1

EDUCATIONAL INEQUITIES IN CANADA: COMPARING FIRST NATIONS EXPERIENCES WITH THOSE OF THREE WESTERN CANADIAN IMMIGRANT GROUPS—MENNONITES (1874), DOUKHOBORS (1899), AND HUTTERITES (1918).

John W. Friesen, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

johnwfriesen@ucalgary.ca

and

Wilson Alves de Paiva, Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás (Brasil), and Post-Doctoral Fellow, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary

wap@usp.br

Abstract

While it can easily be documented that the Indigenous peoples of Canada have had to deal with unfair policies in terms of their children’s educational treatment over the last century, it can also be shown that several incoming ethnic communities have suffered similar circumstances. This paper will demonstrate that parallel restrictive educational policies and practices foisted on Canada’s First Nations by the Canadian government during the past century parallel those suffered by Mennonites, Doukhobors, and Hutterites. In most cases public sentiment has demonstrated a consensus of nonchalance pertaining to unfair regard for these groups by the Canadian government. The inequities promulgated by the Canadian government regarding the education of Mennonite, Doukhobor, and Hutterite children has included shutting down private schools, forcing minority children to enroll in residential schools, legislating requirements pertaining to the mandatory use of provincial curricula, and the inclusion of negative, false, and/or misleading misinformation about the beliefs and customs of these communities in curriculum content. Canada, it seems, has not necessarily been particularly sensitive in enacting unfair legislative policies and practices targeting both First Nations cultures and minority peoples who were officially invited to join our nations citizenry. It is necessary that suffering minority groups affected by such mistreatment become aware that they are not alone. In addition, it is mandatory that the Canadian public, particularly educators, resolve to amend matters so this kind of disregard for cultural uniqueness is not allowed to continue.

2

EDUCATIONAL INEQUITIES IN CANADA: COMPARING FIRST NATIONS EXPERIENCES WITH THOSE OF THREE WESTERN CANADIAN IMMIGRANT GROUPS—MENNONITES (1874), DOUKHOBORS (1899), AND HUTTERITES (1918).

The accommodation of minority groups in Canada has a long history…. Even though these arrangements for accommodating groups are important in Canada’s structures, some of them have been strongly challenged in post-Confederation history…. This antipathy toward accommodating distinct groups has often been attributed to the size of the English-speaking majorities in the affected provinces, but it is also a result of their political culture and philosophy (Janzen, 1990, p. 2). We cannot solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them—Albert Einstein.

When immigrant communities or individuals move to Canada they are

sometimes given the impression that they will be encouraged to maintain their heritage languages and cultural lifestyles. That illusion soon ends as the new arrivals discover that a condition of choosing this country as a permanent home will require that they adopt the language and lifestyle of dominant Canadian society. One of the primary institutions which the Canadian government has selected to accomplish this goal has been to use schooling as a vehicle of assimilation.

After arriving in Canada immigrants soon discover that a polarity evolves between supporting them in maintaining their languages and cultures while making Canada their home, while at the same time promoting a national policy of assimilation. The adoption of the latter orientation is premised on the notion that non-English-speaking minorities cannot succeed socioeconomically unless they adopt the language and lifestyle of dominant society- which is somehow logical, but controversial at the same time if we consider the multicultural policies. The historical documentation of this approach, using the school as a vehicle of assimilation, can easily be documented via the treatment of incoming minorities as well as French Catholic school systems in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Other examples of similar government restrictions on and unfair treatment of minorities, not strictly in pedagogical terms include Amish (Friesen and Friesen, 1996; Hostetler, 1963; Kraybill, 2001),Chinese (Lai, 1988), Doukhobors (Friesen and Verigin, 1996; Tarasoff, 1982), Hutterites (Hofer, 1982; Hostetler, 1975, Janzen and Stanton, 2010), Japanese (Adachi, 1976), Portuguese (Teixeira & Da Rosa, 2009), and Ukrainians (Kordan, 2002).

It can emphatically be stated that the treatment of many incoming ethnic communities stands in stark contrast to Canada’s national multicultural policy. Janzen (1990, p. 2) suggests that this situation has occurred because of two

3

contradictory influences in the Canadian political system on the issue of accommodating minority groups. On the one hand, Canada has a long history of inviting and accommodating minorities in accordance with a specific set of expectations and structures. On the other hand there is also in place in Canada a philosophy of liberalism that emphasizes individualism, a certain egalitarianism, majority rule, integration, and participation, with only limited appreciation of distinct groups. The latter orientation might explain why successive federal governments have chosen to adopt a blatantly assimilative approach towards educating children of minority backgrounds—regardless of background or heritage. Government leaders, and all too often educators as well, appear to envisage no alternative to this approach.

Although the current campaign for justice, human rights, and equal treatment emanates from the nation’s First Peoples, there is ample evidence that the suppression of their rights and freedoms in the past finds a ready parallel in the history of many immigrant communities in Canada. These include discrimination and prejudice, limitation of educational rights, the projection of distorted images, and even residential schools. Specifically, this paper will briefly document that the nature of restrictive educational policies and practices foisted on Canada’s First Nations by English-speaking Canadians are similar to those suffered by three specific groups in order of emigration—Mennonites (1874), Doukhobors (1899), and Hutterites (1918). These restrictions and interferences exhibit limited acceptance of cultural diversity, as well as the incapability of providing real multicultural schools, bolstered by an inflexible and often sanctimonious attitude on the part of Canadian governments. Two Points of Comparison: Aboriginal Experiences in Canada

Two important examples of unfair treatment with which people emigrating to Canada have had to contend, and with which Canada’s First Peoples will readily be able to identify, pertain to image projection, and pedagogical regard. First, all four communities—Aboriginal, Mennonite, Doukhobor, and Hutterite have had to deal with negative, misleading, and/or erroneous images about their lifestyles as projected in social media as well as verbalized in government documentation. Second, all four groups have been subjected to unfair and unequal educational policies and practices.

