Residential school hoax argument built on mistakes

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/10/2023 (739 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In 2021, Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation leaders announced the discovery of 215 potential unmarked graves on the grounds of a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C.

Since then, dozens of First Nations have unveiled similar findings across the country.

Searches are now underway — a painstakingly slow process, due to the sensitivity and time required on sites decades and even centuries old.

At the same time, a number of Canadians — politicians, professors, writers and members of religious clergy — have minimized and rejected these findings.

By pointing out mistakes in media coverage, these individuals have called the entire issue of unmarked burial sites at residential schools a “huge lie” or a “hoax” fabricated by First Nations, the federal government and other nefarious forces.

A new report released this week by University of Manitoba researchers points out the real problem with these conspiracy theories: cherry picking.

Cherry picking is when someone making an argument chooses only specific information beneficial to their point, ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.

U of M researchers Reid Gerbrandt and Sean Carleton studied 386 news articles across five major Canadian outlets (CBC, Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star and The Canadian Press) reporting on the story of unmarked graves at residential school sites.

They found the majority of reporting correct, but a small amount contained errors, such as claiming a “mass grave” existed at Kamloops (rather than individual potential burial sites), human remains had been “discovered” (no exhumations had taken place yet), and ground-penetrating radar had “uncovered remains” (this is not how the technology works).

Gerbrandt and Carleton found individuals claiming potential unmarked graves at residential schools were a “huge lie,” “hoax” or “fake news” overwhelmingly relied on these mistakes and ignored the vast majority of media that used correct information.

“We thus conclude,” the researchers say, “the ‘mass grave hoax’ narrative hinges on a misrepresentation of how Canadian journalists actually reported on the identification of potential unmarked graves at former residential school sites during the spring, summer and fall of 2021. Those spreading the hoax narrative are engaging — intentionally or unintentionally — in a strategy of cherry picking, of suppressing or distorting evidence to confirm a preconceived position.”

This “preconceived position,” they point out, is residential school denialism.

Residential school denialism is when an individual openly (and often aggressively) rejects accounts of atrocities by survivors, arguing their stories of violence, starvation and death are lies, exaggerations and attempts to gain money or attention.

Denialists extend such condemnations to anyone who believes residential school survivors.

By cherry picking a few mistakes by media as proof of “fake news,” Gerbrandt and Carleton’s research illustrates how residential school denialists are poor readers at best, and propagandists at worst.

Like climate change or science deniers, residential school denialists ignore the majority of legitimate facts and rely on dubious opinions.

The problem, of course, is such denialism encourages, endorses and even perpetrates harm — particularly against Indigenous communities trying to find out what happened to the children who were taken away to residential school and never came home.

Last summer, Canada’s independent special interlocutor assigned to study and advise the country on how to deal with the issue of potential unmarked graves at residential schools identified “denialists” had become a huge problem.

In her interim report to the federal government, Kimberly Murray identified denialism had become “violent” and “prolific,” with survivors and searchers in Indigenous communities undergoing attacks “via email, telephone, social media, op-eds and, at times, through in-person confrontations.”

She identified instances where individuals “came in the middle of the night, carrying shovels” to former residential school sites, claiming “they wanted to ‘see for themselves’ if children are buried there.”

One might think, after the compilation of documents and testimonies on residential schools, a six-year study by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and countless acknowledgements by the federal government and churches who ran the schools it would be impossible to dispute genocide occurred.

One might think, after such an atrocity, a little listening, believing and patience for those most impacted would go a long way.

One might think this country has heard enough truth and might start to move towards some semblance of reconciliation.

When the truth gets in the way, though, those who want to deny what happened at residential schools just sidestep facts, cherry pick a few mistakes and perpetrate a story in the interests of harm, personal/political gain and profit.

One would hope we might get past them one day.

niigaan.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca