Native Indian Residential Schools a painful
Canadian legacy: a murder witness speaks...

The Canadian residential school system was a place in which aboriginal children were abused and neglected. [It was] founded in the 19th century, intended to force their assimilation into European-Canadian society. The purpose of the schools, which separated children from their families, has been described by many commentators as "killing the Indian in the child."

	March 31, 1999	March 31, 2000	March 31, 2001
(A) Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD	2961	3078	3534
(B) Total Number of Children "in care" of MCFD	9813	9523	9956
(A)/(B)	30.17%	32.32%	35.50%
(C) Aboriginal Population in BC in 2001			170,025
(D) Total Population in BC in 2001			3,160,565
(E) Non Aboriginal Population in BC in 2001 (D)-(C)			2,990,540
(F) Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD per capita (A)/(C)			2.08%
(G) Non Aboriginal Children "in care" of MCFD per capita [(B)-(A)]/(E)			0.21%
Ratio between Aboringial and Non Aboriginal Groups (F)/(G)			967.91%

Data source:

• Child and Family Services Statistical Report 1998-1999 to 2000, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
• Statistics Canada, Census of Population in 2001

Children are often used as pawns by those in power to oppress a civilian population for political reasons as early as in biblical time. Since the expansion of colonialism in the 19th century, almost all English-speaking nations evolved from colonial governments have a history of removing aboriginal children from their families under the pretext of "improving" their welfare or "protecting" them from the "corrupting influence" of their "barbaric" parents. For example, Canada and another British Commonwealth country Australia both have a hideous history of using "cultural assimilation" policy to destroy the native people and get their lands. We have developed a new page titled "Australian Experience" to further elaborate on what is known as the "stolen generation", which is part of the theme in the 20th Century Fox movie "Australia" (2008). The Australian stolen generation and the Canadian residential schools are results of cultural assimilation policy imposed on the Aboriginals.

Cunning, ruthlessness, speed and surprise are needed to hunt the calf in this video. Even animals will fight to the bitter end for their youngsters, let alone human beings.

The main purpose is to weaken the targeted subjects and to reduce the perceived threat of the regime. This is a very powerful weapon and will bend the will of the toughest mind. Youngsters are easy targets. Like predators in the animal world targeting the young and the weak for food, human beings are of no difference when striving for survival, money, fame and power. The future of a people is effectively destroyed by sabotaging their offspring. As open massacre and ethnic cleansing are not viable options in those so-called Western "democratic and free" nations, oppression to achieve a political end is done in a more subtle and discreet, but equally effective, manner sugar coated by a noble cause. Such shrewd move will accomplish the following: avoid local and international criticism of tyranny; garner support from the populace who is largely unaware of the hidden motives and truly believe in the alleged cause; minimize resistance from target victims as some of them may naively believe in the alleged "good" intent; create employment and business opportunities to those who do research and implement the policies, hence guaranteeing support from a die hard core group as their livelihood depends on such activities; laud such policies and actions as good deeds to build political assets, supported by extolling from special interest groups and the media.

former Deputy Minister Lesley du Toit (left), former Minister of Children and Family Development Tom Christensen (middle) and former Premier Gordon Campbell (right)

The notion of oppression on Native Indians raises the following questions surrounding "child protection":

1. why most English-speaking nations, especially those with a colonial background, have "child protection" law which gives government agents ("child protection" social workers as they are called) near absolute authority to remove children from families?


2. why the Natives draw so much attention from child protection agencies?


3. why, after receiving so much "help" from various levels of government, Natives are still a marginalized group?


4. where does the money from various government spent on "child protection" go?


5. who are the true beneficiaries of the huge amount of tax dollars spent under the pretext of "helping" the Natives?


6. why parents, an irrefutable major stakeholder, have little or no representation in "child protection" legislation and policy making?

Native Indians & Modern "Child Protection"

Atrocities like the residential school and the Sherry Charlie tragedy are possible because government has the authority to remove children from their families.

One alleged mass grave of murdered Native children is in St. Mary Catholic Residential School (present day Fraser River Heritage Park) in Mission, British Columbia. The concrete foundation of the demolished dormitory is clearly visible. Brenda Norrell's web site gives very specific locations of the 2 grave sites in this former school.

