document_title: Canadian Indian residential school system

question_text: when were residential schools first established in canada

question_tokens: when were residential schools first established in canada

text: Canadian Indian residential school system

text: History[edit]

text: Attempts to assimilate Indigenous peoples were rooted in imperial colonialism, which centred around a European worldview of cultural practice and an understanding of land ownership based on the Doctrine of Discovery.[4]:47–50 As explained in the executive summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's (TRC) final report: "Underlying these arguments was the belief that the colonizers were bringing civilization to savage people who could never civilize themselves. The 'civilizing mission' rested on a belief of racial and cultural superiority."[4]:50

text: Assimilation efforts began as early as the 17th century with the arrival of French colonists in New France.[8] They were resisted by Indigenous communities who were unwilling to leave their children for extended periods and who came to associate missionaries with the diseases devastating Indigenous populations.[9] The establishment of day and boarding schools by groups including the Récollets, Jesuits and Ursulines was largely abandoned by the 1690s. The political instability and realities of colonial life also played a role in the decision to halt the education programs.[10] An increase in orphaned and foundling colonial children limited church resources, and colonists benefited from favourable relations with Indigenous peoples in both the fur trade and military pursuits.[11]:3[12]:58–60

text: After a failure to assimilate Indigenous children by early missionaries in the 17th century, educational programs were not widely attempted again by religious officials until the 1820s, prior to the introduction of state-sanctioned operations.[13] Included among them was a school established by John West, an Anglican missionary, at the Red River Colony in what is today Manitoba.[4]:50 Protestant missionaries also opened residential schools in the current Ontario region, spreading Christianity and working to encourage Indigenous peoples to adopt subsistence agriculture as a way to ensure they would not return to their original, nomadic ways of life upon graduation.[14]

text: Although many of these early schools were open for only a short time, efforts persisted. The Mohawk Institute Residential School, the oldest, continuously operated residential school in Canada, opened in 1834 on Six Nations of the Grand River near Brantford, Ontario. Administered by the Anglican Church, the facility opened as the Mechanics' Institute, a day school for boys, in 1828 and became a boarding school four years later when it accepted its first boarders and began admitting female students. It remained in operation until June 30, 1970.[15]

text: The renewed interest in residential schools in the early 1800s has been linked to the decline in military hostility faced by British settlers, particularly after the War of 1812. With the threat of invasion by American forces minimized, Indigenous communities were no longer viewed as allies but as barriers to permanent settlement.[11]:3[16] This perspective was further underscored by the transfer of affairs with Indigenous communities from military officials, familiar with and sympathetic to their customs and way of life, to civilian representatives concerned only with permanent colonial settlement.[12]:73–75

text: Beginning in the late 1800s, the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) officially encouraged the growth of the residential school system as a valuable component in a wider policy of integrating Indigenous people into European-Canadian society.[11] Responsible for separating children from their families and communities, this process was found by the TRC to be cultural genocide, a conclusion that echoed the words of historian John S. Milloy, who argued that the system's aim was to "kill the Indian in the child".[14]:42[17][18] As the system was designed as an immersion program, children were in many schools prohibited from, and sometimes punished for, speaking their own languages or practising their own faiths.[19] The primary stated goal was to convert Indigenous children to Christianity and to civilize them.[12]

text: Many of the government-operated residential schools were run by churches of various denominations, with the majority administered by Roman Catholics. Between 1867 and 1939, the number of schools operating at one time peaked at 80 in 1931. Of those schools, 44 were operated by Roman Catholics; 21 were operated by the Church of England / Anglican Church of Canada; 13 were operated by the United Church of Canada, and 2 were operated by Presbyterians.[20]:682 The approach of using established school facilities set up by missionaries was employed by the federal government for economic expedience: the government provided facilities and maintenance, while the churches provided teachers and their own lesson-planning.[21] As a result, the number of schools per denomination was less a reflection of their presence in the general population, but rather their legacy of missionary work.[20]:683

text: Government involvement[edit]

text: Although education in Canada was made the jurisdiction of the provincial governments by the British North America Act, Indigenous peoples and their treaties were under the jurisdiction of the federal government.[21] Residential schools were funded under the Indian Act by what was then the federal Department of the Interior. Adopted in 1876 as An Act to amend and consolidate the laws respecting Indians, it consolidated all previous laws placing Indigenous communities, land and finances under federal control. As explained by the TRC, the Act "made Indians wards of the state, unable to vote in provincial or federal elections or enter the professions if they did not surrender their status, and severely limited their freedom to participate in spiritual and cultural practices".[20]:110

text: The design of a federally-supported residential school system relied on the expert advice of several prominent Canadian and British statesmen. Sir Peregrine Maitland, a British soldier and colonial administrator, first proposed boarding schools in 1820, believing that civilizing Indigenous children, rather than adults, was the best way to influence cultural change. Residential schools focused on imparting industry and knowledge were proposed again in 1845 in a report that had been commissioned by Governor General Charles Bagot, entitled Report on the affairs of the Indians in Canada.[14]:12–17[22] Referred to as the Bagot Report, it is seen as the foundational document for the federal residential school system.[23] It was supported by James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin, who had been impressed by industrial schools in the West Indies, and Egerton Ryerson, who was then the Chief Superintendent of Education in Upper Canada.[14]:15

text: On May 26, 1847, Ryerson wrote a letter for George Vardon, Assistant Superintendent of Indian Affairs, asserting that "the North American Indian cannot be civilized or preserved in a state of civilization (including habits of industry and sobriety) except in connection with, if not by the influence of, not only religious instruction and sentiment but of religious feelings".[24]:3 He expressly recommended that Indigenous students be educated in a separate, denominational, English-only system with a focus on industrial training.[10][13][23] This letter was published as an appendix to a larger report entitled Statistics Respecting Indian Schools.[24]

text: The Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 formed the foundations for this system prior to Confederation. These acts assumed the inherent superiority of French and British ways, and the need for Indigenous peoples to become French or English speakers, Christians, and farmers. At the time, many Indigenous leaders argued to have these acts overturned.[25] The Gradual Civilization Act awarded 50 acres (200,000 m2) of land to any Indigenous male deemed "sufficiently advanced in the elementary branches of education" and would automatically "enfranchise" him, removing any tribal affiliation or treaty rights.[14]:18[26] With this legislation, and through the creation of residential schools, the government believed Indigenous peoples could eventually become assimilated into the general population. For graduates to receive individual allotments of farmland would require changes in the communal reserve system, something fiercely opposed by First Nations governments.[14]:18–19

text: In January 1879, Sir John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister of what was now Post-Confederation Canada, commissioned politician Nicholas Flood Davin to write a report regarding the industrial boarding-school system in the United States.[20]:154[27] Now known as the Davin Report, the Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds was submitted to Ottawa in March 14, 1879, and made the case for a cooperative approach between the Canadian government and the church to implement the "aggressive assimilation" pursued by President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant.[28][27]:1 Davin's report relied heavily on findings he acquired through consultations with government officials and representatives of the Five Civilized Tribes in Washington, D.C. and church officials in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He visited only one industrial day school, in Minnesota, before submitting his findings.[20]:154–158 In his report Davin concluded that the best way to civilize Indigenous peoples was to start with children in a residential setting, away from their families, so that they could be "kept constantly within the circle of civilized conditions".[20]:157[27]:12

text: Davin's findings were supported by Vital-Justin Grandin, who felt that while the likelihood of civilizing adults was low, there was hope when it came to Indigenous children. He explained in a letter to Public Works Minister Hector-Louis Langevin that the best course of action would be make children "lead a life different from their parents and cause them to forget the customs, habits & language of their ancestors".[20]:159 In 1883 Parliament approved $43,000 for three industrial schools and the first, Battleford Industrial School, opened on December 1 of that year. By 1900 there were 61 schools in operation.[20]:161

text: The government began purchasing church run boarding schools in the 1920s. During this period capital costs associated with the schools were assumed by the government, leaving administrative and instructional duties to church officials. The hope was that minimizing facility expenditures would allow church administrators to provide higher quality instruction and support to the students in their care. Although the government was willing to, and did, purchase schools from the churches, many were acquired for free given that the rampant disrepair present in the buildings resulted in their having no economic value. Schools continued to be maintained by churches in instances where they failed to reach an agreement with government officials with the understanding that the government would provide support for capital costs. The understanding ultimately proved complicated due to the lack of written agreements outlining the extent and nature of that support or the approvals required to undertake expensive renovations and repairs.[20]:240

