Scott Mayers

[Damn, I see there are 22 pages to catch up on so I apologize if I'm revamping anything discussed.] Okay looking back a page I see that definition of "genocide" is in question. This word is definitely being used within the phrasal "cultural genocide" for political reasons only. The idea of those adhering to this label is to get the government to admit this so that they can use it further in legal precedence. This phrasal term, however, is rhetorically biased to emote a purposeful disgust against any form of assimilation and so is illegitimately forcing others (through a cultural bullying) to adapt the same view. I'm not sure how far those supporting our segregationist ideals believe in staying separate. I know that it troubles me that we've redefined the more negative factors of segregation in terms of phony accolades of "diversity" and family ancestry. But it highly discriminates against any other humans that don't belong to established groups and treats those of us who simply have an more recent ancestry of European decent genetically as owning the historical crimes of the political past. In fact, as to the actual peoples who benefited from their direct contribution to other abuses historically, they distribute the weight of blame falsely upon the rest of us and relieves them of their responsibilities. [the catholic Roman and Anglican Churches and the particular established families inherent in Ontario and Quebec.] Begging that the Prime Minister (and office) adapts the words, "cultural genocide", inappropriately sets the precedence that others want in order for further legal claims. But if this is accepted, it is irreversible should we find trouble with false claims made against government later on this subject.

And to Eyeball's response. (I am catching up on what I missed so this may have been answered. Also I haven't figured out quoting from different posts yet so the following is a paraphrase.) Some may think that it is a good thing that people gain a segregated pride in their genetic and ancestral inheritance. The trouble there is that history has proven that in time, 'aboriginal' populations that believe in such pride (nationalism) leads to a hatred of those outside of their group. And if they are also economically depressed, this acts as an impetus to serious latter conflicts. Note that most wars related conflicts of these natures. Nazis believed they were fighting for their 'aboriginal' rights against the foreigners (Jews mainly). Here, this can and will occur if we continue fostering cultural inheritance beliefs within politics (Multiculturalism [T]). I also see the Middle East as repeating this and the sole cause of conflicts today. Personally, we need to separate religion (including the cultural, ethnic, genetic beliefs connected to them) from law making. But this isn't likely going to happen without major restructuring of our constitution and institutes. Edits: spelling.

As what? Plaintiff or Defendant or ...? From your response post #6: on (1), you mentioned the process was deliberately designed to prevent criminal charges. Was an explanation provided for this? As a member of the public, we are a 'jury' of our government actions. How is it that the perpetrator/victim claims not provided to us even in sample? At least, as our media reports this whole thing, it is absurd to presume that we should simply TRUST our authorities....especially when it is authorities who are being put on the spotlight in this case in the first place. 0n (3), the Churches are the major factor of the direct abuses. Our government literally has politicians embedded in these religious institutes from the start here. But it is these religious beliefs, not the intention of these type of laws to assimilate, that was the problem. I see this convenient charge against the government (us all) as an inappropriate cause of the problems. ... And we are being forced to presume that 'assimilation' is BAD while 'segregation', it's opposite is what? It's funny though that it is the nature of segregation through the isolation of these kids in these schools was one of the problems. But note that the concept of boarding schools was also considered a relatively fortunate and luxurious concept in the 1800s. The Churches are more responsible for faults. The rhetoric about government forcing them at gunpoint 'sometimes'?...this can happen technically today if some parent adamantly refused to assure their kids go to elementary school too. As to the report, I'm already anticipating no significant extras to clear up how or why our media has reported on this as an odd contradiction: that residential schools were massively abusive with innuendo of murder but then downplay it simultaneously as merely a 'cultural' genocide.

No, the CBC news channel asserts that this was done at least to save money. I'd imagine it also helps that the burden gets transferred to the options of the churches to have better freedom to teach in their preferred ways.....which is why I question how the churches are not given more attention for blame here.

