The three articles this week look at residential schooling from differing perspectives. The most common recognition of Indian residential schooling (IRS) is its inequality; therefore reading alternate perspectives was very intriguing. Barman[1] looks at it from the most commonly known context of its inequality, Raibmon[2] gives an example of a residential school that wanted the best for its pupils, and Raptis[3] focuses on its approach to integrate Aboriginals. The articles contradict one another because their arguments are to opposite extremes, but none state that residential schooling was correct or justifiable. Residential schools are not comparable in terms of abuse and mistreatment to Chinese and Black children’s educational experiences in Canada, but segregation and the notion of “white man schooling”[4] are very similar attributes. The difference between other migrating cultures and Aboriginals in Canada was Aboriginal willingness to adhere to segregation and mistreatment throughout children’s education in order to give them a better future.
The federal Department of Indian Affairs and Superintendent of Education were essential to Residential schooling because they held power over the education system. The distribution of power to the Board of Trustees[5] and subsequently “leaving schools’ ongoing operation to missionary groups”[6] created the fundamentally flawed system which Barman argues influenced the “consequences for Aboriginal education.”[7] Although dispersed power over educational institutions led to inconsistencies and a maltreatment of Aboriginals, parental acceptance of education also inflicted the detrimental consequences. Aboriginal parents were “encouraged from an early date by government legislators and enforced by representatives of churches and by federal government Indian agents to put young children in residential schools;”[8] rather than protesting the skewed form of assimilation they sent their kids to school believing it was a “genuine opportunity for their children.”[9]
Raibmon’s article provides the results to defying the conventional. Coqualeetza was recognized as a finer IRS and its principal George Henry Raley ran his school in a way that contrasted the Department of Indian Affairs policies[10]. His rejection of common IRS curriculum allowed him to “conceptualize a new understanding of things Indian,”[11] and create a school that followed a “modified version of the status quo… [one that] could rally to defeat the radicals and at the same time support change;”[12] he was fearless and this allowed him to give Aboriginal children the opportunities they deserved. He fought for their equality, unlike the parents.
Raptis’ article focused on governmental influence over the integration of Aboriginal students after 1950 and the strains of power distribution. It is not until her article that there is any evidence of Aboriginals speaking up for integration, and this was likely influenced by the equality revolution as Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals “voiced strong criticisms of the inadequacies of… Indian education systems.”[13] Her article shows how speaking up about the issues of IRS allowed Aboriginal children to be integrated fairly, and influenced other people to create programs and laws which abide with the federal goal of integration.
The progression of Aboriginal children’s integration was an extraordinarily slow process of change, which was initiated by many others before their own people. This leaves us to wonder whether things would have played out differently if Aboriginal communities enforced change and equality like the Chinese and Black immigrants of Canada at this time.
[1] Barman, Jean. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” in Sara Burke and Patrice Milewski (Eds.), Schooling in Transition: Readings in the Canadian History of Education, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012: 255-276.
[2] Raibmon, Paige. “‘A New Understanding of Things Indian’: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience.” BC Studies 110, 1996: 69-96.
[3] Raptis, Helen. “Implementing Integrated Education Policy for On-Reserve Aboriginal Children in British Columbia, 1951-1981.” Historical Studies in Education 20, no.1, 2008: 118-146.
[4] Barman. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” 2012: 268.
[5] Barman. “Schooled for Inequality: The Education of British Columbia Aboriginal Children.” 2012: 259.
[6] Ibid. 262.
[7] Ibid. 256.
[8] Lafrance, Jean & Collins, Don. “Residential Schools and Aboriginal Parenting: Voices of Parents.” Native Social Work Journal. Vol 4(1). P 105. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OSUL/TC-OSUL-435.pdf
[9] Ibid. 266.
[10] Raibmon. “‘A New Understanding of Things Indian’: George Raley’s Negotiation of the Residential School Experience.” 1996: 83.
[11]Ibid: 69.
[12] Ibid. 76.
[13] Raptis. “Implementing Integrated Education Policy for On-Reserve Aboriginal Children in British Columbia, 1951-1981.” 2008: 121.