text: By the 1930s it was recognized by government officials that the residential school system was financially unsustainable and failing to meet the intended goal of training and assimilating Indigenous children into European-Canadian society. Robert Hoey, superintendent of welfare and training at Indian Affairs, opposed the expansion of new schools, noting in 1936 that "to build educational institutions, particularly residential schools, while the money at our disposal is insufficient to keep the schools already erected in a proper state of repair, is, to me, very unsound and a practice difficult to justify".[29]:3 He proposed the expansion of day schools, an approach to educating Indigenous children that he would continue to pursue after being promoted to director of the welfare and training branch in 1945. The proposal was resisted by the United Church, the Anglican Church, and the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, who believed that the solution to the system's failure was not restructuring but intensification.[29]:3–5

text: Between 1945 and 1955, the number of day schools run by Indian Affairs expanded from 9,532 to 17,947. The growth in day schools was accompanied by an amendment to the Indian Act in 1951 that allowed federal officials to establish agreements with provincial and territorial governments and school boards regarding the education of Indigenous students in the public school system. These changes were indicative of the government's shift in policy from assimilation-driven education at residential schools to the integration of Indigenous students into public schools.[4]:71 It was believed that Indigenous children would receive a better education as a result of their transition into the public school system.[30]

text: Despite the shift in policy from educational assimilation to integration, the removal of Indigenous children from their families by state officials continued through much of the 1960s and 70s.[29]:147 The removals were the result of the 1951 addition of Section 88 to the Indian Act, which allowed for the application of provincial laws to Indigenous peoples living on reserves in instances where federal laws were not in place. The change included the monitoring of child welfare.[31][32] With no requirement for specialized training regarding the traditions or lifestyles of the communities they entered, provincial officials assessed the welfare of Indigenous children based on Euro-Canadian values that, for example, deemed traditional diets of game, fish and berries insufficient and grounds for taking children into custody.[30] This period resulted in the widespread removal of Indigenous children from their traditional communities, first termed the Sixties Scoop by Patrick Johnston, the author of the 1983 report Native Children and the Child Welfare System. Often taken without the consent of their parents or community elders, some children were placed in state-run child welfare facilities, increasingly operated in former residential schools, while others were fostered or placed up for adoption by predominantly non-Indigenous families throughout Canada and the United States. While the Indian and Northern Affairs estimates that 11,132 children were adopted between 1960 and 1990, the actual number may be as high as 20,000.[31][33]:182

text: In 1969, after years of sharing power with churches, the DIA took sole control of the residential school system.[14][29]:79–84 The last residential school operated by the Canadian government, Gordon Indian Residential School in Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.[34] It is estimated that the number of residential schools reached its peak in the early 1930s with 80 schools and more than 17,000 enrolled students. About 150,000 children are believed to have attended a residential school over the course of the system's existence.[4]:2–3[35]

text: Parental resistance and compulsory attendance[edit]

text: The parents and families of Indigenous children resisted the residential school system throughout its existence. Children were kept from schools and, in some cases, hidden from government officials tasked with rounding up children on reserves.[36] Parents regularly advocated for increased funding for schools, including the increase of centrally located day schools to improve access to their children, and made repeated requests for improvements to the quality of education, food, and clothing being provided at the schools. Demands for answers in regards to claims of abuse were often dismissed as a ploy by parents seeking to keep their children at home, with government and school officials positioned as those who knew best.[20]:669–674

text: In 1884, amendments to the Indian Act made school attendance compulsory for Indigenous children between 7 and 16 years of age. The changes included a series of exemptions regarding school location, the health of the children and their prior completion of school examinations.[20]:254–255 It was changed to children between 6 and 15 years of age in 1908.[20]:261[37] The introduction of mandatory attendance was the result of pressure from missionary representatives. Reliant on student enrollment quotas to secure funding, they were struggling to attract new students due to increasingly poor school conditions.[12]:128

text: Compulsory attendance ended in 1948, following the 1947 report of a Special Joint Committee and subsequent amendment of the Indian Act.[38] Government officials were still able to influence student attendance. The introduction of the Family Allowance Act in 1945 stipulated that school-aged children had to be enrolled in school for families to qualify for the "baby bonus", further coercing Indigenous parents into having their children attend residential schools.[12]:170[39]

text: Conditions[edit]

text: Students in the residential school system were faced with a multitude of abuses from teachers and administrators, including sexual and physical assault. They suffered from malnourishment and harsh discipline that would not have been tolerated in any other school system.[12][14] Corporal punishment was often justified by a belief that it was the only way to save souls, civilize the savage, or punish and deter runaways – whose injuries or death sustained in their efforts to return home would become the legal responsibility of the school.[12] Overcrowding, poor sanitation, inadequate heating, and a lack of medical care led to high rates of influenza and tuberculosis; in one school, the death rate reached 69%.[19] Federal policies that tied funding to enrollment numbers led to sick children being enrolled in order to boost numbers, thus introducing and spreading disease. The problem of unhealthy children was further exacerbated by the conditions of the schools themselves – overcrowding and poor ventilation, water quality and sewage systems.[14]:83–89

text: Until the late 1950s, when the federal government shifted to a day school integration model, residential schools were severely underfunded and often relied on the forced labour of their students to maintain their facilities, although it was presented as training for artisan skills. The work was arduous, and severely compromised the academic and social development of the students. School books and textbooks were drawn mainly from the curricula of the provincially funded public schools for non-Indigenous students, and teachers at the residential schools were often poorly trained or prepared.[12] During this same period, Canadian government scientists performed nutritional tests on students and knowingly kept some students undernourished to serve as the control sample.[40]

text: Details of the mistreatment of students were published numerous times throughout the 20th century by both government officials, reporting on the condition of schools, and by the proceedings of civil cases brought forward by survivors seeking compensation for the abuse they endured.[3][41] Attention to the conditions and impacts of residential schools were also brought to light in popular culture as early as 1967 with the publication of "The Lonely Death of Chanie Wenjack" by Ian Adams in Maclean's and the Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67. In the 1990s, investigations and memoirs by former students revealed that many students at residential schools were subjected to severe physical, psychological, and sexual abuse by school staff members and by older students. Among the former students to come forward was Phil Fontaine, then Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who in October 1990 publicly discussed the abuse he and others suffered while attending Fort Alexander Indian Residential School.[4]:129–130

text: Following the government's closure of most of the schools in the 1960s, the work of Indigenous activists and historians led to greater awareness by the public of the damage the schools had caused, as well as to official government and church apologies, and a legal settlement. These gains were achieved through the persistent organizing and advocacy by Indigenous communities to draw attention to the residential school system's legacy of abuse, including their participation in hearings of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.[29]:551–554

text: Family visitation[edit]

text: Parents and family members regularly travelled to the schools, often camping outside to be closer to their children. The number of parents who made the trip prompted Indian Commissioner Hayter Reed to argue that industrial schools, like residential schools, be moved greater distances from reserves to make visiting more difficult.[20]:601–604 He also objected to allowing children to return home during school breaks and holidays because he believed the trips interrupted the civilizing of school attendees.[42] As Reed explained in 1894, the problem with day schools was that students returned home each night where they were influenced by life on the reserve, whereas "in the boarding or industrial schools the pupils are removed for a long period from the leadings of this uncivilized life and receive constant care and attention".[20]:199

text: Visitation, for those able to make the journey, was strictly controlled by school officials in a manner similar to the procedures enforced in the prison system. In some cases visitors were altogether denied access to their children, while in others families were required to meet in the presence of school officials and forced to communicate in English. For parents unable to speak the language, verbal communication with their children was impossible. The obstacles families faced to visit their children were further exacerbated by the pass system. Introduced by Reed without legislative authority to do so, the system restricted and closely monitored the movement of Indigenous peoples off reserves.[20]:601–604 Launched in 1885 as a response to the North-West Rebellion, and later replaced by permits, the system was designed to prevent Indigenous people from leaving reserves without a pass issued by a local Indian agent.[43]

text: Instruction style and outcomes[edit]

text: Instruction provided to students was rooted in an institutional and European approach to education. It differed dramatically from child rearing in traditional knowledge systems that are generally based on 'look, listen, and learn' models. Unlike the corporal punishment and loss of privileges that characterized the residential school system, traditional approaches to education favour positive guidance toward desired behaviour through the use of game-based play, story-telling, and formal ritualized ceremonies.[12]:15–21[44] While at school, many children had no contact with their families for up to 10 months at a time because of the distance between their home communities and schools, and in some cases had no contact for years. The impact of the disconnect from their families was furthered by students being discouraged or prohibited from speaking Indigenous languages, even among themselves and outside the classroom, so that English or French would be learned and their own languages forgotten. In some schools, they were subject to physical violence for speaking their own languages or for practicing non-Christian faiths.[35][45]

