I applaud the effort post first and foremost, I would just raise a couple points:
Using the numbers you’ve provided:
~150,000 children went through the system over ~100 years, with ~4,000 dying while in the care of the system. This means approximately 2.7% of the indigenous children in the care of the RSS died.
Now, I would ask, in order to get an accurate assessment of reality, what were the rates of childhood/adolescent mortality during this same 100 year period of those children not in the RSS? I think you’ll find that mortality across the board was higher during this period. Proper sanitation and hygiene were only just being implemented during a large portion of those years.
From 1900-1950 the adolescent (5-9 yrs) death rate fell 90% for ALL AMERICANS down to only 62 per 100,000 meaning in 1900 it was ~620 per 100,000 or 0.6%. So we see some clear difference between the groups, but not much. Could that difference be explained by living in generally harsher, more remote places, less able to access medicine and other technologies which are revolutionizing lifespans?
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.79.7.899
Does that really sound like genocide? Or does it sound like something else? I think the main reason for pushback is because people are being accused of genocide, and don’t feel that’s an accurate picture of history.
I applaud the effort post first and foremost, I would just raise a couple points:
Using the numbers you’ve provided:
~150,000 children went through the system over ~100 years, with ~4,000 dying while in the care of the system. This means approximately 2.7% of the indigenous children in the care of the RSS died.
Now, I would ask, in order to get an accurate assessment of reality, what were the rates of childhood/adolescent mortality during this same 100 year period of those children not in the RSS? I think you’ll find that mortality across the board was higher during this period. Proper sanitation and hygiene were only just being implemented during a large portion of those years.
From 1900-1950 the adolescent (5-9 yrs) death rate fell 90% for ALL AMERICANS down to only 62 per 100,000 meaning in 1900 it was ~620 per 100,000 or 0.6%. So we see some clear difference between the groups, but not much. Could that difference be explained by living in generally harsher, more remote places, less able to access medicine and other technologies which are revolutionizing lifespans?
Does that really sound like genocide? Or does it sound like something else? I think the main reason for pushback is because people are being accused of genocide, and don’t feel that’s an accurate picture of history.
I applaud the effort post first and foremost, I would just raise a couple points:
Using the numbers you’ve provided:
~150,000 children went through the system over ~100 years, with ~4,000 dying while in the care of the system. This means approximately 2.7% of the indigenous children in the care of the RSS died.
Now, I would ask, in order to get an accurate assessment of reality, what were the rates of childhood/adolescent mortality during this same 100 year period of those children not in the RSS? I think you’ll find that mortality across the board was higher during this period. Proper sanitation and hygiene were only just being implemented during a large portion of those years.
Does that really sound like genocide? Or does it sound like something else? I think the main reason for pushback is because people are being accused of genocide, and don’t feel that’s an accurate picture of history.