Talk:Canadian Indian residential school system

30 per cent of Indian children figure

Where does this come from? The 150,000 students figure can be cited, but neither of the citations in the article mention how this figure compares to the total number of Indian children born during the period of the school's operation (and depending on how you determine that, you could skew the percentage heavily). --Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 3 supports "one-third" of the total. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If I'm reading that footnote correctly, the lede as written is wrong - the one-third figure is not the total percentage of Indian children admitted to residental schools as compared to the total number of Indian children alive during the time period, but rather the percentage of Indian children attending residental schools at the specific point of the schools' height in the 1930s. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Page 3 of the TRC's Final Report, which is listed as a reference, states: "The federal government has estimated that at least 150,000 First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students passed through the system." --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That we can cite the 150,000 figure is irrelevant to my point, which focuses on the 30 percent claim. You cannot get a percentage out of one figure. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The text has been revised to address precision. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Federal Indian Day Schools and Indian Hospitals

Class action lawsuits were recently made against the federal government for Federal Indian Day Schools and Indian Hospitals, which existed for long after the last closure of the residential schools. These should be included in the article. 24.36.195.185 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Quote without attribution

In the first paragraph there’s the quote "to kill the Indian in the child” that isn’t attributed. If it can’t be attributed to someone it shouldn’t be here.50.71.206.201 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It is attributed later in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be attributed on first reference. But it *is* a real quote by someone specific, seen it many times. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case the quotation is being used to demonstrate how multiple people have articulated the purpose of the system - there isn't a lone speaker. The phrase originated from an American military official and has since been reused to describe the CIRSS. I've added a note explaining the source of the quote in the History section. That said, a common pattern in your careful review of the page over the past week has been tagging statements that need support without acknowledging that there are, in some cases, multiple references at the end of statements being flagged - this one such example. I stated as much on my talk page and will say it again here: the page has and maintains FA status. It has undergone extensive review, and multiple times at that. The information presented wasn't simply added to the page without careful consideration for how it would be read, assessed and interpreted. There is absolutely room for improvement, and those improvements are welcome, but I hope we can direct our time and energy to gaps in coverage or lack of clarity rather than a continued granular review of issues that, for the most part, are already addressed in the supporting references --Dnllnd (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a fair comment. However, my concern is that the use of passive tense and euphemism, while appropriate for CYA in a government report, obscures the scale of the harm done. This type of granular examination is how I generally start my process. Yes, it is frequently annoying to people who have put time into an article, but the feedback I have gotten is that the process does improve readability overall. So if I have flagged something that is cited at the end of a sentence, then fine; simply remove the flag and say that this is why in the edit statement. And, ok, my bad, if that happened. I do admit mistakes when I make them. However, it sounds to me like you have had some GA reviewers who could have used a deeper dive into the MoS. You are also showing signs of WP:OWN. On the other hand, I am done with the part that involves acquainting myself with the text and the facts, and will be doing references and updates next. But while I am familiar with residential schools in other (US) contexts, I lack your detailed knowledge of the TRC history; I hope we can work together on this in a cooperative matter. I usually work on bad machine translation, but jargon to English is also a translation problem. Consider me an intelligent uninvolved editor who wants to upgrade this to GA and has been doing similar work for 15 years. Worth listening to, if not always correct. Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: WP:OWN is a pretty serious accusation given that the bulk of our exchanges have consisted of me answering questions you've raised and, in turn, making improvements based on your feedback. Can you indicate which type ownership behaviour I'm displaying so that we can be clear about what you're taking issue with? --Dnllnd (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, I believe that WP:QUOTEPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply here. The first reference remark is based on the policy for abbreviations. The reader should not have to hunt further down the page to find out where a quote comes from. That said, I haven't looked at your note, and it may well address this week n a satisfactory manner. But it is not a ridiculous quibble as you seem to believe. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Can you explain your focus on getting the page Good Article status, given that it already has Feature Article status? You've repeatedly mentioned wanting to achieve GA status but have yet to acknowledge that's already been achieved. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

