Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

750 million dollars is committed to compensate for indigenous children being taken from their families in 1960s.


Recommended Posts

The Federal government has committed 750 million dollars to compensate children who were taken from their families and adopted by non-native families in the 1960s.  I believe the Supreme Court may also have ruled in favour of natives effected by this.  I have a lot of concern about this and wonder if it is the correct direction to take.  Provincial governments did this over 50 years ago and now Canada is being blamed for taking these children away from their culture.  I believe the people that lived at that time, the governments, social workers, believed they were acting in the best interests of the children to protect their welfare.  I know from a little personal experience that some of those children were in danger of harm if left in their situation.  So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm?  Now we are being forced to pay 750 million dollars for the alleged mistakes of past governments in Canada.  I understand Liberals today think these children had been taken away from their culture but what was the alternative?   How else could the government and social workers have protected children at that time.  I think the same problems exist today and some children are being apprehended from native homes to take them to a safe location.  Perhaps they are not being adopted any more, but may be put in foster care temporarily.   Another 50 million is being set aside for reconciliation.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites

If your post had the tiniest bit of truth to it, it would be worth addressing. 

When dark skinned people commit crimes, the rule of law is of utmost importance, it is essential to a well ordered society; when white men commit the most heinous of crimes, truth and reconciliation are the popular buzzwords. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I believe the people that lived at that time, the governments, social workers, believed they were acting in the best interests of the children to protect their welfare.  I know from a little personal experience that some of those children were in danger of harm if left in their situation.  So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm?

If you look into it you will find that the situation on reserves was totally desperate. Their rationale for removing the children from reserves was to save them from slow death by starvation and disease. Schools were run in a manner that was considered typical in those days. White children were also beaten with objects, eg. the "strap". Kids were abused physically, mentally, and sometimes sexually. However that does not mean that school was like a prison or torture chamber. Video footage shows children playing, smiling, laughing, wearing ribbons and doing things we would call quite normal.

Anyway what I heard this morning was a number of natives speaking out, saying no amount of compensation can ever help them. This is not about money, and they are not satisfied. They talk about wanting "healing". In that case, this money has been completely wasted. The government just took a wad of cash and threw it at them in the hopes the issue can be put to rest, but it's clear it won't be. A useless Liberal solution. Mindlessness. Reactionary. That 800 Mill could have done a lot of good if it had been used for something else.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Anyway what I heard this morning was a number of natives speaking out, saying no amount of compensation can ever help them. This is not about money, and they are not satisfied. They talk about wanting "healing". In that case, this money has been completely wasted. The government just took a wad of cash and threw it at them in the hopes the issue can be put to rest, but it's clear it won't be. A useless Liberal solution. Mindlessness. Reactionary. That 800 Mill could have done a lot of good if it had been used for something else.

But it's so easy to throw away other people's money. Politicians have absolutely no incentive to spend money wisely. Any possible consequences are for future generations to deal with, long after their political careers are over. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Convicted war criminal Omar Khadr got a lot more than these native victims....no surprise there.

And why not? Again, so easy to just throw money away. 

I think the lack of incentive for politicians and bureaucrats to spend money wisely is one of the biggest problems with modern democracy. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The government just took a wad of cash and threw it at them in the hopes the issue can be put to rest, but it's clear it won't be. A useless Liberal solution. Mindlessness. Reactionary. That 800 Mill could have done a lot of good if it had been used for something else.

Identifying who is entitled to this compensation will be quite a challenge. I read it is expected that 25K to 50K will be paid to each individual. That's quite the spread in anticipated payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

If you look into it you will find that the situation on reserves was totally desperate. Their rationale for removing the children from reserves was to save them from slow death by starvation and disease. Schools were run in a manner that was considered typical in those days. White children were also beaten with objects, eg. the "strap". Kids were abused physically, mentally, and sometimes sexually. However that does not mean that school was like a prison or torture chamber. Video footage shows children playing, smiling, laughing, wearing ribbons and doing things we would call quite normal.

