Teachers nervous to teach.

[Queen K]

When I read that headline, I thought, omigod, it's Back to School Mania and someones concocted a story about how the information age has made it impossible for teachers to present information to students. Why? Because every student has the world in their hands anyways with google, wiki and thousands of alternative websites presenting information in a vastly different way. I had a text book like that in college classes, how one issue could be written so differently.

Here we have history as going by the wayside because teachers are "nervous" to say the wrong thing and risk getting forever labelled a racist, xenophobe, white supremists for teaching about the Canadian residential school history.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/20 ... s-to-teach

Coaches? Really?

How do they teach about the Labour history? European history? American History? Social Studies? Other Canadian ethnic history - chinese, japanese, East Indian, Finns, labour camps during the war, doukabours, and so many others. Coaches from each group?

In grade 7 we were given a social studies subject, mine was drugs. Did my parents freak and call the school? No, I did research and presented a paper.


I actually feel badly for teachers in todays hyper-information age.

[Ka-El]

Here we have history as going by the wayside because teachers are "nervous" to say the wrong thing and risk getting forever labelled a racist, xenophobe, white supremists for teaching about the Canadian residential school history.

It is a delicate situation, but a result of the fact our real history was already at risk of going by the wayside as evidenced by the many comments on various threads around this board. For example; “It’s ancient history, why can’t they just get over it?” I welcome the fact students today are going to get exposed to a much more accurate understanding of the issues and will be so much better informed than the average adult in our society. Some of the stuff they’ll be learning:

Negative images of Indigenous people are persistent and pervasive. They inform many of the stereotypes which are ingrained in Canadian society and contribute to the complicated interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

Cultural competence involves becoming aware of how we think and feel about, and behave toward, members of diverse cultural groups. The group may be defined by race, ethnicity, gender or some other identifiable social characteristic. How we treat a person based on membership to a group depends on our assumptions and beliefs about the group. Our actions may vary depending on the group a person belongs to.

The concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination provide some helpful terminology. Viewing a person in terms of generalizations based on membership in a group is stereotyping. Holding a judgmental attitude toward a person, based solely on membership in a group is prejudice. Treating a person differently, based on membership in a group is discriminating.

Stereotypes

According to Aronson and colleagues (2001), “A stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members."1 We stereotype when we think we know something about an individual simply because they belong to a group that we think we know something about.

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M. and Fehr, B. (2001). Social Psychology (Canadian Ed.). Toronto:
Pearson Education Canada Inc. (p. 500)

Let’s examine what stereotyping involves. First, we see others in terms of their membership to a particular group. These groups may be defined on the basis of a shared demographic characteristic, such as sex, race, age, appearance, sexual orientation, religion, place of residence, ability, or style of speech.

Next, we associate particular attributes with the people who belong to a particular group. For example, we may associate the attribute of being relationship-oriented with being a woman and we may associate the attribute of being activity-oriented with being a man.

The problem of stereotyping occurs, however, when we assume that all members of a group share the same attributes. Continuing with the example above, we stereotype when we assume that all women are relationship-oriented. It goes without saying that not all women are relationship-oriented. Even if most are, our stereotype will be incorrect when applied to those women who are not concerned with relationships at all. Unfortunately, we often carry on as if our stereotypes are accurate.

Exploring Prejudice and Bias

Prejudice is about the attitudes and judgments people have of others. It can, and often does, occur in the context of ethnic and/or racial differences.

Explicit Bias

Prejudice may be blatant or may be hidden. When prejudice is overt, it is easy to recognize. It may take the form of judgments such as the way people drive, their tendency for addiction, the speed at which they carry out tasks, their work ethic, or the way they raise their children. Such attitudes are referred to as explicit bias. These biases are explicit, whether or not they are openly expressed.

Implicit Bias

Implicit bias refers to thoughts and feelings that are outside a person's conscious awareness. In contrast to explicit bias, it is possible for a person to believe they do not have any biases or prejudice toward others. For example, you may have heard people say statements such as “I feel the same way toward all people regardless of how they look or the colour of their skin.” It suggests that the individual has moved beyond bias. While this may be something to aspire to, it may not be so easy to achieve. Literature suggests that biases occur in most people, even those who are convinced they are unbiased.

A core aspect of cultural competency is raising one’s awareness of personal beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Becoming aware of implicit bias, which is hidden from view, is a particularly important and challenging undertaking.

