Comment by svat
1 year ago
A caption in the article says “A lot has changed in the Arctic since the Canadian government forced Inuit families to settle in towns. But the community is trying to preserve traditional parenting practices.” (and earlier the article says “Elders I spoke with say intense colonization over the past century is damaging these traditions.”) — what is this referring to? What did the Canadian government do?
what didn't they do?
Start with a search for the phrase "Killing the indian in the child". That is a deep dive into darkness.
1) Forceful re-adoptions where the government would take kids from Inuit parents and give them to white parents.
2) Residential schools where they would forcefully take a child and send them away from their parents and not allow them to speak their native language or even dress in their native clothes. Someone else mentioned the "graveyards behind schools".
They did this in Australia.
it's now rightly called cultural genocide.
> What did the Canadian government do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commi...
> In June 2015, the TRC released an executive summary of its findings along with 94 "calls to action" regarding reconciliation between Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. The commission officially concluded in December 2015 with the publication of a multi-volume final report that concluded the school system amounted to cultural genocide. The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, which opened at the University of Manitoba in November 2015, is an archival repository home to the research, documents, and testimony collected during the course of the TRC's operation.
https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1450124405592/1529106060...
---
It is a LONG, deep, and dark rabbit hole to dig through those documents that takes you through places such as undocumented graveyards behind schools. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/stó-lō-natio...
Specifically regarding the Inuit resettlement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the opposite as advertised. It's a serious mistake to take the self proclaimed Ministry of Truth at face value.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/25/world/canada/canada-schoo...
And, in the end, the conclusion of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission was unambiguous: “Children were abused, physically and sexually, and they died in the schools in numbers that would not have been tolerated in any school system anywhere in the country, or in the world.”
From the 1880s through the 1990s, the Canadian government forcibly removed at least 150,000 Indigenous children from their homes and sent them t o residential schools to assimilate them. Their languages and religious and cultural practices were banned, sometimes using violence. It was, the commission reported in 2015, a system of “cultural genocide.”
---
Should that not be taken at face value?
5 replies →
I only know of 1 forced relocation the Quebec -> High Circle relocation after WW2. I don't believe that's what they are referring too. Unless they mean the standard first nation reservation rules. Which are not applicable for Inuit from what I understand.
The government had multiple "relocation" ventures beyond the high arctic relocations and it's not much of a stretch to call it the standard policy from that period. HBC also did an experiment with the now-deserted town of Devon's harbour. Other examples include Nueltin lake and Banks Island.
Perplexity's answer to this:
The Canadian government forced Inuit families to settle in towns primarily for administrative and political reasons. This policy, known as the High Arctic relocation, was implemented during the Cold War for sovereignty and security purposes, as well as to assert Canada's presence in the Arctic. The government believed that by relocating the Inuit, it could strengthen Canadian sovereignty in the North. However, this forced relocation had devastating consequences for the Inuit, leading to social, economic, and cultural disruptions. While the government has issued an apology and provided some compensation, the overall impact of the forced settlement on the Inuit community has been largely negative. The Inuit were separated from their traditional way of life, which had sustained them for centuries, and faced significant challenges in adapting to a more urban lifestyle. This has resulted in intergenerational trauma and loss of traditional knowledge and practices.
The Canadian government has since recognized the inherent right of Inuit to self-determination and has been working with Inuit organizations to address the impacts of the forced relocations. Various land claims agreements have been signed, granting title to certain blocks of land to the Inuit. Additionally, initiatives such as the Inuit Child First Initiative have been introduced to support Inuit communities. However, the long-term effects of the forced settlement policy continue to be felt, and efforts to address its legacy are ongoing.
In conclusion, while the forced settlement of Inuit families was driven by political and administrative motives, it has had detrimental effects on the Inuit community. The Canadian government has taken steps to acknowledge and address these impacts, but the overall outcome of the forced relocation policy has been largely negative for the Inuit. Ongoing efforts are being made to support Inuit self-determination and address the legacy of the forced relocations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation