Genocide and REsidential/Boarding Schools, Part I

Jim Craven jcraven at
Tue Jun 26 13:44:09 MDT 2001

[ Part I ]

Residential Schools-The Past is Present
Radio program w/James Craven on The United Church
May 2000

Most genocides in this century have been perpetuated by nation states upon
ethnic minorities living within the state's own borders. Most of the
victims have been children. The people responsible for mass murder have by
and large gotten away with what they have done. Most have succeeded in
keeping the wealth that they've looted from their victims. Most have never
faced trial. Genocide is still difficult to eradicate because it is
usually tolerated, at least by those who benefit from it.

Pierre Laboisser intro...
Residential schools operated in Canada from around 1870 to the early
1980s. The children of First Nations groups were removed by law from their
homes and families and forced to attend schools operated by non-Indians.
The government contracted out the running of the schools to the churches.
Although not all Indian children  went to these schools, or went for the
full 12 years, residential schooling was a part of the Indian experience
affecting everyone in the communities. Residential schools were part and
parcel of the federal government's policy towards native people. The
eradication of a people facilitates the theft of occupied land. This can
be done using various methods, and the residential school is one of them.
And this has clearly been the agenda of the Canadian government. These
methods have been understood by many countries who have bloodied their
hands in colonialism, using residential schools to destroy a people, such
as their implementation in the Soviet Union, the USA, Australia, Japan and
India. It is also defined, within the UN Convention on Genocide, as being
a violation against humanity. Residential schools do not stand alone as an
aberration out of context with the development of Canada. They are but one
tactic in the process of the colonization of the Americas which has been
and still is, genocidal.

Jim Craven and I went up to the United Church conference today. We went up
there to hand out some pamphlets on residential schools and to talk with
people, individual members of the congregation. We wanted to address what
the United Church was involved with in implementing the residential
schools, which is nothing short of genocide. We wanted to talk with people
and point out certain things that the United Church has not been
addressing. In 1986 they issued an apology to native people regarding the
operation of residential schools and that was contained within our
pamphlet that we handed out. One of the things they said was that they
have since issued another apology, a revised apology, so to speak, in
1998, and they were suggesting that we shouldn't be handing out a pamphlet
that was just talking about something in the past that they've changed.
Well, we got hold of the 1998 apology, the revised apology so to speak. I
think we'll start off by looking at these apologies and what they really
mean. How much of an apology they really are.

JC:  We went up they, the United Church, and we had the understanding that
we were invited as observers. We checked in, so it was all up front, we
weren't sneaking in on anybody, we announced who we were. We had some
literature with us, and initially no one told us we couldn't pass out
literature. We went in, looking to set up a booth, because we didn't want
to invade people's privacy, force literature on people. What we wanted was
a table so people could come up on their own and pick up the literature,
or not, rather than our approaching people. We tried to be respectful in
every way, and what happened was some of the clergy and other volunteers
approached us and said that we could stay there as observers but not pass
anything out. We asked why, because those same clergy had been at our
conference in St. Thomas and were welcomed, and they were perfectly free
to pass out whatever they wanted to pass out and say what they wanted to
say. We thought we would have the same arrangement, and if people don't
like what you're saying they will rebut it. We were told, no, because some
of the parishioners who were there were just starting to understand about
the residential schools and they really weren't prepared for a lot of
detail on it. Our pamphlet, by the way, includes a copy of the full text
of the UN Convention on Genocide, so that when we use the word "genocide"
people can see exactly what it means. What they said was that our pamphlet
was in error because it includes the 1986 apology and a critique of it,
but,  there has subsequently been a 1998 apology.