can you explain why you think that the article does not need improvement? As for OWN, can you explain your adamant insistence on not citing your scare quotes? Your sources do not in fact support them, as you mention in your own note, which for some reason is on the second mention, not the first. Why do you think this is correct? I do not, actually, believe that FA=GA,and feel there is definitely room for improvement in this article. Perhaps I am mistaken about FA, and you will be able to point me at something that says so, but your overall dismissive manner makes me doubt you will try. The fact that this FA review resulted in additional euphemism, according to you, certainly makes me question the process. In any event (/me stares) it is not unusual to see people who want to write in bureaucratese and academese. But I do see a pattern of not seeing the MoS and NPOV fails. I want to improve the article, don't you? I'll get back to you with a specific explanation of the MoS issues later. I am working on supporting articles right now. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful context. The length of the page obviously resulted in issues being missed during the original GA and FA reviews. Perhaps it makes sense for you to submit the page for another GA and FA review given your concerns about quotations and adherence to the manual of style. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the article's status, except that I personally would not have awarded it. But. I don't do these reviews and don't want to, and you seem justifiably proud of the status. So I don't suggest doing that; seems like you may open yourself up to explaining all over again why 'survivor' is not a loaded word in this context (for example), without necessarily getting more than very incremental improvement. Let's just improve what can be improved, is my thought. You don't need the approval of a committee to edit the article. Specifics on the quote issue below. Elinruby (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You cannot submit an article that is currently FA to another FA candidacy; if the article is not believed to be of FA standards, the venue to address that is Featured Article Review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the note about the source of the "kill the Indian in the child" quote up to the first reference in the lead - thanks for flagging that. Placing it later in the page was an error on my part. I haven't been able to figure out how to reuse the same note for when the quote shows up again later in the page.. I'm not as familiar with note markup as I am reference markup.. I'll poke around and see if I can't figure it out but would appreciate help if you or anyone else knows how to do it. --Dnllnd (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an improvement, thanks. After spending a happy day in the MoS section on quotes yesterday, I actually think you should cut it altogether, though, because I don't think it can be properly attributed. Let's discuss that. But first a bit of housekeeping: that unidentified American general in note 4 is Sheridan. He denied saying it however.

Let's keep in mind that this is an *extremely* upsetting topic, and take great care as we discuss the dehumanization that took place not to either endorse it or gratuitously be graphic about it. Attributing "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" to Sheridan would be an improvement, however it is a slap in the face to anyone Indigenous, can we agree on that? It does give the context for Pratt's statement, and yes, would be historically accurate if you mention that Sheridan denied saying it, but in itself it is peripheral to residential schools in Canada. Also, the Pratt quote in the note does not match the words in quotes in the article. The words in quotes in the article do match the words in your references, but your references do not attribute them either, and it isn't the TRC saying this or the BBC saying this. The unattributed quote appears to be mangled version of what Pratt said while agreeing with another very racist statement.

I do have a suggestion. Rather than going down this tangled path of attribution and repeating (twice) in Wikivoice what should never have been said at all, let us show the dehumanization another way. I created Brandon Indian Residential School yesterday and in the course of doing so encountered a quote from one of the chiefs along the lines of "they wanted to rip the Indian out of the child". I don't remember the name, but one was given, and I can probably find it again. Using this instead would simplify attribution, provide roughly the same information, and put an Indigenous voice in the lede of an article that imho sorely lacks them. LMK. Elinruby (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Dnllnd (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok good. I have reached my wikilimit for the morning, but I will give some thought to how exactly to do this. Or feel free to do this yourself, if you prefer. Since this *is* the lede, I am assuming that we should discuss? Let's start a separate thread for that, though, since we are reaching agreement nested in the middle of a thread with multiple detours. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is where I saw it yesterday, but Google offered me this, attributed to a named elder: https://panow.com/2012/01/16/sask-residential-school-survivors-share-experiences/

You can do this by naming the note - see the documentation for {{refn}} (search for named references). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

