3 ms·
> The average institute also doesnt have children buried in the yard. Your conclusion isnt logical. I dont think you have any idea what you're talking about. T
by tw04 5y ago
> The average institute also doesnt have children buried in the yard. Your conclusion isnt logical.
I dont think you have any idea what you're talking about. The average residential school does. That's why they're looking. The estimate was 6000 dead children across Canada and they expect that's low.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/06/canada-dark-of-history-residential-schools https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/06/canada-dark-of...
> As many as 6,000 children died in residential institutions, which ran from 1876 to 1996.
>The accurate figure could be much higher however, since the government stopped recording aboriginal students’ deaths in 1920 in light of the alarming statistics.
- Xylakant 5y agoResidential schools are a special case compared to other institutions, though. They were deliberately created to destroy indigenous communities. The cruelty was not an aberration, it was part of the system.
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoIt seems like a rewriting of terms, it started out with any time you move the power from the family to an institution, but somewhere about 2 or 3 posts above here it has turned into these particular institutions - in which case there is no argument, these institutions were especially bad but not just because they removed power from the family - probably the more sure cause of their badness was because of the project they were engaged in, the reasons they had for doing what they did, and their viewpoints regarding the children and the family they came from. If you remove children from under the control of their family and you have a theory that the children are naturally bad and less than human in some ways, yes, that is probably going to lead to exactly this kind of thing.