Evidence

As locations of mass graves of Native Indian children from residential schools were revealed by eyewitness accounts, documents, survey data and physical evidence, the horror of the genocide in Canada's Indian residential schools became public. An unknown number of Native Indian children (one source cites roughly 150,000 during the course of mandatory attendance of residential schools) were forcibly removed from their families. Most removed Native children were traumatized. Some, perhaps many, were killed and abused in captivity at Indian residential schools in Canada.

According to a web site posted by Brenda Norrell (an American reporter based in Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.) on April 18, 2008, there are 13 locations of mass graves at former Native Indian residential schools and hospitals in British Columbia. There are many more in the rest of Canada. Mass graves nearest to the Lower Mainland are in Mission and Squamish.

A Disturbing Canadian History

In 1857, Canada passed the Gradual Civilization Act to assimilate surviving Native Indians. Residential schools became the prime tool of assimilation. By 1920, compulsory attendance for all Native Indian children was enforced. Catholic priests, Indian agents and police officers forcibly took Native children away from the families and dumped them in residential schools run by white men.

Like the discrimination against early Chinese Canadian immigrants by enacting the very racist Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923, residential school system was laid out by a Canadian federal statute called the Indian Act. In this Act, the Canadian federal government provided funding to "educate" native peoples and integrate them into Western society with the intent of "encouraging self-sufficiency" within the First Nations. This system of "education" was a joint endeavor between the federal government and missionaries (mainly Roman Catholics and the rest by various Protestant denominations). Growth of the residential school system was ensured through an amendment to the Indian Act in 1920, making attendance mandatory for Native Indian children between the ages of 7 of 15. By 1930, the residential school program had reached its peak with roughly 80 institutions, mostly in Western provinces but stretching northward into the territories and eastward to Quebec. Today, the amended Indian Act is still in effect. Despite provisions stipulating mandatory Native child removal and placement into white man run residential schools had been repealed, Native families and children remain the largest victim of modern state-sponsored child removal activities.

The timeline below is from a web page of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) titled "IN DEPTH Aboriginal Canadians A timeline of residential schools". It summarizes major events surrounding the issue of Native Indian residential schools in Canada.

Similarities Between Residential Schools & Modern "Child Protection"

An Ontario Native Indian residential school and CAS victim speaks ... [added on April 7, 2010]

Residential schools provide a shred of evidence to suggest that state-sponsored child removal owes its origin and existence to an oppression of a very hideous nature against a weak and marginalized minority victim. Residential school and state-sponsored child removal bear the following similarities:

1. both are hypocritically done under the pretext of a noble excuse;
2. both are empowered by absolute statutory authority;
3. both involve the use of force should targets ("beneficiaries" as government would like people to believe) dare to resist;
4. Native Indian children and families are the prime victim in both regimes;
5. both require fundings from taxpayers to generate business opportunities for some special interest groups involved in the process;
6. both require removal of young children from their families to beat their parents into submission;
7. both show no respect to the dignity and the free will of the subjects whom these regimes are supposed to help and protect;
8. both are driven by quest of money and power;
9. non-profit groups are involved to provide support and services in exchange of government funding in both regimes;
10. both result in harming, at times, killing vulnerable children in government "care";
11. both regimes are ineffective, cost inefficient and counter productive to serve their alleged intended cause (but very effective to serve their hidden purposes);
12. both regimes cost taxpayers very dearly on reparation and damages from lawsuits of torts and wrongful deaths;
13. both are oppressive, inhumane and barbaric;
14. the true beneficiaries in both regimes are the special interest groups, not the intended subjects or the recipients of "service";
15. special interest groups manipulate legislation and dictate government policies in both regimes;
16. fear, public ignorance and apathy contribute to the success of both regimes.

These remarkable similarities suggest that modern "child protection" regime:

• may originate from oppression against the Native Indians;
• may be a modified extension or a disguised derivative of the oppressive "cultural assimilation" policy expanded to all ethnic groups as the standard and the interpretation of "child protection" is dictated by members of the special interest groups.

