The phrase “kill the Indian in the child” represents one of the most haunting expressions of colonial assimilation policy, though its attribution requires historical clarification. This expression encapsulates the devastating philosophy behind residential schools but has been incorrectly associated with Canadian official Duncan Campbell Scott. The expression originated with Captain Richard H. Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. In 1892, Pratt articulated his assimilation philosophy with the phrase: “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” This became the unofficial motto for American Indian boarding schools, reflecting their mission to eradicate Indigenous identity while ostensibly “civilizing” Native children.
While Scott didn’t coin this specific phrase, his policies and statements as Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932 embodied the same destructive philosophy. Scott was instrumental in expanding Canada’s residential school system through his 1920 amendments to the Indian Act, making attendance mandatory for Indigenous children aged 7 to 15. His infamous 1920 statement reveals his assimilationist agenda: “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who can stand alone… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department.”
Under Scott’s leadership, the Canadian residential school system became a primary tool for cultural genocide. These institutions systematically separated children from their families and communities, prohibited the use of Indigenous languages, enforced Christian religious practices over Indigenous spiritual traditions, replaced traditional knowledge with European education models, and subjected many children to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. The consequences of this system have been profound and multigenerational, including loss of language and cultural knowledge, disruption of family structures and parenting skills, community fragmentation, psychological trauma passed through generations, and higher rates of substance abuse, suicide, and social problems in affected communities.
While Scott didn’t say “kill the Indian in the child,” the phrase accurately captures the essence of his policies. The distinction in attribution is historically important but doesn’t diminish Scott’s responsibility for implementing a system designed to eradicate Indigenous cultural identity from Canadian society. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada has documented how this philosophy, regardless of its exact phrasing, led to what constitutes cultural genocide against Indigenous peoples—a legacy that continues to impact communities today.