dialamah

No, these questions are not difficult to answer. A simple search would give you the answers. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/residential-school-graves-alberta-1.6046329 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/05/canada-indigenous-residential-schools-first-nations-children https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/newly-discovered-b-c-graves-a-grim-reminder-of-the-heartbreaking-death-toll-of-residential-schools Plenty is already known about how and why these kids died, and just how culpable the government/church authorities were, and still are.

Not a problem; governments routinely blame things on previous governments. It's more likely, imo, that Trudeau, being a Catholic, doesn't want his Church to look bad.

It's not that they thought the parents would forget them, they just didn't care. They probably didn't even bother to keep records about the kids' families because the absolutely stated goal of the government was to deprive the kids from any contact with their culture - that's why the kids had their given name changed and were punished for speaking their language or following any of their customs. They outlawed all the Native customs for the adults, confined them to their reservations, but figured the only way to truly "save" the kids was to completely remove them from any contact from those adults. Why would you think the government or schools would care enough to let families know their children had died?

Residential school students were subject to physical and sexual abuse by staff, were often malnourished or underfed, and lived in poor housing conditions that threatened their safety, according to the TRC reports. Infectious diseases like tuberculosis and influenza often ran rampant among the students, leading to many deaths. Indigenous children in residential schools died at far higher rates than other Canadian children, even for the time, the report notes. Why are you so eager to write this story off as nothing more than an overblown media story to make Trudeau look good? Maybe it's because none of the kids in your family have been taken involuntarily from their homes, dumped into an institution, abused to the point of death, and all of that ignored for decades. Maybe it's because your privilege makes you blind to the suffering of others.

Here's how Sir John A viewed the necessity of keeping these kids from their families: Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.” If these kids were among the day scholars, or saw their family every week or even month, they would not have been tossed into unmarked graves. If your kid didn't arrive home for their regularly scheduled visit, you'd notice and go looking. But if you didn't know where your kid was, and did not know when you'd see them, then you'd not be surprised when they didn't show up. That made it easy for the authorities to simply bury these kids when they died - no need to notify family, or send the body home; the family would just never know what happened.

Try from the time they are toddlers until they are teenagers. They were taken from their homes, driven or flown 100s of miles away so even if they escaped the school, they'd never make it back home - many died trying. They had their hair cut, their clothing taken, given a number in place of their name, were punished for speaking their language, told they were dirty, starved, beaten and sexually abused. They would have been thrilled to see their family every week or month or even every year. Here's just a bit of one person's experience. 13 minutes to understand just how wrong your statement is.

The screaming seems to be coming from the far-right. The rest of Canada is grieving. And why shouldn't we? We're better than we were back then, aren't we? Why wouldn't better people, a better and more civilized society, grieve the abuse and death of children for political expediency and religious fervor? It baffles me why some people are so wrought up about that.

Isn't that what I said? I don't look for it. I only realized it was a thing because of some documentary I watched that described both Republican/Democrat gerrymandering. Lately, most of my "media sources" are from the two political forums I read. I avoid virtually all other political punditry, and only watch Global news for local content. Tired to death of Trump, he's not Prez any more and doesn't need all the coverage he still gets. That's interesting; which States?

Thanks for posting this, AG. I was wondering if it would show up on this forum. It is heartbreaking, and my awareness of just how poorly these children were treated, in Canada, is only a couple of years old. Like you, I knew there claims of abuse, and assumed some bad actors among well-intentioned and a relatively benevolent system. It was only when I learned how similar, deliberate and prevalent these practices were, starting with the government, the legal system and the religious organizations, did I realize that it wasn't accidental: it was cultural genocide, at best. And likely very few would have cared if an actual genocide resulted.

I think in the case of the children put in residential schools, it was more than "allowed"; it was considered necessary. These "savages" required conversion to Christianity, and being savages, were not considered human enough to be treated with the same dignity and respect afforded white Christians, (even poor white Christians, whose children also suffered significant abuse). One only has to read comments on this forum re First Nations to see how ingrained this attitude still is among some people, and how much more prevalent it must have been in the 1800s, when residential schools were established. IMO, the lack of accountability of our leaders today are a hangover from that era, bolstered by people who are convinced that First Nations people should just "get over it", move off reservations and get a job. It's just not that easy or simple to overcome the kind of abuse and harm these people endured for generations.

What rules or laws did the Dems change just before the 2020 election? I know they made especial effort to validate voting forms in some jurisdictions, which many considered changing the rules, but was legal and was something Republicans could have done as well. But what else did the Dems do? Generally, I've no doubt Dems have engaged in the same kind of gerrymandering the Republicans have; have they ever made a concerted effort to make it more difficult for people in general, and especially those who might vote Republican, to vote? Honestly asking, because I don't know

Why the belief that opposing voices are entitled to be heard, once their ideas are rejected by the majority? Should people who sincerely believe that smoking isn't really bad for you, that vaccines cause autism, that kids benefit from loving sexual relationships with adults all be allowed to spread those beliefs without hindrance, as long as they can find experts to support their claims? Shouldn't there come a time that voices promoting harmful practices, as determined by a majority of experts, be silenced?

