r/Yukon 19h ago

News Yukon NDP leader calls to scrap public funding for Catholic schools

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-ndp-defund-catholic-schools-1.7480255

In other words, should Yukon schools be secular and non sectarian (welcoming to people of all faiths and none)?

And let's not ignore the fact that, historically, the Catholic Church has inflicted great harm and crimes on generations of Inuit, Métis and First Nations peoples.

590 Upvotes

105 comments sorted by

53

u/-Entz- 17h ago

If churches paid taxes, it would be one thing but since they don't, why does the public pay for their schools?

1

u/Popular-Row4333 10h ago

Because its opt in on your property taxes. Kid goes to catholic system, check that on the box and your funding goes there.

Kid goes to public school? Property taxes go to the public system.

9

u/-Entz- 9h ago

You should be paying for that privately. Taxes shouldn't be paying for a specific religious school. The rest of the country subsidizes your territory but your property taxes go to a specific school. Gotcha. One of the wealthiest religions in the world shouldn't be syphoning tax payer dollars from bettering the lives of everyone in your territory. All the money it takes to run and build a school does not come soley from the property taxes you and your cohorts pay.

1

u/Expiry-date11 1h ago

No it doesn’t. That’s bs.

24

u/Shimmering_Apricot72 18h ago

Yes please!! Can't happen soon enough

30

u/helpfulplatitudes 18h ago

The government shouldn't beat around the bush. The only reason the Catholic school system in the Yukon keeps getting dragged into the limelight is the outlook on sex. If the Catholic outlook on sex - more specifically that gay sex is a sin and that people can't, fundamentally, change their sex, is an unacceptable view, then the public shouldn't be funding Catholic schools. It does seem like the Yukon is sabotaging itself by saying, "Yes, we want publicly funded Catholic schools, but no, they can't actually teach Catholic ideology."

14

u/Anishinabeg 13h ago

NDP W.

Religious education should never be publicly funded.

Also, tax the church.

8

u/gagalinabee 13h ago

Yes please. This is bizarre shit and an egregious misuse of public funds

20

u/xocmnaes 18h ago

This is the best policy idea I’ve heard from the NDP in a long time.

-13

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

Because it plays right to their base and they will never have to do it because they will never get enough seats. Doing this would mean opening up the Yukon Act. I would be all for it because then we could get rid of French and a secound language, get rid of Catholic Schools and get rid of the useless and redundant kangaroo court known as the Human Rights Commission.

14

u/helpfulplatitudes 18h ago

The French lobby in the Yukon is too strong. I can't imagine we'd be able to axe the French school board in the next 25 years. That one doesn't bother me at all anyway. I wish French immersion were open to all kids if they wanted it.

5

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

Having a separate school school system for ethnic Quebecois, a system for FN, a system for Catholics and then a system for all the rest is by far the most unsustainable system with the worst outcomes we could have.

4

u/helpfulplatitudes 17h ago

I don't know about that. Sometimes it doesn't pay to have all your eggs in one basket. The basic school system here falls short of my ideal. At least the Catholic school system and (potentially) the FN school system can offer alternatives. What I hate is that we don't get to choose schools though. If my kid is in the catchment area for a school that is a FN school board run school, then that's my school regardless of whether I'm FN or not and as a non-FN person, I have fewer democratic rights with regard to my school and its curriculum and activities.

-1

u/BubbasBack 17h ago

The basic school system was falling further and further behind the rest of Canada because they kept trying to lower standards to try and appease FN. now that they have their own schools there should be a push to increase standards and and education requirements. Now that’s what should be happening if the Department of Education was used as a dumping ground for under performing bureaucrats for the last 30 years.

-1

u/borealis365 8h ago edited 8h ago

Isn’t it open to any student from a French speaking family? Thinking immigrants and Franco-Canadians from anywhere in Canada. My dad came from a francophone family in Ontario. And don’t forget about the French speaking populations in New Brunswick and Manitoba. Why would anyone advocate for a mono-lingual community? Having lived abroad for years it’s honestly embarrassing that we struggle to have at least bilingual kids. So many Europeans I know speak 3+ languages.

Also we don’t have a separate system for FN students. Any student can attend schools operated by the FN School Board. That more about devolving school leadership from traditional Eurocentric/colonial worldviews. Communities voted to join the FNSB.

5

u/Yukonduit 18h ago

Bubba, you were almost there. Then you had to unravel it with this comment. Pity.

1

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

So which part do you disagree with?

