The first CA residential schools were a Christian effort. The first was started in 1820 by missionary John West in the Red River colony, with funding from the (British) Church Mission Society.

By 1901, though, "In Canada, the Indian residential school ... network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and administered by Christian churches." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...] The compulsory schooling of children between 7 and 16 was the result of 1894 amendments to Canada's 1876 Indian Act ... often mentioned by the First Nations.

Edit: Adding a link to a very good article posted after Kamloops, called "Why so many children died at Indian Residential Schools". It also quickly details the scope of the operations and conditions across Canada.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-gr...

It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures.

Yes. I apologize if I implied otherwise. I was talking more about what conditions were like when they were created.

> It's not just that these children died. These were indigenous children that died without the knowledge of their families because the Residential Schools intentionally uprooted them from their cultures.

Agreed. I did also make that point.

Well, from a quick Google according to government numbers in 1907 there was a 40 – 60% mortality rate in Indian residential schools. Doesn't quite square with your assertion.

> But this is not necessarily an unreasonable death rate for a school that operated many decades. Especially for undernourished native kids who would've been much more vulnerable to diseases they had no historic immunity to.

These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable. And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care.

That's roughly double the population average. I expect it to be higher due to them lacking immunity, but still that's surprisingly high.

> These schools operated for many decades, far into the 20th century. At which point that death rate becomes even more unreasonable.

Obviously the death rate declined over time.

> And "undernourished kids without immunity are worse off" is not a defense if you are the one not caring for them properly and forcing them to live in such dense groups with inadequate medical care.

Yes and no. The schools obviously had nothing to do with them being undernourished or lacking immunity before entering the system. If they continued being undernourished after that, that's is on the schools and the government. Maintaining poor living conditions is also on them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say they're blameless - because there are plenty of reports to the contrary. What I'm trying to say is a couple hundred graves outside a school in the modern era sounds like a crime against humanity. Placed properly in the historical times in which it happened, where child mortality was insanely high, especially among natives, it may well have been not that remarkable. It requires more careful analysis and not the knee jerk emotional reaction that I've been seeing.

But if we look at the base rate of 30 percent, we notice it’s not out of context.

What a strange reaction.