Je suis Omar

I too, am curious, Michael, but it's hardly my memory we should be relying on. Let me explain my contention that you are being disingenuous. I am completely willing to withdraw it and offer copious apology if you illustrate I am in error. A discussion raged, {nicely } for a good long time yesterday that extended well into the evening. You weren't there, which doesn't in and of itself, point to anything. But since you have reentered the fray, you, and certainly not you alone, have studiously avoided the G word. The G word has become the new 911. The detractors of genocide were a small group of individuals who refused to look at the definitions that the world has used for genocide for over half a century. You have done the same. I have described what I believe explains this pattern of disingenuity in another post in this thread and in another thread.

Your own ancestors weren't subjected to a Canadian government policy of genocide. Where they were subjected to such horrors, as in the planned starvation by Stalin, they became an aggrieved people just like Canadian and American natives.

I think this is highly instructive of what is going on, not only in this thread, but also in both Canadian and American societies at large, especially as it relates to honestly, or more realistically, dishonestly, addressing our own war crimes, our own terrorism, our own hypocrisy, our own ... . The more serious, the more malevolent, the more evil, the more criminal a behaviour becomes, the more conservative people become, in the sense of restricting or completely closing down the thinking processes. This is especially true when the evil includes and affects "one's" own circle, those of an individual's in-group, however large that group may grow to be.

These findings are both revealing of society at large and even of the more microcosmic world found in discussion forums. Instead of the usual linear scale that represents the political spectrum, we have a circular scale, as if we drew the two ends of the linear together to create a circle. What this reveals is that instead of the normal interpretation of extreme right wing and extreme left wing being far apart, they are more like peas in a pod.

Is this just disingenuous or something worse, Argus?

After almost 400 years, it's "Only the beginning"! Amorality run rampant.

Living a life defined by propaganda and memes must be terribly unfulfilling. http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-israel-so-afraid-of-the-arab-peace-initiative/

B_C: When will Canada divest itself from trade with the stingy and evil United States of America ? -------- A much more pertinent question is when will the stingy and evil USA stop being stingy and evil? Don't you consider 239 plus years and counting long enough? Isn't that length of time also more than long enough to be the stingiest, most evil lying nation?

I'm certain you will be able to bear up under these onerous conditions that have been placed upon you, Scott.

Canada's Apartheid program ended in, I believe, 1960. Another sordid chapter in Canadian history that seems to have been swept under the carpet.

What do you think would have been the result at the Nuremberg Trials had this "defence" been raised by the Nazis, Smallc, substituting "Jewish people" for "aboriginal people"?

No, you most certainly do not, Scott. You don't perpetuate ignorance. You seek to remove it. If it requires pointing out that many people believe in a fiction, that's one thing, but to reinforce a fiction serves no sensible purpose.

Here we are, just getting to the end of the TRC, and the central issue, genocide, that has long been avoided comes to the fore, which, in all fairness, it should. The changes that ought to come have to be premised on what actually happened. It is disingenuous of you to suggest that all of a sudden your overwhelming desire is to "help[ing] first nations (no caps) get healthy". Are there other threads here at MLW that show over the years of this commission where you addressed these issues that now command your attention?

I'm not dictating anything. All I have done, repeatedly, is point to the accepted, legal, international definition of genocide. [quite]The term "genocide" to most people regardless of any new or specialized legal definition MEANS at least: an attempt to annihilate the gene pool of a particular group of people and understood as a pejorative term referencing mass murder. ". It's really of no consequence what uninformed people think. Obviously we know that genocide has a pejorative meaning. It retains that pejorative meaning whether genocide is committed by nazis, PolPot, the USA, Canada or any other country or individuals.

Read about the conditions at the Mushole, the Mohawk Institute. http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/TRC/RussMoses.pdf

This is exactly what you did in the 911 thread, Michael. You sail in pretending you are the voice of reason, the man in the middle ready to encircle all in a big hug. To bring things to a warm and fuzzy conclusion with grandfatherly wisdom that no one could possibly mistake. But, like the 911 thread, you never focus on the actual issues. When there is focus on the actual issues, you seek to derail things. Don't believe me? Point to where you have discussed the actual legal definition of genocide and where you have related it to actual historical conditions on the ground.

There's no need for the quotes; that's just more dishonesty. We both know that the USA IS the stingiest country in the world. Achieving "global economic integration and trade" is another euphemism for raping, pillaging and forcing poor countries of the world to trade with the USA thru the use of military might and by deceiving them with tied aid, all of which only serves to again highlight just how stingy the USA is, what a terrorist, amoral nation it is.

Ill-informed pronouncement.

The folks who are raising this point you raise, Scott, do so with a studious avoidance of the actual language that describes genocide, which clearly describes the numerous actions taken by successive Canadian governments as acts of genocide. Go read the definitions of genocide for yourself. Then read descriptions from the historical record that show it was a policy of genocide. http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31790474/Colonial_Genocide_-_IRS_Chapter_-_D4_January_2013-8.docx?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1433349225&Signature=4ctD4Cug8ACgM4thBbcDpDJJ46U%3D

Laughable, approaching an absolute sense. Recall, if you will, how last evening you, Poochy, et al, avoided the full posting of the legal definitions of genocide. Repeatedly, time after time, again and again, ... .

This illustrates a lack of knowledge as regards history.

It is not irrelevant, Michael. Youth are often confused about such things. That's why there are such things as schools, colleges, ... .

What do you have against Jacee posting the actual issues that Canadians have to address to help rectify this century long genocide. You actually haven't said anything in so many posts now that it is futile for you to even consider these as posts.

The issue relating to your age has only come up because of your confusing and highly disjointed posts. Surrendering gracefully to youth the things of youth does not entail encouraging them in hopeless confusion.

I'm at a loss to explain, or even to begin to understand, how "How old are you?" means all that, above. I'm also wondering from where you gleaned that. How old are you?