[ad_1]
Warning: This story contains outdated language and discusses physical and sexual abuse in residential schools.
In March 1965, Catholic educator Robert J. Today, this is an interview that some people might find harsh.
The host began, “Mr. Carney at a teacher meeting not long ago, you talked about a plan for your work at the Joseph B. Tyrell (JBT) school in Fort Smith.” “First of all, would you define a child with a cultural barrier for me?”
The reply is clear and direct.
“In the context of the Northwest, a child with cultural barriers is a child from a local background who has not been regularly attending school for a variety of reasons,” Carney said.
“He comes from a language background outside of English, and in school, he says three to four years. In many centers in southern Canada, many centers in subcultural groups, say in a working-class area of a big city, you’ll have children.”
Sixty years later, the father of liberal Mark Carney is causing debate among the Aboriginal people. The post circulating online mistakenly called him the principal of the Indian Resident School.
While this is wrong, it is true that the Joseph Burr Tyrrell School’s class action settlement was formally recognized as a federal Indian day school between 1948 and 1969 when it was transferred to the area.
It was also the true Aboriginal kid of Granding College and Breynat Hall residential school in Fort Smith, attending day school as the principal of Carney Beginning in 1962According to his paper and historical records, reviewed by CBC Indigenous people.
“The school in question is a school,” said Gwichyà Gwich’in, an associate professor of history and indigenous studies at the University of Alberta.
“Your mixture of white settler children and native children live in Fort Smith, as well as all the kids at Breynat Hall, a nearby residential school.”
In an interview in 1965, the father of 24 Canadian Prime Ministers discussed a plan for the federal day school in Fort Smith.
Fraser, along with historians Jackson Pind and Sean Carleton, co-wrote articles on Robert Carney’s legacy in this week’s blog event history. They told CBC’s indigenous people that are still unknown to day schools.
“We try to do these discussions in an effective way and don’t hurt survivors,” said Pind, assistant professor at the Trent University’s Chanie Wenjack School of Indigenous Studies.
“Looking at our legacy as Canadians, we are all tangled in this network of colonial education, both indigenous and non-indigenous.”
Unlock the network
Carney’s comments in a radio interview reflect the assimilatory attitudes that were common in Canadian society in 1965, especially among educators.
“It’s obviously a very harmful comment,” he said. Teachers at the time also often described their Indigenous students as “rewind.”
In the settlement in 2019, Ottawa admitted that the Indian day school system separated children from their families, deprived them of their legacy and suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse from many.
Later in the radio interview, Carney said: “We hope they don’t forget their origins, or their backgrounds, and instill a sense of pride and a sense of belonging: the culture they come from is a good culture.”
Historians say Robert Carney may indeed have left behind a complex legacy. As separatist elections intensified, they quickly thought that their father’s sin should not be placed on their sons, but they also said that Mark Carney should still speak out and settle his father’s legacy.
The liberal spokesperson did not do so directly in the statement provided.
Jenna Ghassabeh wrote: “The residential and day school system is an undeniable painful chapter in my history, and the real harm continues to this day. In the first few weeks of his tenure as Prime Minister, Mark Carney took important steps to ensure that promoting reconciliation is the fundamental commitment of our new administration.”
She added that the Carney Government would be informed through an indigenous perspective to understand these profound and lasting injustices and to work on the important work outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
From principal to scholar
Robert Carney became the chief principal of the New Jersey school from 1969 to 1971. From 1973 to 1975, he served as executive director of the Northern Alberta Development Commission. He served as Acting Director-General for Indian Affairs in Alberta in 1976.
In a 1991 church-managed study, Carney interviewed 240 former resident school students and eventually reported allegations of extreme physical abuse and allegedly suspected of sexual abuse in eight Arctic resident schools.
“There is no doubt that they have been hurt by what they have done or witnesses,” the University of Alberta University said in Canadian media.
But after the paper published its explosive headlines about pastors and rape, Carney clarified that it was more than just a “abuse report.” He wants to focus on the benefits.
“Many respondents expressed positive comments about their experiences in residency schools and hotels, while others regretted the excessive attention of negative events related to these institutions,” he wrote.
Sean Carleton, a settler historian and associate professor at the University of Manitoba, responded to the need to work hard to deal with Robert Carney’s role and defense in the system without the need to come to the party.
“We can learn about Robert Carney’s accomplices in this system. We can challenge his comments to defend resident schools as denialism. We can do better with Mark Carney in truth and reconciliation,” Carlton said.
On Early Schools and RCAP
After the church study, Robert Carney continued to argue that most missionaries doing in Indigenous education “aim to help Indigenous people adapt to changing circumstances.”
“Those who taught European values and skills to Aboriginal people during this time […] “Their goals are often failed to achieve, but their efforts in this regard cannot be seen as completely destructive or undesirable,” he wrote in 1995.
Mary Jane Logan McCallum, a professor at the University of Winnipeg and president of Canadian Studies at the Aboriginal, History and Archives, said the paper was a typical example of the era.
She was a student at the time and remembered being assigned articles like Carney’s. She said in an email that it was also when the lawsuit was attacking the church, “which made more of this kind of backlash for defense attorneys”.
“We now know that Canadians knew at the time that schools were intentionally underfunded by the church and the federal government; we know that because of this, it was suffering.”
“We know that the school has intentionally played a role in cultural disruption and linguistic agents. We know that both past and present relationships require compensation, so our prime minister is going to address this core issue.”
Carney’s scholarship on this topic continues. He criticized the unilateral and imbalances of the Royal Royal National Council in 1996.
“The problem is that the Aboriginal perspective is almost dominant,” Carney wrote. Therefore, he added: “Aboriginal schools are always cast with adverse light.”
“This is obviously a skewed account of these institutions and should be taken with caution because to quote one of its problems it tells only part of the story.”
Pind said it was frustrating to see a non-Indigenous person criticizing the first report of major Indigenous leaders regarding relations with the state as “tilt” because it was from an indigenous perspective.
Historians say it is unclear whether Robert Carney’s view was followed by this, when the settlement of Indian resident school settlements reached in 2006.
India’s 24-hour national Indian Resident School Crisis Line can be used to call 1-866-925-4419 to provide emotional and crisis recommendation services for survivors and affected persons.
Mental health counseling and crisis support can also be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, hoping to provide a health hotline via 1-855-242-3310 or via online chat.
[ad_2]
Source link