FA is considered a higher level of article quality than GA. See WP:ASSESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like a link for that, if you don't mind. No doubt you are right, since you participated in the process. But I would still like a link. Also, promoting it four years ago does not mean it's a good article still. I am sorry if I sound exasperated, but I have had to explain that quotes are supposed to reflect the exact language in the source, which this does not, and this editor thinks that this is ok because the article had an FA review four years ago, in which the editor chose to disregard exactly this scare quote issue. None of the sources provide attribution either, nor do they match the quoted language. And how many edits since then? Check the editor's talk page, I went there to explain this to him/her to save some embarrassment all around. I will paste the links to MoS here as well as well if necessary. You cannot cannot cannot repeat a racist trope in Wikivoice, especially if it doesn't match your sources. I can't believe I am getting an argument about what is a quotation. Furthermore, this suffers from way too many lengthy quotes and primary sources. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You mean you want a link to the review? Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system/archive1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I read that. All of it. This is why I know the scare quotes were brought up at the time, and yet here we are. I am asking you to substantiate that FA>GA. Not that it really matters. MoS is still MoS and NPOV is still NPOV, no matter whether it got a gold star four years ago or not. I am taking a break from this ridiculous thread now. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The comment you were replying to included a link to WP:ASSESS. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Really? I am pretty sure that that's a link to the assessment process for *this* article. But fine. You are not required to answer questions, I suppose. It certainly feels like nobody is answering mine. Going back to working on supporting articles now. Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a link to the guideline on assessment processes for all articles, indicating the hierarchy of quality. If that's not what you're looking for, you will need to clarify your question. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Um, no it's not, lol. The comment I replied to contains a link to the assessment process for *this* article. Look again ;) But I'm over it. I asked for my own edification, and you seem a bit confused. I'll dig it up later sometime. I don't care very much, but your response tells me much. Elinruby (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure section needs expansion

At present the closure section focuses on a few instances of residental schools coming under indigenous control. It does not explain why the vast majority of the schools closed in the 1960s and 70s. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eldomtom2: Agreed. This TRC report addresses the closures in the "The road to closure, 1969" section that begins on page 69. The closures were tied a chance in government policy, that resulted in the government taking over control and operations of the schools, which in turn led to a transition to day schools or residences for students attending school elsewhere. Page 3 of the same report also offers a short summary: "Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches were the major denominations involved in the administration of the residential school system. The government’s partnership with the churches remained in place until 1969, and, although most of the schools had closed by the 1980s, the last federally supported residential schools remained in operation until the late 1990s." --Dnllnd (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"They suffered from malnourishment and harsh discipline that would not have been tolerated in any other school system"

Is this explicitly stated in the cited sources? It seems extremely implausible to me, considering the sheer number of child abuse inquiries and the length of time the schools operated for. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See for example the TRC report, which quotes Clink as remarking on an instance of abuse that it “would not be tolerated in a white school for a single day in any part of Canada.”, or Project of Heart, which states that children who misbehaved faced disciplinary measures "that would never have been tolerated in non-Aboriginal schools". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are cited for the claim though (and make rather different claims anyway), and more importantly this is such a large claim we need better sources than a quotation of someone in 1895 and an article that uses as evidence abuse that occured in other school/childcare systems. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, have you read the Miller and Milloy books that passed FA review and are used as citations for the statement to confirm they don't back up the claim? And what are you suggesting as a proposed text revision? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not, but I am not buying a book for the sake of a Wikipedia argument. Precisely how necessary the line is is debatable, but in any case I feel the statement could only be comfortably made if they are compared to specifically Canadian, ordinary (that is, non-industrial etc.) schools. Anything further and you run up into, if nothing else, Indian boarding schools in the US. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the sources cited for this in front of me at the moment, but the examples I provided (one of which I see has now been added) are far from unique in making claims like that, without the qualifications you suggest. I'm not aware of any sources comparing disciplinary methods in Canadian residential schools vs US Indian boarding schools, or vs industrial etc; if there are such sources we could potentially add that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The TRC report is quoting somebody else when it mentions the claim, and converting "any white school" to "any other school system" is highly dubious (as perhaps is converting "punishment" into "discipline"). This still does not address the problem of having the line in there in the first place, since the claim that they were the most abusive school system in the entirety of world history is obviously ridiculous absent multiple detailed comparative studies; if we want to emphasize how bad they were we can just write something like "They suffered from severe malnourishment and extremely harsh discipline". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's saying it was "the most abusive among the contemporary Canadian school systems" not "in the entire world history". Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that it was very far from that. Schools used to be harsh, still are. But few have been downright genocidal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The text does not say that. If it is meant to say that it should be changed. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I added Canadian to the sentence. Discussing this any further given that not everyone has actually read the relevant citations or is familiar with the body of literature about the topic (including the final reports of the TRC) at a time when a mass graves of unidentified children's bodies was discovered is bordering on offensive. --Dnllnd (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I read the relevant sections of the sources that I actually had access to. Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"most" and "worst" are very hard to prove. On the other hand, I have an impeccable reference that children were deliberately malnourished, so lemme read this over and add that in. Elinruby (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about the nutrition experiments, they are already in the article - twice, actually. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Subsequently noticed this; you are right. I have since seen some other allegations but I don't have sources for them at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Attack