[Ka-El]

“You cannot discover an inhabited land. Otherwise I could cross the Atlantic and ‘discover’ England.” (Dehatkadons, Iroquois, 1992 as cited in Wright, 2005)

Colonial Perspectives

Knowledge of Canada’s colonial history is important because it has wide implications for understanding the socio-political realities of all Canadians and Indigenous people today.

When Europeans arrived in the 'New World’, they attempted to justify assumptions of political sovereignty and title to Indigenous lands on the basis of a reinterpretation of the doctrine of discovery. This doctrine was based on the notion of terra nullius – a Latin term referring to empty, essentially barren, and uninhabited land. Under norms of international law at the time of contact, the European ‘discovery’ of such land gave the discovering nation immediate sovereignty and all rights and title to the land. Over the course of time, however, the concept of terra nullius was extended to include lands that were not in possession of ‘civilized’ peoples or that were not being put to proper, ‘civilized’ use.2

This history contributes to a troubled relationship with Indigenous peoples. “These kinds of arguments which distorted the reality of the situation, converted cultural differences into inferiorities and continue to have impact on government policy and court proceedings up to the present day.”3 In other words, some of the early beliefs held by the first waves of European immigrants characterized Indigenous people as less than human.4 This contempt for Indigenous people manifested in a variety of ways.

Creating and sustaining this hierarchical relationship necessitated the cooperation of the Canadian state, settler societies, missionaries and others. The motivation to enact policy and practices was rooted in beliefs about imperialism – something also known as 'empire building'. The steep reduction of Indigenous populations could not have gone unnoticed by the European settlers and missionaries. If we keep in mind, however, that during that time period, Indigenous people were seen as less than human, then the apparent lack of concern and corresponding action may be understood.

Control of Indigenous Land

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 acknowledged Aboriginal title to the land and the need for treaties between the Crown and Indigenous Nations. These treaties defined how the lands would be shared and the nature of the relationship that would guide the process. First Nations people recognized collective rights to areas of land. Land was seen as sacred and it was protected for future generations. For First Nations people, the treaties were an agreement that ensured the survival of their people and protected their sovereignty and ways of life.

As settlement increased, the Canadian government became more focused on obtaining the rights to First Nation land in order to make way for European settlers.2 Instead of sharing the land and safeguarding languages, traditions and cultures, most treaties removed Indigenous people from the traditional territories which had informed their ways of life and living for millennia. As the Royal Commission on Indigenous Peoples notes, “Treaties and other agreements were, by and large, not covenants of trust and obligation but devices of statecraft, less expensive and more acceptable than armed conflict."3 Treaties were an memorandum of understanding, that were formally acknowledged but often ignored.Settlers viewed, and continue to view, land as a commodity that can be divided up, owned, controlled, and used to create wealth.

These approaches to the land represent significant differences in worldview and concepts of land ‘ownership’ between settlers and Indigenous people.

Over the centuries, First Nations communities raised concerns about the interpretations, application, violations and disrespect of these treaties, yet were unable to access the Canadian courts as a way to mediate these disputes. It was not until 1974 that the federal government created policy to address Indigenous treaty and land grievances. Prior to 1980, only one First Nation land claim had been settled by a formal government established claims process.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada reached the following unanimous decision:

"Put simply, Canada’s Indigenous peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered. Many bands reconciled their claims with the sovereignty of the Crown through negotiated treaties. Others, notably in British Columbia, have yet to do so. The potential rights embedded in the claims are protected by S.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The honour of the Crown requires that these rights be determined, recognized and respected"

.

[Ka-El]

Treaties in British Columbia

Historically, the only treaties to be completed in British Columbia were the Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island, and Treaty 8 in the northeast corner of British Columbia.6 This happened despite the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which decreed that First Nations should not be disturbed in their use and enjoyment of the land and that the Crown must negotiate treaties.7 Instead of negotiating treaties, the Canadian government established reserves for each tribe.
Treaty Rights

Before and since that time, a series of Supreme Court of Canada rulings on Indigenous rights recognized and affirmed existing Indigenous and treaty rights. The Supreme Court’s 1973 Calder decision was the first time that the Canadian legal system acknowledged the existence of Indigenous title to land, and that such title was not simply derived from, but existed outside of, colonial law.8

The Haida Nation and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia cases further determined that the Crown has a responsibility to consult and accommodate First Nations peoples, even if existing Indigenous title to the lands has not yet been proven in court.9,10

More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada granted B.C.'s Tsilhqot'in First Nation the title to land outside their reserve.11 Written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the unanimous ruling stated that Indigenous title:
"Occupation sufficient to ground Indigenous title is not confined to specific sites of settlement, but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty"

.

