Cultural Genocide and the Indian Residential Schools

Hymie Rubenstein
November 9, 2015

Cultural Genocide and the Indian Residential Schools

Hymie Rubenstein
November 9, 2015
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

Truth and Reconciliation Report

On June 2, 2015, the day the Summary Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was released, Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau hailed the report as “the truth of what happened [in the Indian Residential School system]”, and vowed that a Liberal government would take “immediate action” to implement every one of the TRC’s recommendations.

While Mr. Trudeau or his advisors could hardly have studied the 94 recommendations and supporting material in the 382-page Report in such short order, they presumably accepted its central assertion that what happened in the residential school system was “cultural genocide”. They are not alone is this belief. Distinguished Canadians such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and former prime minister Paul Martin have publicly endorsed it. Even former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, although he refrained from using the term in his 2008 Parliamentary statement of apology to former IRS students, acknowledged the IRS tried to “kill the Indian in the child”. If it’s true that Canada conspired to do this, surely that is cultural genocide.

It is an indisputable historical fact according to the TRC. Hence its recommendations calling for legal, political, and economic restitution for aboriginal cultural genocide. All are based on the assumption – asserted on the first page of the report – that the schools systematically engaged in “the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group” by banning language use, forbidding spiritual practices, and disrupting traditional family life “to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.”

The origin of the cultural genocide allegation is the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RRCAP), which led to the establishment of the TRC, and it has been repeated many times since, though rarely with as much authority as in the TRC Report. But that doesn’t necessarily make it true, and in our view there is little credible empirical evidence to support the charge – let alone the conviction – of cultural genocide.

500 years of shared history

The first government-mandated IRS opened in 1876, or 342 years after Jacques Cartier landed in what is now Canada. As the RRCAP and TRC Report both obliquely acknowledge, this long period of culture contact and colonization saw considerable aboriginal cultural transformation, consisting of both losses and gains: a steady decline in traditional livelihood strategies like subsistence hunting, gathering, and trapping; the abandonment of Palaeolithic technology; the adoption of Christianity; a growing reliance on European trade goods in exchange for the skins of fur-bearing animals and buffalo hides; and a slow but steady demand for and dependence on government assistance as the fur-trade declined and the buffalo were decimated by aboriginals and settlers alike.

Although reliance on aid from the federal government and its related sequalae may be an unfortunate but unintended result of nearly 500 years of culture contact for too many indigenous people, the historical record reveals that aboriginals willingly abandoned many of their traditional beliefs and practices for Western technology, medicine, foodstuffs, religion, and languages from first contact to the present.

A much longer and more consequential period of culture contact preceded the European one. The aboriginal peopling of the New World began over 15,000 years ago and involved one settler group pushing out, assimilating, enslaving, or massacring other settler groups, actions that resulted in the evolution of pristine state societies like the conquest-driven Aztecs of Mexico and the imperialistic Inca of Peru.

Though it did not always lead to the formation of new states, culture-changing tribal and chiefdom warfare were chronic from coast to coast in Canada long before European contact. To be sure, organized fighting between aboriginal Prairie people escalated with the capture and domestication of wild horses originally brought to the New World by the Spaniards. This led to the rise of warrior societies which competed for wealth and prestige gained from stealing horses, killing enemies, and abducting women.

Many of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, such as the Haida, Tlingit, and Tsimshian, were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders. War captives passed on their bonded status to their offspring. Some tribes in British Columbia continued to segregate and ostracize the descendants of slaves into the 1970s.

The origins of ‘cultural genocide’

Only in the post-colonial era has the most benign form of conflict-based interaction between alien people – what social scientists have long called acculturation and assimilation – been reinvented as “cultural genocide”. The term was coined in 1944 by Polish-American law professor Raphael Lemkin, who lost dozens of relatives in the Holocaust and later helped the United Nations formulate its legal definitions of actual genocide – the physical extermination of a people.