To begin with, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have had to deal with a vast range of racist, prejudicial, and discriminative onslaughts since the time of European contact. During succeeding generations anthropologists, explorers, and missionaries used belittling language to describe the cultural beliefs and practices of First Nations. Aboriginals have been called “primitive” (Lowie, 1924, p. xvi), uncivilized and outwitted by European technology (Grinnell, 1990, p. 8), and their spiritual beliefs have been earmarked as part of a “lower stage of culture” (Dixon, 1908, quoted in Friesen, 1991, p. 26). As Josephy (1969, p. 4) has summarized; much that has “…been written about [Aboriginals] is often superficial, distorted, or false.” Even today, some historians fall into the trap of failing to re-interpret aspects of inaccurately written history as the following quite indicates: “The biggest problem facing the British in their recently acquired

4

Atlantic colonies was the hostility of the Mik’maq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy” (Conrad and Finkel, 2009, p. 146, italics mine). Were these First Nations really “hostile,” or were they merely defending their territories?

Reference to one of the most unfortunate periods of Indigenous history in Canada, namely the operation of residential schools, has recently garnered a great deal of national attention due to hearings sponsored by the federal government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Idle No More movement. The unfortunate residential school phenomenon has a long history. The campaign to “make the Indian over” began in 1830 when the British military transferred control of Aboriginal education to civic governance (Harrison and Friesen, 2010, p. 199). In 1860, a generation or so later the residential school system came into being and remained for nearly a century as a pedagogical landmark in Native communities. Its impact on Indigenous cultures was significant and far-reaching with reverberations that continue today.

It has been estimated that during the highlighted period of European-influenced schooling, 30-35 percent of Indigenous children attended residential schools. The rest either attended day schools (where Native cultural lifestyles were similarly downplayed), or remained with their oft-times nomadic parents. In 1900, for example, roughly 20,000 Status Aboriginal children were of school age with 3,285 of them enrolled in 22 industrial schools and 39 residential schools that operated in various provinces. Another 6,349 attended day schools (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, p. 191). Today the campaign to make financial retribution available to victims of the system has garnered considerable press, although, regrettably, little has been said about making counseling services available to those who were negatively affected the experience.

As is often the case with regard to cultural interactions and clashes, the history of residential schools in Canada is not without its complexities. To begin with, the incarceration of Aboriginal children was mainly a forte of British education, and contrasted sharply with the traditional Aboriginal value system, particularly its authoritarian approach to the teaching/learning process. When the British format was imported to Canada, the result was a harsh form of education for all children, Native and non Native alike. The Aboriginal approach was much less authoritarian and included apprenticeship, modeling, and storytelling, the latter being the domain of grandparents, elders, and professional storytellers. Being forced to live in residential schools for months at a time was alien to the Indigenous lifestyle and many students adjusted poorly to the pedagogical format imported from Europe.Today there are even campaigns for compensation in England lamenting the treatment of British youth in boarding schools. St. John’s Colleges, a series of Anglican residential boys school movement with campuses in several Canadian provinces, began in 1960, but closed nearly 40 years later amid allegations and lawsuits pertaining to harshness and cruelty.

Aboriginal residential schools were not an uncomplicated phenomenon, although analysis of their operations should not deter from the severity of that experience for many children. Interestingly, at first some Native leaders welcomed the residential school, perceiving it as a vehicle by which Native students could transition to a European dominated society. For example, when

5

the residential school on the Stoney Nakoda Reserve was scheduled to be closed down, one of the local chiefs, George Labelle, requested that it be left to operate and it did—for another seven years. Labelle argued that Stoney children would be less targeted for racism if they were allowed to be educated onsite.

To complicate matters, some students who formerly attended residential schools claim to having enjoyed the experience (Friesen and Friesen, 2008, chapter six). In addition, although this may be a coincidental byproduct of the efficacy of residential schooling, most Aboriginal leaders, orators, and spokespersons once attended residential schools.

Placing First Nations children in residential schools as a vehicle for assimilation was a fundamentally flawed approach from the beginning, yet this form of education was maintained well into the 20th century. By the 1940s it became evident that the system of maintaining some 80 residential schools across Canada was not working. Assimilation, the major objective of the enterprise was not happening (Milloy, 1999, p. xii). By the 1980s very few residential schools were still operating, although some of them, like the six residential schools in Saskatchewan lingered until 1995, albeit under Native management (Friesen, 1999, p. 274). It might be an interesting undertaking to investigate in what ways residential schools differed when administered by Native people themselves. The last federally run residential school in Canada, located in Saskatchewan, closed in 1996 and the last band-operated residential school closed in 1998 (Friesen and Friesen, 2008, p. 106). A Compendium of Immigrant Experiences

The selection of the three immigrant groups discussed here is partially justified by the fact that all of them were at one time neighbors in Russia, although their cultural origins and immigration histories differ. For example, the Doukhobors originated in 17th century Russia, and a large contingent of them (7,500), emigrated to Canada in 1899. ‘Hutterites and Mennonites were originally Europeans who relocated to Russia around the 1770s in response to an invitation by Catherine the Great (1729-1796). A century later, however, a very different political climate in Russia faced the three communities. The Russian political climate changed when the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolshviks) gained power, and an exodus of unhappy religious communities began. During the 1870s the Hutterites emigrated to the United States (and later to Canada in 1918), while at the same time Mennonites settled in both Canada and the United States. In subsequent years unfair and prejudicially based educational policies and practices targeted these groups,but public concern for their struggles was minimal. Most Canadians consistently demonstrated a consensus of nonchalance, if not hostility, pertaining to unfair treatment of these groups by the Canadian government. The inequities promulgated by the Canadian government regarding the education of incoming Mennonite, Doukhobor, and Hutterite children included shutting down private schools, legislating requirements pertaining to the mandatory use of provincial curricula, and even forcing their children to attend residential schools. These maneuvers were often based on false, negative,

6

and/or misleading misinformation about the beliefs and customs of these communities, some of which was included in provincial curriculum content.