...on the Canadian Residential School system... Note: "Truth and Reconciliation" is the name of the commission/inquiry of our government into the residential schools. The report will be out this coming week (Tuesday?). I am troubled on the issue of residential schools and how it is being portrayed. (1) The reports of this through the media assert that a widespread conspiracy existed to deliberately annihilate the Canadian Indian culture. What troubles me initially is that while a general blame is granted to "Canada", no particular person or persons is charged nor are the claims being challenged. How is it being allowed to openly accuse the general population of society without formal charge and evidence? For instance, it is asserted that 6,000 natives died within these schools with clear innuendo that they were murdered by a cult of evil teachers! Who are these abusers? Why is there no criminal charges? (2) The Federal government is held accountable yet the supposed unspecified particular crimes were related to the institutes of the churches (religions) that were granted full control of these schools. How is it that no one is noticing that the factor of having particular religious institutes operating these schools is the most significant error that leads to likely abuses simply based on the nature of highly biased cultural beliefs. (3) This conspiracy theory of mass abuses has less likelihood statistically than UFO ones because the religious institutes involved are varied and disconnected. Yet the media shows no dissenting views!!?? I am certain that the WAY this was set up and handed off to religious institutes was the fault. While there are always likely to be abuses regardless, a better position to hold against anything should base itself on the nature of "boarding schools" and isolation from the culture one is supposedly being integrated into. I believe that the intents of our government on a logical level (not the cultural or religious biases) were appropriate when they initially set up the schools. We didn't have a clash of cultures when Europe came here so much as a clash of of civil evolution. As such, it is necessary to do something of which no ideal scenario could have worked fairly. [Refs: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/residential-schools-findings-point-to-cultural-genocide-commission-chair-says-1.3093580; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system]

What did you have in mind? I'm not sure what you might mean by "Union". I'm guessing you refer to something akin to our labour-type unions?

I believe Freddy's idea is good. So is talking about it with sincerity and more depth in places like this. I'm not sure it can be 'fixed' without a complete restructuring of nearly everything our government is constituted as. I agree with Karl Marx's explanation of social history (from Hegel) that for most political states, regardless of form, that what starts out functional eventually evolves to be 'locked' in such a way that cannot be undone without a complete overthrow of that government. Each government, or any institute,-- no matter how well-intentioned to begin with -- often ends up corrupt. (For an institute example, the Internet is an example in that as time goes on it will eventually lose its virtue of being "free". I have a problem with the word, "democracy", as this is so inappropriately used and abused. "Communism" -- from the word, "community"-- was and is presumed by the people of those countries that aim for this ideal as "democratic". And they actually have more justice for it considering the involvement that is required of the people. Our "democracy" is only a "representative" type and only upon one day every so many years are we allowed to have any actual power. But since we elect parties and they have evolved to be exclusive and non-accountable to the people, these make our system sincerely less 'democratic' than anything. There is a reason why the rest of the world considers us as "Imperialist". Canada is even worse in this than the States since our laws require a pass from our Royalty. The Senate too, which originally functioned to serve the aristocratic land-owners apart from the 'commoners', only adds force to this. While we may not be experiencing the worst case possibilities, we really ARE in a type of DICTATORSHIP.

I agree. At this point we are losing this in the name of "Protecting the Children" or "Preventing Terrorism" or other similar emotionally loaded rhetoric.

I believe that for the use of tax deductions, you require the extra "charitable" status. But it that state, you are NOT allowed to act politically. Thus, while you can start a non-profit for political reasons, you'd have no allowance for deductibles.

To my bold and underlined emphasis above: How do you presume anyone can simply opt 'wisely' to bare[sic] (I hope you mean "bear"!) children? That is, you're presuming something about the majority of the world based on something you seem to think is simple and easy for yourself (?).

An asteroid could also come along and destroy all living things on Earth. This too could be awful to think of. Anticipating our future generation's welfare is 'good' to some degree. But I have a feeling that 5 generations down the road might not even be feasible for our Earth! Population growth is exponential. I don't know what the known rate of growth is but know that we couldn't sustain that on Earth by then. [see http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrowth.aspx]

No, but the 'caring' about it is itself only a product of our evolution and a relative "delusion" of our consciousness. Our emotions and values are mostly assigned to us based on experience through windows of development periods (mostly in our youth) that determine how we value things emotionally. As to desiring to have progeny, while this is a living emotional reflection of both our genes and our environment, it is just an accidental factor of evolution. I happen to be more nihilistic intellectually and is why I mentioned my lack of religion. I happen not to think humans are NOT any more significant to the Universe than ants, bacteria or even rocks. Of course I am biased to favor humans but this is only because I have the condition of being human.

