poochy

It is utterly pointless to enage you in any discussion, you seem to think you can be on all sides of every issue all of the time while beleiving you are somehow above it all.

It is impossible to have a realistic solution to problems if you don't start with realistic conversation. It was a bad thing, but it wasn't genocide, and the people who ignore that and all of the other realities of that time period, things like mortality outside of residential schools, abuse in other religious but non native schools, etc etc etc, serve only to show their true colors, it is they who don't want a conversation, they want a dictation. That gets us nowhere, this is Canada now, the country isn't going to be given back, nor can we retroactively fix everything, and what we have been doing isn't working, and no, it's not just about not enough money, or the white man, there is blame to be found everywhere, until some people choose to admit that nothing changes. The grand chief was on power and politics today, and frankly he embarrassed himself, everything was genocide, it was a sad display from an alleged leader, lead your own people to better lives, demand better from them and stop reinforcing dead end victim hood, stop demanding that someone else provides a better life to them, it doesn't work.

It so sad that your personal limits lead you to make such ridiculous statements in lieu of making an actual argument. But you are the stereotype of your ilk, long on rhetoric, short on talent.

One of either your reading comprehension, or your ability to be honest, is completely broken. The solution, as wrong as it was, was to assimilate these children, in these schools, even if they were getting sick. Which was wrong, but it isn't that other thing that you're saying without actually saying it.

Who said it was ok? Go ahead though, this is the next step in your, im cornered argument tactics, make up other peoples arguments for them, it isn't a genocide. Not by any rational measure.

There is no issue, it has been explained, 4%, of 33%, of just the children, most of whom were not intentionally murdered, is not genocide, it is not "A botched genocide", it is not a cultural genocide, becuase there is no such thing, no attempt was ever made in this country to exterminate our native population. We know this in part because in other places it was done, and successfully, what happened to those kids was wrong, but it wasn't a genocide of any kind. By your measure of genocide, it has happened everywhere, which both diminishes the meaning of the word and the suffering of people who have actually experienced it. Im going to stop replying to you now because i believe you are only a troll persona with too much time on their hands.

So is anyone going to explain why if Canada had the intent to exterminate native people that we only managed to kill 4% of the maybe 33% that were kept in custody? Or maybe we can stop bastardizing the word genocide now, and also accept that most of those children weren't intentionally murdered.

No doubt, seeing as yours was so enlightening, i do enjoy that you think you're smart though, keep that chin up, confidence is everything they say.

If Steven Hawking thought 9/11 was an inside job i would happily call him an idiot, guess what i think about your nonsense?

My turn, Im rubber, you're glue, etc.

You're cornered, everyone else is stupid. Yea, seen it before.

Im not sure why we worry about having links to say start a thread when some people seem to have free reign to outright lie in so many posts. That seems inconsistent.

Nope, there is no truth for you that you yourself cannot make up.

O surely, and im sure that the number will quickly climb from 4 out of 100 to 100 out of 100, which in the case of children kept captive by people with the intent to exterminate is something you might expect, or, your narrative is complete and utter nonsense as it almost always is. Canada intended to exterminate native people, starting with their children, took all of them into custody, while only actually getting a third of them, and tried to kill them all, while only killing 4 out of every 100. The worst part about this is how wrong it was without it needing to be turned into a holocaust-genocide equivalent.

lol, ignorance is bliss, here is the proof.

Those facts don't fit the narrative, and once they have decided what their level of outrage should be they will not ever change it. Luckily for an alleged genocide we did a really terribly job of it, or maybe, and not maybe, it wasnt ever that.

No, it isnt genocide. It is more than wrong enough without you diminishing the meaning of that word.

We could debate that, but it wasn't genocide, wouldn't it have be great if you just be honest about it in the first place.

You are one of the most dishonest people i have ever come across, you're right, the Germans didn't quite manage to get it done, they only murdered several million Jews, while in Canada children died while in the custody of the church and the government, and that was wrong, but at no time did anyone attempt to murder all native people, or even attempt to systematically murder the children that went to those schools. 4 out of every 100 children died at those schools, what was the death rate outside of them? even if it was 0 out of 100, which at that time was very unlikely, it would still be a very poor attempt at extermination.

Annihilation, so he invented a word to describe literally an attempt at annihilating the Jewish people and we are to believe that he didn't have their actual deaths in mind when he invented it? Ok, i mean if we are going to infinitely split every hair i will have to concede that maybe he didn't mean actually killing anyone. But really?

Yep, just keep making things up, it's what you seem to be best at. Its amazing how bad were were at this intent to exterminate, what with only 4 out of every 100 children dying at residential schools, you would think that the evil catholic church and it's colonialist co conspirators would have been more efficient.

"It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" Original definition, from the man who invented it, i dont care how you are anyone else wants to change the word, what happened here was nothing like the holocaust and therefore the word invented to describe the holocaust does not apply. You are diminishing the significance of the original event that inspired the word by using it to describe this situation, not that you could care less.

Do you have something to say troll? "It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" He invented the word, this is his definition, this is THE definition, this did not happen here, nor was it ever attempted.

Rape can mean any of those things because over time the definition has been changed by people with an agenda, and not all of the definitions should apply, you would think that a word used to describe one of the most horrid events in our history could be left with out being changed by people with a different agenda. Genocide describe the extermination of a genetic line, nothing else.

I can decide the word murder also applies to a bad beating, but no one in their right mind should believe it, the word had a specific meaning, invented to describe a specific event, it should only apply to those types of events, it doesn't mean what you want it to, no matter how much you or any other person tries to change it, you are wrong, the UN is wrong, culture does not have genes, and there was never an attempt to kill off our native population, never ever ever ever ever ever. Use another word.