IMMIGRATION EXPERIENCE

A History Lesson

Chronologically, Mennonites are the first of the three immigrant peoples selected for discussion. This group arrived in Canada from Russia in a contingent of 800 souls in 1874, but the numbers climbed to 1,400 later that same year (Smith, 1927, p. 106). Essentially a landless class in Russia where they spent a century, even those few families who did own land in Russia and tried to sell it, essentially left penniless because there was no one to buy their land. Homesteading lands were available in southern Manitoba on two “reserves,” located on the east and west sides of the Red River. It was fortunate for the Mennonites that the Canadian government was looking for good farmers, and the reputation of the Mennonites as proficient tillers of the soil preceded them. In addition, the federal government, under the forceful prodding of Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior, offered the pacifist, separatist Mennonites generous promises. Among other privileges, they were to have freedom from military conscription, and they would be able to run their own private schools (Francis, Jones, and Smith, 1988, p. 110). Naturally, the Mennonites gratefully accepted these provisions. They believed they had simply changed one geographic location for another (Urry, 2006, p. 161). The Russian-originated Doukhobors were chronologically the next group to emigrate to Canada, with a contingent of 7,500 souls arriving on Canadian shores in 1899. Unhappy about Greek-themed religious reforms introduced by Nikon, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch, the Doukhobors were one of some 200 sects that arose in protest to the reforms. The primary tenets of the Doukhobor belief system included communalism, pacifism to the extent of refusing to eat meat, rejection of clergy, avoidance of governmental interference, use of biblical psalms only, hereditary leadership, and civil disobedience if their faith was threatened. The Doukhobors also believed that since individuals are created in the image of God, they personally possess a Divine spark (Iskra) that entitles them to full equality in the community. This is illustrated by Doukhobor practice in religious worship services where anyone can offer to lead a hymn or prayer regardless of socioeconomic status, gender, or age (Friesen, 1983, pp. 66-71).

Also drawn to Canada by the invitation of Clifford Sifton, the Doukhobors were pleased to discover that they would be free to practice their Russian lifestyle in Canada—including their own form of religious expression. Shortly after arriving in Canada the Doukhobor community built 57 communal villages in the Saskatchewan districts of Kamsack, Blaine Lake-Langham, Buchanan-Canora, and the Swan River-Pelly district in Manitoba, and prepared hundreds of hectares of land for farming. Unfortunately, when Clifford Sifton was replaced as Minister of the Interior by Frank Oliver, the Doukhobor honeymoon in Canada was over. Refusing to yield to a new order requiring them toswear allegiance to

7

the government in order to claim homestead lands, more than 5,000 Doukhobors migrated to the British Columbia Interior where previously owned land could be purchased without having to yield to the dreaded oath.

On arriving in British Columbia, the Doukhobors developed new industries—gardening, orchards, a flour mill, a sawmill, a brick factory, and a jam factory, and eventually built 90 communal houses and several Russian language schools. Despite the fact that their way of life often conflicted with the fundamental values of mainstream society, the Doukhobor communal organization, The Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood, prospered to include more than 10,000 souls and a corporate worth of more than six million dollars. They also operated industries in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Doukhobor road to prosperity continued until 1937-1939 when the British Columbia government, in collusion with two lending companies—the Sun Life Assurance Company and National Trust, tricked them into bankruptcy. Eventually the Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood was replaced bya spiritual organization, the Union of Spiritual Communities in Christ that operates to this day.

As the Bolshevik revolution continued in Russia, a long list of dissident groups formed, all in objection to the nature of Bolshevistic rule, and the Hutterites were among them. Originating in 1530 from within the ranks of the Anabaptists, the Hutterites followed the beliefs of a Swiss hatter named Jacob Hutter (Hostetler, 1975, p. 17). Hutter proposed that in addition to adhering to basic Anabaptist principles, the group also adopt communal living. Hutter based this mandate on a single passage of Scripture, Acts 2:44-45 (King James Version): “And all that believed were together, and had all things common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

In addition to adopting communalism as a way of life the Hutterites adhered to pacifism, believed that any literate individual could interpret the Bible, rejected participation in governmental institutions, and abandoned infant baptism. These prescriptions soon isolated the Hutterites from their neighbors, and like other Anabaptists they were persecuted for their beliefs. Eventually they were forced to relocate to several countries including Moravia, Slovakia, and Romania, and ultimately to Russia in accordance with an invitation from Catherine the Great. At first only a hundred Hutterites made the trip to Russia, but others eventually joined them so that by 1779 their numbers had increased to 1,265.After a half-century of more or less economic success, though they still clung to Anabaptist principles, only about one hundred Hutterites still practiced communalism. In 1874 some 800 Hutterites left Russia for South Dakota in the United States where they formed three distinct identities—Dariusleut (so named after a man named Darius Walter, Lehrerleut (the “teacher people”), and Schmiedeleut (the “blacksmith” people). After developing what outsiders might perceive as minute differences, the three groups are still quite reluctant to join together formally in fellowship or intermarry (Hofer, 1998, p. 172). Once established in America, half of the newly arrivals decided not to adopt a communal lifestyle

8

while the three named communities clung to that format. Those who opted for independent living essentially adhered to other Hutterite beliefs and practices, but soon developed a separate identify known as Hutterite Mennonites or Prairieleut, meaning Prairie People (Hofer and Walter, 1974, p. 140; Janzen, 1999, p. 6)

When World War I began the United States military decided that pacifism was not an acceptable philosophy and attempted to recruit young Hutterite men for military service. In 1918, fear of increased demands for military participation motivated several groups of Dariusleut and Lehrerleut identity to move to southern Alberta where they formed six colonies. Meanwhile the Schmiedeleut of South Dakota chose to settle in Manitoba.

