kengs333

Well, no, because if you read Genesis you'd notice that there were actually a population of humanoids on Earth when God created Adam and Eve. Those would be your ancestors.

No, I wouldn't say that the government ever has "pure and noble intentions" when it comes to anything, but I think that the government does--and often has no choice but to have--good intentions in many cases; it was clear by the early 19th century that the Indians weren't going to adapt to the modern world as had been expected, and the government had to undertake steps to facilitate this transition. Canada being a Christian country--in theory, at least--organized religious groups were allowed to be involved in this endeavour, although I don't think that this is the best way to spread the word of God, and the consequences speak for themselves. On the surface it may seem a little callous, but what were the alternatives? Allow a large group of people in Canada to remain functionally illiterate, incapable to interacting with the modern world, and dependent on a bygone way of life life? Of course the reserve system has caused many problems and many people have suffered much as a result, but is not part of the problem that it was an attempt to maintain the distinct identity of various Indian groups? Needless to say, this is a strange way of perpetrating a genocide: maintaining distinct and ethnically pure reservations all throughout the country, feed, clothe, educate, etc. the people therein. Again, where is the evidence for this "deliberate... infection"? Could we at least see some stats on TB deaths among Indians and how it differed from non-Indians. And could the higher death rate not have been a result of the same biological factors that made the spread of disease among Indians communities more deadly.

As opposed to all of his answers, which are completely full of...

Actually much of the modern training for infantry tactics originated with German sturmtruppen tactics during the First World War, which the Germans further refined during the Second World War to accomodate a more fluid battlefield. Everything else has been a modification of that basic theory. Any influence the Indians had ended with the War of 1812; although, in all fairness, during World War One the Canadians had to employ some Indians as snipers--they were the only people who could come close to the supremacy of the German sniper (and only if they could score themselves a Mauser).

Google "when was Jesus born?" and you'll get many intresting theories as to day and year, but in the end it's not significant--only the fact that he was born, how he was born, and who he was is.

They're discussing something along the lines of this, right?: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x/

Missed that. I'll take it one further... shouldn't it be ex-Scud Iraqi? Okay, bad joke, but I couldn't resist...

I find it interesting that you would actually give a name (Sanghi) to this hypothetical "2nd generation East Indian fella"... What gives? I'm wondering if this isn't in fact poorly masked plee for advice rather than a fairly ineffectual attempt to bait all of us supposed "white supremacists" into another raging flame war. If it is the latter, are we to assume that you just wish to emulate the recent martyrdom of your friend jennie?

I think the term "pretty irrefutable" is somewhat disigenuous. I don't think that there has ever been a denial that Indian children sometimes died at residential schools, and that Indian children were sent to hospitals in an effort to cure illnesses and some died. Life isn't perfect, and things like that happen sometimes, you know--it certainly happened to many non-Indian children during this period. Why? Because there weren't cures for these illnesses. The problem is that some people have got set in their minds that any Indian that died of any cause following the arrival of European traders/explorers was "murdered" and therefore were victims of "genocide". It's an outrageous theory devoid of logic; but just like Hitler's Jew-bating, it resonates with a large number of people because it fits into a shared cultural experience. To say that it is not a story that has been told to Canadians is also somewhat disingenuous; I've seen and read much about this sort of thing, but it's the "genocide" twist that is what is really makes appear "untold". Whatever the case, to my knowledge, NONE of these purported "copies" (fabricated?) documents has been released; and all requests to see proof that these things exist have been ignored.

I think the majority of Indians just want to get on with their lives and contribute to Canadian society and not live in the past like the activist members of their communities want them to. Unfortunately, all we really hear is the screech of the activist who insist that their land was "stolen" all Canadians are "racist" and that we should all "go back to Europe". In case anyone is interested, there's an interesting looking doc about Indians in the Canadian Forces airing on Saturday: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show...071126/20071126

In that respect, I think they are much like many Christians who don't want to see their interpretation of the Bible upset by factual evidence. Namely, those people who staunchly believe that the Earth was created in 4004 BC when in fact nowhere in the Bible does it state when the Earth was created, just that it was created and that it took seven days. They also don't want to believe that their ancestors originated with Adam and Eve because they've gone over to different types of worship that deny God.

One rabble.ca he would screeched at for being an f---ing white supremacist colonizer a-hole troll for making such a remark, and then banned. Despite the fact that this forum is largely populated by God-hating, anti-Christians and gay sympathizers, the fact that there is a greater degree of toleration here for people who want to air out their opinions, is refreshing.