In recent years the phrase cultural genocide has been used to describe U.S. treatment of its native peoples, Russian treatment of Jews, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and Communist China’s treatment of Tibetans. With this year’s endorsements by numerous prominent Canadians and the TRC Report, it has achieved widespread currency in Canada: a July Angus Reid poll found that 70 percent of Canadians agreed that cultural genocide described the IRS experience, although most respondents admitted they knew little about the Report or the issue.

To challenge the validity of the nomenclature is not to deny the harsh physical and heinous sexual abuse that sometimes occurred at these often poorly run, maintained, and underfunded schools. These facts are undeniably true, but they do not add up to cultural genocide, partly because the term itself has no legal definition.

Indeed, the concept is so elastic that it could easily be stretched to include the schoolchildren of non-European immigrants to Canada who were required by law to be “Canadianized” in state-mandated public schools whether they or their parents favour this assimilation or not. The label was deliberately excluded from the five grounds listed in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which says nothing about the loss of culture – the beliefs, values, and ideas that distinguish groups of people from each other; rather, it talks only about the destruction of a “national, ethnical, racial, or religious group” of people using various physical means. Thus it was inaccurate for the TRC to assert that involuntary attendance at residential schools is covered by the Convention.

The Convention does recognize in Article 2(e) that genocide can involve “forcibly transferring children from one group to another group”. This might apply, for example, when Boko Haram jihadists in Nigeria kidnap hundreds of Christian schoolgirls, force them to accept Islam, and marry them off to their fighters. But in our view, this is manifestly not in the same league as Canadian aboriginal children temporarily attending boarding schools to obtain a Western education.

The demand for residential schools

The government-sponsored IRS operated between 1876 and 1996, and mass attendance was in effect only between 1920 and 1948. According to historian J. R. Miller (a strong critic of the IRS), no more than one-third of aboriginal children born during the 120-year history of residential schools actually attended them. Moreover, the compensatory payments issued to residential school alumni via the $1.6 billion Common Experience Payment shows that these students attended for an average of just four years. The TRC Report itself says that truancy rates were “epidemic” at some schools. The record also shows that during the IRS’s last decades, most aboriginal children attended band-controlled day schools or integrated off-reserve public schools.

The cultural genocide charge is further undermined by the fact that the provision of a Western education was often requested by aboriginals and entrenched in six of the seven numbered treaties negotiated in Western Canada. Treaty Six, for example, which extends across the central portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan, was signed in 1876, the same year the IRS were established. At the request of the aboriginal treaty signatories, it promised that, “Her Majesty [Queen Victoria] agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it.”

Residential schools were subsequently established on the well-founded and altruistic notion that what remained of aboriginal beliefs and lifestyles in 1876, together with the various social and economic pathologies that were supplanting them, were incompatible with a rapidly developing and modernizing country. The Federal government, along with several Christian denominations, saw their duty as helping indigenous people adapt to this reality.

As is well-documented, Christianity flourished in aboriginal communities across Canada from first contact onwards. Thus, generations of Christian aboriginal parents willingly sent their children to the church-operated residential schools to obtain an education, often alongside European classmates – the sons and daughters of missionaries, Hudson Bay Company personnel, and Indian Affairs employees – another fact the TRC Report chose to ignore. As late as the 1940s and 1950s, when the Indian Act was being amended, many bands and native organizations asked for the schools to remain open. In the 1960s, well after most of IRS had already been closed, several bands lobbied the Department of Indian Affairs to keep some of the remaining schools operating.

The cultural genocide charge is also rooted in weak social science. The legacy of the IRS – “the significant educational, income, health, and social disparities between Aboriginal people and other Canadians,” the negative effects of poor, abusive, or absent parenting, and high incarceration rates – has been found to be no greater among those who attended IRS than those who did not.

In developed countries like Canada, these disparities can be better explained as the product of widespread multi-generational welfare dependency, which social science research has firmly linked to feelings of marginality, helplessness, apathy, fatalism, and a lack of future orientation.

The role of the IRS in trying to mitigate many of these negative consequences is supported in the Report itself which states that during the 1950s and 1960s, up to 50 percent of IRS students were orphans or the offspring of “broken homes.” To us, this looks like an effort by the Federal government and the churches to save both the Indian and the child.