Today about two-thirds of the 50,000 Hutterite population resides in Western Canada while the rest remain in the United States, mostly in Montana. It goes without saying that everywhere Hutterites live, they develop English language colony schools so that each child has to participate in formal schooling beginning with kindergarten and continuing on through the eighth grade. In addition, part time German schools also operate on each colony. Achieving literacy, particularly in the German language is a valued Hutterite belief; literacy is mandatory so that all members of a colony are able to read the Bible on their own. Knowledge of the Bible is considered essential to one’s salvation. Historically speaking, at a time when most of Europe was illiterate, every Hutterite child could read.

PROJECTEDMEDIA IMAGES

Mennonites Around the turn of the 20thcentury, when Canada sought to increase

immigration, allegedly with groups who had a successful farming record in other countries, J. S. Woodsworth (1874-1942), first leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) “came to the rescue” by originating a list of most desirable future citizens (Immigrant Pecking Order). Despite their highly rated agricultural records, all three communities, Mennonites, Doukhobors, and Mennonites ranked very low. Woodsworth decided that the most favorable immigrants to Canada would originate from England, Ontario, and the United States with the next tier including southern central, and western Europeans. Pacifist groups like Doukhobors, Mennonites, Hutterites, and other “ites” were ranked near the bottom of the list, just above Blacks and Asians. By 1919, immigration of Mennonites to Canada was barred on the basis that they did not assimilate quickly enough (Palmer, 1972, p. 96).

A second complaint against Mennonites arose in connection to both world wars. In 1918 the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of Calgary became concerned about the lifestyle of some Mennonites who allegedly built “large houses in habited by a number of families, each family living in one room, which is a very bad state of affairs” (The Morning Albertan, October 5, 1918). Equal concern was expressed that Mennonites should be required to conduct and support public schools, use authorized textbooks in these schools, and

9

adequately equip the schools with teachers approved by the Department of Education. All factors should be subject to regular inspection by government-approved staff. Veterans of the Great War Association rallied to seek a test case against Mennonites, and have them detained if they refused to take up arms (Lethbridge Daily Herald, April 19, 1919).

When the Canadian government reneged on the promise that Mennonites would not have to take up arms, several subgroups of Mennonites decided to leave the country. At first they sought refuge in Quebec, among other places, but Quebecers would have none of it. McCallum (2002) describes the scenario in the words of J.H. Paré in the newspaper L’Abitibi published in 1920:

No, a government may not tolerate such an order of events; we would have to intervene to resolve this Mennonite education problem; the thornier of the lot. None of the privileges that they ask to be conferred is either just or reasonable. They take no part in politics; they accept no place in the civil service; but they ask for the protection of government; they want no military service; they may not shed blood, but they ask for protection – that is, that we shed ours so that they may live peacefully here with us!

When World War II was underway, The Calgary Herald (June 22, 1942) ran a series of articles entitled, “Strangers in Our Midst,” and pointed out that the existence of pacifist groups, like Mennonites, in the province was ”one of the thorniest, complicated problems which a civilized community ever faced.”The Loyalist League in Pincher Creek, AB, urged the government to purchase lands held by Mennonites and resell them. Eager to dissociate themselves from the German enemy, Mennonites in southern Alberta quickly closed down several German language schools and libraries. Two Mennonite churches in Vauxhall, AB, were burned to the ground (Palmer, H., with T. Palmer, 1990, p. 293).

Doukhobors

The Doukhobors have consistently faced a difficult challenge of image in Canada, partially because of their Russian origins, unusual beliefs, and atypical cultural practices. An occasion of severe misinterpretation of male-female roles occurred shortly after the arrival of Doukhobors in Canada when men from several villages were employed elsewhere, and their wives had to carry on. One day, so a dozen or so women voluntarily hitched themselves to a plow and began to prepare soil to plant a garden. Somehow a photograph of the scene appeared in newspapers across Canada claiming that the picture verified how cruel Doukhobor men were to women!

Certainly the burning of schools and nude marches staged by the Doukhobor Sons of Freedom faction did little to enhance the public image of Doukhobors in Canada, and fueled a negative attitude towards these folk. Following is an unfortunate portrayal of Doukhobors that appeared in the Alberta school curriculum and remained in press until the 1980s. A recommended text during that time, penned by Bruce Hutchinson (The Unknown Country, 1964, p.

10

241) categorized Doukhobors as a people who “defy the laws of Canada as stubbornly and dumbly as cattle” (Ewashen, 1995). Over the years the Doukhobors have been greatly misrepresented by the publication of three major books containing dramatic misinterpretations of their belief system and cultural practices. The first, Terror in the name of God, by Simma Holt (1964) was allegedly a history of the Sons of Freedom, but the author implied that their terrorist practices had the approval of the general Doukhobor population. A decade later, in 1974, and reprinted in 1994, another vehement diatribe entitled, Doukhobor Daze,was published by Hazael O’Neill, a school teacher in British Columbia. She described Doukhobor culture as quaint, pathetic, trite, and amusing. It staggers the mind as to how a teacher, allegedly university trained, could stoop to ridiculing her charges in such a manner. A third diatribe with a sensationalist title, Negotiating Buck Naked: Doukhobors, Public Policy,& Conflict Resolution (2006) was written by Gregory J. Cran of Royal Roads University and published by the University of British Columbia Press. The book subtly implicates mainstream Doukhobors with terrorist actions initiated by the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors, and slants overall Doukhobor culture as conflict based. Hutterites The Hutterites, who inhabit parts of the western plains region of both Canada and the United States, are largely seen by the general public as a social problem (Peter, 1987, p. xiii). This attitude was formed the moment the Hutterites arrived in North America and continues to this day. Ignorance of Hutterite ways is the primary reason for the false and misinterpreted media accounts about their way of life. When World War I broke out American authorities denied Hutterite exemption from the military by arresting young Hutterite men and incarcerating them for refusing to engage in war-related activities. This caused a great deal of concern on the part of Hutterite religious leaders who quickly made arrangements to relocate to Canada (Esau, 2004, p. 7). Ottawa officials assured them that exemptions from military involvement offered to them in 1974 were still valid. In 1918, 15Hutterite colonies settled in Canada; six of them were Schmiedeleut, five were Dariusleut, and four were Lehrerleut. Anxious to leave the United States, colony leaders sold their land for less than market value (Hostetler, 1975, p. 131). After a few years in Alberta the Hutterite presence was summed up by Premier J. E. Brownlee:

