Accountability Now

This is hilarious!!!!! You said the so called genocide was put in place to exterminate land rights. Now you are saying that the treaties didn't exterminate them back then because Of the duty to consult and accommodate.....which has only recently been enforced in the courts...not back when the schools started. Lmfao. When the treaties were signed we didn't have bleeding heart courts to misinterpret deals that were just made and no one could speculate on the intent because the people that signed were still alive. Another fail jacee

BS. The UN comments on lots of things including everything else aboriginal. Not to mention...why did they go to to Anaya URGING him to call it a genocide if they knew he wouldn't. Utter BS. The UN hasn't and won't call it genocide because it's not. Btw....no answer on the 30% thing? I guess you're feeling stupid after your 'research' comment?

They already exterminated those by treaty. remember....cede and surrender all rights.

Do you mean like the information I provided on only 30% of native kids actually attending the residential schools? Haven't seen you respond to that one yet. Nor have I seen you respond to the fact that you guys can blab all you want about the UN definition for genocide and how your wise minds decipher its meaning but yet the UN has not called it genocide even after being asked directly to do so. Don't worry Jacee...Omar won't come near this one either. I guess it isn't worth your time to be set straight.

You continue to trot out that definition used by the UN but refuse to acknowledge why the UN itself didn't call it genocide

One question I have on this. Why is it that when ever there is a land claim or other treaty issue, the natives complain to the Queen. But for the residential schools issue which is also a function of treaties is the Canadian government. Should the Brits not be sued as well?

The UN doesn't seem to think so and they wrote the definition that everyone keeps posting about genocide.

Since you completely ignored my previous request, I thought I would ask again. Does the UN classify the residential schools as genocide? You like using their definition so it would seem fitting to see what they have to say.

Most of those lands are in BC where by that point in settlement most other treaties were made and a lot of assumptions were made. Natives went to the reservations and everyone assumed all was good. It wasn't until later they realized that treaties weren't made and the lands were never ceded. Keep in mind the Royal Proclamation was generic and said anything east of the Appalachians not having a full understanding what was this far out west. Also, there were other players in the game including the Spanish to the south and the French involvement which ultimately lead to the Louisiana purchase. All in all, development started happening and no one stopped to ask questions.

The Royal Proclamation gave them title.

The more I view this I have to say that the intent of the program was to bring the aboriginals into British society and to ensure that they had a chance of flourishing within the country that was to become. I do think the intent was good but everything about the application including handing it over to the Churches and the overall idea of trying to have them lose their culture was horrible. When the treaties were signed, one of the main components was that the Government would provide education. Both sides at that point agreed that this education would be necessary for living in the new world. Of course, it was never expected to be the way it was but again the intent at the beginning was true.

The land was ceded by the Aboriginals. The Crown got title from them through the treaties.

The UN was presented a letter in 2013 to the UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya urging him to declare genocide based on this information. His report did nothing of the sort. They won't even go as far as calling it 'cultural genocide' like the TRC does. I don't think the UN will even look at this. The settlement was made in 2007 and action was taken.

I did research it. Here: The numbers alone should make you question the 'mandatory' clause. The average population of First Nations from 1900 to 1960 alone was around 150,000. Assume that half of those are children that means 75,000 at any given time. Also assume that this number replenishes itself every 15 years meaning that from 1900-1960 there would have been 4 x 75,000 which is 300,000 kids. From 1960 to 1980 the average population was around 350,000 so add another 150,000 or so in that period alone. By crude estimate alone there would have been about 450,000 kids during that time of which 150,000 went to residential schools which is roughly 30% (as stated above). If this system was 'mandatory' then why did 300,000 other native kids not go? Like I said, it was mandatory that they went to school and if the residential system was the only option then that's where they went.

There would be no aboriginal title any more. They would have their land and we would have ours. Our land would be the land they ceded long ago. The areas in BC without treaties would be the most contentious but pretty much any undeveloped, non-treaty areas would be theirs. Again....you would need all 630 First Nations to agree as this would be an all or none sort of deal

Thanks for posting the UN's definition of genocide. Has the UN itself declared it genocide?

