Quoting the whole statement make a big difference. Of course just using a small portion changes the whole meaning and is more advantageous for political opponents.
I did have a look at his whole statement when this story broke, and I will at least credit that O’Toole wasn’t trying to argue that Residential schools were a “good thing.”
But what he was trying to do, in the context of defending Egerton Ryerson and scoring cheap political points, was try and argue that the intentions of the architects of Residential schools were noble, since their main motivation was to provide education.
And that’s just...not true at all. It actually would’ve been kind of cool if the government at the time had prioritized proving educational opportunities for Natives, and opened up voluntary day schools, where they’d be taught practical skills like reading & writing, modern trades of the day, things like math and science, etc.
But when you go back and look at the arguments of people like Ryerson, they’re hyper-focused in their belief that Natives were “savages”, and that they needed to be ripped away from their families so as to better erase their own culture and connections to their families and replace them with the superior culture and religious beliefs of white Canadians.
And aside from O’Toole being wrong on that, I also don’t see the upside in trying to train college kids on how to “win” debates about Residential schools. And I also find O’Toole’s enthusiasm for culture warrior BS unsettling and pretty discouraging.