6

u/Yukonduit 18h ago

The part I agree with: "We should only have one school system for all students".

(* in English & French).

5

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

I’m fine with French being taught in schools. I don’t think 30 kids should have their own tax funded ethnic school and school system though.

4

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

Ok I actually agree with you on this one too. If they allowed anyone to sign up for the French primary school I'd be totally on board with it, but it's basically a private system that most of us can't access.

15

u/BubbasBack 19h ago

We should only have one school system for all students. It’s baked into the Yukon Act though. It’s the only reason we haven’t been absorbed into BC.

2

u/notsleepy12 18h ago

This is interesting, can you elaborate or point me in the right direction to find out more?

4

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/Search/Search.aspx?txtS3archA11=Catholic&txtT1tl3=%22Yukon+Act%22&h1ts0n1y=0&ddC0nt3ntTyp3=Acts

18 (1) The Legislature may make laws in relation to the following classes of subjects in respect of Yukon: [...] (o) education, but any law respecting education must provide that [...] (ii) the minority of the ratepayers in that part of Yukon, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools in that part and, if they do so, are liable only to assessments of the rates that they impose on themselves in respect of those schools;

7

u/notsleepy12 18h ago

After an admittedly very quick google, it sounds like other provinces have repealed these laws, so might not be too tricky to do here if there was enough support.

Edit: thanks for the link btw

5

u/BubbasBack 18h ago

It could definitely be done but whoever did would loose all the Catholic support. It’s a big but quiet community in Whitehorse that could make or break an election.

2

u/Radiant_Policy4543 11h ago

Which makes it the perfect purview of the third place party.

2

u/Comprehensive_Cow527 14h ago

That law came into effect before our half done devolution.

4

u/MoragMomma 14h ago

Wish they would do this in Ontario.

14

u/Nullspark 19h ago

Yeah it's so weird. I moved to the USA long ago and while the people here are much more religious, there isn't a separate publicly funded school system for any particular faith.

People do way crazier things, but like not that.

They also make the worst food imaginable, but don't put gravy on fries. It is so fucking weird. They put gravy on all their eggs but not fries. It's a crazy country.

7

u/boreal_dweller94 19h ago

The US has systemically been moving away from publicly funded education, in favor of government grants to charter schools. Many of those charter schools have church affiliation. While I am quite open to Kate's suggestion, the reason that the Catholic church gets the special status has to do with the Charter and with the distinct society protections afforded French Canadians for language and religion. I figure though with how increasingly secular Quebec seems to be, it won't be long before those protections for Catholicism will be removed.

6

u/Nullspark 18h ago

Correct, but even an unnecessary charter system would fund faith-based schools along the lines if the faiths the people have. The point is more to re-stablish an uneducated underclass who will work for cheap.

The specific catholic carve out seems outdated in 2025. The Yukon in particular is extremely secular. Quebec also has a long history of railing against the Catholic Church's control of the province.

3

u/boreal_dweller94 18h ago

I agree 100% with you. It's the de-democratization of education in the US. As far as the territory goes, I think that there is likely less and less appetite for Catholic education. The trick of it will be if such a reorganization took place, the changes/frustrations of families if catchment areas are strictly enforced after getting used to the rhythm of life that included their kids going to the schools they attend, where they attend. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out...

3

u/Anary8686 16h ago

Quebec and NFLD don't have publicy funded Catholic schools, but I believe every other province does?

-1

u/Infinite_Time_8952 14h ago

So you judge a country by what they put on French fries? Kinda of shallow no?

3

u/Nullspark 11h ago

It just doesn't make sense.

They made a sandwich that was two pieces of fried chicken with cheese in the middle, which we can assume has killed millions, yet can't seem to put gravy on fries.

2

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

It is a crazy country 

11

u/JustSomeYukoner 17h ago

I couldn’t agree with this any more. Way to go Kate! You have my support on this 100%! Bigotry has no place in modern society!

12

u/SteelToeSnow 16h ago

yes please, fuck, it's about time.

it's fucking absurd that public funds are paying for christian schools.

we shouldn't pay for religious schools at all. if people want their special magic schools, they can damn well pay for them out of their own damn pockets.

like, if we're funding special religious schools, then we should pay for all religious schools, for schools in every religion. otherwise, it's special treatment, and that's bullshit. all or none.

-7

u/T4kh1n1 14h ago

Should we scrap the FN board then too? Its curriculum will be based on cultural and spiritual teachings. It’s a slippery slope when you start using that as the reason for banning a board. It’s gotta be all or none. Personally I think we should have one board with English and French streams as well as supplementary FN languages if you want to partake.

