Discovery of ‘Mass
Graves’
On May 27, 2021, Chief
Rosanne Casimir said that she had confirmed the preliminary findings of the
remains of 215 children who were students at the Kamloops Indian Residential
School. With the help of a ‘ground penetrating radar specialist’, that which
was spoken about but never documented, was finally brought to light.
According to Chief Casimir,
We had a knowing in our community that we were
able to verify. To our knowledge, these missing children are undocumented deaths…
Some were as young as three years old… This work was undertaken by [the]
Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Language and Culture Department with ceremonial
Knowledge Keepers who ensured that the work was conducted respectfully in light
of the serious nature of the investigation with cultural protocols being
upheld.
Now, how Chief Casimir
claims to ‘know’ any of this is questionable. Her assertions of knowledge could
very-well be exceeding her epistemic grasp, here. After all, ground-penetrating
radar isn’t like some fish-finder that provides a more finely-grained image:
pin-pointing the locations of your intended target. In fact, such data from
ground penetrating radar surveys are seldom obvious or self-evident and require
methodical interpretations and finally unearthing of the objects in question.
Additionally, readings from such radar can be influenced by myriad natural and
man-made sources, as well as human error.
Chief Casimir had stated
that her community was aided by a ‘ground penetrating radar specialist’, but
never provided the name of the individual nor of the company that individual
worked for. Additionally, she never offered up the interpretations of the radar
scans that led them to believe that they had found 215 children. Also, Chief
Casimir stated that some children ‘as young as three’ were found. Well, ground
penetrating radar scans cannot tell you the age of the remains – that can only
be determined after exhumation. Moreover, children three-years-old and younger were
not admitted to residential schools. Perhaps these issues will be cleared up,
but so far, they are waiting for confirmation.
Further, Niigaan James
Sinclair, an Anishinaabe writer, associate professor at the University of
Manitoba, and son of Calvin Murray Sinclair, who was the chairman of the Indian
Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) from 2009 to
2015, has opined:
‘It's a story that I
think Canadians are surprised about because they are not prepared for what has
been the truth of this country, which is that this is the kind of abuses that
were perpetrated against Indigenous people -- my people -- for over a century
and a half in these places.’
Again, given the
questions above, I am unsure to what ‘truth’ Niigaan is referring. Perhaps it
is some ‘greater truth’ that is not affected by the truth or falsehood of the
individual claims made in its service.
That said, and with
questions aside, what we are being told is a tragic story: the deaths of
children are always tragic, and the context of their deaths in residential
schools only exacerbates that.
Despite the good
intentions may have motivated the residential school project of assimilation of
indigenous peoples into a burgeoning Canadian society, the tales of abuse at
the hands of staff and students, the poor conditions of housing and food due to
persistent lack of Federal funding, as well as child separation from family and
community are harsh and ought not be minimized.
Having extended that
olive branch, I think that what we have been fed by media and motivated actors
like Niigaan Sinclair, are likely instances of exaggerated evils.
For instance, the
labelling of the Kamloops residential school – and subsequent ‘discoveries’ –
as ‘mass graves’ by some in the media is utterly false and misleading. Though
Chief Casimir, to her credit, has cautioned against using that term.
The Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) defines ‘mass grave’ as a ‘burial
site containing remains of two or more victims of extra-judicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, and/or is a potential repository of evidence of mass
killings of civilians and prisoners of wars during of an armed conflict.’
Like ‘genocide’, however,
there is not unanimous agreement on this definition. The disagreements can lie
in nitpickings over the number of individual remains in the burial site, but
they are also motivated by the activist desire to craft weapons for the
subaltern to use against their enemies in culture wars instead of finding
truthful descriptions of events.
Nonetheless, the common
definition of a mass grave involves the burial of numerous bodies resulting
from mass violence, and its use in the residential school context is either
hysterical or meant to gin up hysterical visions of dead children being unceremoniously
tossed into a hole in the ground.
In her initial press
release, on May 27th, 2021, Chief Casimir referenced a report
entitled ‘Where are the Children buried?’, which was completed by Dr. Scott
Hamilton in 2015. The report was only made public following the
press release.
According to Dr. Hamilton,
records reveal ‘wild fluctuations from year to year’ which may reflect periodic
epidemics at the schools, as well as poor record keeping and/or sporadic
survival of records.
Archival records, as
well as the TRC’s own statistical research, illustrated that the death rate of
children (ages 5-14) at residential schools was about 19 times greater than the
general population of the same age cohort. These higher death rates persisted
until 1945 and thereafter plummeted to levels consistent with the general
population.
In recent interviews, Dr. Hamilton has expressed concern over
the press’ use of the term ‘mass grave’, arguing that is misses the point of
the situation being presented. Instead, Hamilton argues that what may have been
found is a graveyard that accrued the corpses of children – and likely others –
for over a century because of truly appalling conditions which led to high
rates of devastating disease (like tuberculosis, influenza, and pneumonia)
ending in death. Children also died from abuses, and others died whilst running
away. However, the main cause of death was disease.