In the 1800s, the first stats were being taken and recorded on a large scale. A Thomas Malthus of the day recognized that populations rise geometric while food supplies only rise arithmetically. This means that populations accelerate while food supplies only stay at a fixed rate. Charles Darwin used this to help determine his theory on Natural Selection. As food supplies are limited (as in poverty), animals (humans too) procreate more than when there is plenty and have a natural desire to do so via evolution. If this wasn't the case, such a species would more likely die out. You don't have to worry. It is normal for healthier populations to have less children. It isn't about people's normal 'choices' either. Everyone still mostly wants to get laid. I'm only guessing that you perceive that the average person has ease at getting laid when the opposite is true. Culture, including the law, is what "provokes" us NOT to reproduce as we normally would in nature. [it's not okay to rape someone, for instance. Also, we have age limits that didn't exist in our past.]

@Freddy, Check out an old but good book, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. In it Richard describes how our genes act as selfish 'copy' machines no different than viruses. (That is also where Richard coined the term, "meme" to describe how information itself is spread through society as genes.) I have no religious beliefs and so lack a sense of concern for whether my genes get passed on or not. This is only on an intellectual level, however, not an emotional one. Our genes evolved to command us to 'feel' emotions and drives (like sex) to fit withing our environments. It is only after the fact that we 'survive' or have children (survival of our genes beyond our personal lives) do we actually credit survival or having children as a virtue. It is not the other way around. It is NOT because life's means of survival (personal or to our offspring) is some universal 'virtue' that assures that we exist.

This particular thread appears old but I find that it still has substance with regards to today and the temporary immigrant workers. I agree with Suzuki if he intended this in light of how the Conservatives brought this law into place as it isn't what it appears. Conservatives don't normally support immigration which raises questions from the start. The point Suzuki raised on population is true about the world at large and I see his view on Canada as justified when you consider that the conservative intent to constantly desire increased population is about Ponzi-scheming. By creating an unnatural demand on housing for incoming 'temporary' workers, this acts to cause landlords to increase rents as the apparent competition suggests a greater regular population. These temporary workers are not here on such a short term to stay in hotels nor long enough to justify as being appropriate for population consensus of the towns or cities they come to. But land owners aren't concerned about the 'truth' of this, only that it gives an increased demand for their rents and/or resale values as real estate sellers. This creates a housing demand which in turn raises values of homes and an apparent demand for new ones. But without any actual new sources of prime industry within these towns or cities, real estate trading and construction are Ponzi schemes since they require a continuous growth of immigrants to buy into these homes that they've come to also build! Even if they end up having to go home, those who have to go home may still purchase homes and lease, rent, or simply save them for a future in which they can still benefit from. But this suggests that these 'temporary' employees must be of a wealthier class. How can literal poor people in need even get over here from countries abroad and why would they desire to take on a McJob that they'd be paid less than even us who couldn't afford to live on here? As for professional jobs that a foreigner could be better qualified for, it would be better for such potential employers to take on the responsibility of apprenticeships themselves of new people instead of expecting the world to supply them with non-existing potentials with highly demanded experience. It's bad enough we need a good resume and degree to simply get a dish washing job here! Population is something we have to consider to curtail rather than enhance. It is already natural for population to grow. It is also natural for all animals, humans included to out-eat their resources and only stop once they've died out of overcrowding, starvation, or other self-destructive factors. David Suzuki's response appears to simply point out that population doesn't improve nor solve any overall survival needs. Expedient needs of those demanding what cannot be found locally are a rarer demand for actual productive professionals than they are for non-collared laborers (not-so-actually) willing to work for peanuts as slaves.