6 ms·

Child mortality rates were high in those days. Just to add some numbers, 30% of Canadian children died before reaching the age of 5 around the year 1900[1]. Pre

by eloff 5y ago

Child mortality rates were high in those days. Just to add some numbers, 30% of Canadian children died before reaching the age of 5 around the year 1900[1]. Presumably at a school the mortality rate would be lower because the children were older. But this is not necessarily an unreasonable death rate for a school that operated many decades. Especially for undernourished native kids who would've been much more vulnerable to diseases they had no historic immunity to. This would have been common in other countries and other Canadian schools too. The difference, of course, is usually a boarding school would contact the parents to notify them. People are spinning this story like this was a death camp for native kids. It's not. It was a real tragedy that children were removed from their parents forcibly and the institutions couldn't be bothered to report if your kid freaking died... Given the period in time and lack off oversight, I don't doubt there was abuse too, and let's not forget this is the Catholic church, which has a poor record, but it's clueless to account these deaths to abuse just on the basis of possible graves existing on ground penetrating radar. We're not even sure these are all graves, you have to excavate to have an idea what the error rate is. One last thing to keep in mind is at this point in time the government barely existed. There were no social safety nets or programs and hardly any government oversight out west. It's called the wild west for a reason. The church was operating these schools as a charity because the government had neither the resources not inclination to do it themselves. Things were different back then, and they often don't look good judged through our modern eyes. That's a sign of how far we've come in less than a century. To us today this looks about the same as what the Chinese are doing to the Uighurs. Definitely not a moment in history to be proud of. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-child-mortality-rate/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041751/canada-all-time-...

developer2 5y ago
> People are spinning this story like this was a death camp for native kids. It's not. Link your sources, or fuck right off. You're going to become a holocaust denier? "Child mortality rates"… you're a piece of shit.
- eloff 5y ago
  Wow, that's uncalled for. I've flagged your post for violating site guidelines. I also added a citation, which took 30 seconds to look up. It's publicly available data. Instead of calling me a piece of shit, you could have done that and shared the results of your research with everyone here.
  - developer2 5y ago
    Your link is merely about general child mortality rates, and has nothing to do with aboriginal populations. If you have no clue about the context involved when talking about mass murder, keep your mouth shut. There are certain topics where any whiff of denial is completely unacceptable.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rohitb91 5y ago
      If 30 kids died per hundred and were buried over decades and then show up today where the death rate is negligible, it looks like a horror. But if we look at the base rate of 30 percent, we notice it’s not out of context. What a strange reaction.
    - eloff 5y ago
      The whole point of bringing up historical child mortality rates - which again would be higher in aboriginals due to malnutrition, poverty, and lack of immunity to diseases - is if the number of deaths isn't higher than the base mortality rate, then there is no evidence of any kind of murder here. Your assuming something without any evidence and getting all upset based on that assumption. I'd guess that your trolling me and nobody is that bad with logic, but you seem so sincere. > There are certain topics where any whiff of denial is completely unacceptable. No. There is no idea so sacred that it cannot be questioned. The ability to reason logically is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is our most human trait.
pkd 5y ago
The Residential School Program continued well into the 20th century, when Canada was very much a modern nation state with resources. It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures.
- eloff 5y ago
  > The Residential School Program continued well into the 20th century, when Canada was very much a modern nation state with resources. Yes. I apologize if I implied otherwise. I was talking more about what conditions were like when they were created. > It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures. Agreed. I did also make that point.
8bitsrule 5y ago
> The church was operating these schools as a charity because the government had neither the resources not inclination to do it themselves. The first CA residential schools were a Christian effort. The first was started in 1820 by missionary John West in the Red River colony, with funding from the (British) Church Mission Society. By 1901, though, "In Canada, the Indian residential school ... network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and administered by Christian churches." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...] The compulsory schooling of children between 7 and 16 was the result of 1894 amendments to Canada's 1876 Indian Act ... often mentioned by the First Nations. Edit: Adding a link to a very good article posted after Kamloops, called "Why so many children died at Indian Residential Schools". It also quickly details the scope of the operations and conditions across Canada. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-graves-a-grim-reminder-of-the-heartbreaking-death-toll-of-residential-schools https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-gr...
- eloff 5y ago
  Thanks for the historical background and correcting me about the role of the government in the program.
detaro 5y ago
> Presumably at a school the mortality rate would be lower because the children were older. Well, from a quick Google according to government numbers in 1907 there was a 40 – 60% mortality rate in Indian residential schools. Doesn't quite square with your assertion. > But this is not necessarily an unreasonable death rate for a school that operated many decades. Especially for undernourished native kids who would've been much more vulnerable to diseases they had no historic immunity to. These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable. And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care.
- eloff 5y ago
  > Well, from a quick Google according to government numbers in 1907 there was a 40 – 60% mortality rate in Indian residential schools. Doesn't quite square with your assertion. That's roughly double the population average. I expect it to be higher due to them lacking immunity, but still that's surprisingly high. > These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable. Obviously the death rate declined over time. > And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care. Yes and no. The schools obviously had nothing to do with them being undernourished or lacking immunity before entering the system. If they continued being undernourished after that, that's is on the schools and the government. Maintaining poor living conditions is also on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say they're blameless - because there are plenty of reports to the contrary. What I'm trying to say is a couple hundred graves outside a school in the modern era sounds like a crime against humanity. Placed properly in the historical times in which it happened, where child mortality was insanely high, especially among natives, it may well have been not that remarkable. It requires more careful analysis and not the knee jerk emotional reaction that I've been seeing.

