No human remains found 2 years after claims of ‘mass graves’ in Canada

[ken_sylvania]

My, that was an exhausting journey to get to "I'm not aware of evidence for multiple mass graves," wasn't it?

What was wrong with my previous response?

Do you now no longer believe there is any credible evidence of any mass graves at any schools?

I think most of the evidence of graves involves individual graves. There does seem to be some evidence of at least one mass grave, associated with pandemics.

In general, these graves simply haven't been excavated yet. We will know more when we know more.

I thought that was adequate. I don't think the further exchanges added anything to that. To me, that's what made it so exhausting. I say something like this and get a cross examination. Or I agree that "mass graves" seems to have come from the media and get a cross examination.

Cross examinations are exhausting.

They wouldn't have to be exhausting.

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement. When you do that, I have to conclude you somehow see what you are saying as different from a "yes" or "no" answer to the question I asked. But to me your answers continue to seem cagey, like, I dunno, like maybe you think it would be humiliating to agree with me or something? Like when I ask if you agree that we don't know of a certain type of evidence, instead of saying "I don't know of any such evidence" you say "I have no idea." If you ask me, that's not a candid answer. That's the kind of answer I expect from someone who's playing games. Because either you do know, or you don't know, whether you are aware of something.

Why are you so dead set against admitting that you don't know of any evidence of multiple mass graves?

[Bootstrap]

Cross examinations are exhausting.

They wouldn't have to be exhausting.

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement. When you do that, I have to conclude you somehow see what you are saying as different from a "yes" or "no" answer to the question I asked. But to me your answers continue to seem cagey, like, I dunno, like maybe you think it would be humiliating to agree with me or something? Like when I ask if you agree that we don't know of a certain type of evidence, instead of saying "I don't know of any such evidence" you say "I have no idea." If you ask me, that's not a candid answer. That's the kind of answer I expect from someone who's playing games. Because either you do know, or you don't know, whether you are aware of something.

Why are you so dead set against admitting that you don't know of any evidence of multiple mass graves?

See what I mean? You don't think this is playing "gotcha"? You don't think you are trying to create some negative story about me instead of discussing the subject?

Would you like me to speculate about what's going on in your mind when you write your responses? Would that be constructive? Do you really think you know my inner thoughts?

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement.

A statement for which I have evidence. A statement that I know I can make truthfully based on what I know. When I say I know of "at least one", that means I haven't researched it beyond that point. I can't think of a better way to be candid.

If you don't understand this, we could try this experiment: switch places. Let me ask you the questions, take the time to actually do the work to be sure you can answer the question. When you realize you got something wrong, say so. Let me know if you would like to spend a few days playing it that way. I won't start until you sign up for this.

[Falco Knotwise]

The government of Canada delegated the running of the schools to Canada’s largest churches, who administered them with an eye to keeping expenses low.

That claim runs slightly different than the claim made in Where are the Children Buried, according to which the federal government made the churches administer the schools with an eye to keeping costs low, and that the government said not to return the bodies to the parents, unless the parents would pay for it themselves, otherwise they were to bury them in their own cemeteries. Otherwise it was the Departments of the Interior and Indian Affairs who expected the same thing from them. That information can be found on pg. 21-22 of that study.

Early in the 20th Century, the Chief Medical Officer of the Departments of the Interior and Indian Affairs, Dr. Peter Bryce, noted staggeringly high mortality rates at Residential Schools, the result, he said, of poor conditions and inadequate sanitation. The government refused to publish his report or act on his concerns. Indigenous children continued to die of illnesses like tuberculosis at a rate far exceeding that of their white counterparts.

Again, this claim runs counter to that made in the Where are the Children Buried study, which said the tuberculosis, being more prevalent on the reservations, could spread faster when brought to school among the students. The reason given for being more prevalent among indigenous people being they were foreign diseases to which they weren’t formerly exposed, and so had built no immunities against, but no mention was made in that study about poor conditions as an aggravating factor.

And I have read elsewhere that the government also supposedly kept the reservations and schools unclean on purpose just to cause the diseases, too, which sounds like a rather outlandish conspiracy theory to me.

Racher notes that Stephen Harper apologized for the treatment native people at the residential schools in Parliament.

Another politician apologizing for the supposed sins of others, huh? They’re so good at that, aren’t they? Justin Trudeau did the same thing!

He also cites “Where Are the Children Buried,” a report to the TRC by Dr. Scott Hamilton of Lakehead University if anyone is interested in looking it up.

Bootstrap already shared that one with us, and I already read it, thanks.

I would say your study by the archaeologist sounds a little more ideologically driven than the other, but that’s just my opinion.

[ken_sylvania]

Cross examinations are exhausting.

They wouldn't have to be exhausting.

