Forgot what you alleged, or can you not comprehend what I posted?
What does this pertain to when they are discovered to be the "REMAINS"?
Are You living in denial that these children were abused sexually, physically and many of them perished without their parents even being informed about it?
If the parents were not informed what does that tell You about the circumstance of their deaths then what does that indicate? Stop believing all the fake news from a Mouth piece of the Murdochs themselves!!
Now, if the CBC, BBC and several outlets have confirmed that they were the "REMAINS", what other proof do you require?
Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says
Nothing but massive confusion on your part. Like the Griswald ball of Christmas lights. I don't have the energy. Your problem is that you don't understand what you have read, or perhaps how to read between the lines.
One small example. All the media has done is reported - correctly - that investigators believe they may have found gravesites that were unmarked. However, these investigators are using technology that is not as accurate as actually exhuming the sites, and therefore may prove to be in error to some degree, large or small. The accurate truth will be known if the graves are all exhumed. I have yet to hear that there is firm plan to do so. However, the media then trips themselves up by reporting the conclusions that native activists have drawn, as if the factual premise has already been proven (which it hasn't) (nevermind the logical leaps you need to get there, even on the purported facts.)
There are records of death for children in these schools. For one thing, the schools had to submit records to get funded by the government (even Liberals don't pay for empty schools!). It defies credulity that parents were not informed of the death of their child (as long as the family could be identified, which could prove challenging in some cases for reasons having nothing to do with federal government).
It may be fair to ask, or to postulate a position about:
1. Were children properly cared for in these schools (at least to the standards of the day and of the community they lived in)?
2. Were children better off for the education they received, or worse off?
3. Were there better (
and reasonably achievable) alternatives to delivering education to native children?
4. Were gravesites tended to reasonably (according to the standards of the time and of the community)?
The first question is a health care question, not a cultural one. The second question is an evaluation of the program, talking into account costs AND benefits. The third is an honest evaluation of the scope of the problem being addressed, and what the reasonable alternatives were (not just the preferences of one stake holder group). The last concerns the dignity afforded to the dead, but in the context of the time and place they occured within.
What is ridiculous, and unworthy of serious consideration, is the notion that this was some exterminination program. It just wasn't. The numbers don't make that out, and neither the government nor the church would have had any interest or benefit in making it so. To be ghoulish, the cheapest way for far more native children to have died would have simply been to leave them on the reservations, because that's what would have happened. Instead, the government believed these children would be better off if they joined mainstream Canadian culture. You can take issue with that, but you can't convert that into an intention to kill these children.
Truth and reconciliation? We aren't even at truth yet!