JTF2

Not in Canada prior to WWII. There's always more than ability involved in these things.

Male or female?

I am constantly reminded of Christ's birth throughout the year, and I can live with that. Some people need to "celebrate" things in an outward manner--that is only human, and I doubt that there is a problem with this. How it is celebrated is another matter. And the date is unfortunate, but I can live with it.

Actually, I've graduated from all three. It's really neat that you can cook up a bogus theory and make it sound somewhat legitimate, but honestly, you're not fooling anyone here, and I think your constant posting on the topic, and your need to re-inforce your arguments with personal attacks, is now causing you to stray into the same zone that you recently departed compatriot found herself in just a short while ago. Have you learned from her mistakes, it doesn't look like it.

Need you quote his entire post?

Where did I ever make negative generalizations about Jews? Oh, wait, was it because I made critical remarks about Israel, believe that Israel should be held equally accountable for its human rights violations regardless of the fact that many of its founders are survivors of the Holocaust? You really like to play the "racist" card freely, don't you? Evidently, you know nothing about the Six Nations in the 1790s and early 1800s, because it's simply a fact that there was widespread alcoholism, and that much of the money that these people received was directed toward procuring alcohol. The government didn't like it, and therefore by the 1840s Six Nation's affairs were in such disarray that the government had to step in before Six Nations ceased to exist altogether. There's a reason why the government established strict rules in regards to Indians and alcohol, and no doubt had they not, what we have now would be nothing in comparison to the problems the remnants of Six Nations be dealing with.

Any residual belief that you could possibly in fact really be an MA student just evaporated because of this post. The current evidence from DNA testing can show that the progression of the migration followed a path leading from Asia to North America. Moreover, DNA testing of the Ojibway has indicated that they actually can be traced back to southern Europe, and crossed the north Atlantic which was likely covered in ice as well, although I suppose they could have constructed boats seeing that they did come from Europe.

Nothing I've seen about this has revealed any of these supposed documents.

What about the Indian treatment of their own children? Where does that fit in? I think that the problem is that many people like to buy into the myth of the noble savage, and like to pump up their own self-righteous liberal egos by sympathizing with these poor people whose supposedly idylic, eco-friendly cultures were ruined by averous Judeo-Christian Europeans. These self-righteous liberals of course can entertain such notions because the very people they despise have made our society possible; they neither have to live in poverty, be denied education, or live in filthy disease- and pest-ridden environments. In other words, the "idylic" circumstances that the Indians once found themselves in. I'm all for everyone being raised to the same level so as a society we can evolve and improve; but living in the past, trying to drag everyone back down to the same misguided and base level as before is not doing anyone any good.

My professors never thought so. So if I had to choose between them and some crank trying to pass him- (or her-)self off as an anthro gradstudent, I'd go with the former.

Everyone under 20 for the last 50 years has believed that "the world revolves around them". Moreover, I don't think that there has been a generation of school children that hasn't engaged in youthful rebelious acts. But in a strongly Christian society these acts of rebellion were usually tame or subtle. In our post-war society, the behaviour of children is driven by influences from media. Moreover, the phenomena of universal education is relatively recent, so what we have with our modern educational system is a relatively unique situation in human history. One of the problems is that the structure of schooling predates this "unique situation" and changes are only really being made in the content of the education. The whole consept of what a physical school is has to be changed in order to adapt to current changes in society brought on by technology, etc. Also, if you have a society where the traditional means of self-regulation--Christianity--is institutionally under assault and therefore erroding, and nothing suitable is replacing it (of course, there is nothing that can) then what you get is children who are no longer feel there are true consequences for their actions, they revert back to "natural instincts" in how they interact with other people. People who on the one hand deride Christianity, and on the other complain about the breakdown of our society never cease to amaze me.

Incidently, I have researched this author and there's not that much out there about him, so as is always the case in the field of history, unless this person is academically qualified to be writing history, and his writings have been subjected to peer review, his reliability and credibility are always suspect. There are people out there of his ilk who have come up with a whole bunch of fanciful theories and opinions about the Third Reich, and they are usually referred to as revisiont historians and have little or no respect in the academic field of history. I would suggest that Arnett is at best a revisionist in terms of Canadian history and has no standing, therefore is not really worth in terms of the conent of his historical research.