We regret to say that these people have not proven to be very satisfactory immigrants. We quite admit that they are frugal, industrious, and hard-working, but on the other hand, they do not assimilate or mix with the other people of the province (Mann, 1974, p. 24).

A slightly more favorable attitude towards the Hutterites prevailed during the depression years when Hutterian success with the production of agricultural produce was valued. However, when World War II broke out, the Hutterite image

11

was once again tarnished. The period during WW II marked the peak of public resentment against Hutterites, based mainly on their pacifist stance. Many of their neighbors were annoyed that while their young men were engaged in defending the country during the war, Hutterites were enjoying the fruits of these sacrifices (Davis and Krautner, 1971, p. 98). Other criticisms targeted the Hutterite belief that elementary education was sufficient for their children, Hutterites refused to be assimilated, and they practiced “undemocratic collective ways” (Mann, 1974, p. 25). They were also disliked because their collective format gave them an unfair economic advantage over their competitors. In response to the latter, in 1942 the Alberta Social Credit government passed the Communal Properties Act that forbad Hutterites from buying land. Later the act was amended to permit Hutterites to purchase land if a newly planned colony was at least 60 kilometers from an existing colony. The act was repealed in 1972 because it contradicted the Bill of Rights passed by a successive provincial government. In the decades that followed WW II, Hutterites were consistently criticized on the basis of false information (Hutterite Bashing). Western Canadian citizens were alarmed about their supposedly rapid population growth, Hutterites were charged with destroying the economy of small communities because they allegedly only bought needed goods in bulk in larger centers, and because their population in the West was relatively small, they were accused of inbreeding. Other false charges included the contention that Hutterites arranged marriages, bought up too much land, did not pay sufficient taxes, and contributed nothing to the greater economy (Hofer, 1998, pp. 169-177). A study of these charges was initiated by an Alberta Select Committee on the Assembly (Communal Property) in 1972, and each of the charges was found to be without basis. Subsequent investigations have rendered similar conclusions (Janzen and Stanton, 2010, pp. 279-285).

EDUCATIONAL INEQUITIES

The notion that Canadians find it convenient to yield to the creation of a monoculture is not entirely unreasonable. After all, at first glance it appears to work effectively for Canada’s larger neighbor to the south. Most Americans believe that economic progress can be enhanced if all members of the working force speak the same language. Thus the intent of Canada’s multicultural policy, namely encouraging First Nations as well as incoming ethnic groups to maintain their languages and culture, is at best a form of political appeasement. That seeming contradiction notwithstanding, however, past actions of the Canadian government with regard to Indigenous peoples as well as the three immigrant groups in question, indicate that the word appeasement might even be too weak a word. In fact, accommodation in any form has been replaced by forced assimilation, particularly with regard to schooling. Mennonites

12

Arriving from Russia in the 1870s where they operated a series of independent schools, and generally interested in promoting literacy, the Mennonites were delighted to receive permission to do the same in Manitoba. They based their happy anticipation on the Manitoba School Act of 1870 which stated that provincial legislation could not pass any laws that would prejudicially affect any right or privileged with respect to denominational schools. Quickly the Manitoba Mennonites built schools that operated much like the ones they had developed in Russia. These schools were basically elementary in nature, and designed for the express purpose of educating youth to the level that they were able to read the Scriptures for themselves.

The Mennonite penchant to further education is evident in the decades that followed their arrival in Canada. After a generation in Manitoba the more liberal Mennonites operated 22 Bible Institutes, 10 high schools, and two Bible Colleges (Smith, 1957, p. 701. However, these developments were not undertaken without some element of opposition—both from their Conservative peers as well as from the reigning liberal government. In order to appreciate these developments, however, it is first necessary to focus on the Manitoba School Question of 1890.

Targeting religious schools for closure in Manitoba in 1890 was aimed at French Catholic schools in the province, but Mennonites were also affected by it. Having received assurances from the Manitoba government that they could operate their own schools, the Mennonite community was also informed that their pacifist convictions would be honored. Their young men would not be conscripted by the Canadian military. Both privileges, the freedom to operate private schools and enjoy freedom from conscription, were suddenly revoked by the federal government through a secret Order-in-Council without informing the Mennonites. Suddenly, the operation of Mennonite schools was declared illegal and Mennonite young men were targeted for war service. In response, in 1922, some 5,000 Old Colony Mennonites fled Canada, seeking refuge in Mexico (Friesen, 1974, pp. 30-31). Several public officials expressed their concern about losing good farmers, but the government remained adamant (Janzen, 2007, p. 6).