Anyway what I heard this morning was a number of natives speaking out, saying no amount of compensation can ever help them. This is not about money, and they are not satisfied. They talk about wanting "healing". In that case, this money has been completely wasted. The government just took a wad of cash and threw it at them in the hopes the issue can be put to rest, but it's clear it won't be. A useless Liberal solution. Mindlessness. Reactionary. That 800 Mill could have done a lot of good if it had been used for something else.

Exactly.  The money could have been better used to fix the drinking water systems in the dozens of reserves that have bad water and some other things.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, blackbird said:

...  So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm?  Now we are being forced to pay 750 million dollars for the alleged mistakes of past governments in Canada.  I understand Liberals today think these children had been taken away from their culture but what was the alternative?   How else could the government and social workers have protected children at that time.  I think the same problems exist today and some children are being apprehended from native homes to take them to a safe location.  Perhaps they are not being adopted any more, but may be put in foster care temporarily.   Another 50 million is being set aside for reconciliation.  

You have it wrong.  The money isn't  being paid out because these kids were adopted out or fostered out. That was fine, for the reasons you suggest:  protection from harm.   The money is being paid out for what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . 

The court decision that caused this payout is available here Superior Court of Justice - Ontario, Brown vs Attorney General of Canada viewable at the bottom of the linked CBC story.

 

Edited by Peter F
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter F said:

You have it wrong.  The money isn't  being paid out because these kids were adopted out or fostered out. That was fine, for the reasons you suggest:  protection from harm.   The money is being paid out for what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . 

The court decision that caused this payout is available here Superior Court of Justice - Ontario, Brown vs Attorney General of Canada viewable at the bottom of the linked CBC story.

 

I took a look at your link.  It says " "The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs. "

I don't agree that Canadian taxpayers are responsible for all these problems.  The fact is these same problems exist equally among natives living on reserves and off reserves, who were never taken by social services and placed in foster homes.  So why did they focus strictly on the so-called "scooped children"?  Because that was what the court case was all about and that was the evidence presented by the "plaintiff's experts".  They were not looking at the broader situation of the native population in Canada because they were only trying to make a case for the "scooped children".  You have to understand how lawyers operate in court cases and only bring "experts" to support their side of the case.

They were not looking at the reality that the same problems exist with the rest of the native population. There is something like 90% unemployment on reserves, widespread substance abuse, a greater proportion of native offenders in prisons, dysfuntional families, sexual abuse, murders, and many suicides of native people.  These people were never adopted.  How would you explain that fact?

There are probably a variety of reasons why many natives have these problems.  It could be partly due to the change in lifestyle of natives in the last few hundred years as they evolved from the previous system of living off the land to the reserve system after the coming of Europeans to north America.  It could be related to the reserve system.  It could be a lack of education and job opportunities, which are few on reserves.  Dysfunctional family problems could be a kind of inherited social problem.  For whatever reason they have the same problems whether some were adopted by white families or not.  That is just an excuse to bilk taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars.  Canadians taxpayers already support natives with billions of dollars a year through the department of aboriginal affairs budget for native bands.   This could have more to do with buying votes and part of Trudeau's misguided efforts toward "reconciliation".  Another expensive squandering of taxpayer money and an attempt to divide and conquer.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I

Quote

took a look at your link.  It says " "The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff's experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of Aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides," he said, siding with the plaintiffs. "

Sure. That was in para 7 of the summary of the "Background" . The  Background goes on though to say...

[9] All of this, however, is background and is not determinative of the legal issue that is before the court. The court is not being asked to point fingers or lay blame. The court is not being asked to decide whether the Sixties Scoop was the result of a well-intentioned governmental initiative implemented in good faith and informed by the norms and values of the day, or was, as some maintain, state-sanctioned “culture/identity genocide”10 that was driven by racial prejudice to “take the savage out of the Indian children.”11 This is a debate that is best left to historians and, perhaps, to truth and reconciliation commissions.

