Casting a Long Shadow

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity”  ~George Bernard Shaw

The question was raised in class today: “Why must we specify 'Aboriginal' children,” when citing instances of poverty-induced ills of society? (in reference to a particular situation with an impoverished child).

Discussion was unfolding around the history of education in Canada, and had come to the much-dreaded, shameful subject of the residential schools. From there sprang several, clearly uncomfortable appeals to just put this chapter in our history behind us and move forward.

I understand where this comes from. The current generation of young adults certainly had no influence over the decisions of their forefathers, and would very much like to be “off the hook” for such long-ago sins.

But I contend that we (as non-First Nations people) are not off the hook, and nor should we be. I don't mean personally. Obviously anyone knows that I did not send any child to residential school, nor did you. But I do believe that there is a responsibility that we bear as Canadians, to refuse to sweep this under the carpet. To not adopt a strictly forward-looking stance until we have cleaned up the outrageous damage done. The crime was not committed by “us” in the “you and me” sense, but by the “us” in the sense that our entire society has sprung from the fruits of the evil deeds that our forefathers committed. If we are willing to enjoy the products of the barbarism, then we are not without blame.

Okay, sure, but what can I do with that? What does that mean to me? How can I act on this?

I think that a good start is to listen to our own words and thoughts. Quite naturally, our outlook is steeped in the traditions of our society, which are indeed the traditions of those men whose choices led to a series of heinous crimes against the First Nations people. We grew up learning only the very ethnocentrically distorted versions of our history. Or in some cases, learning nothing at all about large pieces of our history – I don't doubt because textbook writers deemed these bits to be indefensible, and best left off the curriculum altogether.

So it's not surprising when we say things like: “the residential school system was at least well-intentioned.” No doubt we would like to think that. But well-intentioned? Really? Canada was being forged into a nation, purposefully and swiftly. Part of that process was what was considered the “white man's burden” to transform the “savages” - the First Nations people, who were mere wards of the state, without the rights of other Canadians - into European-ized citizens. It was an intentional cultural genocide. The adults were being disassociated from their own culture, and disempowered through legislation which restricted physical movement and forbade participation in cultural traditions. The children were being Anglicized by a systematic stripping of their identity (their names, their language, their families, their communities, their traditions and culture), and indoctrinated into an English Christian set of beliefs. There lies the biggest crime. Within that, there were of course massive amounts of physical and sexual abuse as well, and appalling health conditions which resulted in very high death rates.

Well – surely the government didn't know how bad it was? I'd like to think that, too. But the records are there – they did know, and they did not act on it.

But isn't this all ancient history?

No. No matter how you slice it, it does not come up as ancient history. The last of the actual schools closed its doors, finally, 1996. That is only sixteen years ago. That means that it's entirely possible that some of the children that we teach today have parents who were residential school victims. And quite likely that these kids have grandparents who went to a residential school. That is not ancient history by any definition.

The trickle-down effects of the residential school system are well-documented. If you'd like to see a long list (32 identified effects), visit: http://www.wherearethechildren.ca/en/exhibit/impacts.html . But my point here is that the intergenerational effects – which include many types of parenting issues, substance abuse, child abuse, and psychological problems – in addition to the other injustices against these people - are in large part what contributes to the First Nations peoples' depressed socio-economic status.

So. Back to the initial question: “Why must we specify 'Aboriginal' children,” when citing instances of poverty-induced ills of society?

The answer, simply: Because the 'Aboriginal' part is significant. It is not incidental. It is a direct function of the shameful treatment that the First Nations people received at the hands of our invading European ancestors. To leave it off, as if it is a superfluous (and maybe racist, or stereotyping) adjective is to deny the impact that colonization of Canada has had on that group of people. It's disrespectful. It's putting the blinders on, and refusing to look anywhere but ahead.

That's how I see it.