We both asked for a copy of the 1998 apology and said we'll include it in
the pamphlet. We asked  repeatedly for a copy of the 1998 apology.
Finally, they said no. So we said, ok, this is your space, your right, so
we'll just go outside and pass out our pamphlets outside so we're not on
your property. We proceeded to do that. We were then approached and asked
by one United Church minister who asked if we would want to meet with the
moderator of the UC, The Right Rev Bill Phipps. We said, yes, absolutely,
we'd like to have a talk with him; especially since during the Tribunal I
participated in in Vancouver he had been invited and didn't even give a
response that he wouldn't be attending. So we had about a 1-1/2 hour
conversation with the moderator. Present was the General Counsel of the
UC, some clergy, and some other people. We wanted to have a dialogue and
tell them exactly where we were coming from. We asked repeatedly in that
meeting to give us a copy of the 1998 apology so we could include it as
the latest one. We said "whatever you have to offer we will circulate it
ourselves because we don't hide things, play tricks with evidence." But
they continually said they didn't have it while getting on our case for
not having included it in our pamphlet. When we returned, we got on the
internet and got a copy of the 1998 apology. Obviously it's important, if
we're going to talk about the issue, to talk about the most recent
apology. They said this was a "better" apology than the one in 1986. So
perhaps we could start with the 1986 apology, then talk about the
discussion we had with the Moderator of the UC, and then take it from

We'll start by reading out the 1986 apology, and I'll make brief
commentaries in specific aspects of it as we proceed.

Apology given by the UC of Canada (1986)
Long before my people journeyed to this land, your people were here and
you received from your elders an understanding of creation and of the
mystery that surrounds us all that was deep and rich and to be treasured.
We did not hear you when you shared your vision...

JC: First of all, they didn't allow native children to even speak. It
wasn't a question of merely not hearing. Native children were never
allowed to give their vision. They were disabused of it from the get-go. our zeal to tell you the good news of Jesus Christ, we were blind to
the value of your spirituality...

JC: This implies that the only motive in the residential schools was
missionary zeal. In fact, the missionary schools were about grabbing land,
about creating a pool of semi-skilled and unskilled cheap labor; they were
about de-Indianization, about breaking connections with tribes and with
inheritance of allotments that went with the tribal connection.

PL: Can you comment a bit more in terms of theft of land...

JC:  A famous case is called Lot 363. That was a case in British Colombia,
which is traditional ancestral lands of the Ahousaht and large lands were
appropriated from these people. They were sold to the grandson of a UC
missionary for $2500. Later on that same plot of land, after repeated
protests by the elders, was sold to McMillan-Blodell  for over $1 million,
a considerable profit. And there were numerous other cases where lands
were "gifted" to the Church and then later sold for profit. But part of
de-Indianizing involves not only assimilating Indians into  the dominant
culture, but breaking Indians away from the  traditional community which
includes the lands of your traditional community; and those lands of
course are very rich and very precious. So the implication here is that
all the schools were about was telling Indians about the good news of
Jesus Christ. By the way, as far as I know Jesus Christ never sanctioned
murder, torture, rape, sexual molestation, or sterilizing children and
using them for medical experiments.

...we imposed our civilization as a condition for accepting the gospel. We
tried to make you like us, and in doing so we helped destroy the vision
that made you what you were. As a result you and we are poorer, and the
image of the creator in us is twisted and blurred, and we are not what we
are meant by the great spirit to be.

That part is at least admitting that the residential schools were about
more then spreading the gospel. It's about forced assimilation. And that
part does suggest that there were motives other than just spreading the
gospel. "We tried to make you like us"? No. They have never accepted
Indian people, even assimilated ones, as like them. What they wanted to
make them was non-Indians, but never whites. Assimilated Indians will
always be Indians first, but they will never have the status of the

We who represent the UC of Canada ask you to forgive us and to walk
together in the spirit of Christ so that our people may be blessed and
God's creation healed. .In 1986 The UC of Canada issued an apology the
native congregations in respect to the operation of residential schools.
The US of Canada recognizes that Church-run residential schools was one of
the primary contributors to the destruction of Indian culture,
spirituality and language.

Here they don't mention that that  [ the destruction of Indian culture,
spirituality and language] was the intention. The implication is that was
an effect. But it was the intention, the clear-stated intention in their
own documents.

In the 1990s, the UC of Canada has undertaken a number of initiatives to
build a new relationship between native and nonnative members and between
the Church and other aboriginal people. The UC of Canada states we are
committing ourselves anew to finding a good way

Again, as we discussed with the Moderator today, you remember that the
Moderator said they have a problem using the work genocide because some
people are just leery of that word, they're uncomfortable, it freaks them
out, and we included in this pamphlet the actual UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Genocide so that rather than being accused of
talking rhetoric people could read the actual law itself, and what exactly
constitutes genocide, and it's in Article 2:

"A. Killing members of the group." Has that been done to Indians in North
America? Absolutely.