[10] The issue before this court is narrower and more focused. The question is whether Canada can be found liable in law for the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity after they were placed in non-aboriginal foster and adoptive homes.

the judge then goes on to state what the issue is before him. 

 

(1) Did the Federal Crown have a fiduciary or common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent on-reserve Indian children in Ontario who were placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents from losing their aboriginal identity?

(2) If so, did the Federal Crown breach such fiduciary or common law duty of care?12

 

note what is said in para 12. :

The actual apprehension and removal of the children from the reserves by provincial child-care workers is not an issue that is before the court.

and para 13:

 

[13] Put simply, the common issue asks whether Canada had and breached any fiduciary or common law duties (when it entered into the 1965 Agreement or over the course of the class period) to take reasonable steps in the post-placement period to prevent the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity.

 

So, you see, the issue isn't that the children were removed but was was the governments responsibility towards the removed children once they were removed.

like I said , this is not about the removal of children from the reserves for their well - being and safety but  what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter F said:

I

Sure. That was in para 7 of the summary of the "Background" . The  Background goes on though to say...

[9] All of this, however, is background and is not determinative of the legal issue that is before the court. The court is not being asked to point fingers or lay blame. The court is not being asked to decide whether the Sixties Scoop was the result of a well-intentioned governmental initiative implemented in good faith and informed by the norms and values of the day, or was, as some maintain, state-sanctioned “culture/identity genocide”10 that was driven by racial prejudice to “take the savage out of the Indian children.”11 This is a debate that is best left to historians and, perhaps, to truth and reconciliation commissions.

[10] The issue before this court is narrower and more focused. The question is whether Canada can be found liable in law for the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity after they were placed in non-aboriginal foster and adoptive homes.

the judge then goes on to state what the issue is before him. 

 

(1) Did the Federal Crown have a fiduciary or common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent on-reserve Indian children in Ontario who were placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents from losing their aboriginal identity?

(2) If so, did the Federal Crown breach such fiduciary or common law duty of care?12

 

note what is said in para 12. :

The actual apprehension and removal of the children from the reserves by provincial child-care workers is not an issue that is before the court.

and para 13:

 

[13] Put simply, the common issue asks whether Canada had and breached any fiduciary or common law duties (when it entered into the 1965 Agreement or over the course of the class period) to take reasonable steps in the post-placement period to prevent the class members’ loss of aboriginal identity.

 

So, you see, the issue isn't that the children were removed but was was the governments responsibility towards the removed children once they were removed.

like I said , this is not about the removal of children from the reserves for their well - being and safety but  what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . 

Holding the federal government (which in reality means the Canadian taxpayers) responsible for an alleged loss of "cultural identity" is a classical liberal judge's interpretation of the Charter.  The charter of rights has been used as an excuse to give unheard of rights or grant claims that heretofore never existed.  They are simply not even stated in the Charter of Rights.  That is once again a case of judge's making laws out of thin air.  Liberal judges think it is their right to make laws.  Read the Supreme Court's chief judge Beverly McLaughlin's essay on what she believe is a judge's responsibility.  She actually has a very similar ideology. 

The government should have fought this right up through the Supreme Court, but as in the Kadr case, they just gave in because they are liberals.  This country is in serious trouble.  We cannot afford the billions of dollars Trudeau is handing out.  He could care less for the average Canadian.  We need a new Constitution with realism and a different approach by judges.

I don't know whether you are left of centre,  conservative, or liberal in thinking.  But if you are liberal which includes left of centre when it comes to native rights, you might believe that it is everyone's responsibility to bend over backwards and use as much taxpayer money as necessary to "protect identity".  I don't agree.  Canada is made up of immigrants who came from other lands and cultures.  Most of them are influenced by living in Canada, a western culture.  Many from alien cultures don't live in Canada like they may have lived where they came from.  They may wear western clothes, watch movies made in the U.S.