[Ka-El]

The Indian Act

"I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. That is my whole point. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department and that is the whole object of this Bill".1

The words of Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, reflected a prevailing worldview that provided the impetus for a phase of colonialism known as assimilation. During this phase, the Indian Act of 1876 was created to control First Nations people. It's authority, influence, and powers remain in effect today. The Indian Act did not, and does not today, apply to Inuit and Métis people although they experienced the impacts of colonization in similar ways to First Nations people.

The Indian Act rests on the principle “that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the state” and gives the state far-reaching powers that extend from birth to death, from defining how one is born or naturalized in Indian status, to administering the estate of an Indian following death.2,3
Over the last century, the Indian Act provided the legal framework through which the state has maintained control over Indigenous political structures, landholding patterns, and resource and economic development. It has been responsible for myriad oppressive controls including:

• defining who is legally entitled to be an 'Indian' person
• implementing the 'pass system' which prohibited people from leaving reserves
• restricting eligibility for voting
• determining whether one could own property

Status Indians were prohibited from attending university or hiring lawyers to challenge the expropriation of traditional lands. Cultural and spiritual practices, as wll as the use of traditional medicines, were made illegal and banned. These colonial policies and practices assail the very core of Indigenous values and traditions and, as a result, have had far reaching repercussions for generations of Indigenous people.

[Ka-El]

Indian Residential Schools

Indian Residential Schools were a particularly destructive colonial policy for Indigenous people. While the historical context differs, the impact on First Nations, Métis and Inuit was devastating.
The federally funded Indian Residential School system (IRS), which began in 1883, was a collaboration between the government of Canada and Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, United and Presbyterian churches.7 The Canadian government provided most of the operating funds for the Indian Residential Schools.8 One hundred and thirty industrial, boarding and residential schools operated in all territories and provinces except New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland.

The overall objective of Indian Residential Schools was to {{assimilate}} Indigenous children into settler society and prepare them for farming and domestic labour. The purpose of the schools was to “destroy the customs and beliefs of the Indian people; to civilize them and thus improve and elevate their character".1 In essence, this policy represented the Canadian government position that Indigenous people were "indifferent to the future of their children and incapable of raising them".2
By separating Indigenous children from their families, communities, cultures, and traditional territories, the Canadian state, missionaries and settlers believed that the children could be re-socialized to accept and practice what was believed to be a superior European culture and value system. Attendance at Indian Residential School was mandatory and parents who resisted sending their children away were often threatened with prosecution.3

Residential School officials subjected Indigenous children to sexual abuse, physical abuse, and malnourishment. Children were punished for speaking their native languages, practicing cultural traditions, and engaging in spiritual practices. Many children died as a result of the treatment they received in these institutions.4

In some Indian Residential Schools, nutritional experiments were conducted to examine the effects of dietary interventions on malnourished children. Indigenous children became part of the study because earlier research found that the amount of food available in most Indian Residential Schools was often half of what was required to maintain a balanced diet.5 Instead of increasing funding to provide adequate nutrition, officials instead chose to continue to starve children and conduct further experiments and investigations into the impact of malnutrition.6 In BC, nutritional experiments were carried out in the Alberni Indian Residental School in Port Alberni.

Attendance of Métis children in Indian Residential Schools varied by region and school, depending on whether the school needed more children to maximize funding. Children were selected based on how 'Indian' they were perceived to be, based on phenotype and connection to traditional ways of living.9

After 1950, almost all Inuit children were required to attend Residential Schools or federal hostels. The schools were usually far away from home and family. By June 1964, 75% of Inuit children and youth were enrolled in the Residential Schools.10
In 1969, the federal government transferred control of the IRS in the north to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.11 The government assumed responsibility for the rest of the IRS and began to close them, although a few schools and hostels remained open into the 1980's. St Mary's Indian Residential School in Mission B.C. did not close until 1984.

Indian Residential Schools were responsible for generations of Indigenous people who lost their sense of connection to culture and place. The negative impact of the abuses are felt to this day as Indigenous people work to regain their stolen history, land, language, culture and traditions.