 "B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group." Was
that done at the residential schools? Yes, gang rapes, feeding people
maggot-infested food, sterilizing children, murdering children, secret
graveyards, using them for medical experimentation, putting needles
through various parts of their bodies, forcing them to perform public sex
acts for voyeuristic Church officials...and it goes on and on and on. I
think all those would qualify as serious bodily or mental harm to members
of the group.

"C. Deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Was that
done? Yes, the evidence is unequivocal.

"D. Imposing measure intended to prevent births within the group." Yes,
native children, both male and female, routinely have been sterilized in
both Canada and the United States. Many times it was done without their
knowledge, like saying you got a gynecological problem, or in some cases
it was coerced, actually forced.

"E. Forcibly transferring children of one group to another group." Was
that done? You bet. That's what the residential schools were all about.

In law, any of those five, any of them, not all, constitutes genocide
under the law. And we pointed that out. I also asked the Moderator if he
had read the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, and he said it has been some
time ago. So this is the apology given in 1986. It says nothing about the
residential schools being subcontractors in genocide. It says nothing
about the various intentions, and these are revealed in their own
documents, of not just to spread the gospel of Jesus, but intentions in
terms of grabbing land, creating cheap labor pools, forcible assimilation,
breaking treaties, destroying whole tribes and whole cultures by
destroying their Indianness; and  even  destroying them physically.


We pointed that out to the Moderator. When he asked the question how do we
move forward,  we
discussed the mandates of aboriginal law, which are: truth first; then
justice; then healing; then reconciliation,; then prevention of future
abuse. I said we can't move forward without the truth. We can't move
forward with half-truths, pseudo-truths. There's no reason to proceed if
we continue those lies. And one of those lies is not to use the work
genocide. I asked him if anyone would have a problem if I used the work
genocide in connection with what the Nazis did to Jews, Gypsies, and so
on. Would anyone consider it rhetoric?; would it make them queasy or
nervous? He said no.

But before we proceed on, I'd like to read from James Poole's Hitler and
his Secret Partners:

"Hitler did not approach the problem of extermination of the Jews
haphazardly. He had carefully studied some of the most prominent examples
of mass murder in history. His four principal inspirations were the
slaughter of the American Indians, killing of Armenians by the Turks, the
Red Terror during the Communist Revolution in Russia, and Japanese
butchery in Nanking in 1937.... Always contemptuous of the Russians,
Hitler said 'for them the word liberty means the right to wash only on
feast days. If we arrive bringing soft soap we'll attain no sympathy.
There's only one duty: to Germanize this country by the immigration of
Germans and to look upon the natives as Redskins.' Having been a devoted
reader of  Karl May's (sp?) books on the American West as a youth, Hitler
frequently referred to the Russians as 'Redskins.' He saw a parallel
between his effort to conquer and colonize land in Russia with the
conquest of the American West by the white man and the subjugation of
Indians or Redskins. 'I don't see why,' he said, 'a German who eats a
piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that
produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from
Canada, we don't think about the despoiled Indians.'

I read this passage to the Moderator. So here we have evidence. Nobody
would have any problem in using the word genocide when talking about the
Nazis and what they did. And furthermore, clear evidence that Hitler's
inspiration  was the Canadian/American experience with respect to First
Nations peoples. So what are we to make, then, of the continual refusal to
use that word, genocide? And the explanation? "Our parishioners aren't
ready for that yet." As we pointed out to the Moderator today, we have no
time left. Our elders are dying, our children are dying, we don't have
time for people to get "ready" for it. As long as these cover-ups
continue, as long as they refuse to call it what it is, the genocide and
legacies of genocide continue. I'm sure that somebody who commits murder
doesn't want to call it murder; one more example: remember the case of
Bishop O'Connor, who committed violent rape, convicted three time and got
off three times, and finally he has a "healing session circle" in lieu of
being tried for the fourth time? What does he do? He said, "I apologize
for violating my responsibilities as a priest for having had sexual
relations with my parishioners." No rape - it's hard for him to use that
word rape. He didn't have "sexual relations." He beat and mauled and raped
women and he was convicted three times for doing it. So with all due
respect to the Moderator, and we're grateful he gave us time and listened
to us, this is a phony apology.