text: Most schools operated with the goal of providing students with the vocational training and social skills required to obtain employment and integrate into Canadian society after graduation. In actuality, these goals were poorly and inconsistently achieved. Many graduates were unable to land a job due to poor educational training. Returning home was equally challenging due to an unfamiliarity with their culture and, in some cases, an inability to communicate with family members using their traditional language. Instead of intellectual achievement and advancement, it was often physical appearance and dress, like that of middle class, urban teenagers, or the promotion of a Christian ethic, that was used as a sign of successful assimilation. There was no indication that school attendees achieved greater financial success than those who did not go to school. As the father of a pupil who attended Battleford Industrial School, in Saskatchewan, for five years explained: "he cannot read, speak or write English, nearly all his time having been devoted to herding and caring for cattle instead of learning a trade or being otherwise educated. Such employment he can get at home."[12]:164–172, 194–199

text: Mortality rates[edit]

text: Residential school deaths were common and have been linked to the persistence of poorly constructed and maintained facilities.[4]:92–101 The actual number of deaths remains unknown due to inconsistent reporting by school officials and the destruction of medical and administrative records in compliance with retention and disposition policies for government records.[4]:92–93 Research by the TRC revealed that at least 6,000 students had died, mostly from disease.[5][6]

text: The 1906 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs, submitted by chief medical officer Peter Bryce, highlighted that the "Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times".[4]:97–98[46]:275 Among the list of causes he noted tuberculosis and the role residential schools played in spreading the disease by way of poor ventilation and medical screening.[4]:97–98[46]:275–276

text: In 1909, Bryce reported that, between 1894 and 1908, mortality rates at some residential schools in western Canada ranged from 30% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 30% to 60% of students had died, or 6–12% per annum).[47] These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates could have been avoided if healthy children had not been exposed to children with tuberculosis.[4][48][49] At the time, no antibiotic had been identified to treat the disease, and this exacerbated the impact of the illness. Streptomycin, the first effective treatment, was not introduced until 1943.[20]:381

text: In 1920 and 1922, Regina physician F. A. Corbett was commissioned to visit the schools in the west of the country, and found similar results to those reported by Bryce. At the Ermineskin school in Hobbema, Alberta, he found 50% of the children had tuberculosis.[14]:98 At Sarcee Boarding School near Calgary, he noted that all 33 students were "much below even a passable standard of health" and "[a]ll but four were infected with tuberculosis".[14]:99 In one classroom, he found 16 ill children, many near death, who were being made to sit through lessons.[14]:99

text: In 2011, reflecting on the TRC's research, Justice Murray Sinclair told the Toronto Star: "Missing children—that is the big surprise for me ... That such large numbers of children died at the schools. That the information of their deaths was not communicated back to their families."[50]

text: Missing children and unmarked graves[edit]

text: The TRC concluded that it may be impossible to ever identify the number of deaths or missing children, in part because of the habit of burying students in unmarked graves.[51][52][53] The work is further complicated by a pattern of poor record keeping by school and government officials, who neglected to keep reliable numbers about the number of children who died or where they were buried.[6] While most schools had cemeteries on site, their location and extent remain difficult to determine as cemeteries that were originally marked were found to have been later razed, intentionally hidden or built over.[53][54]

text: The fourth volume of the TRC's final report, dedicated to missing children and unmarked burials, was developed after the original TRC members realized, in 2007, that the issue required its own working group. In 2009, the TRC requested $1.5 million in extra funding from the federal government to complete this work, but was denied.[6] The researchers concluded, after searching land near schools using satellite imagery and maps, that, "for the most part, the cemeteries that the Commission documented are abandoned, disused, and vulnerable to accidental disturbance".[55]:1

text: Self-governance and school closure[edit]

text: When the government revised the Indian Act in the 1940s and 1950s, some bands, along with regional and national Indigenous organizations, wanted to maintain schools in their communities.[56] Motivations for support of the schools included their role as a social service in communities that were suffering from extensive family breakdowns; the significance of the schools as employers; and the inadequacy of other opportunities for children to receive education.

text: In the 1960s, a major confrontation took place at the Saddle Lake Reserve in Alberta. After several years of deteriorating conditions and administrative changes, parents protested against the lack of transparency at the Blue Quills Indian School in 1969. In response, the government decided to close the school, convert the building into a residence, and enrol students in a public school 5 kilometres (3 mi) away in St. Paul, Alberta.[29] The TRC report pertaining to this period states:

text: Fearing their children would face racial discrimination in St. Paul, parents wished to see the school transferred to a private society that would operate it both as a school and a residence. The federal government had been open to such a transfer if the First Nations organization was structured as a provincial school division. The First Nations rejected this, saying that a transfer of First Nations education to the provincial authority was a violation of Treaty rights.[29]:84

text: In the summer of 1970, members of the Saddle Lake community occupied the building and demanded the right to run it themselves. More than 1,000 people are believed to have participated over the course of the 17-day sit-in, which lasted from July 14 to July 31.[29]:89–90 Their efforts resulted in Blue Quills becoming the first Indigenous-administered school in the country.[57] It continues to operate today as University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills, the first Indigenous-governed university in Canada.[58][59] Following the success of the Blue Quills effort the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) released the 1972 paper Indian Control of Indian Education that responded, in part, to the Canadian Government's 1969 White Paper calling for the abolishment of the land treaties and the Indian Act. The NIB paper underscored the right of Indigenous communities to locally direct how their children are educated and served as the integral reference for education policy moving forward.

text: Few other former residential schools have transitioned into independently-operated community schools for Indigenous children. White Calf Collegiate in Lebret, Saskatchewan, was run by the Star Blanket Cree Nation from 1973 until its closure in 1998, after being run by the Oblates from 1884 to 1969.[60] Old Sun Community College is run by the Siksika Nation in Alberta in a building designed by architect Roland Guerney Orr.[61][62] From 1929 to 1971 the building housed Old Sun residential school, first run by the Anglicans and taken over by the federal government in 1969.[63] It was converted to adult learning and stood as a campus of Mount Royal College from 1971 to 1978, at which point the Siksika Nation took over operations. In 1988, the Old Sun College Act was passed in the Alberta Legislature recognizing Old Sun Community College as a First Nations College.[64]

text: Lasting effects[edit]

text: Survivors of residential schools and their families have been found to suffer from historic trauma that has had a lasting and adverse effect on the transmission of Indigenous culture between generations. Passed on intergenerationally, a 2010 study led by Gwen Reimer explains historic trauma as the process through which "cumulative stress and grief experienced by Aboriginal communities is translated into a collective experience of cultural disruption and a collective memory of powerlessness and loss".[65]:x It has been used to explain the persistent negative social and cultural impacts of colonial rule and residential schools, including the prevalence of sexual abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, lateral violence, mental illness and suicide among Indigenous peoples.[66]:10–11[67]

text: The 2012 national report of the First Nations Regional Health Study found that of respondents who attended residential schools were more likely than those who did not to have been diagnosed with at least one chronic medical condition.[68] A sample of 127 survivors revealed that half have criminal records; 65% have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder; 21% have been diagnosed with major depression; 7% have been diagnosed with anxiety disorder; and 7% have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.[66]

text: Loss of language and culture[edit]

text: Although encouragement to keep Indigenous languages alive was present in some schools, a key tactic used to assimilate Indigenous children into Canadian society was to suppress Indigenous languages and culture. Many students spoke the language of their families fluently when they first entered residential schools. Teachers responded by strictly prohibiting the use of these languages despite many students having little or no understanding of English or French.[17][69] The practice of traditional and spiritual activities including the Potlatch and Sun Dance were also banned.[70] Some survivors reported being strapped or forced to eat soap when they were caught speaking their own language. The inability to communicate was further affected by their families' inabilities to speak English or French. Upon leaving residential school some survivors felt ashamed for being Indigenous as they were made to view their traditional identities as ugly and dirty.[4]:4, 83–87[71]

text: The stigma created by the residential school system regarding transmission of Indigenous culture by elders to younger generations has been linked to the over-representation of Indigenous languages on the list of endangered languages in Canada. The TRC noted that the majority of 90 Indigenous languages still in existence are "under serious threat of extinction".[4]:202 With great-grandparents representing the only speakers of many Indigenous languages, it was concluded that a failure of governments and Indigenous communities to prioritize the teaching and preservation of traditional languages would ensure that, despite the closure of resident schools, the eradication of Indigenous culture desired by government officials and administrators would inevitably be fulfilled "through a process systemic neglect".[4]:202

text: Apologies[edit]

text:
I accept and I confess before God and you, our failures in the residential schools. We failed you. We failed ourselves. We failed God.
I am sorry, more than I can say, that we were part of a system which took you and your children from home and family.
I am sorry, more than I can say, that we tried to remake you in our image, taking from you your language and the signs of your identity.
I am sorry, more than I can say, that in our schools so many were abused physically, sexually, culturally and emotionally.
On behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, I present our apology.