[Ka-El]

Indian Hospitals and Sanatoria

Colonization created the circumstances for tuberculosis to become a major medical crisis within Indigenous communities. In the 1800s the loss of hunting-grounds, the bison slaughter, military invasions, and forced dislocations caused poverty, malnutrition and famine in Indigenous communities. As a result, tuberculosis rates soared. The Canadian government, who viewed Indigenous people as a “lost cause” and a “dying race destined to vanish", was reluctant to spend money on an “Indian problem” that most Canadian people cared little about.1

From its inception, the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) denied it had any legal obligation to provide healthcare. Rather than paying for the treatment of Indigenous people at hospitals serving White settler communities, the DIA preferred to subsidize substandard, segregated, and inexpensive Church-run medical facilities.2 The aim was to reduce costs and confine disease to Indian reservations and isolated areas.

Once it became clear that Indigenous people were not a “dying race,” government officials, doctors, and municipalities became concerned that tuberculosis would “spillover” into white communities.4 Fears regarding “Indian tuberculosis” reached almost hysterical proportions as medical experts claimed that infection rates were between ten and twenty times higher than infection rates in non-Indigenous settlers.5 Such exaggerated claims were underpinned by false notions that Indigenous people were especially susceptible to tuberculosis on account of their race.

While tuberculosis sanatoria had been established across Canada, Indigenous people were generally denied admittance.6 Indigenous people were subjected to coercive regulations and racist laws. The federal government passed legislation in the early 1950s that empowered police and medical authorities to apprehend, examine, and treat “Indians” who have communicable diseases.7,8 By refusing to submit to medical scrutiny and treatment, Indigenous people faced fines and imprisonment. Indian hospitals and sanatoria were not solely centres of medical treatment; they were part of the broader system of assimilation and colonization.

Much like residential schools, Indian hospitals and sanatoria undermined Indigenous worldviews and cultural practices. Indigenous people were generally denied contact with Elders and traditional healers, and received messages that their spiritual beliefs and ways of life were backwards and unhealthy.9 There is mounting evidence that Indian hospitals were rife with medical experimentation. New drugs, vaccinations, and surgeries were all tested on First Nations, Métis and Inuit without their knowledge or permission.10 Also disturbing is recent evidence that suggests an unknown number of Indigenous women were sterilized without their consent and against their wishes

[Ka-El]

Child Welfare

The practice of removing Indigenous children from their families increased in the 1960s, which resulted in a marked over-representation of Indigenous children in care. Researcher Patrick Johnson, in his 1983 report 'Native Children and the Child Welfare System', coined the term 'Sixties Scoop'. It refers to the mass removal of children from their families from the 1960s through to the mid 1980s.

At the height of the Scoop, one in four status Indian children were separated from their parents for all or part of their childhood; for non-status Métis children, one in three spent part of their childhood as legal wards of the state.1
In the 1960s, social workers, with assistance from others working in the justice system such as police, were expected to carry out their jobs with little training in working with Indigenous people. By the 1970s, approximately one-third of children in care were Indigenous and of those children, 70 percent had been placed in non-Indigenous homes, often their heritage was denied and kinship affiliations were severed.

It was not until years later that the need for cultural training was raised. In 1992, the Aboriginal Committee of the Family and Children’s Services Legislation Review Panel produced the report, 'Liberating our Children, Liberating our Nations', which outlined the negative consequences of removal for Indigenous children:

"Even the best of these homes are not healthy places for our children. Anglo-Canadian foster parents are not culturally equipped to create an environment in which a positive Aboriginal self-image can develop. In many cases, our children are taught to demean those things about themselves that are Aboriginal. Meanwhile, they are expected to emulate normal child development by imitating the role model behaviour of their Anglo-Canadian foster or adoptive parents".2

The forced removal of children and youth from their families and communities has been linked with high suicide rates, substance misuse, poverty, and chronic unemployment.3

Quesnel: Another Scoop

In 1996, following the proclamation of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (RSBC c.46, 1996), the BC Risk Assessment Model was made mandatory for [MCFD] social workers. The model emphasized risk and gave less emphasis to strengths and resilience. This may, in part, have contributed to an increase in the numbers of children in care from "7,600 children in September 1996 to approximately 9,000 by September 1998".4

In January and February 1998, an [MCFD] file audit was conducted at the Quesnel office and and on nearby First Nations Reserve lands. Based on the review, it was believed that many community children were at risk. To address the situation, social workers from Vancouver replaced the local workers and, with the assistance of the local RCMP, removed 70-80 children, many of whom were Indigenous.5 While the risk assessment model required workers to involve others in determining risks and cultural strengths prior to removal, that did not happen in this situation. A removal of this magnitude reverberated throughout the community and left yet another legacy.

