Email to Dr Ellis and Elder Dallaire
Dear Dr Ellis and Elder Dallaire, you may be aware that a Friends of Egerton Ryerson has been formed and aims at restoring his good reputation. We are not trying to change the name of TMU back, but to see that errors said about him are corrected.
Your report never called him the “architect” of the residential school system, as he is now routinely described, including by many at TMU.As I write, the plaque that denounces him as “instrumental” in the design and implementation of the residential school is still up. You should support the demand for its prompt removal.
In your Appendix D, Part I on his “Life” sets out his great achievements, hence is largely complimentary, but there are several statements of concern. Part II has far more. Part I includes a comparison between Ryerson and Davin, as if there were a connection. Yet Davin never cited Ryerson as a source, as you note. Davin was the source most instrumental in the design of the residential school system, commissioned by the then prime minister to visit American reservations and advise. If you know of some link, please state what. Hayden King made the point that they were “linked,” again implicating Ryerson in the system he had never recommended.
Your point 1829-31 Mohawk Institute established, but what did Ryerson have to do with this Anglican-run school?
Your point 1830: Colonial Office adopts the “Civilization Policy,” again what did Ryerson have to do with it?
Three of your headings seem to be misleading, suggesting a connection that does not exist:
1847 Report of Dr. Ryerson on Industrial Schools, but that was the name put on it in 18998, when it was printed in 1898; in 1847 it was but a handwritten letter written at the request of George Vardon.
1849-50 includes Ryerson’s “tolerance for racially segregated schooling.” Yet he abhorred segregated schools, as part of his faith that God is the creator of us all and thus thre should be no rank, nor title, nor “nation.” He considered them an affront to the constitution if the government authorized them. But they were a fact of life then, under the control of elected municipal councils—he had no control over them,but did what he could to minimize them. What more could he have done?
The dates in Part II range from1883, after Ryerson’s death, to 2021 with the finding of 215 “bodies,” although no bodies were found, only anomalies in the soil. Only six of your 36 points are on his legacy. Many are on historical events and all too many are on residential schools, for none of which you provided evidence to implicate Ryerson. Many, beginning with your first point, 1883 commitment to funding, and 1883-1930 systematic growth relate to Parliament, for which there is a record, Hansard, where Ryerson is simply not cited.So, how are these Indian Act amendments and policies his “legacy”? If you have any sources please state what. Further,
1870-1952s Distinguishing Features of the Residential Schools,” But where did he ever advocate them?
1879 Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds (the “Davin Report” But Davin never cited Ryerson and Ryerson never advocated for Davin’s report, so why mention it? It was probably the major influence on what became the residential school system, so this is a damning, undeserved, connection. I note that Hayden King referred to Ryerson being “linked” with it, perhaps from your doing it?
Your Point 5 is “1894 Indian Act Amendment,” again with no evidence of any connection with him.
Point 6 is a repeat of the 1847 point, laying it on thick!
Did you know that Ryerson NEVER referred to residential schools in his writing? Name any sources you can. There are three biographies of him (Burwash, Thomas and Damania) and a two-volume Life and Letters (Sissons), and two doctoral theses (Pearce and Cohen), none with discussion of residential schools. Nor did Putnam’s book on his education system, which you note, ever mention residential Schools. Nor is there any such mention in Ryerson’s own memoir, Story of My Life. So, where is the connection? How are they his “legacy”? Relevant as well is the fact that Loram and McIlwraith’s North American Indian Today, 361 pages, reports a seminar which brought out much material on residential schools, yet there is not one reference to Ryerson in it.
I would appreciate a prompt acknowledgment of receipt of this email, and a substantive reply when you can deal with these concerns.
Sincerley, Lynn McDonald, CM, PhD, LLD (hon), professor emerita, FRHistS