If a person criticizes Trudeau because he has nice hair, was a "drama teacher", or wears bright socks, that's petty and makes the criticizer look like a partisan who can't come up with actual criticisms. If a person criticizes JT because he lacks ethics and has been investigated, that has teeth.

1. You are using 'social engineering' incorrectly. Social engineering relates to a conman trying to get 'confidential' information out of their target. It has nothing to do with politicians making promises to get votes. See definition below. ** 2. When it isn't happening to you, it's hard to imagine it happens to anyone. Until you understand social power, however, you'll never understand systemic racism. 3. Are you against inclusiveness, then? 4. Perhaps the 'masses of immigrants' and LGBTQ etc., aren't being conned so much as more willing to vote for the party that at least acknowledges their right to existence and their right to their rights. I've even seen that conversation among religious immigrants: The conservatives are closer to my beliefs about abortion, homosexuals, LGBTQ, but they hate immigrants and brown people, and I'm from a brown, immigrant family. 5. Why does one have to be discriminated against before they can make a stand against it? 6. From what I see, 'normal conservatives' indulge in real shaming, not 'fake shaming'. Conservatives are happy to shame women who have abortions, women who dress inappropriately (too religious, not modest enough), gay people, transgender people, people who are poor, people who have challenges that hinder them in achieving financial success. Not all conservatives of course; just a lot of them. 7. That is as true as me saying that conservatives belief everything their politicians tell them. You don't do you? 8. That I would agree with; still, we do have people who think it's ok to yell at strangers to 'go back where you came from', having no idea that the person came from Canada, but only going on their skin color to assume they aren't from Canada and don't belong here. 9. We're all destroying the environment: me with my computer here, and you with yours. My car, your car, our nice homes, our luxuries. All destructive to the environment. No point in burying your head in the sand. 10. What is the 'perverted progressive agenda' exactly? 11. That sounds word-for-word like a politician: "poor, helpless hard-working Canadians being forced to pay another tax." Words to get you distracted by hating on the carbon tax, something that many Canadians won't pay, but could actually make money on.*** (Not me, I'm in BC). Maybe educate yourself a bit, instead of just believing whatever comes out of a politicians mouth. **What is social engineering? Social engineering is the psychological manipulation of people in the hopes of gaining access to confidential information or systems. It is a form of confidence trick for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or system access. The attacks used in social engineering can be used to steal employees' confidential information or data, and the most common type of social engineering happens over either phone or email. Other examples of social engineering attacks include criminals posing as service workers or technicians, so they go unnoticed when access the physical site of a business. ***Carbon Tax rebates Those who heat large homes and drive frequently will be paying more under the plan. The government estimates an average yearly cost of $357 for a household in Ontario, for example. However, with an average rebate of $439 you will end the year in the green. In Saskatchewan, where the temperatures are cold and the roads long, the yearly estimated cost would be higher at $588 per family. But rebates can be as high as $883. The average cost impact per household of the federal system can be found here.

So your basic point is that an economy must have 'winners' and 'losers', and if it does not, it means that the 'winners' are being 'stolen' from by the 'losers'? Am I reading that right? Walmart owners are making money hand-over-fist, paying their workers less than a living wage and baking billions. The government (aka taxpayers) get to step in and subsidize the workers that Walmart can't 'afford' to pay. Who's 'stealing' here? Is there anything wrong with taking some of the 100s of millions the Waltons earn and using that to pay their workers a wage high enough that they don't need government welfare? Is that stealing from the "competent"? "Watered down version of Poi Pot's imprisonment" sounds like the usual right-wing hyperbole. Yes, what does race/sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess? Having asked that, perhaps you can explain why the right spent months attacking Dr. Tam as a transgendered person because they didn't like her politics. Whether or not she is transgendered (and I have seen no proof) would be irrelevant to her education, training and knowledge - so why was the right so willing to bring that up every opportunity they had to mock her, to impugn her character and her skills. Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam. Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.

What is wrong with those as goals, exactly? Should they be talking about maintaining/creating an inefficient economy, one that destroys our earth while excluding some people based on sexual orientation, ignoring or encouraging racism, and creating less opportunity for marginalized people? Is that what you would prefer as their goals? And there you are, conservative Christian, likely white (but maybe not), objecting to the gov talking about an efficient economy that won't destroy our environment, where everyone has a job - including LGBTQ+ and marginalized people, where racism isn't an issue. If "social engineering" leads to an efficient government where everyone gets a job, I don't mind. Would you? And if the Conservatives were talking about this, would you dismiss it as "vote pandering"?