[Ka-El]

The Judicial System

Historically, many judicial practices diminished Indigenous people's control over their lives by subjecting them to practices designed to keep them ‘in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards of the State'.1 As Celia Haig Brown states, “Acting through the power of organized religion and colonial governments, Canadians insisted that Aboriginal people should abandon their ways, languages, spiritual and economic systems, season movement to hunting and gathering places and most importantly their lands”.2

Indigneous people experienced considerable restrictions on their mobility.3,4 Under the treaty process, most tribes were relegated to small tracts of land as part of the reservation system.5,6 A pass system was imposed that prohibited Indigenous people from leaving their reserve without first securing written permission from the local Indian agent.7,8 While the pass system could not be legally enforced, Indian agents could withhold rations for those who refused to comply, and those found off reserve without a pass could be prosecuted for trespass under the Indian Act, or for vagrancy under the Criminal Code.9,10

In addition to dealing with Indian Agents, Indigenous people came under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Mounted Police (NWMP) whose role was to implement government’s policies towards Indigenous people.11,12 As Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Commissioners Hamilton and Sinclair note:

"Whenever an Indian agent felt the need for assistance in enforcing government policy regarding Indian people, he called upon the Mounted Police. Indian children who ran away from residential schools were sought and returned by NWMP officers. Indian adults who left their reserves without a pass from the Indian agent were apprehended by the Mounted Police".13
Carter (1990) notes that the powers attributed to the NWMP at that time were unprecedented in the history of police forces. In addition to the power to arrest, the NWMP were granted magisterial powers which gave them the ability to prosecute, judge, and jail an accused person.

[Ka-El]

Historical Losses and Impacts

Many of the disparities that Indigenous people experience can be understood more fully within the context of cumulative and historic losses - losses that are directly and indirectly linked to a colonial history and legacy.

"Every Canadian will gain if we escape the impasse that breeds confrontation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people across barricades, real or symbolic. But the barricades will not fall until we understand how they were built. Studying the past tells us who we are and where we came from. It often reveals a cache of secrets that some people are striving to keep hidden and others are striving to tell. In this case, it helps explain how the tensions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people came to be, and why they are so hard to resolve".1

Colonization has contributed directly and indirectly to the losses of:
• languages
• access to traditional territory
• access to traditional foods and medicines
• traditional roles and governance
• traditional knowledge
• cultural and spiritual practices
• families and communities
• sense of cultural identity
• the right to be the dominant group on their own land
• 90% of their own population
• the privilege to grow up in a society free of racism

Authors of History

Despite the importance of knowing about the past and the harm caused by colonization many Canadians are uninformed about Indigenous people.1 We know that there have been tremendous gaps and misrepresentations in education, which has compromised our ability to comprehend the challenges faced by Indigenous communities.

Education on Canadian history, including colonization, have typically reflected mainstream views with little input from Indigenous people. Historical works have been informed by a worldview that has not always reflected Indigenous peoples' truths.

Warry (2007), a professor and medical anthropologist, writes about his experience with the lack of knowledge many Canadians have of Indigenous issues.

"This ignorance is widespread. I recently developed training sessions on Aboriginal history, culture, and health....The majority of participants – nurses, radiologists, and administrators – frankly admitted to being embarrassed at their lack of knowledge of Aboriginal peoples and issues....They commented on the failing of an educational system that continues to ignore Aboriginal peoples’ history and place in contemporary society. These and other experiences have convinced me that the ‘average’ Canadian lacks the knowledge of Aboriginal peoples...Moreover, I believe this ignorance makes Canadians susceptible to supporting misinformed and misguided social policy. Our belief in the superiority of European values, and our ignorance of Aboriginal cultures sustain the structural racism that marginalizes and impoverishes Aboriginal peoples".2
Wright (2003) adds to this:

"There is no longer any excuse for ignoring the viewpoint of the discovered, the vanquished, the colonized. And there is danger in doing so... civil wars in Peru and Guatemala, and the Mohawk conflict in Canada, are fueled by the ignorance of those countries' white elites. Few things are so dangerous as believing one’s own lies".

