Let me tell you about Adolphus Egerton Ryerson. All his life he was a strong-willed reformer and crusader for noble causes. He fought the assumptions and the prerogatives of the Anglican church. He became a Methodist minister, eventually becoming the President of the Methodist Church of Canada. Combining with two other denominations, it later became United Church of Canada.
That church does not create or acknowledge any saints, but if it did, Rev. A.E. Ryerson would be one for sure. (In Newfoundland they named two mission boats after him.) Why? He founded and edited the Christian Guardian, a very influential periodical in its day, (1829) fighting bad political positions and influencing good ones.
He was a strong believer in the value of universal and non-denominational education. He believed that education should
not only be compulsory, but also imbued with religious and moral values, as a way of improving individuals and society as a whole.
Ryerson was not a radical by any means. He succeeded in founding the Upper Canada Academy (1836) and became its first principal. His dedication to the cause of education was based on his deep liberal optimism in mankind. Because of his prominent role, he was appointed as superintendent of education, a position he held for 32 years. Based on Ryerson’s
principles and methods, culminating in the School Act of 1871, Ontario gained a first rate primary and secondary school system.
Not a bad fellow, you might say. He has a famous Ontario University (best known for writing and journalism) named after him, with the student body now of over 40,000. At that university, there stands a large statute of him.
And that is the problem!
Egerton Ryerson, the educator and reformer was a contemporary of Sir John A. Macdonald and also of Hector–Louis Langevin. The latter, a father of Confederation from Québec, became Secretary of State and Superintendent of Indian affairs. It was during this period that the residential school system for native Canadians came into being.
Ryerson did not discriminate. His universalist view of the benefits of a liberal education certainly included the Indian population (as they were called then) of the country. Because of his role in advocating such a school system he is now vilified. Protesters of various stripes and gripes now demand that his name be removed from the university and his statute, as well, of course. (Protesters have already been successful to have to name of Langevin removed from one of the buildings on Parliament Hill.)
To summarize the current accusations against Ryerson is to use the phrase that "he practiced cultural genocide against indigenous people.“ He certainly did not. As a circuit–riding preacher and missionary he had relations with Indian communities and experience with Methodist aboriginal missions. It is true that he believed that the native people would benefit from an education system. It is equally true that he hoped that by such an effort the advantages of a modern, western civilization might be shared and adopted.
Of course, "assimilation" is such a horribly negative word and concept today. From “threatened assimilation” to "cultural genocide "is just a short slide.
Egerton Ryerson did not advocate nor foresee the abuses, by psychopaths and sexual deviants, which would infiltrate the system and do untold harm. Should he have foreseen that?
Should he have foreseen that for several generations after his death religious radicals and racists would use extreme measures to make the system work as a way to solve they "Indian problem" in this country. Of course not.
I am not trying in the least to justify or to minimize the wrongs of the residential school system.
I just wish that critics were a bit fairer and objective in their approach and assessments. I just wish that protesters were more guided by historical truths then by hatred and feelings of revenge. Let’s face it, the residential school system has resulted in thousands of indigenous people in this country gaining an education; to become leaders, teachers and other professionals.
Protests to the point of threats of violence are not appropriate. Too often they are the results of a general personal alienation with the world. I have never believed that you can lift yourself up by pushing or tearing somebody else down. Therefore, such protests should not be heeded so often and so easily (e.g. The Langevin Building), because that gives rise to more entitlement to protest and to tear down. We, as a society, should not so easily submit to protests based on ignorance of history, or on half-truths or historical distortions.
Cornwallis came down for those reasons: protests, threats of violence, telling lies or half truths, and cowardice by the public press, politicians, historians and archivists.
The better solution surely is to learn from history. Learn from and better understand the wrongs and failings from the past. Hatred, revenge or a revenge–type racism cannot possibly lead to better outcomes. It can only lead–and there are some signs of it in our country–to a backlash from the otherwise silent majority of Canadians. And that would not do anybody any good.
Morris Haugg is a member of the Amherst News Community Editorial Panel.
