty much, even if it were only partially true. That is also not an attack and I have no idea why that needs to be met with “oh well it’s not THAT bad.”

Yep - there's the toddler tantrum. You chose to bring to the table a "shocking" statistical comparison that was misleading and worthless, now when people show how, you get upset at the pushback. It's the same every time. No one is allowed to question the woke.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yep - there's the toddler tantrum. You chose to bring to the table a "shocking" statistical comparison that was misleading and worthless, now when people show how, you get upset at the pushback. It's the same every time. No one is allowed to question the woke.

Disagreeing with you is not a toddler tantrum. In fact, I was being far more respectful than you deserve considering the fact that you reduced it down to insults after I had merely referred to a relevant comparison from an article. You treat that comparison as if it is undeniably and roundly refuted when nothing has been shown to truly back that up. Apparently, no one is allowed to post about the depth of the ugly truth without having it watered down for the comfort of some people on this forum.

You are bothered by those with progressive values, clearly. That sounds difficult for you, but that is your problem because those values are only growing in our society. Keep throwing your own tantrums in response.

[lio45]

Childhood in pre-modern times was more dangerous than modern warfare. This might be counter-intuitive at first (since we're pretty damn used nowadays to kids not dying like flies) but when you think about it, it's perfectly normal.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Disagreeing with you is not a toddler tantrum.
...
You treat that comparison as if it is undeniably and roundly refuted when nothing has been shown to truly back that up. Apparently, no one is allowed to post about the depth of the ugly truth without having it watered down for the comfort of some people on this forum.
...

The issue here is that you seem to be tilting at windmills that not only don't exist, but never did.

Every poster in this thread has said (to some degree) that this is a shameful and ugly part of our history that we should focus on now addressing. While there have been differences expressed on what this means, I don't think anyone has tried to shove it under the rug.

Secondly, you're making it appear as if you're bringing some new "shocking" evidence when the truth is all of this has already been posted, discussed and digested.

Lastly, you try to present some "analogy" as if it's a great epiphany, when all it does is distract. We all know how bad the Residential school issue was and is. We don't need some useless, unrelated comparison (regardless if it comes from HuffPost) to convince ourselves to do something.

BTW, did you know that in WW1, the rate of death for Canadian's was 1 in 9!!! Since the death rate in the residential schools was "only" 1 in 25, does that mean that you are now less shocked?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by lio45

Childhood in pre-modern times was more dangerous than modern warfare. This might be counter-intuitive at first (since we're pretty damn used nowadays to kids not dying like flies) but when you think about it, it's perfectly normal.

I doubt there were very many caucasian families who had no idea where their kids were buried or how they died.

[lrt's friend]

What was the death rate in FN communities during the early part of the 20th century? This would be a valid comparison with the death rate in residential schools. I am not condoning any abuses or neglect that occurred in those institutions.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I doubt there were very many caucasian families who had no idea where their kids were buried or how they died.

That may be true but I can tell you that as the administrator of two pioneer cemeteries, there are many undocumented child burials of caucasian families in our cemeteries. Many families were too poor to mark the sites and now the locations and identities are forgotten. Hopefully, there is
better documentation for the residential school cemeteries.

[dreambrother808]

Younger and future generations will be able to better come to terms with these issues without reacting so defensively. At some point one must accept that large portions of older generations will never be able to do so in their lifetimes. Focusing on their progress is a waste of time as the future seeds are already here and planting their acceptable goalposts beyond mine.