Because men can not be expected to control themselves; it's against their nature. Women therefore should not in places where men might be (unless perhaps accompanied by a male of their family) and should always dress modestly, showing no part of their body, lest a man be driven so wild they lose all sense and self-control. This is the only way to keep women safe, and if they fail in keeping themselves safe, that's on them. And the Liberals who allow the mixing of men and women.

I've only recently been exposed to this philosophy, and agree with you that it would make a tremendous difference in how we would approach environmental issues if we considered a much longer time-line, something considerably past four years, or the next election.

Because then people would complain that 'foreigners even have their own schools, where they don't learn the Canadian way of life". Or some such.

1. He worked full time; no need to lie about his work history - there's enough other bad stuff you can say about him; 2. What's wrong with a teacher, anyway? Is there some reason a teacher can't become a Prime Minister in a free and democratic society?

Because so far, the Conservative party has not presented an alternative most Canadians consider viable. "Better the devil you know, then the devil you don't", especially when that devil is supported by religious fundamentalists and an anti-science minority. Consider: if someone calls themselves a proud Conservative, cuts off contact with me when they find out an I'm an atheist because they "can't be associated with a communist", how is that supposed to engender confidence in their party? I can understand that perhaps most conservatives aren't that extreme, but such people are a significant part of the Conservative core support group. And of course, that real-life person is echoed on this forum by such as you, and others, who think that because I have progressive views, I'm a communist, a traitor to Canada, hates Canada, wants to destroy Canada. How stupid is that? How can I trust a party that has such vitriol among it's adherents? I spend time on both conservative and liberal spaces online; both have their extremists. But the worst vitriol comes from the conservative side. And, while conservatives can express themselves in those liberal spaces - and they'll be mocked for sure - speaking against the ideology on conservative sites isn't even allowed: if you aren't wholeheartedly on board, you'll be literally kicked off the site. It's so weird, when conservatives constantly pat themselves on the back for being the upholders of 'free speech'.

It's not as simple as parents failing to say no to McDonalds; there are other factors. Here are just two. Food deserts: "Research from Canada indicates that some cities have food deserts, including London, Ontario, where low-income inner-city residents were shown to have the poorest access to supermarkets,20 and Gatineau, Quebec, where 7.5% of the population live with limited financial resources along with low access to healthy food." Overly supervised, to the point that parents can be reported and charged for allowing their kids to be outside, unsupervised - even in their own yard. "Is there any other child-raising issue that's more controversial than kids playing outside alone? It doesn't seem that long ago that parents encouraged, even insisted, that their children go outside and play with the other neighborhood kids. "Be home by dinner," was my mom's favorite saying. Times have really changed, though. For many parents today the idea of their kids playing outside alone is simply unthinkable. [ ] Other studies have concluded that free, unsupervised play promotes a wealth of positive benefits, like healthy weight, cognitive function, social and emotional development, empathy, and group management skills."

Well, I had some hope for him - although I was always concerned about the support of the social conservatives given how fanatical they are about disenfranchising anyone who doesn't fit their mould of a proper human being. But still, I didn't want to believe everything I heard on the media about how O'Toole hated gays, yada yada yada. But then he started talking about how he'd immediately start removing the federal benefits provided to support people through Covid-19, leaving it all to the Provinces - dumb, imo. He decided Alberta needed 'special' treatment to continue their ravaging of environment for oil, dumb, imo. He wants to defund the CBC, and follow the time-unproven "Crack down on criminals" agenda. And, most important for me, he wasn't even able to get his party to agree that climate change is a serious issue. Anti-climate change attitudes are not the way to a successful political party in Canada. If O'Toole had been able to persuade his party to accept that climate change is an issue, he'd still be a viable candidate in my eyes, even with the other issues. So yeah, I looked at him and was not impressed. If he got elected, he probably wouldn't be any worse than Trudeau, but as I'm looking for something better - I'm not going to vote for him.

Less support than he used to have; a counter to your claim that people think he's godlike - or some such nonsense claim you've made. I suppose if Conservatives offered something Canadians want, JT would not have the support he has. It's odd that Conservatives put forth their ideas and have them rejected by the majority, and then blame everybody else instead of considering that maybe they're the ones who've got it wrong. If Conservatives have such good ideas, they'd present them and gain the support they want. Instead they act all butthurt that their social/fiscal conservative/regressive ideas are rejected, and call non-conservatives lazy, greedy and communists. But I suppose that all makes sense to you. In the meantime, I'm considering either not voting at all, or voting NDP - not cause I love their ideas so much, but purely as a protest vote against both Liberal and Conservatives. Just like everybody, I'd like a government that considered more than just their own convenience and power.