Children who died were
buried in simple graveyards often located near the
schools, however, sometimes, due to sickness, the staff would be incapable of
burying the children on their school grounds, themselves. In these cases, and
to ensure proper burial of the deceased, the school would sometimes contract
out the burial to a neighbouring community’s undertaker to be buried at their
graveyard.
Along with disease,
another persistent issue was a lack of Federal funding which precluded sending
the bodies home to their families or conducting proper burials.
According to Dr.
Hamilton,
Indian Affairs would only pay for a child’s
burial under unusual circumstances, and if it paid, it expected the costs to be
kept as low as possible. In this the department conformed to the general
practice of the period in the treatment of those who died in institutions. It
was not uncommon for hospitals to have cemeteries into which indigent patients
were buried, while workhouses for the poor also had cemeteries. Many Canadians
ended up in unmarked paupers’ graves.
The graves of the
residential school children, and the cemeteries in which they lie, were simple
and common; with wooden caskets and wooden crosses for markings which have
disintegrated over time because of weather, lack of care, and being long
forgotten. Dr. Hamilton also mentions how some residential school staff
were worried about run away cattle trampling their cemeteries. All in all,
these graves that have been purportedly discovered are not mass graves, and the
use of the terminology is wrong and misleading - likely deliberately so given
the lack of correction by news media. The graves may not have been initially
unmarked since, as stated, their markings have likely been erased by weather
and time. Also, most children were not killed, but, sadly, perished due to
disease and poor living conditions caused by inadequate housing and funding.
Finally, Dr. Hamilton stated that he found no evidence that school officials intended
to hide the graves. In fact, according to the documentation,
Ordinarily the body will be returned to the reserve for burial
only when transportation, embalming costs and all other expenses are borne by
next of kin. Transportation may be authorized, however, in cases where the cost
of burial on the reserve is sufficiently low to make transportation
economically advantageous.
Given that the
reluctance of the Federal government to supply funds for such treatment and
transport, it is unsurprising that many children would not have been returned
home.
All of these point to a
long tragic story whose actual details are not nearly as sensational as
headlines and activists would have the public believe.
So, when assessing the
facts and comparing them to the claims in the media, I think what we have are
claims of exaggerated evils. Now, to say ‘exaggerated evil’ still implies the
existence of ‘evil’. The abuse and neglect of children is evil, inhumane
separation of children from their families is evil, and the involuntary
assimilation of cultures is evil. And I think these can all be stated whilst
still assessing the facts and acknowledging the context, motivations, and
struggles of the parties involved. Residential schools were a part of a
civilising effort that aimed to enfranchise the indigenous peoples of Canada so
they could participate and survive in a world that was changing whether they
liked it or not. Such a project was aligned with the civilising missions of
Western colonial powers that were viewed as being inexorably guided by God and
History. Concerns over ‘cultural genocide’ are beyond the scope of this
article, and given that the definition of ‘genocide’, itself, is contested, I
imagine determinations of cultural genocide will be contested, too.
Instances of Religious
Hate
Since the discovery of
these ‘unmarked graves’, over a dozen churches have been vandalised and
numerous others have been set ablaze across Canada. Ten churches in Alberta were vandalised on
Canada Day, alone.
Condemnation of these
acts has been tepid at best, with the repetitive chorus being ‘we understand
the anger. But this isn’t the way to move forward’.
Arlen Dumas, grand chief of the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, said ‘I personally wouldn’t have participated in that. Mind
you, it has been a very triggering time over the past few weeks.’
Prime Minister Trudeau stated, ‘It’s real
and it is fully understandable given the shameful history we are all become
more aware of. I can’t help but think that burning down churches is actually
depriving people who are in need of grieving and healing and mourning from
places where they can grieve and reflect and look for support.’
A telling response came from a former
residential school student who said, ‘[w]hoever is doing this, you're going to
wake up a very ugly, evil spirit in this country’.
I would like to ask: how
are these arsons and acts of vandalism not being condemned as examples of
crimes motivated by religious hatred? These acts are clearly being perpetrated
against a well-known religious group in Canada – namely the Catholic Church,
but Christianity, in general – a group, in fact, which has been incessantly
demonized in the press in recent weeks.
The Criminal Code of
Canada says a ‘hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve
intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a
person, a group or a property.’ The victims and/or their property are targeted
for who they are, not because of anything they have done.
Well, given that no one
in the targeted communities actually did anything in the residential schools,
these attacks on churches obviously fit the bill. However, perhaps the
perpetrators and their apologists would argue that the ‘genocide’ is still
ongoing and that the Catholic Church, as well as individual Christians, who are
not sufficiently upset by the findings are complicit in it. After all, ‘just
because you didn’t actually do anything in residential schools doesn’t mean
that you have nothing to do with it.’ The trap gets sprung and guilt is imposed
– no evidence needed.
One can easily point to
instances of double-standards at play, and so I encourage you, dear reader, to
think of your own examples.