What's interesting is that when we read the 1998 one tonight, it's even
worse than the 1986 one. Why they would tout that to us is inexplicable.
In law, if I see that a crime has been committed, and I cover it up, and
covering it up includes not calling it what it is, that's a coverup. Two
crimes have been a committed: (1) I'm a party morally to the perpetration
of the original crime I'm helping to cover up by not calling it what it is
and discussing its true magnitude, and (2) I've created a new crime, the
crime of coverup, which is a second crime. And that's what we're talking
about here. You've got evidence that the major inspiration for Hitler was
exactly the system, the system of residential schools and everything that
went with it.

PL: Just a comment: not calling genocide "genocide" is covering up the
reality and changes the implications of what happened.


JC: Here they say in their apology "we did not hear you." No, true,
because children were not allowed to speak. They were beaten whenever they
did anything "Indian." When  children said their prayers in their native
language they were beaten and tortured. When a child wore her hair long,
the hair was cut. When a child wore traditional ornaments and regalia, he
or she was beaten and then mocked and tormented. Saying "you said it to us
but we didn't hear you..." No. They were never allowed to be Indian from
the first day of residential school. Just like boot camp in the military.
>From the first day you're told you're not an Indian here. Get ready for
it. Don't speak your language. So here they're saying "we have so much
respect for you native people, we're sorry we didn't listen to you." Well,
when you don't call genocide "genocide," you desecrate the memory,
desecrate the pain and desecrate the suffering of all of those who
suffered in that system.

Better you don't apologize--just say go to hell--than a phony apology that
is designed to mitigate your damages in any litigation and mitigate your
cognitive dissonance problems, and cover up what that system was about.
That system wasn't about Jesus Christ. There's nowhere in the bible that
sanctions what went on in that residential school. Nothing that sanctions
gang rape and torture, sterilization, using children for medical
experiments, secret graveyards, forcing children to eat their own vomit,
putting glue in their nose, cutting their hair. I've read the gospel a
fair amount and I find nothing that went on the Residential Schools that
is remotely connected to Jesus Christ. To suggest that their motives were
missionary zeal is a cover-up; their motives were economic, political,
cultural. Their motives were genocide. They were subcontractors in

The Canadian government shares responsibility and it's not enough to say,
well, the Catholics did it too, Mormans did it to, Lutherans,
Presbyterians. That's not going to wash for whoever did it. It's not up to
the United Church to point to the other Churches. It's up to the UC to
point to themselves and do what they ask every one of their parisioners to
do: properly atone, make it right, and stop it and make the damages right.
Because people who suffered, they're paying their medical bills, for their
drugs, they're paying in many ways, some of which are financial. Meanwhile
these people are flying all over the place, have big salaries, have big
homes and so on. This isn't going to go away.

They want to jump right to reconciliation without healing; they want to
jump to healing without justice and truth. In an aboriginal court, the
mandates  form a sacred hoop; without truth, nothing else follows.
Without truth there can be no justice; without truth and justice there can
be no healing; without truth, justice and healing, there can be no
reconciliation; and without truth, justice, healing and reconciliation,
there can be no prevention of future abuses. And without all of that,
there can be no climate to further the search of truth; and so it forms
from truth to truth, the sacred hoop. Trust is the center, the core, the

This "apology" has nothing to do with the truth. This is an evasion,
dissembling, obfuscation. But worse: by putting some flowery language in
here, some ersatz Indian language... "long before my people journeyed to
this land, your people were here, you received from your elders..." It's
ersatz Indian talk. "How. Me Tonto." It's "Great Spirit" talk. It's a
caricature and its insulting, demeaning, patronizing, and it won't wash.

PL: Here's the "new" apology:
To former students of the UC Indian Residential Schools and to their
families and communities: From the deepest reaches of your memories, you
have shared with us your stories of suffering from our Church's
involvement in the operation on Indian residential schools. You have
shared the personal and historic pain that you still bear and you have
been vulnerable yet again. You have also shared with us your strength and
wisdom born of the life-giving dignity of your communities and traditions
and your stories of survival. In response to our Church's commitment to
repentance, I spoke these words of apology on behalf of the General
Counsel and Executive on Tuesday, October 27, 1998: 'As Moderator of the
UC of Canada, I wish to speak the words that many people have wanted to
hear for a very long time. On behalf of the UC of Canada, I apologize for
the pain and suffering that our Church's involvement in the Indian
residential school system has caused.