Following the 1890 Manitoba government action, some Mennonite groups migrated to Saskatchewan, and later to Alberta, but space does not permit expansion on similar circumstances that occurred there (Jansen, 1990, p. 98). Once again, the Mennonites moved west, this time to the Peace River area of Alberta. A similar infringement of granted freedoms transpired as promises regarding the development of private schools were given and subsequently broken, and migrations continued. The public appeared not to be unduly concerned that during the years that followed, a migration of Mennonites relocated to Worsley, Alberta, Bolivia, Brazil and the British Honduras to start over.

It is important to keep in mind that both Alberta and Saskatchewan were part of the Northwest Territories until 1905. In 1890, a British imperialist by name of David Goggin, was invited by N.W.T Premier Frederick W.A.G. Haultain to become the first superintendent of schools for the territory. Goggin was devoted to the British Empire, and once implored an audience that they should “… halt

13

and thank God for an Empire, the most splendid possession ever entrusted to any people” (McDonald, 1974, p. 177). Vestiges of that legacy have remained to this day. Goggin was convinced that a national school system based on imperialist loyalties was best for everyone. He stated that:

If these [minority] children are to grow up as Canadian citizens they must be led to adopt our viewpoint and speak our speech…. A common school and a common tongue are essential if we are to have an homogenous citizenship (McDonald, 1974, p. 178). Mennonites are part of an Anabaptist tradition that emphasizes a literal

interpretation of the Bible. This belief accounts for the fact that there are dozens of Mennonite splinter groups in Canada, each sub-sect influenced by someone’s interpretation of a particular Bible passage. As a result the most theologically conservative groups often try to escape the strong arm of the law in so far as compulsory attendance at public schools is concerned. Today, however, flight from undesired school situations is virtually at a standstill; it appears that there is no longer any place to which objectors can escape. A case to illustrate this point pertains to the Holdeman Mennonites of Linden, Alberta, who were taken to court in 1977 for having removed their children from the local public school system and starting a private school. They won their case by agreeing to use the provincial curriculum, which they had refused to do, and consenting to periodic inspection (Friesen, 1983, pp. 81-94). Now there was no need to relocate elsewhere. Besides, where would they go? Clearly the image of Mennonites in Canada has changed. A seemingly peaceful solution of at least partial accommodation has arisen; as Roth (2010, p. 62): notes: “Today, more than ever, Mennonites in North Americas are deeply integrated into the public life of their local [non-Mennonite] communities.”

Doukhobors The Doukhobor story in Canada is more unpleasant, and among other things, involves a chapter on residential schools. Almost immediately on arriving on the eastern Saskatchewan border in 1899, the Doukhobors built Russian language schools designed to teach Doukhobor beliefs, values, and history, as well as the Russian language. Although ignored by government, these schools were not welcomed by their neighbors, so in 1902 when the respected Doukhobor leader, Peter Vasilevich Verigin arrived in the Saskatchewan villages from Russia, he decreed that Doukhobor children should attend public schools. His action was intended as an effort to achieve acceptance in the area. Verigin also mandated that every communal village maintain a Russian language school as a means of preventing the souls of Doukhobor youth from becoming corrupted (Popoff, 1995, p. 32). The Doukhobors repeated the practice as soon as they migrated to the British Columbia Interior in 1908, but this did not satisfy the Government of British Columbia, so Russian language schools were eventually closed down.

14

A radical faction of Doukhobors, often called the Sons of Freedom originated in Saskatchewan in 1902, and followed the orthodox Doukhobors to British Columbia when they migrated there. Always mistrusting of public education and, in fact, of education in general, the Sons of Freedom were a thorn in the flesh to the orthodox community, but have since melted away. In 1912, the provincially-appointed Blackmore Commission was established to study Doukhobor opposition to schooling, and Blakemore was very positive in reporting on Doukhobor life, even commending their form of schooling. Aside from rejecting the value systems of dominant society, particularly the emphasis on military involvement and a strong push for increased consumerism, Blakemore insisted that the Doukhobors were adhering to Canadian laws. This was not enough for British Columbia authorities who in 1914 passed the Community Regulation Act, which mandated compulsory attendance of all Doukhobor children in public schools. This legislation set the Sons of Freedom to action. The chapter on residential schools in Doukhobor life actually began in 1919 when the BC government dissolved the Doukhobor right to vote in provincial elections. An adjoining issue had to do with registration of births, marriages, and deaths, which most Doukhobors believed infringed on their freedom (Tarasoff, 1999, p. 61). Doukhobors who did not send their children to public schools were fined. One man had his truck seized when he refused to pay the fine. The provincial government also seized community goods and sold them to pay for someone else’s fines. Finally, in 1953 the government renovated a series of buildings at New Denver, BC, that had formerly been used to house Japanese war criminals, and turned them into residential schools for Doukhobor children. Between the years 1953-1959 government officials incarcerated 170 Sons of Freedom children. Ashworth (1979, p. 163) describes the experiment:

…taking the children with the alleged purpose of educating them only deepened the crisis, and for the children the memory of separation might instill a life-long feeing if hatred towards the authorities which no amount of education could eradicate.

Sons of Freedom parents who refused to send their children to public schools began to engage in violent resistance by burning down schools and staging nude marches. Those who were caught were placed in a federal prison at the Mountain Prison, located on the outskirts of Agassiz, BC, in the Fraser Valley. They remained there during the years that their children were incarcerated at New Denver.

School routine at New Denver adopted a military style. Initially, some children found ways to express their opposition to their predicament by refusing to leave buses that brought them there, and singing hymns at the tops of their voices. They also tried to escape and engaged in hunger strikes. The children devised a myriad of ways to displease their captors, but government officials finally won out when the children grew weary, hungry, and disheartened when they could not see their parents. In the end, the children were set to work doing daily chores, and were punished if they refused (Ashworth, 1979, pp. 139-141).