This page is a WP:ATTACK page. It entirely portrays the Indian residential school system in a negative tone, in contravention of WP:NPOV. 122.60.40.100 (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Take it to the NPOV notice board then. You will definitely be told otherwise, however. There may be problems here or there on the page -- I haven't read the whole thing yet -- but there is no question the schools really were that bad and the trauma really is that profound. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Loss of language section

Re this sentence: "Many students spoke the language of their families fluently when they first entered residential schools." Isn't that a given? Most people speak their maternal language rather fluently. Is there any new information contained in that sentence? Elinruby (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)c

It's not necessarily a given, particularly if the students were attending schools from areas that were already heavily inhabited by English speaking settlers or had previously attended church or government run day schools. Further, there are still people who don't know or understand the extent of the policies aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples into Canadian society. Sometimes seemingly obvious sentences serve an important purpose - this seems like a good example of one. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I asked before I edited, so it's still there. Thanks for the answer. Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words

Probably because there are so many quotes and paraphrases of government reports, there is a lot of passive tense in this article. For example, "it was decided that" obscures who exactly did the deciding. This is always undesirable from the point of view of clarity, but is especially pernicious on this topic. The treatment of these children was deliberate, not something like weather that nobody would have been able to change. So I am not doing it to be mean, but I will be flagging these sentences with who templates. All that is needed to fix these is to change the sentence to say who it was that believed/decided/did these things. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. This article was worked on over the course of a year and some of the more passive tense language is the result of some editors during the GA and FA review processes pushing back against more definitive language. You can see examples of the same type of push back in other recent comments on this page. That said, I agree that there are instances where more precise language would ameliorate the page and would encourage you to introduce those types of changes as you see fit. --Dnllnd (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this say government-funded?

"Many of the government-operated residential schools were run by churches of various denominations," Elinruby (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I made this change Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Babies born of rape

I have seen this story attributed to a specific speaker at a CBC Town Hall during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission period. I am not quite sure how to verify this sourcing, but I believe the story may be citable if the above is correct. It DOES of course require a source, so it wasn't *wrong* to remove it, but on a topic where many voices have been silenced or unheard, may I suggest that it would be better to start a talk page topic about such statements rather than dismissively reverting them without an explanation. That said, there were other problems with the statement besides the lack of attribution. One, the closely matching account was about ONE baby, dressed in pink, by a woman who said she was an eyewitness. "Many" is unsupported, as far as I know. Two, nobody gets pregnant from rape by nuns. The account I saw said "priest", and as I recall it named him. I will attempt to track down the details. Elinruby (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

https://youtube/30NCpvvVx98

Date of interview supposedly July 8, 2008 Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction, the interview was later and is different than the town hall. I did get through the paywall on a (relatively) local paper, to find this account summarized: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/chilling-accounts-116525378.html Link also discusses unmarked graves at the school. Elinruby (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elinruby The article makes difficult reading. I think it may be citable, but I think one might prefer stronger reliability. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not certain what to do about it. I think the clip on YouTube is genuine, but have not been able to locate in on the CBC archives, which would be a good second RS, and I did try pretty hard. The local newspaper may or may not have been ruled RS, but it unquestionably is, for this. I will take another shot at this in a while; it's upsetting reading and I am having to take it in chunks. I agree that it would be best to have at least one more RS for this. My primary point however is that such statements should be discussed, not dismissed. Elinruby (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

