Quote:
Originally Posted by rousseau
I agree with the commission on a lot of things, but I honestly don't think you can hold the 19th century to this 21st century standard with regards to "shame."
The deleterious effects of the residential schools are plain, but can't you also account somewhat for the motivations behind setting them up? It was paternalistic and racist, yes. But the most compassionate minds of that era thought they were serving indigenous people best by educating them and helping them assimilate.
Since we keep on throwing out thought experiments, here's another one: what if no effort had been made whatsoever to offer education to indigenous peoples in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Wouldn't that have been held up as a sign of neglect and cruelty?
|
I don't disagree with that. I would simply counter that the people who are "shaming" those of us who share ancestral roots with Sir John A MacDonald (*cough* white people *cough*) have similarly altruistic intentions.
None of that changes my mind regarding the point that I was trying (perhaps inelegantly) to make: the fact that this conversation might make some Canadians feel uncomfortable about the past (which is what I take it lrtsfriend means by "shame") is not a very compelling reason to not have the conversation.
EDIT: Sorry, to answer your hypothetical question: yes, if the Canadian government had spent less money to educate first nations children than non-first nations children, I think that would be viewed negatively (as discrimination) by today's standards. Of course, ironically, even today, it may not be a hypothetical. Don Drummond has argued that First Nations children living on reserve receive 30% less education funding from the federal government than children not living on reserves do (from provincial governments LINK:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...-gap-1.3487822).