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement. When you do that, I have to conclude you somehow see what you are saying as different from a "yes" or "no" answer to the question I asked. But to me your answers continue to seem cagey, like, I dunno, like maybe you think it would be humiliating to agree with me or something? Like when I ask if you agree that we don't know of a certain type of evidence, instead of saying "I don't know of any such evidence" you say "I have no idea." If you ask me, that's not a candid answer. That's the kind of answer I expect from someone who's playing games. Because either you do know, or you don't know, whether you are aware of something.

Why are you so dead set against admitting that you don't know of any evidence of multiple mass graves?

See what I mean? You don't think this is playing "gotcha"? You don't think you are trying to create some negative story about me instead of discussing the subject?

No, I'm not playing "gotcha" or trying to create a negative story about you. I'm trying to explain to you how your responses feel to me, and why I'm asking the questions I'm asking. I actually took the time to think about, and put into words, what I think it is about your responses that makes them feel like you're trying to avoid a simple "I made a mistake" type of statement. I don't think playing "gotcha" is helpful.

Would you like me to speculate about what's going on in your mind when you write your responses? Would that be constructive?

Well, I suppose it helps further the conversation. Is that what you're doing when you claim I'm playing "gotcha" and asking me if I'm trying to create a negative story about you?

Do you really think you know my inner thoughts?

No, I don't know your inner thoughts. I have to read the words you write and try to interpret your thoughts based on the words you write.

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement.

A statement for which I have evidence. A statement that I know I can make truthfully based on what I know. When I say I know of "at least one", that means I haven't researched it beyond that point. I can't think of a better way to be candid.

Probably a difference in how we use and understand that phrase then. I most often hear or use that phrase used to create a slightly inflated perception of the actual number. I don't understand how saying "I have no idea if I know of any evidence" is an attempt at being candid, but if that was truly your goal I'll try to accept that.

If you don't understand this, we could try this experiment: switch places. Let me ask you the questions, take the time to actually do the work to be sure you can answer the question. When you realize you got something wrong, say so. Let me know if you would like to spend a few days playing it that way. I won't start until you sign up for this.

Sure, as long as the questions aren't any harder than those posed in this thread. I'll sign up for that in a heartbeat. I try to do the best I can to be quick to admit when I am wrong, and if I make a wrong assumption or claim and then find out it's wrong, I try to be very quick and clear in retracting that claim. I'm not always successful, but that is my goal.

[Bootstrap]

No, I'm not playing "gotcha" or trying to create a negative story about you. I'm trying to explain to you how your responses feel to me, and why I'm asking the questions I'm asking. I actually took the time to think about, and put into words, what I think it is about your responses that makes them feel like you're trying to avoid a simple "I made a mistake" type of statement. I don't think playing "gotcha" is helpful.

I appreciate you trying to figure out what's going wrong in the conversation and putting it into words. What puzzles me is this: I think I said I made a mistake, quite clearly, more than once.

We are on page 22. On page 18, I said this:

viewtopic.php?p=217616#p217616

Also, Bootstrap is wrong. There were no mass graves anywhere. That is just patently false.

Bootstrap WAS wrong. I changed my position a few pages ago. I gather you haven't been reading those posts.

Turns out, the researchers and chiefs were right. They were not claiming mass graves. No matter what the NY Post article said. They were not claiming these children were murdered, though some people in this thread got that impression. Nor were they calling for arson or violence, some of them are speaking out against it.

On page 16 I said this:

The atrocities happened. And atrocities are a problem. Atrocities are still a problem when you can't find the bodies.

What are you using for the definition of "mass graves"? The Wikipedia links, if I remember correctly, make few allegations of "pits dug in the ground to receive a large number of corpses" which is the actual definition of "mass graves."

By definition a cemetery filled with many individual graves is not a mass grave.

Sure. There are a lot of schools that may have a lot of individual graves. Here's the table I was looking at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... gravesites

I think I picked up the phrase "mass graves" from this thread and had that in mind when I saw this table. But the table does not say that they were mass graves, as you correctly point out.

I think I have said "I was wrong" quite clearly. But you keep saying that I haven't.

Incidentally, that kind of "what definition are you using" question works well for me. When you asked me what definition I was using, and pointed out that Wikipedia wasn't calling these "mass graves", that's when the light went on. Thanks for that.

I have been trying to stop using the phrase "mass graves" to describe these sites since page 16 because I no longer think it is accurate for most of the graves. The title of the thread and the article the OP refers to both talk about "mass graves", but the chiefs and the researchers and Truth and Reconciliation board and others close to the investigations are not calling most of these places "mass graves".

So I feel like I said I made a mistake pages ago. I feel I said it clearly. "Bootstrap was wrong" is a pretty clear statement. But you keep insisting that I should say I made a mistake. I don't understand why.

In general, "how could you have thought this thing you no longer believe" is a hard question to answer well. And often not a helpful one if we want to focus on the truth as we currently understand it. I tried to answer a few times, but I don't think it is adding to the conversation.

