Connect with us

Education

New Report Offers a Nuanced Perspective on Canada’s Indian Residential Schools

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Positive stories about Indian Residential Schools must also be heard

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is pleased to announce the release of a thought-provoking new report titled Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard by Hymie Rubenstein and James C. McCrae. This report challenges the dominant narrative surrounding Canada’s Indian Residential Schools, advocating for a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of their historical legacy.

In Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard, Rubenstein and McCrae critically examine the current portrayal of the residential school system, which is often overwhelmingly negative. The authors argue that this narrative fails to acknowledge the positive experiences of many former students and the genuine intentions of those who worked within the system. While not dismissing the testimonies of abuse, the report emphasizes that these accounts do not represent the full spectrum of experiences at the schools.

The report highlights several stories of individuals who credit their time in residential schools with shaping their successful futures. For instance, Len Marchand, Canada’s first status Indian member of parliament and a federal cabinet minister, attended the Kamloops (BC) Indian Residential School and spoke highly of the education he received there. In his memoir, Breaking Trail, he noted that his time at the school inspired his desire to help his people through education.

Similarly, Tomson Highway, a celebrated Canadian playwright and composer, described his years at Guy Hill Indian Residential School in Manitoba as “nine of the best years of my life.” His parents chose to send him to the school, believing it would provide better opportunities for their children. The skills Highway acquired, including classical piano, were instrumental in his later achievements.

Reverend Canon Stan Cuthand, an Indigenous Anglican priest who served as a chaplain at several residential schools, also offers a positive perspective. He recalled that the schools were not “terrible places” and praised the efforts of staff who worked to protect and nurture the children, even integrating Indigenous culture into the curriculum.

As students return to classrooms this fall, the topic of residential schools has taken a central role in many curricula across the country. However, there is concern that some teachers focus solely on the “horrors” of these institutions or even frame Canada as a genocidal state, leaving little room for a balanced discussion. This report urges educators to offer a more nuanced view that includes both the positive and negative aspects of the residential school system. Stories like those of Tomson Highway and Len Marchand demonstrate that not every experience was one of trauma, and some students went on to achieve remarkable success as a result of their education.

The report also touches on the experiences of Lea Meadows, whose mother, Elsie McLaren Meadows, had a positive experience at the Brandon (Manitoba) Indian Residential School. Inspired by her time there, Elsie became a teacher and later worked in similar schools. Meadows argues that it is unjust to label all who worked at these schools as abusers, recognizing that many were dedicated to the well-being and education of the children.

Moreover, the report cites instances where Indigenous communities themselves supported the continuation of residential schools. For example, in 1970, Alberta’s Saddle Lake First Nation residents successfully protested the closure of Blue Quills School, taking control of the institution themselves. Similarly, in 1971, eight Saskatchewan bands advocated for the Marieval Indian Residential School to remain open, emphasizing its importance for children from challenging home environments.

Positive Stories of Indian Residential Schools Must Also be Heard is a timely and significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the legacy of the residential school system. It encourages Canadians to consider all perspectives in the pursuit of truth and reconciliation, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of this complex history.

Download the backgrounder here. (10 pages)

About the Authors:

  • Hymie Rubenstein is the editor of REAL Indigenous Report. A retired professor of anthropology, he served as a board member and taught for many years at St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, the only Roman Catholic higher education institution in Manitoba.
  • James C. McCrae is a former attorney general of Manitoba and Canadian citizenship judge.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Education

Support Life Chances for young students for a chance to win thousands!

Published on

THE JACKPOT IS OVER $21,000

THE WINNER WILL WIN HALF!

GET YOUR 50/50 TICKETS TODAY!!!! Winner could take home up to $25,000!!! 

The Foundation for Red Deer Public Schools supports programs that have a significant impact on the LIFE CHANCES of students across the Division. By purchasing a ticket to support our 50/50 cash lottery you are giving students opportunities to have better life chances.

From giving kids a Bright Start to school to reconnecting with students so they graduate and cross the Finish Line, the Foundation helps students who face challenges in school and makes things better. We motivate struggling students and inspire them to read and write through Reading College. For students who come to school without basic needs, we give them that needed Step Up.

With the support from the Foundations 50/50 Life Chances Raffle, you are providing a student with opportunities that will improve their life. They can’t always control the situations they’re in but with your help students will continue to have these chances.

Don’t miss your chance, CLICK HERE to buy your tickets today – Draw will be held on October 11! Good luck! 

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

Study Confirms the Truth about Masks and Children

Published on

From the Brownstone Insitute

By Ian Miller Ian Miller 

It’s late 2024, and masking has managed to remain a contentious issue. Years of misinformation from supposed “experts” like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx and organizations like the CDC have convinced millions of Very Smart People to believe that masks are an effective tool to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses. This applies also to the flu, despite those same experts and organizations somehow neglecting to recommend masks for the decades of flu seasons pre-2020.