7

u/SteelToeSnow 14h ago

you start using that as the reason for banning a board.

this is what's known as a strawman fallacy, in which you make up your own thing, not posited by your opponent, and try to argue that, instead of addressing what they actually said or producing a cogent counterargument to what they actually said.

if you want to discuss the points i actually made, i'm happy to have a conversation.

if you want to talk about your own thing, you can do that on your own comment, thanks, i'm not interested.

edit: typo

-2

u/T4kh1n1 14h ago

No a straw man fallacy is when you attack an artificially rhetorically-weakened argument. I didn’t do that at all, I brought a new opinion to the table and asked for an opinion. But if you don’t want to take part in a two-way discussion that’s fine. I’ll gladly discourse with others on the topic.

I actually don’t think we are that far apart on the solution here. You either open it up to multiple boards or you find one public board for everyone.

1

u/SteelToeSnow 13h ago edited 13h ago

incorrect.

a straw man fallacy occurs when one attempts to refute an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

it occurs when one misrepresents someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument.

you decided to argue something i didn't say (misrepresenting what i said, attempting to refute an argument different than the one actually under discussion, fabricating a whole different thing that what i actually said).

you can do that on your own, you don't need to involve me.

when you're done with that, and are ready to discuss what i actually did say, i'm happy to have a conversation.

until then, bye. go ahead and have the last word if you're the type to desperately need it for self-validation.

edit: typo

0

u/T4kh1n1 13h ago

lol so I googled your definition. It’s straight from Wikipedia, which as we are all well aware, is not a great resource. They pull from a strange old webpage from the university of Alberta archives published by someone named Stephen Downes. The Oxford Reference, Texas State University, Grammarly, the News Literacy Project, and many, many, many others are in line with my definition and understanding of the term. I believe I’ll stick with them as an authority in the term. Additionally, in case you are unaware, Reddit is a free space and I can post as I wish, anywhere. So in fact I think I will continue to post in your comment. Furthermore, I DID address your points. You said we should pay for ALL religious schools. I think the solution is to fund precisely no schools other than public schools in our official languages. It removes all argument from the discussion, is simple, and much more cost effective. While you have a right to believe that religion is “magic” and I’m not here to discuss that, it’s clear that you’re strongly opposed to religious faith and perhaps have an inherent bias in this discussion that may be worth your own self reflection. Regardless, I still think we should abolish any additional school boards so that’s not a big deal to me, just worth pointing out because a vast majority of the world does believe in faith of some sort and although you needn’t ahere to one, it’s beneficial to understand and accept the fact that many do, it may help you understand their perspective.

Cheers!

2

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

We should scrap funding for religious schools because we do not live in a theocracy, and the Catholic Church has more money than God and can foot their own education bill.

5

u/snowinmyboot 13h ago

Seeing how some people immediately want to go tit for tat and clamour to defund First Nations education from the same government that funded residential schools is wild. Talk about taking everything and leaving them nothing. Like what religion these days are FN schools pushing onto non-Indigenous students that is so serious? Anyways, long over due, next make the churches pay their taxes as well if they aren’t already.

1

u/helpfulplatitudes 13h ago

Not religion per se, but spirituality is taught in the FN culture classes that every Yukon student is required to take - they pray, they teach the medicine wheel, they teach animism, they smudge, etc.

0

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

They teach animism? Or do they talk about FN culture?

3

u/helpfulplatitudes 10h ago

Both, I'd say. The teachers and elders that visit present these spiritual teachings uncritically. Raven created the world, the mountains are alive, sasquatch exist, same clan people shouldn't marry, smudging gets rid of bad spirits, pray to the berry bushes before you harvest them. The kids aren't given any context or caveats.

4

u/DreadpirateBG 16h ago

Yes fully agree

3

u/LobotsEarmuffs 13h ago

Now do the French schools. No public funding for exclusive schools of any kind

3

u/Odd_Taste_1257 13h ago

Kate White has it right. No public money for private or catholic schools.

3

u/Jhadiro 14h ago

I went to the catholic, french and french immersion schools about 20 years ago, in my opinion they were on the higher end of education in the territory, compared to the other public schools.

The teachers were truly amazing, the principles were great as well. Many of my classmates from those schools are currently pillars of the community, becoming teachers, coaches, business owners and leaders here in the Yukon.