In your questions, it sometimes feels like there's something you want to say in a particular way, and you want it to come out of my mouth. I think it would be better if you simply said it in your own words. I probably won't say it the way you want. But I think the main reason we are still talking about "mass graves" is that you keep asking these questions.

So if we want to stop talking about "mass graves" ...

[Bootstrap]

What's been happening is, if I ask whether you agree with a certain statement, you make a different, somewhat similar statement.

A statement for which I have evidence. A statement that I know I can make truthfully based on what I know. When I say I know of "at least one", that means I haven't researched it beyond that point. I can't think of a better way to be candid.

Probably a difference in how we use and understand that phrase then. I most often hear or use that phrase used to create a slightly inflated perception of the actual number. I don't understand how saying "I have no idea if I know of any evidence" is an attempt at being candid, but if that was truly your goal I'll try to accept that.

Here's the post we're talking about:

Do you now no longer believe there is any credible evidence of any mass graves at any schools?

I think most of the evidence of graves involves individual graves. There does seem to be some evidence of at least one mass grave, associated with pandemics.

In general, these graves simply haven't been excavated yet. We will know more when we know more.

I thought that was a clear, straightforward statement. I don't know how many mass graves there are, I remembered reading about one. I think maybe I have read about another. But the main point is this: most of these are not "mass graves".

Did I say ""I have no idea if I know of any evidence" in some post? If so, I haven't found it. I certainly didn't say it in the post where I said there was "at least one" mass grave.

[Szdfan]

Early in the 20th Century, the Chief Medical Officer of the Departments of the Interior and Indian Affairs, Dr. Peter Bryce, noted staggeringly high mortality rates at Residential Schools, the result, he said, of poor conditions and inadequate sanitation. The government refused to publish his report or act on his concerns. Indigenous children continued to die of illnesses like tuberculosis at a rate far exceeding that of their white counterparts.

Again, this claim runs counter to that made in the Where are the Children Buried study, which said the tuberculosis, being more prevalent on the reservations, could spread faster when brought to school among the students. The reason given for being more prevalent among indigenous people being they were foreign diseases to which they weren’t formerly exposed, and so had built no immunities against, but no mention was made in that study about poor conditions as an aggravating factor.

On page 3 -

It is clear that communicable diseases were a primary cause of poor health and death for many Aboriginal people during the 19th and early 20" Centuries. Some children might have contracted disease at home prior to attending school, but others were likely infected within crowded, often unsanitary, and poorly constructed residential schools. It is also likely that significant numbers of chronically ill children died within a few years after school discharge.

[Szdfan]

Both the Where Are the Children Buried and Paul Racher cite Peter Bryce, a physician whose reports on the apalling high rates of death among Native children at residential schools due to unsanitary conditions were suppressed by the Canadian government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bryce

In 1904 Bryce was appointed the Chief Medical Officer of the federal Departments of the Interior and Indian Affairs. His 1905 and 1906 annual reports emphasized the abnormally high death rates for Indigenous peoples in Canada. In 1907 he wrote a "Report on the Indian Schools of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories" describing the health conditions of the Canadian residential school system in western Canada and British Columbia. This report was published without its recommendations, as Bryce discussed in his 1922 book The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921.

Bryce wrote that Indigenous children enrolled in residential schools were deprived of adequate medical attention and sanitary living conditions. He suggested improvements to national policies regarding the care and education of Indigenous peoples. In a 1907 report Bryce cited an average mortality rate of between 15% and 24% among the schools' children and 42% in Aboriginal homes, where sick children were sometimes sent to die. Bryce noted that the lack of certainty about the exact number of deaths was, in part, due to the official reports submitted by school principals and "defective way in which the returns had been made."

He appealed his forced retirement from the Civil Service in 1921 and was denied, subsequently publishing his suppressed report condemning the treatment of the Indigenous at the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs that had been given the responsibility under the British North America Act.

[Josh]

It is clear that communicable diseases were a primary cause of poor health and death for many Aboriginal people during the 19th and early 20" Centuries. Some children might have contracted disease at home prior to attending school, but others were likely infected within crowded, often unsanitary, and poorly constructed residential schools. It is also likely that significant numbers of chronically ill children died within a few years after school discharge.

Last I checked, communicable diseases were a significant cause of poor health and death amongst all peoples in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

This wasn't some conspiracy against First Nations/Native Canadians/Native Americans/Indian/Aboriginal/Métis/Inuit/Eskimo/whatever you want to call them people. As far as Russian Mennonites go, about half of them who migrated to Kansas and later Manitoba died of communicable diseases in the time from of the 1870s.

[Josh]

Both the Where Are the Children Buried and Paul Racher cite Peter Bryce, a physician whose reports on the apalling high rates of death among Native children at residential schools due to unsanitary conditions were suppressed by the Canadian government.

In a 1907 report Bryce cited an average mortality rate of between 15% and 24% among the schools' children and 42% in Aboriginal homes

It sounds like the residential schools were lifesavers, and cut the mortality rate in half or a quarter.