.

Wow! That is sickening...

Not being familiar with the history, I am sure I am missing the point here. Will someone please explain to me what the connection is between the letter about going home for Christmas and the comment about the unmarked graves?

Thanks and cheers

I have no context for that letter at all. I've seen school correspondence for the time period that rivals it. My father was sent home with a letter explaining that the chalk brush that was thrown at his head (three stitiches) might have been hurled with a tiny bit too much force.

I'm pretty sure it's an artifact of theresidential school scandal (http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/articles/macleans/residential-church-school-scandal).

The story of native residential schools is an ignoble chapter in Canadian history. For more than a century, well over 100,000 aboriginal children attended the institutions, jointly run by Ottawa and four Canadian churches. In all, around 20 per cent of natives, often the poorest from families in crisis, went to the schools. Over the years, politicians and bureaucrats tried to describe the schools in lofty terms; 19th-century documents said the facilities would keep the children "within the circle of civilized conditions" where they would get the "care of a mother." Underlying the lofty rhetoric was one disastrous goal: assimilation by stripping aboriginals of their language and culture.
For generations, the drastically underfunded system subjected defenceless children to emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Among the scarring indignities: children burned with cigarettes and punched in the ear so hard they lost their hearing. Understandably, many victims are now fighting back, demanding compensation for the agonies they endured. What began as a whisper of litigation in the mid-1990s has now become a storm: to date, a staggering 6,324 native plaintiffs (not including class-action suits) are suing the federal government and, in many cases, the Roman Catholic, United, Anglican and Presbyterian churches. Some are seeking damages for sexual and physical abuse, but 90 per cent of plaintiffs also allege cultural loss - a claim as yet untested in the courts. Should these actions be successful, they could cost the government and churches billions of dollars. And potential payouts notwithstanding, legal fees alone, experts say, will almost certainly bankrupt some churches.

Not being familiar with the history, I am sure I am missing the point here. Will someone please explain to me what the connection is between the letter about going home for Christmas and the comment about the unmarked graves?

Thanks and cheers
Tilt: here are several links that will explain it better then I can, and there are many more if one does a google search.
The mention of the unmarked graves is in reference to all the kids who were removed forcibly from their families, sent to these schools and never to be seen again.
Turtle Island Native Network (http://www.turtleisland.org/resources/resources001.htm)
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS and ABUSE (http://www.niichro.com/womhealth/wohealth7.html)
The Child Abuse Monument Project - Residential Institutions (http://www.irvingstudios.com/child_abuse_survivor_monument/ResidentialInstitutions.htm)

Right, but that particular document doesn't seem out of line with other stuff I've seen from the period.

You have two things going on here. First, the residential schools was an attempt to "civilize" the Indians. cultural preservation was not at the top of their minds. Plus the schools came in with a superior white man versus savage attitude.

Second is the general tone of the day. Things were rougher then. My father in law ran a foul of the principal. The principal thew him down the stairs. Problem solved.

This was also the time when your employer could dictate whether or not you got married. MY dad worked for the Bank of Toronto. They had a salary rule. He waited 10 years to marry my mom.

You have to be really careful with documents out of context.