Hi Joan, yes. It comes from the graph in the story which is from the TRC report. There is also an 'unnamed register' which most researchers believe to be the same students with slight variations in spelling. As noted on the table, others died at hospitals or sanatoriums. It should be noted that the memorial register hosted at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation contains thousands of names of 'just any loved one' who people wanted to memorialize - with no relationship to a residential school, so this is where the astounding 'thousands' who died claims are coming from. Also, the TRC included numbers in their broader count, of anyone who died within a year of going to a school, even if they died on reserve of any other cause. This is misleading to the public.
Thanks, Michelle. I should have read the article – in particular, the table! – more carefully before posting my question. I was rushing off to an appointment, and had only glanced at the caption and the totals in the table.
We’re so accustomed to seeing the number of deaths overstated (as you point out) that it caused me to do a double take to see it understated – possibly for the first time ever! Perhaps an explainer or qualifier in the text, similar to your reply to me, would be helpful – and might protect you from the inevitable accusations that you are intentionally “downplaying” the effects of the IRS.
I’m confused by your statement, “There is also an 'unnamed register' which most researchers believe to be the same students with slight variations in spelling.” There are certainly duplicated names because of spelling variations, but those would be counted (over-counted) among the “named.” I presume the “unnamed” would be speculated deaths, or actual recorded deaths where names were not recorded (or documents were lost, as in fires), so no spelling pertains (just lots of leeway to inflate speculative numbers.)
Your point is well made, with respect to focusing on supports for the living. I’m uneasy, though, with using that rock-bottom number (423) as if it were the actual known total. It seems reasonable to include (in the total IRS deaths) those children who were sent from the school to a hospital and then died in hospital. And Table 4 reports ONLY on “the location of the 1,810 deaths for which there is a known location of the death.” There were another 1,391 apparently recorded, but where the location of death is not known.
So beautifully written, so rhetorically wise: “If every child matters, don’t the living children matter most of all? And if the living children don’t matter so much, then why do the dead?”
Jim, I came to this thread to catch your attention with a question I posed over on Hymie's Substack yesterday. I'll repeat my comment here, in hopes that you can offer some input (I hope that's okay; you can go to Hymie's recent newsletter on China and the genocide question if you prefer to respond in the correct thread). I asked:
<I noticed in the Jim McMurtry / Dorchester Review article that Hymie just shared, that "there were some members absent by design" from the House of Commons on October 27, 2022 -- something I hadn't known (i.e. the "by design" part). It would be worth knowing who those members were. I've found the Hansard for that day (https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-119/hansard) but don't find a listing for members in attendance, or absent. Is that available somewhere?>
I don't know whom they were, Joan, but was told not all MPs were present by fellow and more astute members of the Indian Residential School Research Group.
423 deaths, Michelle? Where does that number come from? Is that a number representing only those children who died while actually at the schools, vs. while "enrolled"?
Welcome back Joan. I think the only person really capable of answering that question is the Honorable Murray Sinclair whose statistics on this subject are impeccable.
The fallacious nonsense about genocide and unmarked graves has become a cause celebre for indigenous communities that fits nicely with their delusional belief of oppression and persecution. As Pascal once said, “people almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” The mantra of, "every child matters" is very attractive and appeals to the obsession of victimhood culture and nicely compliments the delusion. Prioritizing the past over the present is simply a case of ignoring the obvious for the obscure.
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
Stirling does it again! Sensible, factual, and not clutching at people's heart strings for things of the past, while balancing her approach with a realistic and hopeful look towards a better future. If only more had such an outlook!
It should be pointed out that the theatrical use of "215 pairs of children’s shoes" (like the indiscriminate use of the term "survivor") is yet another deliberate appropriation of Holocaust imagery, with the intent to draw a parallel between the destruction of the European Jews and the Residential School experience.