Archbishop Michael Peers, "A Step Along the Path"[72]

tag: div

text: Acknowledgment of the wrongs done by the residential school system began in the 1980s.[4][3] In 1986, at its 31st General Council, the United Church of Canada responded to the request of Indigenous peoples that it apologize to them for its part in colonization and in 1998 apologized expressly for the role it played in the residential school system.[73][70][74]

text: Archbishop Michael Peers apologized to residential school survivors, on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, on August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario.[72] The following year the Presbyterian Church in Canada adopted a confession at its 120th General Assembly in Toronto on June 5, recognizing its role in residential schools and seeking forgiveness. The confession was presented on October 8 during a ceremony in Winnipeg.[75]

text: In 2004, immediately before signing the first Public Safety Protocol with the Assembly of First Nations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli issued an apology on behalf of the RCMP for its role in the Indian residential school system: "We, I, as Commissioner of the RCMP, am truly sorry for what role we played in the residential school system and the abuse that took place in the residential system."[76][77]

text: Federal government[edit]

text: On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology, on behalf of the sitting Cabinet, in front of an audience of Indigenous delegates, and in an address that was broadcast nationally on the CBC, for the past governments' policies of assimilation.[78][79] The Prime Minister apologized not only for the known excesses of the residential school system, but for the creation of the system itself. Harper delivered the speech in the House of Commons; the procedural device of a Committee of the Whole was used, so that Indigenous leaders, who were not Members of Parliament, could be allowed to respond to the apology on the floor of the House.[80]

text: Prime Minister Harper's apology excluded Newfoundland and Labrador as it was argued that the government should not be held accountable for pre-Confederation actions. Residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador were located in St. Anthony, Cartwright, North West River, Nain and Makkovik. These schools were run by the International Grenfell Association and the German Monrovian Missionaries.[81] The government argued that because these schools were not created under the auspices of the Indian Act, they were not true residential schools. More than 1000 survivors disagreed and filed a class action lawsuit against the government for compensation in 2007. By the time the suit was settled in 2016, almost a decade later, dozens of plaintiffs had died. It was expected that up to 900 former students would be compensated.[82]

text: On November 24, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a formal apology to former Innu, Inuit and NunatuKavut school survivors and their families during a ceremony in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.[83][84] He acknowledged that students experienced multiple forms of abuse linking their treatment to the colonial thinking that shaped the school system.[85] Trudeau's apology was received on behalf of residential school survivors by Toby Obed who framed the apology as a key part of the healing process that connected survivors from Newfoundland and Labrador with school attendees from across the country.[83] Members of the Innu Nation were less receptive, rejecting the apology ahead of the ceremony.[86] Grand Chief Gregory Rich noted in a released statement that he was "not satisfied that Canada understands yet what it has done to Innu and what it is still doing", indicating that members felt they deserved an apology for more than their experiences at residential schools.[83][86]

text: Provincial[edit]

text: On June 22, 2015, Rachel Notley, Premier of the province of Alberta, issued a formal apology as a Ministerial Statement in a bid to begin to address the wrongs done by the government to the Indigenous peoples of Alberta and the rest of Canada.[87] Notley's provincial government called on the federal government to hold an inquiry on the missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada at the same time. They also stated their intent to build relationships with provincial leaders of Indigenous communities, and sought to amend the provincial curriculum to include the history of Indigenous culture.[88]

text: On June 18, 2015, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger became the first politician to issue a formal apology for the government's role in the Sixties Scoop.[89] Class action lawsuits have been brought against the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario governments for the harm caused to victims of the large-scale adoption scheme that saw thousands of Indigenous children forcibly removed from their parents in the 1960s.[90] Indigenous leaders responded by insisting that while apologies were welcomed, action – including a federal apology, reunification of families, compensation and counselling for victims – must accompany words for them to have real meaning.[91]

text: Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne apologized on behalf of the provincial government for the harm done at residential schools at Legislative Assembly of Ontario on May 30, 2016.[92] Affirming Ontario's commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples she acknowledged the school system as "one of the most shameful chapters in Canadian history".[93] In a 105-minute ceremony, Wynne announced that the Ontario government would spend $250 million on education initiatives and renamed the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. It was further announced that the first week of November would be known as Treaties Recognition Week.[94][95]

text: University[edit]

text: On October 27, 2011, University of Manitoba president David Barnard apologized to the TRC for the institution's role in educating people who operated the residential school system. This is believed to be the first time a Canadian university has apologized for playing a role in residential schools.[96]

text: Vatican's expression of sorrow[edit]

text: In 2009, Chief Fontaine had a private meeting with Pope Benedict XVI to obtain an apology for abuses that occurred in the residential school system. Fontaine was accompanied at the meeting by a delegation of Indigenous peoples from Canada funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Following the meeting, the Vatican released an official expression of sorrow on the church's role in residential schools:

text: His Holiness [i.e. the Pope] recalled that since the earliest days of her presence in Canada, the Church, particularly through her missionary personnel, has closely accompanied the Indigenous peoples.

text: Given the sufferings that some Indigenous children experienced in the Canadian Residential School system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity. His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society. He prayed that all those affected would experience healing, and he encouraged First Nations Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope.[97]

text: Fontaine later stated at a news conference that, at the meeting, he sensed the Pope's "pain and anguish" and that the acknowledgement was "important to [him] and that was what [he] was looking for".[98]

text: On May 29, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked the current Pope Francis for a public apology to all survivors of the residential school system, rather than the expression of sorrow issued in 2009.[99][100][101] The request aligned with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call for "a formal apology issued by the Pope to the survivors of the residential school system for the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical and sexual abuse of Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples".[102] Trudeau invited the Pope to issue the apology in Canada. Although no commitment for such an apology followed the meeting, he noted that the Pope pointed to a lifelong commitment of supporting marginalized people and an interest in working collaboratively with Trudeau and Canadian bishops to establish a way forward.[99]

text: Reconciliation[edit]

text: In the summer of 1990, the Mohawks of Kanesatake confronted the government about its failure to honour Indigenous land claims and recognize traditional Mohawk territory in Oka, Quebec. Referred to by media outlets as the Oka Crisis, the land dispute sparked a critical discussion about the Canadian government's complacency regarding relations with Indigenous communities and responses to their concerns. The action prompted then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to underscore four government responsibilities: "resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life."[4]:240 The actions of the Mohawk community members led to, in part, along with objections from Indigenous leaders regarding the Meech Lake Accord, the creation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples to examine the status of Indigenous peoples in Canada. In 1996, the Royal Commission presented a final report which first included a vision for meaningful and action-based reconciliation.[4]:239–240[104]

text: Financial compensation[edit]

text: In January 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation – including an apology to those people who were sexually or physically abused while attending residential schools – and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF). The Foundation was provided with $350 million to fund community-based healing projects addressing the legacy of physical and sexual abuse.[105] In its 2005 budget, the Canadian government committed an additional $40 million to support the work of the AHF.[106] Federal funding for the foundation was cut in 2010 by the Stephen Harper government, leaving 134 national healing-related initiatives without an operating budget.[107] The AHF closed in 2014. Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation.[108]

text: In June 2001, the government established Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada as an independent government department to manage the residential school file. In 2003, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process was launched as part of a larger National Resolution Framework which included health supports, a commemoration component and a strategy for litigation.[109] As explained by the TRC, the ADR was designed as a "voluntary process for resolution of certain claims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and forcible confinement, without having to go through the civil litigation process".[29]:564 It was created by the Canadian government without consultation with Indigenous communities or former residential school students. The ADR system also made it the responsibility of the former students to prove that the abuse occurred and was intentional, resulting in former students finding the system difficult to navigate, re-traumatizing, and discriminatory. Many survivor advocacy groups and Indigenous political organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) worked to have the ADR system dissolved.[110] In 2004 the Assembly of First Nations released a report critical of the ADR underscoring, among other issues, the failure of survivors to automatically receive the full amount of compensation without subsequent ligation against the church and failure to compensate for lost family, language and culture.[29]:565 The Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development released its own report in April 2005 finding the ADR to be "an excessively costly and inappropriately applied failure, for which the Minister and her officials are unable to raise a convincing defence".[29]:566 Within a month of the report's release a Supreme Court of Canada decision granted school attendees the right to pursue class-action suits, which ultimately led to a government review of the compensation process.[29]:566

text: On November 23, 2005, the Canadian government announced a $1.9 billion compensation package to benefit tens of thousands of former students. National Chief of the AFN, Phil Fontaine, said the package was meant to cover "decades in time, innumerable events and countless injuries to First Nations individuals and communities".[111] Justice Minister Irwin Cotler applauded the compensation decision noting that the placement of children in the residential school system was "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history".[111] At an Ottawa news conference, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said: "We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy."[111]