What aboriginal identity was the government supposed to protect and how were they supposed to do that?   I whole idea is far-fetched and just a money grab by special interest groups, which Trudeau and Liberals are more than happy to pay with taxpayer's money to win the favour of some minorities.

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys haven't actually read the decision.  The judge spells out what the Gov.of.Canada should have done - by the Gov.of.Canada's own reckoning to boot:

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I wonder how it would have been done otherwise, since the whole point of it was to remove them from the reserves. Most of them were too young to have established their aboriginal identity.

 

Quote

 

Obligation to consult under section 2(2)

[20] Ontario’s undertaking to extend the provincial welfare programs as set out in s. 2(1) was made “subject to (2).” Sub-section 2(2) of the Agreement said this:

No provincial welfare program shall be extended to any Indian Band in the Province unless that Band has been consulted by Canada or jointly by Canada and by Ontario and has signified its concurrence.

[21] It is obvious not only from the plain meaning of this provision but also from the circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1965 Agreement that the obligation to consult with Indian Bands and secure their concurrence was intended to be a key component of the Agreement. One only has to consider what was said in a background memorandum prepared by Canada for use at the 1963 Federal-Provincial Conference:

The utmost care must be taken ... to ensure that the Indians are not again presented with a fait accompli in the form of a blueprint for their future which they have had no part in developing and which they have been given no opportunity to influence. This means that the Federal Government should make crystal clear that before any final arrangements are made, the Indians must be fully consulted.

[22] Consider as well what was said by Mr. Tremblay, the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in October 1964 to the Federal-Provincial Conference, as summarized in the minutes of the meeting:

Consultation with Indians. Mr. Tremblay, in introducing this topic, said that it is an extremely important one as the success of any federal- provincial effort to extend a provincial service will depend on the Indians accepting the proposal and participating in its development. From past experience, we believe acceptance and cooperation by the Indians will not be secured without adequate consultation with them.

[23] And, in a “circular” dated December 9, 1964, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Indian Affairs Branch of the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration advised his federal colleagues that he would view it as a “serious breach of faith with the Indian people if any provincial services were forced on a Band against its wishes”:

It is departmental policy ... to encourage the extension of provincial services to reserves in those areas where Provinces are competent to provide services but under no circumstances must action be taken towards this end – that is to actually extend a service to a reserve – without the consent of the Indians concerned ...

If an agreement can be arrived at, the next step will be to explain it to each individual Band in the Province and to ascertain whether the Band wishes the provincial service extended to it. If it is unacceptable to any Band, no extension of that particular service will be made to that Band and the service provided by the Federal Government will continue.

It is important that the Indians understand Federal policy in this regard and this circular may be helpful to you in your future discussions with them.

I would consider it to be a serious breach of faith with the Indian people if any provincial services were forced on a Band against its wishes. (Emphasis added).

 

and so the judge concludes that Canada had a duty to consult. This duty, that the Government was aware of, went unfulfilled from 1965 when the practice began to 1980 when the Feds finally took up their duty.

Theres much  more in the decision that explains this and why the failure of the Governments common-law duty to natives resulted in harm. Thus the settlement.

Folks should actually read this decision and not jump to a bunch of conclusions about what they think it says.

Edited by Peter F
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Peter F said:

You guys haven't actually read the decision.  The judge spells out what the Gov.of.Canada should have done - by the Gov.of.Canada's own reckoning to boot:

Thanks for that. I don't see how it would have ensured they maintain their cultural identity under the care of their adoptive parents. Also if I understand it correctly it implies the fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the Indian bands. That seems like two separate issues, whereas earlier you stated the problem wasn't due to the children being removed:

14 hours ago, Peter F said:

You have it wrong.  The money isn't  being paid out because these kids were adopted out or fostered out. That was fine, for the reasons you suggest:  protection from harm.   The money is being paid out for what the federal government didn't do but knew they should have done . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 5:42 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Convicted war criminal Omar Khadr got a lot more than these native victims....no surprise there.

