"The weaning"

[Frank Moher]

I've just uploaded what I think is a pretty extraordinary document to backofthebook.ca, to the Deja Vu section. It's comprised of excerpts from the autobiography of Egerton Ryerson -- which he ingeniously titled The Story of My Life -- and offers a microscopic, early-days look at the birth of the residential schools system, for which we finally, as a nation, apologized this week. I've titled the article "The weaning," taken from this quote of Ryerson's (who, yes, also gave his name to the university): "Their education must consist not merely training of the mind, but of a weaning from the habits and feelings of their ancestors, and the acquirements of the language, art and customs of civilized life."

Yes, we all know how misguided it was, but there's something morbidly fascinating about watching a purely mad system of values begin to be built into an institution. Or was it madness? Maybe Ryerson was just a man of his time? I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on it, if you care to start a discussion in the "I am Canadian" forum here.

Here's the link again.

[Eric Pettifor]

I don't doubt that there were those behind the residential schools who were motivated by other than altruism, but that a philosophy exists which could rationalize such and be adopted by well intentioned people whose hearts were in the right place is chilling. It would be comforting to believe that the whole thing was just the product of greed.

As for universities as residential schools in their own right, that's a rather disturbing thought. It's an over-statement, but I'm not sure by how much. Obviously one wouldn't want to make light of the suffering of someone who went through an actual residential school, but the role universities play in indoctrination into the culture is such that one might want to discourage high school students from considering enrolling until they're 25 years of age or older so that they have at least a little time to develop some sort of armor. Or better still, if mom and dad were going to pay for the education, just have them hand over the $50,000 or so and invest it. For many that would be a faster, better start than a bachelor of fuck all.

[Marshall]

"Yet it was abundantly clear to me that this philosophy could be used, and clearly was used, by well intentioned people to justify things like the residential schools."

It's likely a cliché to cite Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the context of this discussion, but I think it's appropriate to Eric's interesting analogy between the Philosophy of Education at SFU and Ryerson's rationale for the residential school notion of "weaning." Kurtz and those other Europeans bringing civilization to the savages of Africa clearly had commerce on their minds. Not madness but a thirst for expropriation may have informed Ryerson's ideas for residential schools.

Eric makes me wonder to what extent our modern universities are residential schools in their own right, where--to add insult to injury--students have to pay big bucks to learn they are barely civilized. To this end, I question Eric's use of the phrase "well-intentioned."

[Eric Pettifor]

"Yes, we all know how misguided it was, but there's something morbidly fascinating about watching a purely mad system of values begin to be built into an institution. Or was it madness? Maybe Ryerson was just a man of his time?"

About a decade ago I took an introductory course in Philosophy of Education at Simon Fraser University which blew my mind. The central lesson was that no one can be considered fully a 'person' unless they possess a modicum of familiarity with six domains of knowledge. I've since forgotten what they were exactly, but basically the traditional domains taught in Western universities for ages. The only thing which had changed from Ryerson's time, is that originally there were seven domains, but one of them was Religion, and these days universities are much more secular, so that domain has been dropped.

My objection was not so much for the manner in which Western culture chooses to sub-divide knowledge into domains, but rather the assertion that if you are deficient in knowledge of these domains, you are not fully a person. No attempt was made in the course to rationalize the residential schools; indeed, there was no mention of other culture's approaches to knowledge or the implications for this theory on non-Western cultures. Yet it was abundantly clear to me that this philosophy could be used, and clearly was used, by well intentioned people to justify things like the residential schools. What greater act of charity could there be than to raise sub-persons to the status of full personhood?

The other thing that blew my mind was that this insanity was still being taught at a university at the end of the 20th century. I would not be surprised if they are still teaching it today.