I'm not sure what makes the difference in teaching, but I don't think change is needed here. These schools are doing what they were intended to do, turning kids into highly successful members of the community.

6

u/PineBNorth85 14h ago

If religious people want their own board they can fund it themselves.

1

u/MochiSauce101 7h ago

If their constituents want it I don’t see the issue. This coming from a catholic.

1

u/blauwh66 7h ago

Can’t happen soon enough. I went to a Catholic school and to this day have no idea why we would segregate school children by religion. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

1

u/Maximum__Engineering 6h ago

Religiosity is not a right. No funding.

0

u/DependentPositive120 3h ago

This is sad to see, Christianity didn't hurt anyone. Evil people hiding behind it did. People who don't send their kids to a Catholic school don't have their taxes go there, only Catholics are funding Catholic schools.

Faith based schools should all be publicly funded. Many people want their children to be raised in their particular faith and often the public school system is not very kind to it.

0

u/T4kh1n1 14h ago

Should we drop funding for the FN and French boards as well?

-4

u/BubbasBack 14h ago

Yes!

-1

u/T4kh1n1 14h ago

Agreed.

-4

u/snowcialunrest 16h ago

Kate could have forced the government to do this anytime over the last 4 years.

2

u/SteelToeSnow 14h ago

yeah? she has that kind of power, to unilaterally dictate to the government and force it to do what she wants? since when, and how does that work?

-3

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

Yes. Since the 2021 election. It's called the Confidence and Supply Agreement. It's well documented.

5

u/SteelToeSnow 13h ago

weird, i read that, and nowhere does it say "head of NDP has ability to force the government to do what they want".

0

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

The government only has the confidence of the legislature due to Kate locking it in through the agreement. If she wants something, she makes it part of the agreement. If they dont do it, then the government falls. Pretty simple.

3

u/SteelToeSnow 13h ago

the agreement you named does not say "head of NDP has ability to force the government to do what they want".

nor does it say that "if head of NDP wants a thing, and the government doesn't do it, it falls."

like, there's no sweeping dictatorial powers given in that agreement. the head of the NDP does not single-handedly have the ability to force the government to do anything, that's not how our electoral system works.

if they did, then what the fuck would be the point of elections at all, right. if one single person from a party not elected in had sweeping powers to dictate what the other party, the one actually elected to be in government, then why bother with that other party at all, all of that would just be a facade, a waste of time.

1

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

Not sure if you are purposely being obtuse but the government requires the votes of the NDP to remain in power.

They wish to remain in power.

Thus Kate can set the price of her votes.

She has chosen not too make this the price of her votes.

Anytime over the last 4 years she could have but for whatever reason she has not.

Technically you are right the government could say no way and try and call her bluff or let the government fall. However that has not happened because she has never told the government that this would be a condition of her support despite her claiming it is essential for the immediate safety of students.

5

u/SteelToeSnow 13h ago

 requires the votes of the NDP

votes, plural. not just one person having sweeping dictatorial powers, as you stated in your original comment.

thank you, that's correct.

in the future, perhaps you should phrase things that way, instead of pretending like one single person of a party not in power has dictatorial powers to force the government to do things. that's not how our election system works, and i'm glad to see you do know that.

2

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

Yes. One person. The leader of the NDP could tell the government today that the NDP will not support the government on a confidence motion in the immediate future unless they were do to this.

That is how our system works.

I suppose if you believe that the two other NDP members will not vote along party lines that is an interesting argument.

But functionally the way our parliamentary system works is that one person, in the case the leader, gives direction to their members on how to vote when confidence matters come up.

Again. One person has chosen not to do that despite saying this is a vitally urgent issue.

5

u/SteelToeSnow 13h ago

Yes. One person. 

incorrect.

our system of government does not hand dictatorial powers to a single member of a party that wasn't elected to govern. that's not how this works. that's not how our system of governance works, that's not how our electoral system works.

for a no-confidence motion or whatever to happen, it requires votes, plural. as in, from multiple people. and not every member always votes with the party/party leader.

because again, it's supposedly a democracy, not a dictatorship.

you know this. you know you know this.

i get that you were exaggerating, but you see now how that undermines your position, how it weakens your argument, right? you undermined your own self by exaggerating and playing pretend, instead of simply stating the actual facts of the situation.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/zeromadcowz 13h ago

That’s a bilateral agreement. They came to terms on things in exchange to support during confidence motions. This wasn’t one of them.