A kangaroo court run by war criminals/terrorists in a black hole torture chamber run by those same war criminals/terrorists cannot convict anyone. Americans constantly lie, he pled guilty as that was the fastest way to get away from such despicable humans, the very people who regularly commit genocide, who have a long history of genocide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 4:24 PM, OftenWrong said:

Their rationale for removing the children from reserves was to save them from slow death by starvation and disease.

No, that's just flat out false. The goal was forced assimilation, and forcing natives to act "white".

Sir John A Macdonald...

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

“When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men."

 

And John A Macdonald again...

Quote

"The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.”

 

And Duncan Scott, minister of Indian affairs... 1910.

Quote

It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem.

The last quote illustrates the silliness of your claim. The government of Canada knew full well that it was destroying the lives of many natives they just didnt care. They wanted a final solution to the Indian problem. They wanted to eradicate their culture, and make them act white, plain and simple. It had nothing at all to do with helping natives or native children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Thanks for that. I don't see how it would have ensured they maintain their cultural identity under the care of their adoptive parents. Also if I understand it correctly it implies the fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the Indian bands. That seems like two separate issues, whereas earlier you stated the problem wasn't due to the children being removed:

 

That is correct: The fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the bands.  The judge heard testimony describing the harm done by the fact that the bands were not consulted nor the taken child informed nor their adoptive/foster parents informed of the childs origin. This led to the harm of loss of cultural identity. That testimony was undisputed by the Government. 

So the harm was not caused by the taking but by the refusal to consult the band and by their refusal to inform the child and their guardians. Up until 1980 , it seems, when the government then started consulting/informing.   

As for cultural identity, I don't think anyone expected the guardians to raise them as natives. But, as the judge points out, to keep the child and the guardians in the dark regarding the childs heritage was certainly a failure of the governments duty, which they seem to have recognized in 1980 and after.   That harm was actual real harm: The government claimed they were keeping the childs due treaty money in trust until the child reached the age of majority. Then made no effort to inform the child nor the guardians that they were doing so. Same goes for the native education benefits. The child and guardian were left in the dark on that too. Those things were the childs birthright. Much like any other adoptive childs inheritance.  

It wasn't the taking itself, but what the government failed to do that caused the harm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peter F said:

That is correct: The fault lay in taking the kids without consulting the bands.  The judge heard testimony describing the harm done by the fact that the bands were not consulted nor the taken child informed nor their adoptive/foster parents informed of the childs origin. This led to the harm of loss of cultural identity. That testimony was undisputed by the Government. 

So the harm was not caused by the taking but by the refusal to consult the band and by their refusal to inform the child and their guardians. Up until 1980 , it seems, when the government then started consulting/informing.   

As for cultural identity, I don't think anyone expected the guardians to raise them as natives. But, as the judge points out, to keep the child and the guardians in the dark regarding the childs heritage was certainly a failure of the governments duty, which they seem to have recognized in 1980 and after.   That harm was actual real harm: The government claimed they were keeping the childs due treaty money in trust until the child reached the age of majority. Then made no effort to inform the child nor the guardians that they were doing so. Same goes for the native education benefits. The child and guardian were left in the dark on that too. Those things were the childs birthright. Much like any other adoptive childs inheritance.  

It wasn't the taking itself, but what the government failed to do that caused the harm. 

Somehow the idea of asking permission to remove a child does not work well. Children's Aid does not ask the parents permission, it's a moot point. But they should have handled the whole episode completely differently, yes. So there should be blame and something done to compensate. Throwing them a few bucks didn't help much.

The fact that it was not contested by this government is certainly no surprise...

