Alleging Genocide, Teachers Push To Remove Name of Canada's First Prime Minister from Public Schools

Global News ^ | August 23, 2017 | Maegan Kulchar

[dccomix]

The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario is pushing to remove the name of Canada’s first prime minister from a handful of schools across the province in an effort to create a "safer" learning environment.

[ifinnegan]

What’s his name?

[Catmom]

Safer for learning what?

[Tennessee Nana]

John MacDonald but he didn’t own slaves

[dccomix]

From the article:

“The ETFO said using Sir John A. Macdonald’s name creates an unsafe environment for kids to learn and work in because Macdonald was a supporter of residential schools back in the 1800’s.”

[lil'bit]

Canadian Confederation?

[SES1066]

The ETFO said using Sir John A. Macdonald’s name creates an unsafe environment for kids to learn and work in because Macdonald was a supporter of residential schools back in the 1800’s.

?? So the teacher's union is going back for more than a century to get at someone who was in favor of 'home schooling'! Then again the term of 'residential schools' may be a code term for something different from what it appears.

Otherwise it is hard to find where he has been 'controversial' except for changes in accepted mores over time, ie expansion into native lands, treatment of Qubec armed rebellion etc. If so, then his statues may be in danger up there.

[RayChuang88]

Oh gawd, I can’t wait for Canada-based Rebel Media to rip this story to confetti and smaller pieces on their YouTube channel. :-)

[dccomix]

From the Canadian Encyclopedia:

“Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture.”

Quite apart from this issue, Macdonald was a colourful character: an alcoholic, he once publicly vomited in the House of Commons, claiming “It’s not drink that makes me sick but the rantings of my honourable opponent!”.

He later ordered the execution of Louis Riel, the leader of a Metis rebellion against Canadian rule, resigned from office due to the Pacific Scandal (he awarded a lucrative railway contract to a construction company from whom he demanded a large sum of money) and was then re-elected Prime Minister.

In the video accompanying the story he is burned in effigy by protesters!

[binreadin]

The argument is that the residential schools ripped the children out of their native villages and robbed them of their indigenous heritage. All true. However, the living conditions of many of these children in their homes and villages was horrific, something the history whitewashers never acknowledge. Many of these residentially schooled children would otherwise have died. It's a tough call to make from the vantage point of our own comforts. Read about the life of Lord Grenfell in Labrador to get an accurate look at conditions of this era—the late 1800s to early 1900s. It's available in the Kindle lineup, along with a lot of other low-cost biographies. The original accounts are very enlightening.

[dccomix]

Excellent points, and thank you for your recommendation - sounds like a worthwhile read.

[aquila48]

Bookmark

[sweetiepiezer]

I did not know that.

[publius911]

What’s his name?

For those who through ignorance, stupidity or malice can't distinguish making news from reporting it, that question matters. The "news" quality of the question, actually is "why?"

If the subject is deemed a "problem," and you have to ask, you, sir, are deemed part of the problem.

The new journalism, for decades, now.

[publius911]

“Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture.”

That's only one definition.

An equally valid one, not inconsistent with the original definition posted : “Residential schools were government-sponsored schools established to introduce ALL children to the ethics and morals needed to function in modern, civilized societies and cultures.”

There is no conflict with the presence or absence of actual religions, except ONE.

Which, to their eternal damnation, our Founding Fathers deemed too unnecessary or too obvious to define.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Residential schooling" in this context means boarding schools for Indian children.

The negatives: separated children from their parents, kinship network and culture for extended periods of time, intentionally effaced native languages and the transmission of native cultural and religious traditions.

The positives: separated children from extremely unsafe environments (childhood mortality rates "back home" exceeded 50%), saved children from native cultures which featured extreme cruelty, slavery and misogyny, introduced children into participation in the wider civilization, made their survival and (arguably) their peoples' survival possible.

So, a mixed bag.

Now it is non-PC to refer to it as anything other than "cultural genocide."

[publius911]

I just realized that teachers seem to be the driving force behind this puzzling thread.

This may be a good time and place to express my strong opinion:

Teachers in ANY school must be deemed domestic terrorists and enemies of the State, and dismissed if they introduce "Personal politics" or psychological mental problems into their teaching.

[JudyinCanada]

Nor did I! I guess it’s something they didn’t feel was important in our history lessons.

It sounds more to me like it’s our turn to find a reason to join in the bringing down of the west. Plain and simple.

[Jonty30]

My mother was born in Northern Alberta,during the period of residential schools. She had to walk, one way, 5 miles.

There were few options to help bring natives forward. The only thing I can think that might have helped was putting them in residential schools when they are ten years old and giving a slightly accelerated program to ensure a reasonable timely graduation.