text: The compensation package led to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), announced on May 8, 2006, and implemented in September 2007.[112] At the time, there were about 86,000 living victims. The IRSSA included funding for the AHF, for commemoration, for health support, and for a Truth and Reconciliation program, as well as an individual Common Experience Payment (CEP).[71] Any person who could be verified as having resided at a federally run Indian residential school in Canada was entitled to a CEP.[113] The amount of compensation was based on the number of years a particular former student resided at the residential schools: $10,000 for the first year attended (from one night residing there to a full school year) plus $3,000 for every year thereafter.[114][115]:44

text: The IRSSA also included the Independent Assessment Process (IAP), a case-by-case, out-of-court resolution process designed to provide compensation for sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The IAP process was built on the ADR program and all IAP claims from former students are examined by an Adjudicator. The IAP became available to all former students of residential schools on September 19, 2007. Former students who experienced abuse and wished to pursue compensation had to apply by themselves or through a lawyer of their choice to receive consideration.[116] The deadline to apply for the IAP was September 19, 2012. This gave former students of residential schools four years from the implementation date of the IRSSA to apply for the IAP. Claims involving physical and sexual abuse were compensated up to $275,000.[117] By the end of January 2017, the IAP had resolved 36,538 claims and paid $3.1 billion in compensation.[118]

text: The IRSSA also proposed an advance payment for former students alive and who were 65 years old and over as of May 30, 2005. The deadline for reception of the advance payment form by IRSRC was December 31, 2006. Following a legal process, including an examination of the IRSSA by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred. During this time, the former students of residential schools could reject the agreement if they did not agree with its dispositions. This opt-out period ended on August 20, 2007, with about 350 former students opting out. The IRSSA was the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. By December 2012, a total of $1.62 billion was paid to 78,750 former students, 98% of the 80,000 who were eligible.[119] In 2014, the IRSSA funds left over from CEPs were offered for educational credits for survivors and their families.[120]

text: Truth and Reconciliation Commission[edit]

text: In 2008, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established to travel across Canada collecting the testimonies of people affected by the residential school system. About 6,000 Indigenous people told their stories. The TRC concluded in 2015 with the publication of a six volume, 4,000-plus-page report detailing the testimonies of survivors and historical documents from the time. It focused on the importance of moving "from apology to action"[4]:262 to achieve true reconciliation and resulted in the establishment of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.[121][122]

text: The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide.[4]:1 The ambiguity of the phrasing allowed for the interpretation that physical and biological genocide also occurred. The TRC was not authorized to conclude that physical and biological genocide occurred, as such a finding would imply a legal responsibility of the Canadian government that would be difficult to prove. As a result, the debate about whether the Canadian government also committed physical and biological genocide against Indigenous populations remains open.[123][124]

text: Among the 94 Calls to Action that accompanied the conclusion of the TRC were recommendations to ensure that all Canadians are educated and made aware of the residential school system.[33]:175–176 Justice Murray Sinclair explained that the recommendations were not aimed solely at prompting government action, but instead a collective move toward reconciliation in which all Canadians have a role to play: "Many of our elements, many of our recommendations and many of the Calls to Action are actually aimed at Canadian society."[125]

text: Preservation of documentation of the legacy of residential schools was also highlighted as part of the TRC's Calls to Action. Community groups and other stakeholders have variously argued for documenting or destroying evidence and testimony of residential school abuses.[126][127][128] On April 4, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that documents pertaining to IAP settlements will be destroyed in 15 years if individual claimants do not request to have their documents archived. This decision was fought by the TRC as well as the federal government, but argued for by religious representatives.[129]

text: In March 2017, Lynn Beyak, a Conservative member of the Senate Standing Committee of Aboriginal Peoples, voiced disapproval of the final TRC report, saying that it had omitted an "abundance of good" that was present in the schools.[130][131] Although Beyak's right to free speech was defended by some Conservative senators, her comments were widely criticized by members of the opposition, among them Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Carolyn Bennett, and leader of the New Democratic Party, Tom Mulcair.[132] The Anglican Church also raised concerns stating in a release co-signed by bishops Fred Hiltz and Mark MacDonald: "There was nothing good about children going missing and no report being filed. There was nothing good about burying children in unmarked graves far from their ancestral homes."[133][134] In response, the Conservative Party leadership removed Beyak from the Senate committee underscoring that her comments did not align with the views of the party.[132]

text: Church projects[edit]

text: The four churches of the IRSSA – the United, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian churches[71] – agreed to participate in the reconciliation process between Indigenous and settler Canadians. They have been involved in funding various projects and services that assist former residential school students and their families in healing from the trauma caused by the schools. The Anglican Church of Canada set up the Anglican Healing Fund in the 1990s to respond to the ongoing need for healing related to residential schools.[135] In the 2000s the United Church established the Justice and Reconciliation Fund to support healing initiatives and the Presbyterian Church has established a Healing & Reconciliation Program.[136][137]

text: The churches have also engaged in reconciliation initiatives such as the Returning to Spirit: Residential School Healing and Reconciliation Program, a workshop that aims to unite Indigenous and non-Indigenous people through discussing the legacy of residential schools and fostering an environment for them to communicate and develop mutual understanding.[4] In 2014, the federal government ceased to contribute funds to Indigenous health organizations such as the AHF and the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Since then, more pressure has been placed on churches to sustain their active participation in these healing efforts.[4]

text: Educational initiatives[edit]

text: For many communities the existence of buildings that formerly housed residential schools is a traumatic reminder of the system's legacy, and there has been much discussion about demolition, heritage status and how the possibility of incorporating sites into the healing process.[126][127][128] In July 2016, it was announced that the building of the former Mohawk Institute Residential School would be converted into an educational centre with exhibits on the legacy of residential schools. Ontario's Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, David Zimmer, noted: "Its presence will always be a reminder of colonization and the racism of the residential school system; one of the darkest chapters of Canadian history."[138]

text: Reconciliation efforts have also been undertaken by several Canadian universities. In 2015 Lakehead University and the University of Winnipeg introduced a mandatory course requirement for all undergraduate students focused on Indigenous culture and history.[139] The same year the University of Saskatchewan hosted a two-day national forum at which Canadian university administrators, scholars and members of Indigenous communities discussed how Canadian universities can and should respond to the TRC's Calls to Action.[140][141]

text: On April 1, 2017, a 17-metre (56 ft) pole, titled Reconciliation Pole, was raised on the grounds of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus, which sits on the unceded territory of the Musqueam people. Carved by Haida master carver and hereditary chief, 7idansuu (Edenshaw), James Hart, the pole tells the story of the residential school system prior to, during and after its operation. It features thousands of copper nails, used to represent the children who died in Canadian residential schools, and depictions of residential school survivors carved by artists from multiple Indigenous communities. Included among them are Canadian Inuk director Zacharias Kunuk, Maliseet artist Shane Perley-Dutcher, and Muqueam Coast Salish artist Susan Point.[142][143]

text: In October 2016, Canadian singer-songwriter Gord Downie released Secret Path, a concept album about Chanie Wenjack's escape and death. It was accompanied by a graphic novel and animated film, aired on CBC Television. All proceeds go to the University of Manitoba's Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Following his death in October 2017, Downie's brother Mike said he was aware of 40,000 teachers who had used the material in their classrooms, and hoped to continue this.[144] In December 2017, Downie was posthumously named Canadian Newsmaker of the Year by the Canadian Press, in part because of his work with reconciliation efforts for survivors of residential schools.[145]


document_title: Estevez

question_text: where does the last name estevez come from

root

text: Estevez

text: Estévez, or Estevez in English, is a Galician (Spanish) family name. It is a patronymic, meaning son of Stephen, in Galician Estevo. In Portuguese the equivalent is Esteves, the Italian equivalent is DeStefano and the Spanish equivalent is Estébanez, from the Spanish name Esteban.

tag: p

text: The name may refer to:

text: People[edit]

text:
Antonio Estévez (1916-1988), Venezuelan composer
Don Francisco Estévez source of name for Estevez Palace, since 1880 office of the President of Uruguay.
Camilo Estévez (d. 1999), Spanish bishop of the Palmarian Catholic Church
Carlos Irwin Estevez (b. 1965), American actor known professionally as Charlie Sheen
Carmen Fraga Estévez (b. 1948), Spanish politician and Member of the European Parliament
Emilio Estevez (b. 1962), American actor and director, son of Martin Sheen
Felipe de Jesús Estévez (b. 1946), American Roman Catholic bishop
Horacio Estevez (1940-1996), Venezuelan sprinter
João Rodrigues Esteves (b. 1700) Portuguese composer
Joaquín Estévez (b. 1984), Argentinian professional golfer
Joaquín Madolell Estévez (es) (b. 1923), military personnel spy from Melilla
Joe Estevez (b. 1950), American actor, brother of Martin Sheen
Jorge Medina Estévez (b. 1926), Chilean bishop and cardinal
Maximiliano Estévez (b. 1977), Argentine footballer
Ramon Estévez (b. 1940), American actor known professionally as Martin Sheen
Ramon Estevez (b. 1963), American actor, son of Martin Sheen
Renée Estevez (b. 1967), American actress, daughter of Martin Sheen
Reyes Estévez (b. 1976), Spanish European championship runner
Roberto Estévez (b. 1957), Argentine soldier, awarded posthumously with the Argentine Nation to the Heroic Valour in Combat Cross

tag: ul

text: Fictional characters[edit]

text:
Dano Estevez, character from the film Final Destination 2
Sheen Estevez, character from the television series and film Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius

text:
Surname list
This page lists people with the surname Estevez. If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link.