15

Reverberations of self-destructiveness among former inmates of the New Denver experience went on for many years (Woodcock and Avakumovic, 1977, pp. 341-343). A half-century passed before Canadians responded to this tragedy (Friesen, 2008, pp. 18-19). On October 4, 2004, British Columbia Attorney General Geoff Plant issued a statement of regret in the legislature to Sons of Freedom children who were removed from their parents and incarcerated at New Denver a half century before. Five years earlier, a government sponsored program to assist former inmates of the Denver residential school in psychological recovery was formulated and continues to this day (Office of the Ombudsman, 1999). Hutterites In order to appease government authorities and protect their system of beliefs at the same time, Hutterites today maintain two forms of schooling. Each colony features a provincially mandated English language school that uses a provincially approved curriculum. Each colony also operates a part-time German school that features a curriculum basically made up of Bible teaching and Hutterite beliefs, both taught in the German language. Contrary to publically available information, the operation of neither the English school nor the German school on any Alberta colony costs the public any money. Hutterites agree that they should pay for the privilege of operating what basically amounts to a private school on each colony, and the cost of running the school is paid for by the education portion of Hutterite land tax. Essentially these funds are used to pay for the English schoolteacher’s salary, and the English teacher is most likely a non-Hutterite. Each colony also pays for other expenses such as providing school facilities, cost of utilities, and office supplies. If the education tax portion is insufficient to pay the teacher’s salary, the local school board will extra bill the colony. Awareness of this arrangement is not particularly well publicized and Hutterite leaders are quite satisfied with the way things are. The Hutterite German school usually convenes before and after the English school closes, and the responsibility for its operation is in the hands of the elected German teacher—a man who has no qualifications other than being elected by the baptized men in the colony. The German teacher’s wife will serve as his unpaid assistant. Despite the fact that Hutterites pay for and manage their own provincially approved schools, criticism of the arrangement is frequently voiced. Some uninformed critics think that this is unfair because no other citizens have such privilege. The fact is that any or all citizens could have this “privilege” if they were wiling to pay the extra costs. Public calls for Hutterite school closure appear with regularity, although the nature of these “alarming observations” have not changed in style or content since the Hutterites first came to Canada (Report on Communal Property, 1972, p. 17). To cite the ridiculous, in 1962 at an annual convention of the Alberta Conservative party, a call was put forth to close down all Hutterite English colony schools for the children’s sake, “so they could enjoy the freedom of our country!” (Palmer, 1972, p. 48).

16

Freedom does exist in Hutterite communities, though each colony has the right to vary in formulating rules and restrictions. Some colonies allow liberties that others restrict. The extent of the former is illustrated in a book entitled, My Hutterite Life,by Lisa Marie Stahl, a former member of the Gildford Dariusleut Colony near Havre, Montana. Before her marriage and move to a colony in Saskatchewan, Lisa served for two years as a columnist for the Havre Daily News (Montana)—with colony permission! She received hundreds of letters of best wishes from non-Hutterite readers when she cut short her literary role by taking up married life and moving to her new husband’s colony.

Another writer, Mary-Ann Kirby (2010) is a former Hutterite who lives in mainstream society. Her parents left colony life in 1969 and Kirby admits that while she was growing and attending off-colony public school, she was sometimes treated unfairly and even scorned by her classmates in school. While she thinks her parents made the right choice, she still enjoys visiting her original home and has pleasant memories of her childhood experiences there (Kirby, 2010, p. 228). Her testimony stands as an example of healthy diversity.

CONCLUSION

English-speaking Canada, it seems, has not been particularly fair nor culturally sensitive by enacting similar discriminative legislative policies that inconvenienced both First Nations cultures and incoming minority peoples, the latter having been officially invited to live in Canada. This is particularly true in the arena of public education. Perhaps it is time for pressured and afflicted minority groups affected by such mistreatment to become aware that they are not alone. It might a be of benefit to the First Nations of Canada to acquaint themselves with Canada’s immigration history and discover that the English-speaking Canadians have been unfair to them as well. Conversely, by becoming better informed, immigrant groups like Doukhobors, Hutterites, and Mennonites may want to support the Aboriginal quest for justice.

The day may come when the quest for equality and fair treatment for every Canadian minority community will become an agenda item for other minorities as well—indeed for all Canadians. As William Wuttunee, the first Aboriginal (Cree) individual to become a lawyer in Canada optimistically stated on behalf of his people: “The day will come when Indians will not be concerned with struggling for their basic civil rights, but for the basic rights of all individuals” (Friesen, 1998, p. 65). Clearly that day has not yet arrived.

It is mandatory that the Canadian public, particularly educators, resolve to amend matters so that the unfair and inaccurate regard for cultural uniqueness is not allowed to continue. The nation state of Canada seem to have exercised a limited, often paradoxical imagination in dealing with cultural diversity, and schooling has frequently been chosen as a major vehicle for enforcing compliance.

Based on this historical record it would seem that Canada’s immigration policies and practice are seriously in need of revision.

17

References

Adachi, K. (1976). The enemy that never was. Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart.

Ashworth, M. (1979). The forces which shaped them: A history of minority groups in British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: New Star Books. Report on Communal Property, 1972. Select Committee on the Assembly (Communal Property), Alberta, p. 17.

Davis, M., and Krautner, J. F. (1971). The other Canadians: Profiles of six minorities. Toronto, ON: Methuen.

Ens, A. (1989). Mennonite education in Russia in J. Friesen (Ed.). Mennonites in Russia: Essays in honour of Gerhard Lohrenz(pp. 75-98).Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications.

Esau, A. J. (2004). The courts and the colonies: The litigation of Hutterite church disputes. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Francis, R. D., R. Jones, and Smith, D. B. (1988). Destinies: Canadian history since Confederation. Toronto, ON: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Friesen, J.W. (2008). Minority Children in Neglect: The Doukhobor Example. Notos 8(2), 15-21.