We are aware of some of the damage that this cruel and ill-conceived
system of assimilation has perpetuated on Canada's First Nations people.
For this we are truly and most humbly sorry. To those individuasl who were
physically, sexually and mentally abused as students of the Indian
residential schools in which the UC of Canada was involved, I offer you
our most sincere apology. You did nothing wrong. You were and are the
victims of evil acts that cannot under any circumstances be justified or
excused. We know that many within our Church will still not understand why
each of us must bear the scar, the blame for this horrendous period in
Canadian history, but the truth is we are the bearers of many blessings
from our ancestors and therefore we must also bear their burdens. Our
burdens include dishonoring the depths of the struggles of the First
Nations peoples and the richness of your gifts. We seek God's forgiveness
and healing grace as we take steps towards building respectful compassion
and loving relationships with First Nations peoples. We are in the midst
of a long and painful journey as we reflect on the cries that we did not
and would not hear, and how we have behaved as a Church. As we travel this
difficult road of repentance, reconciliation and healing, we commit
ourselves to work towards incurring that we will never again use our power
as a Church to hurt others with attitudes of racial and spiritual
superiority. We pray that you will hear the sincerity of our words today
and that you will witness the living out of our apology and our actions in
the future. Sighed: The Right Rev. Bill Phipps (sp?) of the UC of Canada

Lets start with the first paragraph:
>From the deepest reaches of your memories, you have shared with us your
stories of suffering from our Church's involvement in the operation on
Indian residential schools. You have shared the personal and historic pain
that you still bear and you have been vulnerable yet again. You have also
shared with us your strength and wisdom born of the life-giving dignity of
your communities and traditions and your stories of survival.

JC: When exactly have residential school victims, other than in court,
been allowed to "share" their stories? Every time the residential school
victims tried to share their stories, they were called crazy, they
marginalized, demonized and slandered. The churches used various
obstructionist and legal tactics designed to bankrupt the victims so they
could never get to court. In some cases people who protested or tried to
tell the story were murdered; in some cases they lost their tribal
connections. For instance, even when we had the Tribunal in Vancouver, we
had witnesses intimidated there, one of whom who was doing it was indeed
on the UC payroll and  I personally witnessed that individual intimidating
witnesses at the Tribunal. So every time the victims have tried to tell
the story with specifics, they have been obstructed. We need specifics,
not for salacious detail, but we need to know because these are crimes,
crimes that people need to be brought to the bar of justice. We can't
bring them to the bar of justice when the Church continues to seal its
archives, when they continue to refuse to get into the specifics, and when
they try to get sealed settlements, for example, so the specifics won't
come out in court, when they fight it in court, rather than simply
stipulating known and proved truths. So when they said "you shared it",
it's not because of what the Church has done. It's actually tried to
obstruct residential school victims being able to give specifics and
names. In fact, the perpetrators of these crimes, when they were brought
to the bar of justice in the few cases, many times got off on
technicalities, because the victims weren't assisted in discovery. So that
part there may sound nice but the reality is that only very recently and
only with considerable effort have the victims been able to give some of
the specifics of what happened to them, and certainly without any help
from the Church.

You remember, I gave the document to Rev. Phipps which had his name on it
where he had been asked to come to an inter-Tribal Tribunal, and he didn't
attend? That could mean that he was busy, but he didn't even bother to
respond. I gave him a list of all those people from the UC who were asked
to be at that tribunal to assist in the discovery process so that people
who wouldn't have to testify and drag out these demons and suffer more
trauma and damage. It has been through no help of the Catholic Church, or
the UC or any other churches. We asked them to help uncover the story so
that the true story could be told and we could help find out who did what
and in some cases bring people to the bar of justice, but without having
to make some of the victims bring out the demons and the trauma and having
to relive what they had gone through. It would be much easier if they
would use their offices to help because they have the archives, the
documents, that would help us find out who did what and when. We never got

 PL: 'As Moderator of the UC of Canada, I wish to speak the words that
many people have wanted to hear for a very long time. On behalf of the UC
of Canada, I apologize for the pain and suffering that our Church's
involvement in the Indian residential school system has caused. We are
aware of some of the damage that this cruel and ill-conceived system of
assimilation has perpetuated on Canada's First Nations people. For this we
are truly and most humbly sorry.