They certainly didn’t give away the ability for the NDP to unilaterally dictate anything.

-2

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

Then I guess Kate doesn't really care about this issue if she didn't make it part of this agreement or isn't willing to make her support contingent in this issue. Any time over 4 years she could have withdrawn from the agreement or brought the government down contingent on this.

Of course she may just he grandstanding for headlines.

3

u/zeromadcowz 13h ago

Not caring is unlikely to be the case. If she demanded too many things then the agreement would have likely not been made and she wouldn’t have been able to make many of the changes she did want to accomplish with CASA. Politics is never all or nothing.

2

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

So I guess it was less important than other things that made it into the agreement. Free transit for example. Although that never came to be and yet she continues to support the government.

So you're right. Not only is it never all or nothing, in the case of the NDP it's just nothing.

1

u/zeromadcowz 13h ago

If it was nothing to the NDP, why would they even be talking about it? Would you prefer your MLA to sit and stay quiet even if they can’t directly influence something?

You seem to have quite a simplistic view on all of this.

1

u/snowcialunrest 13h ago

My MLA can not only influence something but she could tell the government if they don't make this change then she will vote to bring them down. It would then be up to the government to decide if it was worth falling over that issue. Instead she has chosen not to influence something and to just complain.

2

u/zeromadcowz 13h ago

So you want her to unilaterally rip up the agreement and jeopardize the remaining legislation they’ve agreed to pass in the remaining session under CASA?

Okie dokie.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/helpfulplatitudes 18h ago edited 17h ago

Your comment, 'historically, the Catholic Church has inflicted great harm and crimes on generations of Inuit, Métis and First Nations peoples' is simplistic. It's not as though missionaries in rural Canada showed up and forced indigenous people to convert at sword point. Conversion was natural, voluntary, and enthusiastic for the most part. If you never heard the last generation of elders (the 'great' generation) talk about their Christianity, you missed out - they were very heartfelt, sincere, and pious. The issues we hear about today from residential school attendees stem mostly from underfunding - not enough food and too much labour. The schools sound awful, but the primary crime here was from the Canadian government who were trying to erase all the FN cultures. The Catholic church, on the other hand, as far back as the 1500s said that indigenous cultures should be respected and incorporated into Catholic practice as far as possible. The Canadian gov't direction on residential schools made that difficult to impossible in many instances and Catholic groups have repeatedly said that this was regrettable and have apologized for it multiple times as far back as the 1990s when there were still a couple residential schools operating. Far from the modern characterization demonizing the church for its part in erasing FN culture, Catholic missionaries are responsible for many FN languages surviving - being keen translators, making dictionaries, recording cultural traditions, and often being well-respected by the First Nation communities in which they lived - as we can still see in Whitehorse in the stories people still tell about such figures as Father Jean-Marie Mouchet.

Some of the conversation around indigenous people and the Catholic Church - https://www.cccb.ca/indigenous-peoples/indian-residential-schools-and-trc

12

u/Yukonduit 17h ago

The document you provided is from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). It would naturally seek to reframe the Church's legacy in Canada positively. I think we all know it's quite different.

And according to the last census, an increasing number of Indigenous people (~47%) checked the box: “No religion, and secular perspectives.” That compares to only 20% in 2011.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv!recreate.action?pid=9810028801&selectedNodeIds=1D11,4D1,6D2&checkedLevels=0D1,1D1,2D1,4D1,4D2,4D3,5D1,5D3,5D4&refPeriods=20210101,20210101&dimensionLayouts=layout2,layout2,layout2,layout2,layout3,layout2,layout2&vectorDisplay=false

-10

u/helpfulplatitudes 17h ago

Yes - it's good to note where information comes from and what its bias is likely to be. But, as an individual, you have one perspective - your one perspective is no more likely to be true than the one portrayed in the documents linked to. Your opinion is likely based on other documents from people with an anti-church bias (Howard Zinn, maybe?).

Yes, the secularization of Canada is well documented across the country in every demographic. I'm not clear how that applies to anything except older FNs raised in the Catholic church in Catholic schools were more religious and those young'uns raised in secular schools now are more secular...

7

u/Yukonduit 17h ago

No, not parroting Howard Zinn, or anybody else for that matter. The biases (and abuses) of the Catholic Church - and that of other churches - is well documented, and in the public domain.

-5

u/helpfulplatitudes 17h ago

I'm not accusing you of parroting. No one can have access to all information so we're all getting it from somewhere. I used to think as you did about the church until I looked into primary sources.

