Residential Schools: Did Authorities Know About Abuse and Fail to Act? (SOURCE: J. R. Millar, Shingwauk’s Vision, Chapt. 12.)

• Forms of Resistancea. Withholding/Removing Childrenb. Complaints and Playing on

Interdenominational Rivalriesc. Petitions to Ottawa or Church

Leadersd. Threats of Criminal Charges or Lawsuits (p. 357)

e. Student Defiance, Theft, & Running Away

f. Physical Violence: Arson; Assault; Murder, often after other forms of complaint proved ineffective

• InferenceIt would have been impossible for local officials (e.g., principals, Indian agents) to have concealed some of the resistance from senior officials in govt or churches.

Authorities’ Responses (Slide 2 of 3.)

• Discounting ComplaintsHQ staff of government and missionary

organizations tended to discount complaints from Natives themselves.

• Example of Non-ResponsivenessFederal inquiry into brutal regime of

Father Mackey at Shubenacadie was a “whitewash”. Led to a plot to assassinate him. (p. 356)

• Effectiveness of Complaining Depended Upon:

a. Existing Record of the Person About Whom Complaint is Made (p. 344)

b. Probability that the Cabinet Minister Would be Politically Embarrassed

(p.344) c. Denominational Rivalry Combined With Threat to Remove Children from the

School (p. 344) -

Authorities’ Responses (Slide 3 of 3.)

• Power Relationships

What emerges from Miller’s examination of resistance to the residential schools is NOT a simple picture of authority and submission.

RATHER, there was a subtle and shifting interplay of forces. - Sometimes, influence and power flowed in favour of the Native people, such that their protest and resistance did have some limited effect (e.g., the dismissal of a principal).

However, it would be inaccurate to conclude that the FN parents were able to force the schools to operate the way the parents wished.