JC: Well, in one way that's a step forward, and it's a step forward in the
sense that it's not suggesting that what went wrong was how the schools
were run, but the problem is in the schools themselves. It's suggesting
that the whole system itself, from its foundations upward, was corrupt and
rotten. But again, where did that system come from? Why did that system
come about? What was behind it? Was it just psychological abberations?
People just had it in for Indians, is that it? Or thought that Indians
would just be better off looking white or acting white? There are concrete
material, political, economic, social, cultural, systemic interests behind
genocide anywhere it occurs. Genocide doesn't happen just because one
group has a thing for another group. That's the rationale sometimes. But
always behind genocide you find land, resources, markets, interests,
profit, power, power projection, imperial conquest, moving somebody out in
order to move somebody else in. And so when he said "ill-conceived
system," OK, but why? Where did that system come from and why was it
ill-conceived?  Ill-conceived by whom and for what purpose. Did they just
have a bad day? Just got it wrong? So in one sense it goes a little bit
further because some people suggest that it wasn't the schools themselves
that were wrong, but how they were run. But the reality is that any time
you try to force your religion on other people it's wrong. You got no
right to take children and beat Jesus into them; or rather your sick,
twisted notion of Jesus into them You have no right to declare their
culture and spirituality inferior and backward and pagan, and declare your
own religion and gospel to be THE TRUTH, THE LIGHT, and anyone who doesn't
accept it does so at the pain or going to hell but more...the pain of
being beaten or murdered, raped.  So the whole notion of missionary zeal
itself assumes this. What right to you have to take your private business
and push it on other people, in their faces? Who gave you that right?
What's behind that ill-conceived evil system? There's no discussion of
that, and there again avoidance of the word genocide; and it was a
genocidal system. Its intent...all five specifics of Article 2 of the UN
Convenion on Genocide, were the intent of that system; it happened to too
many people. What few of their documents that survive, that they haven't
destroyed, say that  clearly; it's not just about spreading the good word.

W/Roland Chrisjohn & Jim Craven

Moderator: Why this conference here in Fredericton, now?

RC: Basically, it's a response to a continuing trend that's been happening
right across Canada. Earlier this year both the Catholic and Anglican
Churches met, and met in more populated centers than Fredericton...Toronto
was their meeting place where they decided to reconstitute themselves,
restructure themselves organizationally in such as way as to limit their
liability over the residential school litigation.  All the churches are
beginning to be very public in their concerns about the very real
possibility that this litigation with respect to their involvement in
residential schools could lead to their bankruptcy. So the Catholics and
the Anglicans have already taken steps to avoid that by contending that
they're just a bunch of people who read the same books and sing the same
hymns and bow to the same people, but if you want to argue what happened
at this particular residential school, argue with that Anglican Church
because that's not the same as the other Anglican Church right across the
road. Well, one of the things is that the UC is meeting, and we don't
really know what their agenda is, they haven't approached us, but we've
been concerned that the supposed First Nations advocacy organizations ,
like the Assembly of First Nations, have done absolutely nothing to
interject these kinds of concerns at these previous meetings that were
held elsewhere. When the UC decided that they were going to hold a meeting
in Fredericton we thought that this was our opportunity at least to get
one of the churches to set a slightly different agenda other than, "how
are we going to cover our ass" in the way that  for instance Dow Corning
did over the breast implant problem, or Ford Motor Co. did over the Pinto.


We said, we want you to consider another set of issues that you haven't
been considering. We invited the UC to come to our conference and it was
open to the public, well advertised as best we could, with the idea that
as long as issues of the immorality of what a moral institution did, what
the Churches did, as long as that's not on the table, then none of these
considerations that the gov or any of the churches are undergoing about
what to do about the residential schools is actually addressing the real
issue and we want them to get on board with that.