Let multiculturalism reign

Moreover, the cultural genocide thesis ignores the indisputable fact that human beings can assimilate characteristics of two or more cultures, including unrelated languages. The TRC Report implies that cultural learning and retention are zero-sum games, ignoring the abundant evidence of the human capacity for “biculturation.” The truth of this is clearly seen in the diversity of Canadian society, where people from a vast array of cultures have successfully integrated into the multicultural mainstream, while retaining many of their native languages, beliefs, and cultural practices. The TRC Report grudgingly (and perhaps inadvertently) acknowledges that this is as true for aboriginal Canadians as it is for millions of other Canadians when it states that, “Aboriginal cultures and peoples have been badly damaged, [but] they continue to exist. Aboriginal people have refused to surrender their identity.”

This may be the truest statement in the Report, and perhaps the most hopeful one, for it acknowledges that as hard as the IRS may have tried to absorb its students into mainstream culture (i.e., “to kill the Indian in the child”), these efforts failed. The statement also transcends the bitter and hyperbolic narrative of genocide and entitlement, and points to a future where a proud and confident people are recognized – and recognize themselves – as full and equal citizens of Canada, instead of its eternal victims.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

It's time for an open, rational debate on immigration policy in Canada.

Can Canada Handle a Rational, Polite and Fact-Based Debate About Immigration?

It seems as if a new taboo is foisted upon Canadians by the week. Immigration is already among our established taboos – while the limits on its remaining areas of policy discussion grow ever-tighter. Canadians as a whole want less of it, while our elites are convinced that only good can come from more of it – and that increasing our diversity of origin is so important that it shall require uniformity of thought. Academic economist and former Parliamentarian Herbert Grubel says nuts to that, offering his take on key elements of immigration policy, plus the facts to support it. Part I of a two-part analysis.

It's a gross example of government overreach for there to be policies directing the diet and exercise of the population.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

Pictured is Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. Illustrating the plight of civil servants under increasing regulation.

Slow Death by Regulation, the Great Public-Sector Disease

When do the words “transparency” and “accountability” mean the opposite of what an untutored citizen might think? Why, when they’re passing the lips of a Canadian civil servant. The federal bureaucracy also seems the one place where the digital revolution made everyone less productive. And while this sounds amusing (if pathetic), the federal bureaucracy’s power and intrusiveness just grow and grow while the freedoms of individuals and voluntary associations shrink and shrink. Former citizenship judge Joe Woodard takes a wry look at these trends and with good humour tracks the deadly serious slide of Canada from a free society in which everything that isn’t specifically forbidden is allowed, into something sadder, darker and more constrained.

More from this author

Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Marion Buller

What’s in a Word?

Precision of language is critical in government documents. Take the report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW), which claimed “Indigenous women and girls now make up almost 25 percent of homicide victims.” Turns out the Statistics Canada report on which this claim was based indicates 25 percent of female homicide victims were Indigenous women, a much smaller number. If the MMIW report’s authors can’t even transcribe a simple government statistic, what business have they bandying about the charge of “genocide”? Hymie Rubinstein looks at historical examples of real genocides, reminding us that the abuse of language has consequences.

Welcome to Canada, not

One of the really great things about Donald Trump, if you’re Justin Trudeau, is he makes you look so nice by comparison. Especially on immigration. It’s widely understood that Trump is banning Muslims and separating children from their parents and holding them in cages, while Trudeau is tweeting “Welcome to Canada” and deploring family separation. But the truth about “how we do things in Canada” ain’t so nice, writes Hymie Rubenstein, and by any fair current and historical comparison, the U.S. treats immigrants better than we do

The myth of indigenous utopia

In the beginning, Canada was good, pure, and peaceful. Then the Europeans came, and it all went to hell. This creation and fall story has been cribbed from Genesis to frame today’s powerful aboriginal grievance and entitlement narrative. Its authors are now suggesting that redemption lies in a return to indigenous utopia. But the devil’s in the historical details, writes Hymie Rubenstein, and he was just as busy in pre-Columbian Canada as anywhere else.

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.