Preface:

I decided to add this essay for a previous history course I took because it connected perfectly with my research project and overall argument of this ePortfolio. This essay discusses the topic of Indian Residential Schools and what they were and how they effected the child, similar to what I am focusing on throughout my ePortfolio.

 

Residential Schools have been around since the 1600s, the early days of Christian missionary work in North America.[1] The “Constitution Act of 1867 adopted a policy of assimilation” and supported the idea of Indian Residential Schools.[2] It was believed that the best way to diminish Indigenous cultures and traditions was to start with young children, and by 1892, the Residential School system officially began.[3] The establishment of Indian Residential Schools was a way to forcefully take Native children from their homes and redirect them into a more “civilized” society of English language, Christian views, and practical, and domestic skills.[4] Even though these schools were presented to be beneficial, the poor conditions of these schools affected the well-being of these children. This essay will argue that the purpose of Residential Schools was to assimilate Native children into a Euro-Christian culture and I will refer to a testimony of a past Residential School student, Mary John, as well as two other articles to describe the unjust purpose of Residential Schools.

Native children were taken from their homes at young ages and separated from their family, community, and culture and taken to schools run by nuns, missionaries, and priests who only had knowledge of the Bible and were not trained to be teachers.[5] These schools were poorly built, overcrowded, and living conditions were insufficient with the lack of food, privacy, and the neglect of basic health care.[6] These poor conditions were the result of inadequate amounts of funding given to the missionaries from the Canadian government to provide appropriate facilities and care for the children. In addition to the schools’ lacking in basic necessities, the schools abused Native children physically, mentally, and emotionally with the attempt to civilize them. Mary John, a young girl at the time taken from her community in Stoney Creek, recounts the treatment children endured in the attendance of Residential Schools by describing how they were “forbidden to speak their Indian language and if that rule was broken, they would be punished” by getting whipped.[7] Mary John noted that the majority of boys were rebellious whereas girls were frequently depressed due to the abuse and conditions of the Residential Schools.[8] With Residential Schools trying to assimilate Native children into a more Euro-Christian culture, many gender roles were present. The role of the boys was to be trained doing agricultural work whereas the girls were taught domestic and practical skills such as sewing, cooking and being “good farmers’ wives”.[9]

In addition to the way the children were treated, the children were more than often homesick and longed to live with their families. This not only impacted the children’s psychological well-being but also affected their families. Mary John recalls her family being unhappy and her grandmother crying when she was first taken to the schools.[10] Even though the families were assured of the proper care of their children, they knew such things were not true. Families knew the actual treatment their children were enduring and did not like it, such as the “strict discipline practiced by the nuns and missionaries”, and how the children were not fed and properly taken care of.[11] Some members of Mary John’s community of Stoney Creek presented a telegram to the government which said that the citizens wanted a school on the reserve so they could feed their children and keep them at home.[12] However, such efforts did not help and members of the community “were forced to apologize for sending the telegram”.[13] In addition to families petitioning to build schools on the reserve, many families took matters into their own hands and tried to protect and withhold their children from this act of assimilation by the government.[14] Families withdrew into their traditional territories to keep their children away from the churches and schools, however, this effort then became punishable by the law for both the children and the parents.[15] Therefore, under the Indian Act, parents of these children could not hire lawyers to fight this issue and they could be arrested for not allowing their children to attend the schools.[16] This action by the Canadian government forced the parents and children to accept the compulsory removal of the children from their homes[17] to the Residential Schools, which was another way the government succeeded in the attempt to assimilate these children into a more “civilized” culture.

The attempt to assimilate these children resulted in years of constant misery for survivors. Life for Residential School survivors consisted of possible alcohol and substance abuse, violence, suicide, inability to properly parent their own children, as well as many other issues that affect their lives.[18] As a way to mend the difference between the Canadian government and the Indigenous population, the government enacted the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA). This agreement incorporated many features, including a Common Experience Payment (CEP) of $10,000 for the first year that survivors attended Residential Schools, then an additional $3000 for all the other years they attended.[19] It also included the Individual Assessment Process (IAP), funding for healing and commemoration, and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).[20] In addition to the establishment of the IRSSA, the Canadian Prime Minister at the time, Stephen Harper, apologized for the construction of Indian Residential Schools and acknowledged the unsettling impact these schools had on the Indigenous culture, heritage, language, and people.[21] However, these ways to mend the severed relationship between cultures did not fix the damage that was made many years prior.

The sole purpose of Indian Residential Schools was for the Canadian government to “kill the Indian in the child”[22] by assimilating Indigenous children into a more “civilized” society of Euro-Christian culture. The Canadian government forcefully took children from their families, homes, cultures, and traditions, and abused them physically, emotionally, and mentally in an effort to redirect them. In addition to the abuse, the conditions of the schools were inadequate to teach in let alone board thousands of children properly and effectively. Years of attempting to assimilate Canada’s Native children not only impacted the children, but also their families. These impacts contributed to the issues survivors have developed later on in their lives. Even with the establishment of agreements, acts, and the apology put forward by the Canadian government, nothing would be able to resolve the unjust act of assimilation the government enforced upon the Indigenous population years ago.

 

Endnotes:

[1] Erica Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’: A Brief Historical Account of Canada’s Residential School System, Incarceration, Institutionalized Policies and Legislations Against Indigenous Peoples”, Canadian Issues (2014): 32.

[2] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[3] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[4] Bridget Moran, Stoney Creek Woman: The Story of Mary John (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press), 1997, 52, 63.

[5] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 65.

[6] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[7] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 53.

[8] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 61.

[9] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 63.

[10] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 50.

[11] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 51.

[12] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 51-52.

[13] Moran, Stoney Creek Woman, 52.

[14] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[15] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[16] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[17] Neeganagwedgin, “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’”, 33.

[18] Rosemary Nagy and Robinder Kaur Sehdev, “Introduction: Residential Schools and Decolonization”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 1 (2012): 67.

[19]Nagy and Sehdev, “Residential Schools”, 68.

[20] Nagy and Sehdev, “Residential Schools”, 68.

[21] Nagy and Sehdev, “Residential Schools”, 68.

[22] Nagy and Sehdev, “Residential Schools”, 67.

Bibliography:

Moran, Bridget. Stoney Creek Woman: The Story of Mary John. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1997.

Nagy, Rosemary and Sehdev, Robinder Kaur. “Introduction: Residential Schools and Decolonization.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 1 (November 1, 2012): 67-73.

Neeganagwedgin, Erica. “‘They Can’t Take Our Ancestors Out Of Us’: A Brief Historical Account of Canada’s Residential School System, Incarceration, Institutionalized Policies and Legislations Against Indigenous Peoples.” Canadian Issues (2014): 31-36.

 

Header Image from: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rare-photos-document-life-at-canadas-indian-residential-schools/article27119953/forms/