Now, I’m no fan of hate
crime laws. But I’m also not a fan of inconsistent application of law. If
hate-motivated crimes exist in this country, and if a perpetrator can be
motivated by religious hatred, then surely these attacks on churches count as such
crimes. The cowardice of our ‘leaders’ causing them not apply equal standards
in quite evident.
Attempts at
European Erasure
The acts of vandalism
and arson are clearly motivated by anti-Christian hate, and Christianity is a
proxy for European. How so? Because the attacks are not limited to churches but
extended outward to signifiers of European heritage.
As is to be expected,
statues and monuments of prominent figures in European Canadian history were
vandalised on Canada Day.
A statue of Queen Victoria at the Manitoba Legislature
was toppled by protestors, as was a statue of Queen Elizabeth II.
Activists in Victoria,
British Columbia also knocked down a statue of Captain James Cook and tossed it
in the city’s harbour.
Sir John A.
MacDonald’s gravesite in Kingston, Ontario was
vandalised. His statue at Kingston Park has been previously removed on June 18th,
2021.
Names of buildings, neighbourhoods, and roads are being petitioned for removal and
replacement, and the list goes on.
One person who has been
making the rounds in the news media is Niigaan Sinclair. For Niigaan, there
hasn’t been a statue of a European Canadian that he hasn’t wanted torn down. He
is a man who is fighting for his people, and I respect that, though I don’t
respect his duplicity.
When asked about the
toppling of the statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II Niigaan responded, ‘[l]et's get some scope here. A statue
being re-altered or edited or vandalized, whatever you want to call it, is
nowhere near the kind of scope [of violence] that Indigenous peoples continue
to experience every day… [W]e saw a peaceful indicator of change in our
community. And I think that's a cause for celebration’.
Well, that is one way
someone can frame what’s going on here. But I think there is a more appropriate
framing - one that does not rely on a ‘altered’, ‘edited’ or ‘vandalized’ post-modern
version of history.
So, let’s get some scope
here: what we are seeing are belligerent mobs engaging in vandalism and
property destruction of elements of European heritage in this country in a bid
to engage in an undemocratic and hostile take-over of the public square. These
belligerents are also backed by a sympathetic consent-generating apparatus made
up of academia, news media, and some politicians.
Prime Minister Trudeau,
for instance, stated:
‘Even as I was speaking with people who chose to wear red and
white [on Canada Day] instead of orange, they were reflecting on how their
fellow citizens are hurting, how we need to respect and understand that not
everyone felt like celebrating yesterday. Celebrating was the last thing on the
minds of many many people in this country for whom we need to do better.’
One thing that ‘we’ can
do better is developing confidence in ourselves and our history and standing up
for both.
We are simultaneously
told that we need to acknowledge our ‘true’ history whilst also respecting
calls for representations of that history to be torn down and erased from the
public square because they serve as reminders of past oppression.
Such attitudes are
hinted at in the contemporary monikers of 'settler Canadian' or 'coloniser' -
which attempt to reach back to the past and imbue today's European Canadians
with the stain of generations long past.
We are told that we
should be aware of the trauma that gets passed from generation to generation,
however, we are also told that 'we' need to learn the 'uncomfortable truths'
about our history, and to learn 'what it really is'. Indeed, so why, then,
should the statues come down? If 'we' are to learn of our complicated history,
then having memorials to it better serves that purpose than not.
The history of the
residential schools is fraught with horror but declaring mea culpa over
and over without accompanying action only intensifies tension between groups by
amplifying certain negative aspects of the past whilst also engendering a
permanent state of grievance.
That is the final olive
branch.
A less gentle response
also presents itself: why acquiesce to the offence that some people feel
towards statues, names, or monuments anyway? I think we should reject this
acquiesce wholeheartedly.
National identity and
its symbols should not be left up to the dictates and whims of the capital, the
government, let alone the mob.
National identity is
retained by old and inherited sentiments of belong and tradition and it is
cultivated through the consideration and practice of those who share in it. It
is not bought, imported, or signed into existence on a sheet of paper. It is
not universal or borderless; there particularities and there are sides. It is
also personal, rooted and deeply normative. Challenges to it from the ‘outside’
must be seen as challenges to all these things – especially if they are cloaked
in the language of social justice and equity. (For a more detailed assessment, feel free to check out my article: Statues, Legacy, and Sanitising the Public Square)
These people who wish to
tear down monuments and the like are not working towards some collective
emancipation that will be shared by all. Instead, they are severing people from
their past in a way that remedies how they view their own past was torn from
their ancestors. It is not about justice. It is about vengeance.
Every piece of art,
every legacy of exploration, history, militarism, and religion will be deemed
as enforcing white supremacy. As such, to live in such a society and see these
elements of worthy of remembrance and not trauma is an example of white
privilege.
What exactly does this
entail? I take it to mean that the history, society, culture, and benefits that
we, descendants of Europe have accrued from our ancestors is illegitimate. I
see no reason to accept this.
It is not an argument in
good faith, but rather is meant to manipulate empathy and good will to
self-destructive ends.