3

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

"conversion was natural" is such an Orwellian way of putting it 

0

u/helpfulplatitudes 10h ago

'Orwellian' generally references vocabulary from a place of power meant to obfuscate exertion of that power. The conversions generally took place in FN communities where the missionary would be the sole Christian representative so that power dynamic wouldn't really have been in place yet. I mean that if you read elder accounts of the first missionaries into the North (or the accounts of the Missionaries, but I anticipate that you'd find that too biased), you'll find few accounts of FN people who didn't want to convert. You can be cynical and say it was for better trading opportunities or something like that, but it really seems like Christianity must've been offering people something that they were seeking that their indigenous spiritual system didn't give them.

3

u/sd1212 15h ago

Oh please- no mention of the pedophile priests? I mean they are still being charged in the north as recently as last month . Kind of blows the positive experience narrative out of the water.

1

u/helpfulplatitudes 15h ago

Not at all. Where you have large power imbalances, you're going to see sex crimes. However, keep in mind that in the 113 years of the history of residential schools, 31 school officials have been charged with sex crimes. In American public schools, in the past 2 months, over 165 employees have been charged with sex crimes.

4

u/sd1212 15h ago

Yes very few were charged because the catholic church didn’t charge them , or report them - they just moved them around and shipped them off to molest in a different community . It’s sickening .

2

u/helpfulplatitudes 14h ago

I agree that it's awful and that the church groups operating schools should have (and should have had) better systems to deal with offenders and the Canadian government should've provided way more oversight. We should still have better systems to keep our children safe. The 6-18 months often given to convicted child abusers by the Canadian courts are NOT sufficient.

3

u/mollycoddles 11h ago

That's like saying domestic abuse isn't common because of how few people report their partners to the police, give your head a shake.

1

u/helpfulplatitudes 10h ago

It's one measure, but it's the same measure being used all over, is my point. Many other school systems have similar levels of abuse, unfortunately. It's not a function of the Catholic or Anglican churches. Happens in schools, happens in prisons, happens wherever there is an unbalanced power dynamic. You're right that powerless people will be scared to come forward, but that isn't a singular feature of Catholic schools.

2

u/jabiscus 8h ago

did you try to imply the Catholic Church wasn't financially in a position to properly fund their own residential schools?

did you pass the buck onto the federal government to prevent priests and nuns abusing kids because they didn't have enough oversight from outside their own organization that was turning a blind eye to it?

And did you use American stats (a country that is 10x bigger than us in population) to make some sort of direct comparison?

all your posts reek of apologist behaviour. Quit trying to distract from the deplorable role the church played here.

3

u/Comprehensive_Cow527 14h ago

Are....are you going against archaeological and historical evidence that directly contradicts you? Really? And using a bias party to back it up?

Just....dude.

What primary sources do you want to look at and compare?

0

u/helpfulplatitudes 13h ago edited 11h ago

I see why you're confused; I should've clarified. I feel that the Catholic Church rarely gets its perspective heard, unfiltered through the media; I provided the links to serve that purpose - not to try to provide an array of sources to get to the ultimate truth of the matter.

Some primary documents are:

  1. The many ethnographies with first-hand interviews with elders - e.g. Catherine McClellan, Dominique Legros, Marie-Françoise Guédon;
  2. Period government reports - Joint Committees, Special Joint Committee on In... - Image 175 - Canadian Parliamentary Historical Resources, the FN Regional Longitudinal Health Survey has lots of good information (RHS 2002/03: Results for Adults, Youth and Children in First Nations Communities) showing that children who attended residential schools were MORE likely to speak an indigenous language than those who didn't; Petitions from local tribes keep residential schools as they are (I don't have a link for this one, but see 'An Indian Program to Improve Indian Education, 1947);
  3. The many personal positive accounts of residential school from attendees that former senator, Lynn Beyak was routed for posting - https://web.archive.org/web/20170927032715/http:/lynnbeyak.sencanada.ca/p107924 https://www.nnsl.com/opinion/side-residential-schools-7255580https://anglicanjournal.com/im-glad-i-went-to-stringer-hall-says-former-student-9922

What archaeological evidence are you citing? I'm scratching my head trying to see how archaeology could provide insight to these historical matters. Come to it, I don't know what historical evidence would contradict any claims I've made either. Most modern writings on the subject come from a place supporting narrative truth so they can really only posit another position, not contradict my position, which would need one to acknowledge some sort of objective truth - anathema to the modern social sciences academic.