As open discrimination and oppression against a minority group become socially unacceptable and illegal, special interest groups shrewdly modified their strategy to cope with the changing situation. They realize that as long as government retains the statutory authority to remove children from their families, they can still maintain their businesses and financial well being by sugar coating the cause. Once they occupy the moral high ground, they expand the market (the "protective" coverage as they would like people to believe) to all ethnic groups. Instead of dumping Native children in residential schools, now children forcibly seized from their families under the pretext of "child protection" are placed in foster homes or group homes where there is no parental care and love. Removed children suffer from trauma ranging from neglect to sexually abuse and murder in foster homes. Moreover, since there is no parental guidance and discipline, foster/group homes are melting pots for children to learn bad habits (including drugs addiction) from one another. As long as the number of children removed is below the threshold that will lead to social unrest, the position of special interest groups is secured. State-sponsored "child protection" parallels the worst oppression in Canadian history and has grown into a multi billion dollar industry nationwide and worldwide.

Remarks

Ethnic Breakdown of Removed Children in British Columbia

	2002/2003		2003/2004		2004/2005		2005/2006		2006/2007		2007/2008
non-Aboriginal	1,830	54%	1,634	55%	1,716	53%	1,827	53%	1,650	52%	1,644	55%
Aboriginal	1,528	46%	1,343	45%	1,514	47%	1,631	47%	1,501	48%	1,370	45%
total	3,358		2,977		3,230		3,458		3,151		3,014

Source: MCFD reply to Freedom of Information application

Statistics above were provided by MCFD who claimed that it only compiles statistics between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups. From a research perspective, keeping statistics on ethnic background and other demographic data of all children removed will shed light on identifying child abuse problems in each ethnic group, hence allowing policy makers to:

• find the cause of the problem;
• take preventive measures to minimize the chance of child abuse;
• allocate resources and to make policies to deal with the problem more efficiently.

It appears that MCFD has a keen interest only in keeping track of the number of Aboriginal children removed. Statistics are a key performance measure of how well Aboriginal families are "helped" and to claim subsidies from the federal government on a per head basis. Federal funding also sheds light to explain a strange phenomenon that some "child protection" social workers in British Columbia insist to classify families with very little Native blood as Native Indian families.

[added on April 1, 2009]

On February 13, 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations of Australian Aborigines for removing them from their families and communities over a century. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed suit. On June 11, 2008, he made similar apology to the First Nation in the House of Common. Nevertheless, his Conservative government is still funding the removal of native children on a per head basis. This creates financial incentive for provincial governments to target Native families. About 50% of children removed in British Columbia are Natives. As long as government has the power to remove children from their families, atrocities like the residential schools and abuse of authority are inevitable. The concept of residential school has re-emerged as "child protection". Instead of placing removed children in religious group operated residential schools, they are now placed in foster or group homes where some of them are abused and killed. It is a matter of time that governments enforcing state-sponsored child removal will have to face justice and apologize for implementing such hideous policy against their people.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement of apology to the victims of residential schools given on June 11, 2008 is applicable to victims of modern "child protection". Natives remain the largest victim in this disguised oppression under the pretext of "child protection" after residential schools were abolished. The yellow highlights below in the excerpts from the text of Harper's statement of apology bear remarkable similarities of the sufferings families endured when their children are removed by the state. French sections, which repeat the English text, have been excluded.

Interestingly, nations (like Japan and China) with more homogeneous ethnic mix do not have oppressive "child protection" law and policy similar to those in Canada. In spite of some rare real child abuse cases (a social problem that no law could ever eliminate), countries that do not have such destructive "child protection" law ironically have better disciplined children and stronger family ties from which a nation is built. They certainly do not have the problem of wrongful child abuse conviction on parents (a "false positive" or Type I error in statistical term) as their social workers do not have the authority to remove children. Does it mean that children in these nations are not adequately protected? Absolutely not.

Child removal does not equal child protection. Absolute power to remove children is seldom called for and will corrupt absolutely. Such power is open to abuse not only by government and special interest groups but also by other parties such as estranged spouses and malicious informants for reasons other than child protection. After all, there is a due process of bail hearing in criminal law that allow authorities to legally separate abusive parents from vulnerable children. "Child protection" law contains provisions that allow bureaucrats to circumvent due process in law and creates an extremely powerful bureaucracy. There is little check and balance to curb corruption. Child removal authority is oppressive, redundant and counterproductive. As long as government retains child removal authority, abuse and injustice will continue to haunt the nation.