agreed. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

the Internet Archive has another similar article from a Prince Albert publication. I have not investigated reliability yet. Meanwhile, I am not advocating including this at this point. The school itself does not seem to have a Wikipedia article, but here is a source for unmarked graves there: [beta.ctvnews.ca/local/regina/2021/6/1/1_5451477.html]

A problem with this account is that the eyewitness claims that the girl whose baby was thrown into the furnace was 7 years old. I don't think we can say that's absolutely impossible but combined with such a dramatic claim, namely throwing a live baby into a furnace in front of witnesses (which is a very different allegation than a dead baby), I think common sense suggests that we need to treat the story as unverified. I think trying to locate the story on a CBC or other mainstream media platform is misguided because that alone would not resolve what warrants skepticism here. A second eyewitness would do more to bolster the story than just where it's found.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a source for more than one baby going into furnace:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/07/world/canada/mass-graves-residential-schools.html

Possible sources

• https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/06/01/news/nova-scotia-residential-school-grounds-searched-unmarked-graves-children-bodies -- does meet RS Elinruby (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://www2.uregina.ca/education/saskindianresidentialschools/indian-residential-schools-in-saskatchewan/see

• Mission BC: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/four-year-hunt-ends-in-arrest/article713735/

• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wlfn-site-search-1.6064777/ --williams lake

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-survivors-share-their-stories-after-recent-discovery-of-childrens-remains-at-former-kamloops-residential-school-1.5452209 - good reaction quotes

• Another: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/3/24/just-another-indian-surviving-canadas-residential-schools Long feature focusing on one survivor of one school who became a knowledge keeper. Mention of molestation and long long discussion of the alienation of children from their parents and the long-term effects of being taught one is a "dirty savage". Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• https://globalnews.ca/news/7977208/marieval-residential-school-unmarked-graves/ - this one has the final tally for the Saskatchewan find. - Erik Braaten

PAnow appears to be a reliable source for local news

Since it has come up in Google results a couple of times, I decided to look into this. I don't see an explicit corrections policy, but there is a list of staff and a means to contact them. I am not sure whether it is online only; I have never been to Prince Albert. There is a statement of editorial policy:

We strive to achieve the highest ethical standards in all that we do. Our newsroom abides by the RTNDA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and follows the Canadian Press Stylebook.

It seems small but so is Prince Albert -- a little over thirty-five thousand according to our Wikipedia page on the city. Seems to be a decent small-town news paper. Anyone have any objection to this determination? Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I lived in P.A. for a few years, my parents still do. Its basically become the go to source for city news (ctv stopped doing local broadcasts for p.a., and cbc never did) - Erik Braaten

Proposal

I've made a similar proposal at the talk page Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School - I believe it would be a good idea to create a new page for the unmarked graves found at Kamloops and now SK with something to the effect of Unmarked grave sites at Canadian Indian residential schools. Thoughts? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Canadian Indian residential schools gravesite discoveries was created today. Judith Sunrise (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

TB prevalence

The article is slightly misleading. It implies that TB was acquired in the schools and that that is what PH Bryce's report says.

But he actually says something quite different:

THE STORY OF A NATIONAL CRIME BY P. H. BRYCE (1922)

(a) Tuberculosis was present equally in children at every

age ; (b) In no instance was a child awaiting admission to school
found free from tuberculosis ; hence it was plain that infection
was got in the home primarily

In other words every single child waiting to join the schools (in 1907)already had TB before they went in. Whilst Bryce's mortality figures include those who died after they had left school.

TB was an absolute scourge, often fatal, and was endemic amongst the Indian population at the time Bryce was writing. Bryce rightly thought conditions at the schools were inadequate to deal with this problem. But it is not clear if the mortality rate at that time would have been any lower if the children had simply stayed at home.