[Ka-El]

Connecting Past and Present

Colonization and assimilation of Indigenous people through the removal of people from their land, Indian Residential Schools, and a segregated health care system have created a foundation for the many social and health inequities Indigenous people experience today.

It may be tempting to think that these are issues of the past, but it is important to recognize that colonization continues today. The Indian Act, unresolved Indigenous rights and treaty issues, and individual and systemic racism are all examples of ongoing colonization that continue to impact Indigenous people.

While Indigenous people have always attempted to assert their rights, it wasn't until the 1960's that the Indian Act allowed them to take action through the Canadian legal system. There have been many legal victories, but all levels of government have been slow to change relationships based on those decisions.

Indigenous nations have been active in economic development within their territories, revitalizing language, recovering and renewing cultural knowledge and transmitting knowledge to the next generation. These actions are restoring communities, and are important indicators of Indigenous people's strength and resilience.

References:

1. Dehatkadons, Traditional chief of the Onondaga Iroquois in Wright, R. (2009) Stolen continents:
Conquest and resistance in the Americas. Toronto: Penguin (p. 4).
2. Henry, H., Tator, C. (2006). The Colour of democracy: Racism in Canadian society. Toronto: Nelson.
(p. 107).
3. Henry and Tator, 2006, p. 107
4. Cayo, D. (1997). “The Seventh Direction.” The New Brunswick Reader (July 12) in Henry, F. and Tator,
C. (2006) The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society. Toronto: Nelson. (p. 105).
5. University of Victoria. (2008). Cultural safety: Module 1: Peoples experiences of colonization: Indian
hospitals. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from:
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/csafet ... notes4.htm . *Permission to use via BC
COMMONS LICENSE (Version 1.2)
Additional:
1. Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba. (2016). Treaties in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.trcm.ca/treaties/treaties-in-canada/

2. Henry, F., & Tator, C. (2010). The colour of democracy: Racism in Canadian society. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education Inc.

3. Canada. (1996). Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Vol1, Chapter 8, Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/weba ... _e.html#66

4. Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba (2016).

5. Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), (2004) 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73. Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

6. Government of British Columbia (n.d.) History of treaties in B.C. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/envir ... ties-in-bc

7. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (2010). Fact Sheet –Treaty Negotiations. Retrieved from http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110010 ... 0100032289

8. Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1973] S.C.R. 313, [1973] 4 W.W.R. Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do

9. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73; Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

10. Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550, 2004 SCC 74 Retrieved from http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-cs ... 0/index.do

11. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256 Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 6/index.do

12. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 256

[Queen K]

Ka-el, brilliant move to post all that good information, because we know what's going to happen, thanks for anticipating it. ^^^

Even the Elders at Alert Bay voted to tear down St. Micheal's Residential school and be rid of what reminded them of a hellish time in their history.

Fortunately I got to photograph the entire school before this was done.

But seriously, how are teachers even able to function if they are terrified of saying the wrong thing? This is the point of the article.

[Ka-El]

But seriously, how are teachers even able to function if they are terrified of saying the wrong thing? This is the point of the article.

I think it will all depend on their motivation. If they read, learn and embrace the material in an objective and critical fashion, and be prepared to acknowledge this is our factual history and it is not ancient no one will fault them if there is a slip or two along the way - as long as it is acknowledged. Making a sincere effort will count for a great deal. There’s a huge difference between making a mistake due to not knowing better and acknowledging it and moving forward, than making a mistake due to deliberate ignorance, denying it and making excuses to justify and rationalize it. They will learn as they go.

[Loki2u]

But seriously, how are teachers even able to function if they are terrified of saying the wrong thing? This is the point of the article.

Just a thought, but perhaps instead of the teachers worrying about saying the wrong thing, they incorporate the "worrying about saying the wrong thing" as part of the lesson?

Lessons or certain subject matters aren't always black and white.....take the time to explain to the students why that is.

It would be a step forward to incorporating critical thinking in students earlier on in their education as was discussed in another thread on this fourm. Sounds like a win win to me?

[Queen K]

I can't remember ever receiving any history on native issues until I went to college and actually signed up for the courses.

Seriously can not. Maybe it was there, but was likely skated over.