tag: table

text: Surnames

text: Interlanguage link template link numberArticles with short descriptionAll set index articles


document_title: List of U.S. states by income

question_text: which one is the poorest state in usa

question_tokens: which one is the poorest state in usa

text: List of U.S. states by income

text: States ranked by median household income

text: Median Household Income by State (Note that table does not reflect the margin of error in the values). [1]

text:
Rank
State
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011

1
Maryland
$75,847
73,971
$72,483
$71,122
$70,004

District of Columbia†
$75,628
71,648
$67,572
$66,583
$63,124

2
Hawaii
$73,486
69,592
$68,020
$66,259
$61,821

3
Alaska
$73,355
71,583
$72,237
$67,712
$67,825

4
New Jersey
$72,222
71,919
$70,165
$69,667
$67,458

5
Connecticut
$71,346
70,048
$67,098
$67,276
$65,753

6
Massachusetts
$70,628
69,160
$66,768
$65,339
$62,859

7
New Hampshire
$70,303
66,532
$64,230
$63,280
$62,647

8
Virginia
$66,262
64,902
$62,666
$61,741
$61,882

9
California
$64,500
61,933
$60,190
$58,328
$57,287

10
Washington
$64,129
61,366
$58,405
$57,573
$56,835

11
Colorado
$63,909
61,303
$58,823
$56,765
$55,387

12
Minnesota
$63,488
61,481
$60,702
$58,906
$56,954

13
Utah
$62,912
60,922
$59,770
$57,049
$55,869

14
Delaware
$61,255
59,716
$57,846
$58,415
$58,814

15
New York
$60,850
58,878
$57,369
$56,448
$55,246

16
North Dakota
$60,557
59,029
$55,759
$53,585
$51,704

17
Wyoming
$60,214
57,055
$58,752
$54,901
$56,322

18
Illinois
$59,588
57,444
$56,210
$55,137
$53,234

19
Rhode Island
$58,073
54,891
$55,902
$54,554
$53,636

20
Vermont
$56,990
54,166
$52,578
$52,977
$52,776

United States
$55,775
53,657
$52,250
$51,371
$50,502

21
Pennsylvania
$55,702
53,234
$52,007
$51,230
$50,228

22
Texas
$55,653
53,035
$51,704
$50,740
$49,392

23
Wisconsin
$55,638
52,622
$51,467
$51,059
$50,395

24
Nebraska
$54,996
52,686
$51,440
$50,723
$50,296

25
Iowa
$54,736
53,712
$52,229
$50,957
$49,427

26
Oregon
$54,148
51,075
$50,251
$49,161
$46,816

27
Kansas
$53,906
52,504
$50,972
$50,241
$48,964

28
South Dakota
$53,017
50,979
$48,947
$48,362
$48,321

29
Nevada
$52,431
51,450
$51,230
$49,760
$48,927

30
Maine
$51,494
49,462
$46,974
$46,709
$46,033

31
Arizona
$51,492
50,068
$48,510
$47,826
$46,709

32
Georgia
$51,244
49,321
$47,829
$47,209
$46,007

33
Michigan
$51,084
49,847
$48,273
$46,859
$45,981

34
Ohio
$51,075
49,308
$48,081
$46,829
$45,749

35
Indiana
$50,532
49,446
$47,529
$46,974
$46,438

36
Missouri
$50,238
48,363
$46,931
$45,321
$45,247

37
Montana
$49,509
46,328
$46,972
$45,076
$44,222

38
Florida
$49,426
47,463
$46,036
$45,040
$44,299

39
Oklahoma
$48,568
47,529
$45,690
$44,312
$43,225

40
Idaho
$48,275
47,861
$46,783
$45,489
$43,341

41
North Carolina
$47,830
46,556
$45,906
$45,150
$43,916

42
Tennessee
$47,275
44,361
$44,297
$42,764
$41,693

43
South Carolina
$47,238
45,238
$44,163
$43,107
$42,367

44
Louisiana
$45,727
44,555
$44,164
$42,944
$41,734

45
New Mexico
$45,382
44,803
$43,872
$42,558
$41,963

46
Kentucky
$45,215
42,958
$43,399
$41,724
$41,141

47
Alabama
$44,765
42,830
$42,849
$41,574
$41,415

48
West Virginia
$42,019
41,059
$41,253
$40,196
$38,482

49
Arkansas
$41,995
41,262
$40,511
$40,112
$38,758

50
Mississippi
$40,593
39,680
$37,963
$37,095
$36,919

Puerto Rico†
$18,626
18,928
$19,183
$19,429
$18,660

text: States ranked by per capita income

text: All data is from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.[2][3]

text:
Rank
State
Per capita
income
Median
household
income
Median
family
income
Population
Number of
households
Number of
families

