Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    7,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. Who cares what interpretation the U.N. uses? Applying it to loss of culture, language, etc. is not the correct definition of genocide. But the U.N. is a radical red power activist organization. If you don 't believe it, read the their declaration on the rights of indigenous people (UNDRIP) and what they recommend be done. UNDRIP would set up a system where there would be different rules for people of aboriginal descent. Basically pay billions of dollars and hand the country to aboriginals. The U.N. lives in an alt reality and knows nothing about Canada and it's history.
  2. This whole residential school thing and all the ills facing FNs is being exploited and milked by liberals, Marxists and Communists and will continue to be milked for all its worth to turn people against democracy and against the colonials and anyone who does not support the radical woke left agenda.
  3. On your criticism of sterilization, you still haven't answered the question about what to do with women who keep having babies which they can't look after themselves. Very evasive answers. Why not just admit you don't know what to do with them except let taxpayers keep supporting as many kids as they keep having.
  4. In this 2015 article 11,000 children in Manitoba were in foster care and approximately 90% of them are aboriginal. You say aboriginal children were stolen and mention the so-called "60s scoop". But maybe you can answer the question why are so many aboriginal children in Manitoba in foster care in the first place? The fact is Canada does not leave uncared for children on the streets. Many countries in the world neglect abandoned or badly cared for children. But Canada does not. Canada might not be doing things as well as they should but Canada makes an effort to at least put neglected children in a home or some facility. The high number of FN kids in foster care is a big concern, but this is a complex problem and it appears difficult to find a solution that will satisfy FNs or anyone else. Why are 11,000 kids in foster care in Manitoba? | CBC News Also you mention coerced sterilization but you have not answered the question yet as to what to do about women who keep having babies when they are unable to care for them. Each child must be rescued by some child welfare service and each one costs taxpayers thousands of dollars a year to care for. What is your solution?
  5. Actually there was a book written describing the Vatican's holocaust in former Yugoslavia. That was a real holocaust or genocide, not the phony one claimed by the Pope now. Did the Vatican or a Pope ever apologize for that? The book is available to read online and won't cost a cent. The Vatican’s Holocaust (Yugoslavia) – The Millennium Report
  6. The Pope's declaration that residential schools was a genocide just proves that truth with the Vatican and Catholic church is a rare commodity. This is a total perversion of the word genocide. There is a purpose in the Pope's use of this word. It has more to do with the RCC's long term goals of increasing power. The RCC has been known by many as an unbiblical and false church throughout the centuries. This is just another proof. The Papacy is not a biblical entity but is a political entity masquerading under Christianity. There are many books that explain how the Vatican is an unbiblical entity. The website Chick Publications has some simplified literature explaining that. Many other books have been written exposing it, even books and literature written by former priests and bishops. Alberto Rivero, former Jesuit priest, revealed a lot about it. It has it's own nation state, diplomats, and huge government bureaucracy with various departments. It is also one of the richest entities in the world, holding real estate throughout the world and billions in wealth. The book The Vatican Billions goes into that. It has been accumulated over the centuries on the backs of it's followers.
  7. No, that does not meet the definition of the word genocide. There was no mass or deliberate killing of aboriginals in Canada. There were some cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse, but this does not fit the definition of genocide at all. There were back in history high death rates of FNs from smallpox in some places. I do not know what period in history that occurred and do not know the details.. That may have happened before the period of residential schools. I think that happened in a number of countries. There was also a lot of ignorance in previous centuries about how diseases were spread. There were also some deaths in the 20th century from polio and TB and possibly other diseases. But I would not assume all these deaths were deliberately inflicted on FNs. Also, I do not accept that all the bad things that happened in history, 50, 100, or 150 years ago are to be blamed on the people living today. We had nothing to do with it. Many bad things happened in history. The whole world was settled by people migrating from one place to another. Being an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant is not a crime. No ethnic group such as FNs has sole ownership or rights to live on a continent such as north America simply because their ancestors were here first. Your third point is another false allegation. There is no evidence or proof that the government or churches were deliberately trying to bring about the physical destruction of FNs. There were at the mid 20th century some cases of forced sterilization of native women. This was one of those things that has been condemned by authorities since then. Churches had nothing to do with it. It was a measure done by some child welfare departments of government because they thought the women were not capable of raising children. But, as far as I know, forced sterilization has been stopped; however I am not an expert on it. There may be some cases where forced sterilization could be justified in a court of law, but that would likely be extremely rare. What should be done with someone who is a drug addict who is incapable of looking after a child and has already produced a number of children that the state has had to take into foster care to protect them? On your fourth point about transferring children from FNs communities to non native groups, you must be referring to foster homes for children requiring care. In the 1950s to 1980s, child welfare departments of governments did apprehend children they deemed were in danger and placed them in non-native foster care. But this was not done to bring about the destruction of FNs culture or ethnic groups. The authorities at the time really thought they were protecting children from harm. But more recent political thinking is that they should not have removed them from FNs communities and government is trying to change the system. It has been difficult to change because of the problem of finding suitable places to place homeless FN children in foster homes within the native communities. That is why there are still a large number of FN children in non-native foster care. It is not an easy system to change.