It's not genocide. Verbal, physical abuse and even death do not equal genocide.

Where have I denied that it existed? Please quote the exact location where I said it didn't exist. I even said that the events that happened to my family (including verbal and physical abuse) were not to same level as what happened at the residential schools.Are you just playing dumb now? Edit...where have I denied that verbal and physical abuse existed? I have said the term genocide is not correct

The only mandatory thing in place was that First Nations kids had to attend school (day, industrial or residential). The problem is that in some areas the only thing offered were residential. Not sure if there was an option to move to an area with the other options. It's estimated that 30% of First Nations children went to residential schools with the other 70% going to the others

Did the parents of these children oblige with the mandatory rule that all children must attend?

That's the extent of your argument now? Going after grammatical mistakes....yup...you clearly have nothing. That's not at all alike....no matter how much you try to twist it. But keep trying. Hey...just step up and own your statements. It was there and then gone. I get it...you said and then realized the trash coming from your mouth was just pure idiocy. Hence the deletion. Again you failed to comprehend the English language. Here....I'll highlight what I said showing that I am not 'equating' the two. Or would you prefer that I provide you a definition for equate? The people of the Church were mean, strict and hell bent on enforcing what they thought was the only right way. With that said, I would be curious to see the stats (if they are available) on how many of these residential school deaths resulted from murder versus extenuating circumstances (ie being exposed to diseases like TB). As many times as you want to say it....aggressive assimilation is not genocide.

I'm curious Omar....I saw you posted something about how I should be ashamed of myself because my family and relatives were also abused by the Church in a similar fashion.....yet you quickly deleted it. Why should I be ashamed?

Its not genocide....no matter how many times you say it is. But go ahead....say it once more. Please for the love of everything holy.....try to read and comprehend what I wrote. I did not say they were an "innocent bystander", rather I said they played a part but not as big of a part as the Churches. Would you like me to spell this out in larger font or a different color so that you can understand it?

Nope...not trying to say that at all. Would you like another turn? I have already answered you on this but apparently you didn't get it or didn't like my answer. The Government has apologized and paid out compensation in the amount of billions (and there may be more to come). The government only played a part with the major part being carried out by the Churches. If you want to sue them then go for it and let the courts handle it. I really don't care. These are the same people that verbally abused my mom and her family for not speaking English and tortured my friends relatives because they tried using their left hand to write. The bottom line is that many people were abused by the same system. I'm not saying to the same level....but the system was the way it was. Of course, you can't confuse the effects of residential schools versus natives giving up the land as those were two separate things. One can't romanticize about what the outcome 'would' have been for the natives if treaties weren't made and the land wasn't ceded. I'm not saying that the British would have taken over all the land on their own but you certainly have to take into account the Americans were coming on in full force and the Spanish were still pushing on the West Coast. At the end of the day, it is fairly certain to say that this land would still be dominated by Europeans. That was going to happen no matter what...but the residential schools may have had a different outcome if say the Americans were in power. Canada would work with these countries like it works with any other country. Establish trade agreements, border control, and extradition agreements. These new countries would also have to set up protocol for national defense, human rights, policing and other self government items that would bury them in costs. Shipping these products across another country will incur further expense and duties which companies looking to invest may consider to be too much compared to other options. Ultimately there is lot to consider by going that route which I believe they already have. Look at the 1995 referendum in Quebec, 96% of the First Nations decided to stay in Canada. I guess they realize how good they have it. Come on...you can throw a better personal insult than that.

So what you're saying is they would want back 90% of Canada. Good luck with that. The reality is the only way this would ever work is if all 630 First Nations agreed on what land including their reserves was actually used and work out some agreement based on that. With that said, the vast majority of these First Nations would be completely bordered by Canada and therefore would be subject to high duties for any exports leaving. As such there really is no way for this to work which is something they already know.