District of Columbia†
$45,877
$71,648
$84,094
658,893
277,378
117,864

1
Connecticut
$39,373
$70,048
$88,819
3,596,677
1,355,817
887,263

2
New Jersey
$37,288
$69,160
$87,951
8,938,175
2,549,336
1,610,581

3
Massachusetts
$36,593
$71,919
$88,419
6,938,608
3,194,844
2,203,675

4
Maryland
$36,338
$73,971
$89,678
5,976,407
2,165,438
1,445,972

5
New Hampshire
$34,691
$66,532
$80,581
1,326,813
519,756
345,901

6
Virginia
$34,052
$64,902
$78,290
8,326,289
3,083,820
2,058,820

7
New York
$33,095
$58,878
$71,115
19,746,227
7,282,398
4,621,954

8
North Dakota
$33,071
$59,029
$75,221
739,482
305,431
187,800

9
Alaska
$33,062
$71,583
$82,307
736,732
249,659
165,015

10
Minnesota
$32,638
$61,481
$77,941
5,457,173
2,129,195
1,369,594

11
Colorado
$32,357
$61,303
$75,405
5,355,866
2,039,592
1,315,283

12
Washington
$31,841
$61,366
$74,193
7,061,530
2,679,601
1,725,099

13
Rhode Island
$30,830
$54,891
$71,212
1,055,173
409,654
257,165

14
Delaware
$30,488
$59,716
$72,594
935,614
349,743
233,000

15
California
$30,441
$61,933
$71,015
38,802,500
12,758,648
8,762,059

16
Illinois
$30,417
$57,444
$71,796
12,880,580
4,772,421
3,099,184

17
Hawaii
$29,736
$69,592
$79,187
1,419,561
450,769
314,151

18
Wyoming
$29,698
$57,055
$72,460
584,153
232,594
149,032

19
Pennsylvania
$29,220
$53,234
$67,876
12,787,209
4,945,972
3,185,054

20
Vermont
$29,178
$54,166
$67,154
626,562
257,229
162,017

United States
$28,889
$53,657
$65,910
318,857,056
117,259,427
77,152,072

21
Iowa
$28,361
$53,712
$67,771
3,107,126
1,241,471
801,562

22
Wisconsin
$28,213
$52,622
$67,187
5,757,564
2,307,685
1,485,877

23
Maine
$27,978
$49,462
$62,078
1,330,089
549,841
344,585

24
Kansas
$27,870
$52,504
$66,425
2,904,021
1,109,280
728,602

25
Oregon
$27,646
$51,075
$62,670
3,970,239
1,535,511
966,250

26
Nebraska
$27,446
$52,686
$66,120
1,881,503
740,765
480,317

27
Texas
$27,125
$53,035
$62,830
26,956,958
9,277,197
6,407,165

28
South Dakota
$26,959
$50,979
$66,936
853,175
334,475
211,235

29
Ohio
$26,937
$49,308
$62,300
11,594,163
4,593,172
2,923,523

30
Michigan
$26,613
$49,847
$62,143
9,909,877
3,834,574
2,485,159

31
Florida
$26,582
$47,463
$57,212
19,893,297
7,328,046
4,693,411

32
Missouri
$26,126
$48,363
$61,299
6,063,589
2,354,809
1,508,816

33
Montana
$25,989
$46,328
$60,643
1,023,579
410,962
251,176

34
North Carolina
$25,774
$46,556
$57,380
9,943,964
3,790,620
2,492,048

35
Nevada
$25,773
$51,450
$60,824
2,839,099
1,021,519
642,461

36
Arizona
$25,715
$50,068
$59,700
6,731,484
2,428,743
1,579,481

37
Georgia
$25,615
$49,321
$58,885
10,097,343
3,587,521
2,426,392

38
Oklahoma
$25,229
$47,529
$58,710
3,878,051
1,459,759
966,516

39
Indiana
$25,140
$49,446
$60,780
6,596,855
2,502,739
1,657,223

40
Tennessee
$24,922
$44,361
$55,557
6,549,352
2,509,665
1,660,344

41
Utah
$24,877
$60,922
$69,535
2,942,902
918,370
691,495

42
Louisiana
$24,800
$44,555
$56,573
4,649,676
1,718,194
1,112,659

43
South Carolina
$24,596
$45,238
$56,491
4,832,482
1,826,914
1,201,616

44
Idaho
$23,938
$47,861
$58,101
1,634,464
591,587
407,499

45
Kentucky
$23,684
$42,958
$54,776
4,413,457
1,712,094
1,124,586

46
New Mexico
$23,683
$44,803
$54,705
2,085,572
760,916
489,532

47
Alabama
$23,606
$42,830
$53,764
4,849,377
1,841,217
1,232,515

48
Arkansas
$22,883
$41,262
$51,528
2,966,369
1,131,288
752,212

49
West Virginia
$22,714
$41,059
$52,413
1,850,326
735,375
472,869

50
Mississippi
$21,036
$39,680
$50,178
2,994,079
1,095,823
738,463

Puerto Rico†
$11,241
$18,928
$22,477
3,548,397
1,233,490
867,505

text: About Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia

text: †Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are not formally US states, but their residents are American citizens. Puerto Rico has a higher population than 21 US states, while D.C. has a higher population than 2. Data for the other inhabited US territories is not listed here.


document_title: Surya Bonaly

question_text: when were backflips made illegal in figure skating

text: Surya Bonaly

text: Early life[edit]

text: Bonaly was born in Nice, France on December 15, 1973.[1][2] Initially named Claudine, she was adopted at 18 months old by Suzanne and Georges Bonaly, who gave her the name Surya.[3] Suzanne worked as a physical education teacher and Georges as an architect for the government. The couple initially told the media that their daughter had been born on the island of Réunion because they thought this origin sounded more "exotic".[4] When Surya approached the age of 18 and began researching her birth history, her parents admitted that Surya's biological mother had been from the island but that Surya herself had not been born there. Didier Gailhaguet, who was Bonaly's first coach of her competitive career, admitted fabricating the story because he thought it would interest the press.[5]

text: Career[edit]

text: Early years[edit]

text: Bonaly was originally a competitive gymnast. She began skating as an eleven-year-old in Nice, in 1985,[1] before relocating to Paris.[3] Early media reports said that Gailhaguet discovered Bonaly at a public session, but years later, she said she had wanted to skate in Gailhaguet's competitive skating group and actually asked to participate.[6] She broke both wrists before learning how to fall properly.[7]

text: 1987–1988 to 1989–1990[edit]

text: Bonaly finished 14th at her first ISU Championship, the 1988 Junior Worlds in Brisbane, Australia.

text: The following season, Bonaly won the bronze medal at 1989 World Junior Championships and her first senior national title. She also began appearing on the senior level, placing eighth at the 1989 European Championships and tenth at 1989 World Championships.

text: Bonaly was awarded the silver medal behind Japan's Yuka Sato at the 1990 World Junior Championships in Colorado Springs, Colorado. She finished fourth at the 1990 European Championships and ninth at the 1990 World Championships.

text: 1990–1991 season: World Junior and European titles[edit]

text: Bonaly began the season with a pair of senior international medals – gold at the 1990 Grand Prix International de Paris and bronze at the 1990 Skate Electric. Making her final junior appearance, she stood on top of the podium at the 1991 World Junior Championships in Budapest, Hungary. After taking her third national title, she competed at the 1991 European Championships in Sofia, Bulgaria. She was awarded the gold medal ahead of two German skaters, Evelyn Großmann and Marina Kielmann.

text: Bonaly placed fifth at the 1991 World Championships in Munich, Germany, where she came very close to the first ever ratified quad by a female skater, but had other errors.[8]

text: 1991–1992 season: Second European title and first Olympic appearance[edit]

text: In January 1992, Bonaly outscored Kielmann and Patricia Neske for the gold medal at the European Championships in Lausanne, Switzerland. In February 1992, she took the athlete's oath at the Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. During a practice session, she landed a back flip very close to Japan's Midori Ito and was told by officials not to do it again.[9][10] Officials believed that other skaters might be intimidated in practice sessions.[10] She became the first woman to attempt a quadruple toe loop in competition but the jump was not fully rotated in the air and she had to complete the rotation on the ice. Due to the underrotation, the quad would be downgraded under the ISU Judging System.[9] Although the door was open for her to medal after Ito and Harding had finished in 4th and 6th in the short program, and Kristi Yamaguchi and Nancy Kerrigan both made major errors in the long skating just before her, she placed 6th in the free skate and 5th overall.

text: After the Olympics, Bonaly parted ways with Gailhaguet and joined André Brunet, who coached her for one month.[11][12] She concluded her season at the 1992 World Championships in Oakland, California. Ranked tenth in the short and 12th in the free, she finished 11th overall, making a number of jumping errors in both programs. She was so distraught with her poor performances and how she was marked that she considered turning pro midway through the event.[13]

text: 1992–1993 season: First World silver medal[edit]

text: Bonaly was coached mainly by her mother from April to September 1992 and also made two month-long visits, in June and September, to Frank Carroll in southern California; although she wanted to stay with Carroll permanently, the French skating federation was opposed to its skaters training abroad.[12] Alain Giletti became her coach, commuting four times a week by train from Tours to Paris, and her mother filled in during his absences.[12]

text: Bonaly won the 1993 European Championships in Helsinki, having placed first in both segments ahead of Ukraine's Oksana Baiul and Germany's Marina Kielmann. At the 1993 World Championships in Prague, she took silver behind Oksana Baiul, who narrowly took the title with higher presentation scores.[14] Like bronze medalist Lu Chen, Bonaly had significantly more technical content than the winner. Bonaly performed seven triples, a triple-triple combination, and two triple lutzes, while Baiul performed five triples but did not attempt a jump combination.

text: 1993–1994 season[edit]

text: In January 1994, Bonaly placed first in all segments on her way to her fourth consecutive continental title at the Europeans Championships in Copenhagen, Denmark. The other medalists were Baiul and Russia's Olga Markova. A month later, she competed at the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway. Ranked third in the short program and fourth in the free skate, she finished fourth overall behind Baiul, Nancy Kerrigan, and Chen Lu; she had two misses on the triple lutz, a singled jump early in her long program, and a fall on the second attempt.

text: At the 1994 World Championships in Chiba, Japan – where the three Olympic medalists did not compete – Bonaly's final overall score was equal to home country favorite Yuka Sato, who would be awarded the gold medal after a 5-4 tiebreaker decision.[15] Upset by the result, Bonaly stood beside the medals platform rather than on it. She eventually stepped onto the platform but took off her silver medal after it was presented to her; she was immediately booed by the crowd.[16] After the medals presentation, Bonaly's only statement to reporters was: "I'm just not lucky."

text: 1994–1995 season: Fifth European title[edit]

text: In 1995, Bonaly won the European Championships for the fifth time, overtaking short-program winner Markova. At the 1995 World Championships in Birmingham, England, she placed fourth in the short program but rose to second after the free skate. She was awarded her third World silver medal, behind Chen Lu of China.[17] For the third consecutive year she lost the gold medal by just one judge and one-tenth of a point. Her free skate had the most difficult technical content, with two triple lutzes, two triple-triple combos, and seven triples. For Bonaly to win, another skater would need to place ahead of short program leader Nicole Bobek.[citation needed]

text: 1995–1996 season[edit]

text: In autumn 1995, Bonaly competed in the inaugural ISU Champions Series. She finished third and fourth at her assignments, which was not enough to qualify to the seven-woman final. Ranked first in the short program and second in the free skate, Bonaly took silver behind Russia's Irina Slutskaya at the 1996 European Championships in Sofia, Bulgaria. She finished fifth at the 1996 World Championships in Edmonton, having placed seventh in the short where she fell on a triple lutz, and fifth in the free. She landed no more than four clean triples in any free skate during the season.