Forcing anyone to mask, given the substantial and robust evidence base showing conclusively that masks don’t work, was an indefensible policy decision. But specifically forcing children to mask was decidedly much, much worse.

And not just because it was a pointless exercise in pandemic theater, with zero evidence of efficacy.

But because it was actively causing harm too, as a new study shows.

New Study Confirms Harms of Masking Children

A new study co-authored by Tracy Beth Høeg delves into the side effects of masking, a subject completely ignored by experts and politicians desperate to exert control over individual behavior.

And in their discussion, it’s immediately obvious why their research and conclusions will be completely ignored by the mainstream media.

“There is a lack of robust evidence of benefit from masking children to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or other respiratory viruses,” they explain. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

The highest quality evidence available for masking children for COVID-19 or other viral respiratory infections has failed to find a beneficial impact against transmission. Mechanistic studies showing reduced viral transmission from use of face masks and respirators have not translated to real world effectiveness. Identified harms of masking include negative effects on communication and components of speech and language, ability to learn and comprehend, emotional and trust development, physical discomfort, and reduction in time and intensity of exercise.

It’s a masterpiece. No notes.

As the Cochrane Library review explained, as the data shows, as decades of accumulated evidence confirmed: Masks Don’t Work. For anyone, but especially for children, who could not wear or use masks properly, even if they were shown to have worked. Which they did not.

Experts demanded and politicians mandated that they wear them anyway, based on speculation, hope, and mechanistic studies that were conclusively disproven. And the harms were remarkable.

“Negative effects on communication and components of speech and language.” “Ability to learn and comprehend.” “Emotional and trust development, physical discomfort, and reduction in time and intensity of exercise.”

Just, you know, the basic building blocks of human development that children need to grow as well-adjusted, physically and mentally healthy teenagers and adults.

As Høeg and the other authors explain, this necessarily means that forcing children to mask fails any objective standard of harms and benefits.

Effectiveness of child masking has not been demonstrated, while documented harms of masking in children are diverse and non-negligible and should prompt careful reflection. Recommendations for masking children fail basic harm-benefit analyses.

Their next section is a complete dismantling of the CDC and the US public health bureaucracy, how they handled Covid, and how poor an example this sets for future pandemics.

In many locations in North America, children as young as two years of age were required to wear face masks daily for multiple consecutive hours, both indoors and outdoors, in school and childcare settings [1], [2]. This stood in stark contrast to European countries where masking was never recommended for children under the age of six and, in many countries, never under age twelve [3]. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s child masking recommendations deviated substantially from international guidelines [3], [4], [5]. The CDC continues to recommend masks for children down to age two in certain settings [1], [6], and this is in the absence of strategies for exiting these restrictions. In the event of a future public health threat, clear and consistent communication from public health officials about the criteria that will be used to withdraw temporary public health recommendations while data are gathered could serve to ease public anxiety, lessen distrust, and facilitate a return to a more normal life wherein ineffective recommendations are promptly discarded.

It’s a calm, thorough demolition of the incompetence and authoritarianism of the US public health establishment.

They repeat that there is no evidence to support masking children and explain that there is no real-world evidence showing the effectiveness of child mask mandates, with zero randomized controlled trials conducted to determine whether masking kids would prevent the spread of Covid. It’s inexcusable to mandate a policy with no evidence, but even worse considering the demonstrable harms.

“Speech, language, and learning: Humans rely on visual information provided by a speaker’s face to decode speech. Seeing mouth movements and facial gestures accelerates recognition of words and enhances speech comprehension [12], [19], [20], [21]. The integration of audio and facial information is crucial to speech perception and development. Visually impaired children often have delays in speech and language development [22], which may be due, at least in part, to reduced ability to perceive,” they write.

Masks prevent children from learning, from seeing mouth movements to facial gestures. They fundamentally detract from a child’s ability to develop speech and language. Among many other problems covered in the full study.

These harms were well-known before Covid. This isn’t new information, and it’s obvious common sense. So why did public health authorities ignore it, in favor of promoting evidence-free policies and mandates?

There are few reasonable explanations: panic, fear, or incompetence. Likely some combination of all three.

Forcing their absurd, fatalistic, hyper-safetyism on adults was and is one thing. Imposing it on children is another. And their refusal to admit they were wrong meant the growth and development of kids were most certainly harmed and stunted for years, while ensuring that there would be terrified, misinformed parents who would continue to force their kids to wear masks indefinitely.

When you consider those consequences, rationality fades, and a disturbing likelihood of malicious intent becomes a lot more realistic.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Ian Miller

Ian Miller is the author of “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.” His work has been featured on national television broadcasts, national and international news publications and referenced in multiple best selling books covering the pandemic. He writes a Substack newsletter, also titled “Unmasked.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X