  8. I told you what I believe. The use of the word genocide for residential school FNs makes absolutely no sense at all. There was no massacre or mass murder. They may have been denied their culture, language, and customs, but that does not mean the same thing as genocide. There are fibs, propaganda, and lies. The use of the word genocide in this case is used for fibs, propaganda and lies. You cannot equate loss of culture with genocide.
  9. I mis-worded that or did not make it clear it appears. I'm saying there was no holocaust of aboriginals, no genocide in residential schools. The holocaust did occur under Hitler in WW2 and it was a real genocide of the Jews. Will try to correct my wording on that.
  10. I don't disagree with your description about what was done with many of them, but that still does not justify the use of the word genocide which clearly means a massacre or mass killings. The word genocide is being used incorrectly in this case and is therefore a lie. You cannot use the word cultural with genocide and pretend it has a different meaning than what the word genocide actually means. The words cultural and genocide simply do not go together because the word genocide has a specific meaning. Many people misunderstand the term cultural genocide and have actually believed there was some kind of mass murder of aboriginal children. They point to the reports of unmarked graves as proof of genocide. That is dishonest.
  11. The Pope said the residential school system was a genocide. The word genocide is defined as follows: quote gen·o·cide [ˈjenəˌsīd] NOUN the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group: "a campaign of genocide" · [more] synonyms: racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · [more] unquote He is obviously using the word for political purposes but in doing so is spreading a harmful lie to the world. There was no massacre, racial killing, or slaughter. Many native children were badly abused, sexually, physically and mentally. Many died from diseases. But they were not deliberately slaughtered or massacred as the word genocide clearly means. This shameful terminology is being used by the leader of the world's largest nominal church. Many simply throw the word out and say genocide took place in residential schools. This is completely false and a lie. This will simply give more ammunition to the extremists and radicals to demand more and falsely accuse Canada of crimes against humanity, similar to war crimes or the holocaust, which never occurred.
  12. The U.N. IPCC is actually more of a political body than a purely scientific one and they are the ones that make the doomsday decrees that have scared half the world to death on climate change and global warming. The UN IPCC has their own agenda and it is not a scientific agenda. It is all part of the U.N. agenda of social development goals or SDG. That is a Marxist goal of wealth redistribution. One way of doing that is to manipulate the world into believing that developed countries must give a significant part of their wealth to poorer countries to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The first step to doing this is making the world believe that man is responsible for climate change. Ironically, the left wing political parties, like the Liberals, NDP and Greens, have completely bought into the idea of man-made climate change. They just happen to be the ones who also believe in wealth redistribution to solve the world's problems.
  13. The only saving of the planet I see worthwhile is getting rid of all the climate change alarmist politicians at the ballot box. Our standard of living will continue to fall because of the carbon taxes and anti-energy industry regulations.
  14. Government should not be trying to lead in moral issues. They have proven over and over they have no morals. The blind leading the blind.
  15. Your problem is you don't really look at how much CO2 Canada or the world puts into the atmosphere and how much the total CO2 is in the atmosphere. If you had paid attention or looked at the real figures, you would realize the claim of man-made climate change by CO2 is highly questionable. There is about 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Man contributes about 3%. Of that 3%, Canada contributes about 1.5% of human CO2 emissions. What is 1.5% of 3%? It is so miniscule. It equates to 0.18 PPM. The total CO2 in the atmosphere is very small. It is just a trace gas. So where is the proof that man-made CO2 is having any impact on climate change? There is no evidence. But you still persist in your claim that it is causing rising temperatures. That is pure fiction.
  16. It is sad, really sad that so many Canadians can't see this and keep voting for him or his party or the NDP which is helping to keep Trudeau going. The one thing he is good at is writing cheques for his hobby horses, but not so much able or willing to govern for the great majority of Canadians who are struggling.