Hi Joan, yes. It comes from the graph in the story which is from the TRC report. There is also an 'unnamed register' which most researchers believe to be the same students with slight variations in spelling. As noted on the table, others died at hospitals or sanatoriums. It should be noted that the memorial register hosted at the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation contains thousands of names of 'just any loved one' who people wanted to memorialize - with no relationship to a residential school, so this is where the astounding 'thousands' who died claims are coming from. Also, the TRC included numbers in their broader count, of anyone who died within a year of going to a school, even if they died on reserve of any other cause. This is misleading to the public.
Thanks, Michelle. I should have read the article – in particular, the table! – more carefully before posting my question. I was rushing off to an appointment, and had only glanced at the caption and the totals in the table.
We’re so accustomed to seeing the number of deaths overstated (as you point out) that it caused me to do a double take to see it understated – possibly for the first time ever! Perhaps an explainer or qualifier in the text, similar to your reply to me, would be helpful – and might protect you from the inevitable accusations that you are intentionally “downplaying” the effects of the IRS.
I’m confused by your statement, “There is also an 'unnamed register' which most researchers believe to be the same students with slight variations in spelling.” There are certainly duplicated names because of spelling variations, but those would be counted (over-counted) among the “named.” I presume the “unnamed” would be speculated deaths, or actual recorded deaths where names were not recorded (or documents were lost, as in fires), so no spelling pertains (just lots of leeway to inflate speculative numbers.)
Your point is well made, with respect to focusing on supports for the living. I’m uneasy, though, with using that rock-bottom number (423) as if it were the actual known total. It seems reasonable to include (in the total IRS deaths) those children who were sent from the school to a hospital and then died in hospital. And Table 4 reports ONLY on “the location of the 1,810 deaths for which there is a known location of the death.” There were another 1,391 apparently recorded, but where the location of death is not known.
Another stellar, beautifully researched article by Michelle Stirling.
So beautifully written, so rhetorically wise: “If every child matters, don’t the living children matter most of all? And if the living children don’t matter so much, then why do the dead?”
Jim, I came to this thread to catch your attention with a question I posed over on Hymie's Substack yesterday. I'll repeat my comment here, in hopes that you can offer some input (I hope that's okay; you can go to Hymie's recent newsletter on China and the genocide question if you prefer to respond in the correct thread). I asked:
<I noticed in the Jim McMurtry / Dorchester Review article that Hymie just shared, that "there were some members absent by design" from the House of Commons on October 27, 2022 -- something I hadn't known (i.e. the "by design" part). It would be worth knowing who those members were. I've found the Hansard for that day (https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-119/hansard) but don't find a listing for members in attendance, or absent. Is that available somewhere?>
I don't know whom they were, Joan, but was told not all MPs were present by fellow and more astute members of the Indian Residential School Research Group.
Thanks, Jim. Probably was very confidential, personal communication type stuff, so I won't probe further.
423 deaths, Michelle? Where does that number come from? Is that a number representing only those children who died while actually at the schools, vs. while "enrolled"?
Welcome back Joan. I think the only person really capable of answering that question is the Honorable Murray Sinclair whose statistics on this subject are impeccable.
The fallacious nonsense about genocide and unmarked graves has become a cause celebre for indigenous communities that fits nicely with their delusional belief of oppression and persecution. As Pascal once said, “people almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” The mantra of, "every child matters" is very attractive and appeals to the obsession of victimhood culture and nicely compliments the delusion. Prioritizing the past over the present is simply a case of ignoring the obvious for the obscure.
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
― Mark Twain
Stirling does it again! Sensible, factual, and not clutching at people's heart strings for things of the past, while balancing her approach with a realistic and hopeful look towards a better future. If only more had such an outlook!
It should be pointed out that the theatrical use of "215 pairs of children’s shoes" (like the indiscriminate use of the term "survivor") is yet another deliberate appropriation of Holocaust imagery, with the intent to draw a parallel between the destruction of the European Jews and the Residential School experience.
Exactly right. Fine piece.