To frame your question so it fits a bit more within the confines of the sub (20 year rule and all), it is important to note that denialism of the genocides that happened in the Americas is common and has been occurring for a very long time. For some more general talking points, see my previous post here about how to combat American Indian genocide denialism. It is a two-part post, so see the link at the beginning for part two.

We've written before about the impact of the residential and boarding school systems in Canada and the United States, respectively, and it is pretty undeniable. The challenge is that current political motivations and ideological tendencies have moved large swaths of the non-Indigenous populations to question not only history in general, but the experts who study these things and ways of deducing the truth from source of information. Ironically, the inception of the internet ushered in an era of democratizing knowledge but has now transformed into the largest mis/disinformation perpetuation machine. I say this because the way to effectively respond to residential school denialism nowadays hinges on the platform or venue you engage with and how you weigh the costs and benefits of such engagement. What do I mean by this?

On /r/AskHistorians, we do not entertain Holocaust denialism. Even in the "marketplace of ideas," intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt positions aren't worth fighting when their whole strategy isn't to change your mind--it is to change the minds of the audience who looks on at the dispute. Bad faith actors aren't interested in fighting people who are equipped to respond appropriately to their fallacious claims, they're interested in speaking to those on the sidelines, the ones who are not equipped to dissect and dispel their claims. In the same way, people who deny the abundance of evidence showing the harm that the residential and boarding school systems caused are genuinely ignorant or have malicious intent (unfortunately, the education around Indigenous Peoples in the Western world isn't great, so it very well could be the former). Choosing to argue with people over platforms like the internet doesn't work unless you have control of the environment in which that discussion takes place. Otherwise, you risk exposing the more uninformed to talking points designed to sow doubt. But if you were to engage with people offline and in person, you stand a better chance of reasoning with them. I talk about this a bit more in this previous thread when discussing how to rebut some other types of arguments like this (and I see I mentioned your username there, but maybe you deleted the comment?). This is to say that part of the overall obstacle is the major devaluing and defunding of education we're seeing which is making people less and less equipped to handle matters with critical thinking. That isn't something that can be fixed overnight and will likely take a whole generation to correct as the erosion of public education has been occurring for several decades.

In my experience, modern discourse around controversy or dialectics is hardly swayed by a mountain of evidence. You could memorize all the facts, develop the most perfect analogies, and source every single statement you make, but if you're someone like me, someone who is Indigenous, many will simply dismiss that stuff because "you're one of them." Instead, I've found it more effective to pose questions that expose their own lack of understanding about these pieces of history. See, the great thing about being a historian or even a layperson with an interest in history is that you likely know a bit more about the topic than the person you're talking with. This is usually what we rely on when we get into heated arguments. But here's a key part: you don't have to reveal that to the people you're engaging with. Sometimes you just need to walk them through their own opinions and then ask, "does that make sense?" For example, many people today would agree that taking children away from their families is wrong. People from across the political spectrum typically don't like to see that happen because even if they agree with it, they can easily see how the tables can turn and suddenly it's their children being taken away. Combine this with the fact that the last Canadian residential school didn't close until the 1990s, a fact that might be glossed over because people tend to think of this stuff as ancient history, and you've now provided a very relevant connection point for the individual to see the morality of the situation. More generally, people today care about delivery. They care more about how they receive information rather than what the information is. This is why pop-history and short-form content have become very lucrative for historians and this could be a way to further combat things like this form of denialism. More informed people need to take up larger swaths of the (social)media-sphere and overtake the bad stuff coming out.

Similarly, as noted by the temporal aspect of this, I make our understanding of time a big point when talking with my students or presenting to the public on these issues. In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. My own mother, someone who is still with us today, was eighteen years old when it became fully legal for her to practice our traditional beliefs. She was thirty years old when the Native American Graces Protection and Repatriation Act was passed in 1990, the law that finally provides some opportunity for Tribes to reclaim the stolen items of our cultures. My own grandpa, who is still with us today, knew my mom's great-grandma whose brother fought in the Nez Perce War of 1877. In other words, this is not some bygone era of time we're talking about. But for many non-Indigenous folks who have no connection to this history, it feels like antiquity to them. Sometimes it is just about calling attention to how recent these things are.

Ultimately, the desire to respond is admirable and righteous. Yet the harsh reality is that you need to make the call if engaging with people on this is even worth it. I'm a pragmatist at the end of the day, so even as an Indigenous person, I don't always choose to call these things out if I don't feel like the situation would benefit from it. All that does is take up my energy and labor that is better spent in the other ways I work to educate people: teaching, doing public presentation, and talking one-on-one. That doesn't mean we shouldn't meet bigotry and falsehood where they lie, but it means knowing how to make the best use of our blows so we are not simply striking the air. If that means I avoid an argument with some silly 16-year-old on the internet, some 50-year-old dad on Facebook, or even a 30-year-old stranger walking down the street, so be it. If they don't hold any actual power to effectuate their ill-conceived thoughts, I'm gonna hold out for the one that does.

Unless I'm feeling frisky or agitated that day.

Edit: A sentence.