text: 1996–1997 season[edit]

text: In May 1996, Bonaly ruptured her achilles tendon while doing acrobatics.[18] Due to the injury, she missed much of the following season.[19] The French federation initially decided not to name her to the 1997 European Championships in Paris, believing that she lacked fitness, but Bonaly successfully appealed.[18] She finished 9th overall after placing 6th in qualifying group B, 6th in the short program, and 10th in the free skate. She was not included in France's two-women team to the World Championships, passed over in favor of Vanessa Gusmeroli, the top French finisher at Europeans, and Laetitia Hubert who placed behind Bonaly at the same event.

text: 1997–1998 season: Third Olympics[edit]

text: During the season, Bonaly was coached by Suzanne Bonaly and Tatiana Tarasova in Marlborough, United States.[1] At the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, Bonaly placed 6th in the short program. Unable to complete her planned routine or a successful triple lutz due to injury, she decided to perform a backflip landing on one blade during the free skate. Backflips had been banned since 1976 from competitions held under ISU rules.[20] Bonaly received a deduction but was content with her decision to perform the move.[21][22] She finished tenth in Nagano and retired from amateur competition after the event.

text: Her skating clubs were CSG Pralognan[1] and CSG Champigny.[2]

text: Later career[edit]

text: Bonaly toured with the Champions on Ice skating show for several years[23] until it went out of business after 2007. She also performed in shows in Russia with Evgeni Plushenko and was a guest skater at Ice Theatre of New York's December 2008 gala in NYC where she successfully performed her backflip.[24]

text: Bonaly was an off-screen character on the "Will on Ice" episode of NBC's Will & Grace which originally aired on January 12, 1999.[25] In 2010, she was a finalist on La Ferme Célébrités season 3.[26] In 2015, she underwent surgery after the discovery of numerous cysts along her spinal cord, ending her performing career.[7]

text: As of September 2016, Bonaly was coaching in Minnesota.[7]

text: Personal life[edit]

text: Bonaly became an American citizen in January 2004.[5] After living in Las Vegas, Nevada,[24] she moved to Minnesota.[7] Bonaly became engaged to skating coach Pete Biver on September 18, 2016.[7]

text: Bonaly, a vegetarian,[27][28] has appeared in many PETA ads in both English and French, against Canada's seal hunt and against the fur trade.[29][30][31]

text: Programs[edit]

text:
Season
Short program
Free skating

1997–98
[1]

The Four Seasons
by Antonio Vivaldi

text: Competitive highlights[edit]

text:
International[1]

Event
87–88
88–89
89–90
90–91
91–92
92–93
93–94
94–95
95–96
96–97
97–98

Olympics

5th

4th

10th

Worlds

10th
9th
5th
11th
2nd
2nd
2nd
5th

Europeans

8th
4th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
9th
6th

Cup of Russia

4th

Lalique

7th
1st
1st
5th
1st
1st
1st
3rd

Nations Cup

1st

NHK Trophy

2nd
1st
1st
2nd
4th

Skate America

6th
5th
3rd

2nd
1st
4th

Skate Canada

7th

1st

3rd

Goodwill Games

3rd

1st

Nebelhorn Trophy

2nd
1st

Piruetten

4th

International: Junior[1]

Junior Worlds
14th
3rd
2nd
1st

National[3]

French Champ.
4th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd


document_title: List of New York Yankees owners and executives

question_text: who owned the new york yankees before george steinbrenner

text: Principal owners[edit]

text: During the 1901 and 1902 seasons, the franchise played in Baltimore as the "Baltimore Orioles". They became defunct, but were purchased by William Stephen Devery and Frank J. Farrell for $18,000 and moved to New York in 1903.[3] Jacob Ruppert and Tillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston purchased the Yankees in 1915,[4] and Ruppert bought out Huston in 1922.[5]

text: Dan Topping, Larry MacPhail, and Del Webb purchased the Yankees from Ruppert's estate in 1945.[6] Topping and Webb forced MacPhail out of the Yankees ownership group due to his confrontational behavior after the 1947 World Series.[7] In 1964, Topping and Webb sold the team to CBS,[8] during which time the franchise struggled. Selling the team at a loss,[9] CBS sold the team to a group headed by George Steinbrenner in 1973.[10] While Steinbrenner initially owned less than half of the team, he bought out many of his partners, eventually owning 70% of the team.[11][12] John McMullen, one of Steinbrenner's limited partners, said, "There is nothing in life quite so limited as being a limited partner of George Steinbrenner."[13]

text: Under Steinbrenner's ownership, YankeeNets was formed after a merger of the business operations of the Yankees and New Jersey Nets.[14] After the Nets were sold to Bruce Ratner, YankeeNets became a limited liability company (LLC) known as Yankee Global Enterprises.[15] The LLC owns the Yankees and the YES Network. Hal Steinbrenner succeeded his father as control person of the Yankees in 2008.[16]

text:
Key

Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame

^

Co-owners

Tenure
Tenure refers to MLB seasons, not necessarily dates hired and fired

text:
List of team owners, showing tenure of service

Name
Tenure
Ref(s)

McGraw, JohnJohn McGraw
1901–1902^
[17]

Devery, William S.William S. Devery
1903–1915^
[3]

Farrell, Frank J.Frank J. Farrell
1903–1915^
[3]

L'Hommedieu Huston, TillinghastTillinghast L'Hommedieu Huston
1915–1922^
[18]

Ruppert, JacobJacob Ruppert
1915–1939^
[18][19]

Ruppert, JacobJacob Ruppert Estate
1939–1945
[20]

MacPhail, LarryLarry MacPhail
1945–1947^
[21]

Topping, DanDan Topping
1945–1964^
[21][7]

Webb, DelDel Webb
1945–1964^
[21][7]

Columbia Broadcasting System
1964–1973
[22]

Steinbrenner, GeorgeGeorge Steinbrenner
1973–2010
[11]

Steinbrenner, HalHal Steinbrenner
2008–present^
[23][12]

Steinbrenner, HankHank Steinbrenner
2008–present^
[23][12]

text: General managers[edit]

text: Four Yankees GMs are enshrined in the National Baseball Hall of Fame: Ed Barrow,[24] George Weiss,[25] Larry MacPhail,[26] and his son, Lee MacPhail.[27] Ralph Houk,[28] Gene Michael,[29] Lou Piniella,[30] and Bob Watson[31] were former Yankees players. Houk,[32] Michael[33] and Piniella[34] served as field managers for the Yankees before becoming GM.

text:
List of general managers, showing tenure

Name
Tenure
Ref(s)

Barrow, EdEd Barrow
1921–1944
[2]

MacPhail, LarryLarry MacPhail
1945–1947
[35]

Weiss, GeorgeGeorge Weiss
1948–1960
[35]

Hamey, RoyRoy Hamey
1961–1963
[36]

Houk, RalphRalph Houk
1964–1966
[36][37]

Topping, Jr., DanDan Topping, Jr.
1966
[37]

MacPhail, LeeLee MacPhail
1967–1973
[38][39]

Paul, GabeGabe Paul
1974–1977
[39][40]

Tallis, CedricCedric Tallis
1978–1979
[40]

Michael, GeneGene Michael
1980–1981
[41][42]

Bergesch, BillBill Bergesch
1982–1983
[43]

Cook, MurrayMurray Cook
1984
[44]

King, ClydeClyde King
1985–1986
[45][46]

Woodward, WoodyWoody Woodward
1987
[46][47]

Piniella, LouLou Piniella
1988
[47][48]

Quinn, BobBob Quinn
1988–1989
[48][49]

Peterson, Harding "Pete"Harding "Pete" Peterson
1990
[50][51]

Michael, GeneGene Michael
1991–1995
[51][52]

Watson, BobBob Watson
1996–1997
[52][53]

Cashman, BrianBrian Cashman
1998–present
[53]


document_title: Punching power

question_text: where does a boxer's power come from

question_tokens: where does a boxer 's power come from

text: Punching power

text: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Punching power is the amount of kinetic energy in a person's punches. Knockout power is a similar concept relating to the probability of any strike to the head to cause unconsciousness. Knockout power is related to the force delivered and precision of the strike.

text: In order to increase the mass behind a punch, it is essential to move the body as a unit throughout the punch. Power is generated from the ground up, such that force from the ankles transfers to the knees; force from the knees transfers to the thighs; force from the thighs transfers to the core; from the core to the chest; from the chest to the shoulders; from the shoulders to the forearms and finally the compounded force transfers through the fist into an opponent. So the most powerful punchers are able to connect their whole body and channel the force from each portion of the body into a punch.

text: Generally, there are five components to punching power that must be present for a puncher to be considered truly powerful: lack of arm punching, proper weight shifting, stepping during a punch, pivoting with a punch, and using proper footwork.[1]

text: This body connection requires the development of a strong core. The core is perhaps the most important element in a powerful punch, since it connects the powerhouse of the legs to the delivery system of the arms. Basic core conditioning exercises include abdominal crunches, situps and leg raises.[2][not in citation given]