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎06 at 2:13 PM, blackbird said:

The Federal government has committed 750 million dollars to compensate children who were taken from their families and adopted by non-native families in the 1960s.  I believe the Supreme Court may also have ruled in favour of natives effected by this.  I have a lot of concern about this and wonder if it is the correct direction to take.  Provincial governments did this over 50 years ago and now Canada is being blamed for taking these children away from their culture.  I believe the people that lived at that time, the governments, social workers, believed they were acting in the best interests of the children to protect their welfare.  I know from a little personal experience that some of those children were in danger of harm if left in their situation.  So what were the provincial government's social services workers supposed to do in the circumstances where they believe children were in danger of harm?  Now we are being forced to pay 750 million dollars for the alleged mistakes of past governments in Canada.  I understand Liberals today think these children had been taken away from their culture but what was the alternative?   How else could the government and social workers have protected children at that time.  I think the same problems exist today and some children are being apprehended from native homes to take them to a safe location.  Perhaps they are not being adopted any more, but may be put in foster care temporarily.   Another 50 million is being set aside for reconciliation.  

This will just go on and on and on. More tax dollars blown and nothing solved. The taxpayer's of this country have been paying out hundreds of millions of tax dollars in compensation to the Indians for decades now and we still cannot solve the problem of the plight of the Indian. The Indians have had plenty of time and been given plenty of tax dollars to fix their dilemma and what have they done with all that money? Pizzed it away, I say. With all the tax dollars that they have been given all these decades they all should be millionaires by now.

All politicians will do what politicians do best. Blow tax dollars because that is what they are trained to do. They never solve anything but add more to the problem. What our politicians need to start doing is use more common sense and logic rather that payoffs, emotionalism and foolish talk and actions. Apologize and payoffs to the Indians will never work no matter how many times politicians keep trying. The Indians will always whine. It is in their nature because they will not try to forget about the past. What happened to them happened to them and that cannot be rectified no matter how much they whine about it. White people have been crapped on by their own white politicians just as much but life must go on because that will never change also. I have been whining and crying about what politicians are and have been doing to Canada for decades now and where has it got me? Nowhere because they don't  care or listen. So, the Indians need to stop complaining because they whining will always fall on deaf politician ears. That is the nature of the politician beast.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dre said:

No, that's just flat out false. The goal was forced assimilation, and forcing natives to act "white".

Sir John A Macdonald...

 

And John A Macdonald again...

 

And Duncan Scott, minister of Indian affairs... 1910.

The last quote illustrates the silliness of your claim. The government of Canada knew full well that it was destroying the lives of many natives they just didnt care. They wanted a final solution to the Indian problem. They wanted to eradicate their culture, and make them act white, plain and simple. It had nothing at all to do with helping natives or native children.

No it was not flat out false. History is true. However the information you gave is quite a bit before this event which took place in 1960, not the days of Sir John A which was around 100 years earlier. It's too bad they were unable to find a way to help the Indians assimilate way back then, and still have not up to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dre said:

No, that's just flat out false. The goal was forced assimilation, and forcing natives to act "white".

Sir John A Macdonald...

 

And John A Macdonald again...

 

And Duncan Scott, minister of Indian affairs... 1910.

The last quote illustrates the silliness of your claim. The government of Canada knew full well that it was destroying the lives of many natives they just didnt care. They wanted a final solution to the Indian problem. They wanted to eradicate their culture, and make them act white, plain and simple. It had nothing at all to do with helping natives or native children.

We're talking about social services taking children from abusive or dysfunctional families in the 1960s.  This had nothing to do with John A Macdonald, who live 100 years before that.  It had nothing to do with assimilation.  It was provincial authorities,, the social services department who is responsible for the welfare of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Somehow the idea of asking permission to remove a child does not work well. Children's Aid does not ask the parents permission, it's a moot point. But they should have handled the whole episode completely differently, yes. So there should be blame and something done to compensate. Throwing them a few bucks didn't help much.

The fact that it was not contested by this government is certainly no surprise...

They did contest it!  see the case of Brown vs. the Attorney General for Canada. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...