by eloff 5y ago

developer2 5y ago

> People are spinning this story like this was a death camp for native kids. It's not. Link your sources, or fuck right off. You're going to become a holocaust denier? "Child mortality rates"… you're a piece of shit.

eloff 5y ago
Wow, that's uncalled for. I've flagged your post for violating site guidelines. I also added a citation, which took 30 seconds to look up. It's publicly available data. Instead of calling me a piece of shit, you could have done that and shared the results of your research with everyone here.
- developer2 5y ago
  Your link is merely about general child mortality rates, and has nothing to do with aboriginal populations. If you have no clue about the context involved when talking about mass murder, keep your mouth shut. There are certain topics where any whiff of denial is completely unacceptable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rohitb91 5y ago
    If 30 kids died per hundred and were buried over decades and then show up today where the death rate is negligible, it looks like a horror. But if we look at the base rate of 30 percent, we notice it’s not out of context. What a strange reaction.
  - eloff 5y ago
    The whole point of bringing up historical child mortality rates - which again would be higher in aboriginals due to malnutrition, poverty, and lack of immunity to diseases - is if the number of deaths isn't higher than the base mortality rate, then there is no evidence of any kind of murder here. Your assuming something without any evidence and getting all upset based on that assumption. I'd guess that your trolling me and nobody is that bad with logic, but you seem so sincere. > There are certain topics where any whiff of denial is completely unacceptable. No. There is no idea so sacred that it cannot be questioned. The ability to reason logically is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is our most human trait.

pkd 5y ago

The Residential School Program continued well into the 20th century, when Canada was very much a modern nation state with resources. It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures.

eloff 5y ago
> The Residential School Program continued well into the 20th century, when Canada was very much a modern nation state with resources. Yes. I apologize if I implied otherwise. I was talking more about what conditions were like when they were created. > It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures. Agreed. I did also make that point.

8bitsrule 5y ago

> The church was operating these schools as a charity because the government had neither the resources not inclination to do it themselves. The first CA residential schools were a Christian effort. The first was started in 1820 by missionary John West in the Red River colony, with funding from the (British) Church Mission Society. By 1901, though, "In Canada, the Indian residential school ... network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and administered by Christian churches." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...] The compulsory schooling of children between 7 and 16 was the result of 1894 amendments to Canada's 1876 Indian Act ... often mentioned by the First Nations. Edit: Adding a link to a very good article posted after Kamloops, called "Why so many children died at Indian Residential Schools". It also quickly details the scope of the operations and conditions across Canada. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-graves-a-grim-reminder-of-the-heartbreaking-death-toll-of-residential-schools https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-gr...

eloff 5y ago
Thanks for the historical background and correcting me about the role of the government in the program.

detaro 5y ago

> Presumably at a school the mortality rate would be lower because the children were older. Well, from a quick Google according to government numbers in 1907 there was a 40 – 60% mortality rate in Indian residential schools. Doesn't quite square with your assertion. > But this is not necessarily an unreasonable death rate for a school that operated many decades. Especially for undernourished native kids who would've been much more vulnerable to diseases they had no historic immunity to. These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable. And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care.

eloff 5y ago
> Well, from a quick Google according to government numbers in 1907 there was a 40 – 60% mortality rate in Indian residential schools. Doesn't quite square with your assertion. That's roughly double the population average. I expect it to be higher due to them lacking immunity, but still that's surprisingly high. > These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable. Obviously the death rate declined over time. > And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care. Yes and no. The schools obviously had nothing to do with them being undernourished or lacking immunity before entering the system. If they continued being undernourished after that, that's is on the schools and the government. Maintaining poor living conditions is also on them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say they're blameless - because there are plenty of reports to the contrary. What I'm trying to say is a couple hundred graves outside a school in the modern era sounds like a crime against humanity. Placed properly in the historical times in which it happened, where child mortality was insanely high, especially among natives, it may well have been not that remarkable. It requires more careful analysis and not the knee jerk emotional reaction that I've been seeing.