  17. I get the feeling he is more interested in photo ops and glad handing with children than dealing with the crisis facing many Canadians in the airports, passport offices, health care, high inflation, housing crisis, rental crisis, etc. Quote Why is Justin Trudeau appearing at random? I think the answer is quite obvious. Trudeau prefers his comfort zone of glad-handing and photo ops to dealing with the growing inability of the federal government to deliver on its basic accountabilities. The immense grief inflicted on Canadians is growing by the day. Everywhere you look, Canada is a mess, from borders to airports to passports to inflation. “You’ll forgive me if I don’t think about monetary policy,” he said. Mr. Prime Minister, Canadians don’t forgive you, as we are all paying the price of your lack of interest (pun intended). Unquote The first article is about the issue of private health care versus public and the following article is about Trudeau's photo-ops and glad handing interests versus dealing with the critical issues effecting Canadians. Letters to the editor: Why a reader arranged for private surgery in the U.S., and the PM's pop-ups (msn.com)
  18. Mainstream media is run by a bunch of very simplistic journalists that in many cases they know little to nothing about the subject they are reporting and profundicating on. Example, the climate change scare. This should come as no surprise. Journalists are specialists in reporting what they hear; not in understanding the subjects in any depth. So they report what makes the loudest noise or bang. The finer points or dissenting opinions are often ignored or purposely left out.
  19. The climate and global warming and cooling has always occurred. Global warming and cooling is part of nature and cyclic. That is an elementary fact. Try again.
  20. Quote As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures." But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth. Unquote Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming | Fox News List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming | Global Warming Wikia | Fandom News - Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming | Heartland Institute There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change (businessinsider.com) The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics (businessinsider.com) Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: Second Edition: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus eBook : Idso, Craig, Carter, Robert, Singer, S. Fred, Noon, Marita: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store This article is the kicker: MITCHELL: Do 97% of the world’s scientists believe that man has caused global warming? But it won't let me add the link. Google it or I will try to add it to a second reply.
  21. Almost every political panel and discussion on CNN is from a Democratic or Liberal perspective, which is left-leaning. Not sure how you get "right" out of that. That does not mean I disagree with everything I hear on CNN. I oppose the gun lobby in the U.S. and the widespread presence of handguns and assault rifles. I also oppose abortion, which liberals and CNN generally support.
  22. I can think of at least two questionable stories that CBC/CTV have been pushing with a consistent extreme narrative. 1. The unmarked graves-genocide report. 2. The man-made climate change claims.
  23. God spoke to the Apostles and Prophets. Once the Bible was completed there was no more men who could legitimately claim to receive God's words. The Bible verifies that and warns against anyone adding to or taking away from the words of the Bible. There were only one set of Apostles. After they passed away, no more genuine Apostles existed.
  24. It does not say he was doubting the existence of God. He said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 Forsaken does not mean he was doubting the existence of God. “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46, KJV). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It is difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was “forsaken” by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that Jesus was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As God’s own Son—holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient—God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him. The prophet Isaiah says this about the Messiah: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4–5). Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, that intensified His sufferings and part of why Jesus said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was the manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, in some unexplained way, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. The suffering He endured was due to us, and it is that suffering by which we can be saved from eternal death. In those awful moments, as evil men were allowed to do whatever they wanted to Jesus, our Lord expressed His feelings of abandonment. God placed the sins of the world on His Son, and Jesus for a time felt the desolation of being unconscious of His Father’s presence. It was at this time that “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). There is another possible reason for Jesus to cry out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It could be that Jesus’ intent in quoting Psalm 22:1 was to point His hearers to that psalm. When they read Psalm 22, they would no doubt see the many fulfilled prophecies included in that song of David. Even while experiencing the agony of the cross, Jesus was teaching the crowds and proving yet again that He was the Messiah who fulfilled the Scriptures. Unquote Why did Jesus say, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” | GotQuestions.org That website usually has good explanations.
  25. Yes, there are many millionaires and billionaires who believe in the freedom of the market, but that has nothing to do with truth (biblical) and error, and nothing to do with salvation or damnation. There is only one truth which God gave man in the form of the Bible (KJV). This is a source of absolute truth and it's importance to every individual cannot be overstated. Those who mock it or invent their own religion or own truth, well, what can one say. God is the judge.
×
×
  • Create New...