JC: Here's a parallel: suppose I recklessly go out and get drunk and
stoned, run a bunch of red lights, and I cause you serious damage. You're
in the hospital with long term medical bills bankrupting you. I turn
around and while I'm driving my Mazarrati,  I declare bankruptcy to avoid
liability. So your medical bills go on, I tell you I'm sorry but I'm
broke, meanwhile I continue to drive my car and live in my big home,
telling you all the time, gee, I'm really sorry about that, I hope you
really believe that I'm genuinely sorry about that. Well, that's precisely
what they did. You were at the conference today, you saw some people
spontaneously tell about the pain they're suffering, and they're suffering
real damages, real costs, from real pain and hardship that they endured in
those churches. One of them we heard today was a victim of  Port Alberni
of the United Church. Her medical bills are ongoing and directly trace
back to trauma she suffered in Port Alberni. She wound up in an emergency
ward because of a mess-up.

And yet they propose to say they're sorry and restructure so they don't
have to pay victims like her for the ongoing medical liabilities and pain
they're suffering that cost money. Shrinks and lawyers don't work for
free. Drugs are not free, even in Canada. So knowing the shameless
hypocrisy of these people in not making a genuine atonement as they tell
their parishoners they should do, the shameless hypocrisy of restructuring
in order to avoid liability and payments and financial obligations that
will then be borne by those victims one more time, the victims not only
bear the pain and suffering, they bear the financial responsiblities, as
the churches continue to build  big churches, continue to pay huge
salaries to some of the parasites that run these organizations, and
meanwhile their victims are left, often poor and indigent, with mounting
bills while the church escapes any liability for them.

RC: I would like to interject that we should say, their potential attempt
to do that because again, we really don't know what the UC really wants to
do and I'm stupid enough to believe that the tactics that any of the
churches have adopted haven't been as a result of the church membership as
a whole deciding that, hey, we better cover our ass on this, I think it's
been an institutional decision to subtract morality out of the decision
making process. And my real hope is that an institution that poses as a
moral institution will actually begin to use moral bases in order to come
to grips with the past and the present.

JC:  That's right. Either that or just give up the act altogether. Give up
your act and stop preaching to people. Either walk your talk or get out of
the business and stop your shameless hypocrisy. I agree with Roland, it's
not the average parishoners who are doing this, but the people with the
big salaries and cars who take the big trips to exotic places who are
doing this stuff. It's clear in their restructuring that there's an intent
to limit liability or exposure. If nobody wants to see them bankrupt, the
first concern should be responsibility for these actions. Maybe they have
to sell their Mazarratis, sell their big houses and move into an apartment
; better that than the persons damaged should have to suffer from damage
caused from negligence, forseeable conequences of actions and something
people protested against at the time. It's not that we've suddenly come to
a new realization that what was done was wrong. We knew it then that it
was wrong, and the evidence for that is that all of the residential
schools of Canada were in out-of-the-way places. If you look at a map,
they're all on islands and tucked away in these out-of-the-way places,
partly to remove them from people and brainwash them better, partly to
prevent them from escaping, but partly to prevent those schools from being
exposed. If you look at Part Alberni, and Alert Bay, the rest of them,
they're all in out-of-the-way places. They knew what they were doing was
wrong; no need to hide what's clean, only what's dirty, and they were
hiding what was dirty, and they new it was dirty at the time, because they
never allowed their precious white children to be put in those schools.
Those schools were for Indian children, not white children.


Narrator:  Unfortunately we're running out of time. It feels like we just
started to get into some of this. Any closing comments?

RC:  Just that again there's still an opportunity for Canadians in
general, the government and churches, to do the right thing. If I didn't
think there was that possibility, I would have shut up about it a long
time ago. What I've tried to say to the churches overall is that if you
think your getting away with genocide you might be getting away with it on
this level, but if you really believe what it is that you've been shoving
down everybody's throats all these years, there's still somebody else that
you're going to have to account to for this, and you're not going to get
away with that.

JC:  Get right, walk your talk, get right with the creator, do the right
thing, or else come out with what you are and stop lecturing other people
about human rights. If you don't get it together, you have no right to
lecture anybody about anything.

[ end Part I ]

More information about the Marxism mailing list