Friesen, J. W. (1999). First Nations of the plains: Creative, adaptable, and enduring. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W. (1998). Sayings of the elders:An anthology of First Nations’ Wisdom Calgary, B: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W. (1991). Native Cultures in a Cultural Clash. In J.W. Friesen (Ed.).The cultural maze: Complex questions on Native Destiny in Western Canada (pp. 23-38). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W. (1983). Schools with a purpose. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W. (1977). People, culture, & learning. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W. and Lyons Friesen, V. (2008). Western Canadian Native destiny: Complex questions on the cultural maze. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

Friesen, J. W., and Verigin, M. M. (1996). The community Doukhobors: A people in transition(2nd Ed.).Ottawa, ON: Borealis.

Grinnell, G. B. (1900). The North American Indians of today. London, UK: Arthur Pearson.

Harrison, T. W., and Friesen, J. W. (2010). Canadian society in the twenty-firstcentury: An historical sociological approach. Toronto, ON: Scholar’s Press.

18

Hofer, A. M., and Walter, K. J. (1974). History of the Hutterite Mennonites. Freeman, SD: Pine Hill Press

Hofer, S. (1998). The Hutterites: Lives and images of a communal people. Saskatoon, SK: Hofer Publishers.

Hostetler, J. A. (1963). Amish society.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins

University Press. Hostetler, J. A. (1975). Hutterite society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press. Hutchison, B (1964). The Unknown Country: Canada and Her People.

New and revised edition, Toronto, ON: Longmans Canada Limited. Janzen, R., and M. Stanton, M. (2010). The Hutterites in North

America.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Janzen, R. (1999). The prairie people: Forgotten Anabaptists. Hanover,

NH: University Press of New England. Janzen, W. (1990). Limits of liberty: The experience of Mennonite,

Hutterite, and Doukhobor communities in Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Josephy, A. M., Jr. (1969). The Indian heritage of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Kirby, M. (2010). I am Hutterite. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Kordan, B. S. (2002). Enemy aliens, prisoners of war: Internment in

Canada during the Great War.Montreal-Kingston, P.Q: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kraybill, D (2001). The riddle of Amish culture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Lai, D. C. Y. (1988). Chinatowns within cities in Canada. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

Lowie, R. H. (1924). Primitive religion. New York: Grosset and Dunlap. Mann, G. A. (1974). Functional autonomy among English school teachers

in the Hutterite colonies of southern Alberta: A study of social control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boulder, CO: The University of Colorado.

McDonald, N. G. (1974. David J. Goggin: Promoter of National Schools In Patterson, R. S., Chalmers, J. W., and Friesen, J. W. (Eds.). Profiles of Canadian educators (pp. 167-191). Toronto, ON: D.C. Heath.

Milloy, J. S. (1999). A national crime: the Canadian government and the residential school system, 1879 to 1988. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.

Palmer, H. (1972). Land of the second chance: A history of ethnic groups in southern Alberta. Lethbridge, AB: The Lethbridge Herald.

Palmer, H., with T. Palmer. (1990). Alberta: A new history. Edmonton, AB: Hurtig Publishers.

Peter, K. A. (1987). The dynamics of Hutterite society. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

19

Popoff, E. (2000). The Doukhobors: The enigma and the reality. In A. Donskov, J. Woodsworth, and C. Gaffield (Eds.). The Doukhobor Centenary in Canada(p. 232). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa.

Smith, C.H. (1927). The coming of theMennonites: An episode in the settling of the last frontier, 1874-1884. Berne, IN: Mennonite Book Concern.

Stahl, L. M. (2003). My Hutterite life. Helena, MT: Farcountry Press. Steckley, J. L., and Cummins, B. D.. (2008). Full circle: Canada’s First

Nations. Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada. Tarasoff, K., Ed. (1999). History of the Doukhobors: In the archives of

Vladimir D. Bonch-Bruevich (1886-1950s). New York: Legas and Spirit Wrestlers Associates.

Tarasoff, K. (1982). Palkun trava: The Doukhobors. Grand Forks, BC:MIR Publication Society.

Teixeira, C. & DaRosa, V. M. P. (2009). The Portuguese in Canada: Diasporic challenges and adjustment. 2nd. Ed. Toronto: Buffalo: London: University of Toronto Press.

Urry, J. (2006). Mennonites, politics, and peoplehood: Europe—Russia—Canada 1525 to 1980. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press.

Urry, J. (1989). None but saints: The transformation of Mennonite life in Russia, 1789-1889. Winnipeg, MB: Hyperion Press Limited.

Woodcock, G., and I. Avakumovic. (1977). The Doukhobors. Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart.

Websites L. E. Ewashen, 1995; retrieved from https://www.google.ca/search?q=defy+the+laws+of+Canada+as+stubbornly+and+dumbly+as+cattle.%E2%80%9D&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=NAJgUsjmKaS2iwLP4IDIAQ Friesen, J. W., 2005; retrieved from http://static.tmkdj.com/project77.org/archive/design/2007drs-friesen-website-1/site/resources/2005_10_is_there_justice.pdfFriesen Hutterite bashing; retrieved from http://www.realagriculture.com/2012/05/quit-with-the-hutterite-bashing/ Immigration Pecking Order; retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/calgary/pecking.html Janzen, W. 2007; retrieved from http://mcco.ca/system/files/1_NEW/FILES/HistoryofMigrationsspeech23.4.07.pdf Office of the Ombudsman; retrieved from Righting the Wrong / The Confinement of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobor; Fair First An Ombuds Audit of the WCB Ombudsman (1999) Public Report No. 38.

20

American Legion; retrieved from http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Old_Colony_Mennonites McCallum, C. 2002; retrieved from http://mennonitestudies.uwinnipeg.ca/jms/2002sample1.php Quebec; retrieved from http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8aa6f3f4-45fd-42d3-ad45-38b1106bddfc