Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Page 8

Residential school survivors across Canada are irate after reading an interview with United Church of Canada researcher John Siebert in the National Post that contends the residential school system was introduced to help First Nations children, not to assimilate them. The researcher also said television is to blame for the loss of Native cultures, not the 88 church-run Indian residential school's across Canada.

"Siebert's mandate from the United Church was to minimize the effects and concerns over residential schools," said Alberni Indian Residential School survivor Art Thompson. "His statements show a whole other side of ignorance. It shows the magnitude of the church's desperation."

For the federal Crown to compensate plaintiffs for broad issues of cultural loss because of the small minority of status Indians who attended residential schools would be nonsensical, Siebert is quoted in the Post (March 17). He claims most First Nations children did not attend residential schools, as documents he gathered from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs archives show only 7,100 children attended residential schools between 1890 and 1965.

"If residential schools are a train, I don't think you can load that train with all the baggage of cultural loss. They weren't even the major educational vehicle for most people," Siebert said.

The United Church of Canada was quick to distance themselves from their former employee, writing a response document.

"The articles in the National Post are based on the notion that federal files on residential schools contain sufficient evidence to prove that residential schools are not the prime cause of cultural loss and social instability in Native communities today. It would be understandable if the innocent reader of the National Post were to arrive at the conclusion that they were a minimal part of the cause. This certainly seems to be the intent of the argument put forward in the National Post," writes United Church of Canada senior advisor Brian Thorpe in a response article posted on www.uccan.org

"What is of much greater importance is the almost complete reliance on documents in federal archives in advancing that argument. Almost all of these documents were authored by federal bureaucrats or school administrators with the occasional letter from an ecclesiastical bureaucrat thrown into the mix. This gives rise to an important question. Where is the Aboriginal voice in the federal archives? Where in the archives do the children who were at the school tell their story? ... written documents never represent anything more than a partial rendering of the truth. Written by those in charge they rarely reflect the lived experience of those involved."

The pain suffered by people is much more important than any report Siebert can do, said Thompson.

"Siebert can never uncover anything about residential schools in a box of papers."

Joe Tom is supervisor of the Nuu-chah-nulth Residential School Healing Project. He said Siebert takes one particular view- government records- and fails to see other evidence, such as loss of language, culture, parenting skills and the teachings of Elders.

"All these things were strictly prohibited in the residential school system," Tom said.

"A child spends 10 months in a school without any contact with their language, their culture, their parents and their families. They spent two months each summer at home. So if you multiply that over a 10-year schooling period, that means that out of 10 years they've spent less than two years learning from their parents, grandparents and Elders about their culture, language, traditions, history, and who they are as people."