Canada's child victims can't be forgotten

[cybercoma]

Sometimes you do. Bosnia is a good example of that. They were living quite happily as a multiethnic community when the Olympics were in Sarajevo in '82. Look at what happened through the 90s, some of the worst atrocities since WWII.

[tango]

Sometimes you do. Bosnia is a good example of that. They were living quite happily as a multiethnic community when the Olympics were in Sarajevo in '82. Look at what happened through the 90s, some of the worst atrocities since WWII.

yup. A colleague and his family were living there ... "We not me but some of ... we killed some of theirs, and then they killed a lot of ours, and then we ... more ... and then we were being bombed by Canadian and British planes. Then we had to leave."

But ... that is not Canada ... we can hope.

Though the navy and infantry were in Lake Erie near Six Nations at one difficult time, and the Brantford request for the army on standby has not yet been resolved.

Bombs?

I sure hope not. :angry:

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[Oleg Bach]

yup. A colleague and his family were living there ... "We not me but some of ... we killed some of theirs, and then they killed a lot of ours, and then we ... more ... and then we were being bombed by Canadian and British planes. Then we had to leave."

But ... that is not Canada ... we can hope.

Though the navy and infantry were in Lake Erie near Six Nations at one difficult time, and the Brantford request for the army on standby has not yet been resolved.

Bombs?

I sure hope not. :angry:

But Canada did bomb Bosnian Serbs. Yup.

And we allowed mercenarys that were Canadian trained to go their and kill for 75 dollars a head - I worked with one of these nuts in film buisness.... He told me how they would travel though the village getting hopped up on Vodka - and view babies empaled on steaks ....then they would wait on a hill for the unwary convoys to pass - first they would launch a rocket propelled weapon - and finish them off with machine guns --- Leslie made darn near 5000 dollars killing for profit - he was a Serb - that grew up in Canada - You would think our government would have out lawed these types of enterprises.??

[tango]

Interesting Oleg. Killing Serbs?

Bosnia topic moved here

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=411183

Please respect context of thread topic too.

But Canada did bomb Bosnian Serbs. Yup.

And I knew a soldier with ptsd from Bosnia too.

Sometimes it seems to me there's no right or wrong.

We all just want to live in peace, I think.

I know that's true in Canada, but some whine about the money we owe to respect our treaties and Aboriginal Rights.

I figure Indigenous Nations are in it with us, and they are important players.

The future belongs to us all, and is what we make it.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

One of the reasons for the outbreak of violence in Bosnia was the fierce Serbian nationalism espoused by Milosevic. Granted that's not the only reason for the violence, but the point (as it relates to this thread) is the country was multicultural until fierce nationalism precipitated war. There are people that would find problems with multinationalism within a single state for the reasons that Bosnia illustrates. That would mean native peoples should integrate into society and give up their nationalism for patriotism. It's a valid view. On the other hand, if someone supports ethnic nationalism for one group--as Quebec nationlists do--, they need to apply that perspective equally and support it for all groups.

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[tango]

One of the reasons for the outbreak of violence in Bosnia was the fierce Serbian nationalism espoused by Milosevic. Granted that's not the only reason for the violence, but the point is the country was multicultural until fierce nationalism precipitated war.

Bosnia topic moved here

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=411183

[cybercoma]

The Bosnia example directly relates to native nationalism in this thread. Is that really so hard to understand? My point is not to argue the pros and cons of the war in Bosnia, but to illustrate an example of cultural vs state primacy perspectives. These perspectives directly relate to your topic, as does the Nunavut example.

Edited April 18, 2009 by cybercoma

[tango]

The Bosnia example directly relates to native nationalism in this thread. Is that really so hard to understand? My point is not to argue the pros and cons of the war in Bosnia, but to illustrate an example of cultural vs state primacy perspectives. These perspectives directly relate to your topic, as does the Nunavut example.

Bosnia topic moved here

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/top-bosnian...gitive-arrested

Please respect thread topic.

[tango]

The Bosnia example directly relates to native nationalism in this thread. Is that really so hard to understand? My point is not to argue the pros and cons of the war in Bosnia, but to illustrate an example of cultural vs state primacy perspectives. These perspectives directly relate to your topic, as does the Nunavut example.

Well then make your point in context please, or go to the bosnia thread, ok?

[cybercoma]

It was in context when I first brought it up, I just explained it in context again, AND I went to your Bosnia thread.

[tango]

One of the reasons for the outbreak of violence in Bosnia was the fierce Serbian nationalism espoused by Milosevic. Granted that's not the only reason for the violence, but the point (as it relates to this thread) is the country was multicultural until fierce nationalism precipitated war.

There are people that would find problems with multinationalism within a single state for the reasons that Bosnia illustrates. That would mean native peoples should integrate into society and give up their nationalism for patriotism. It's a valid view. On the other hand, if someone supports ethnic nationalism for one group--as Quebec nationlists do--, they need to apply that perspective equally and support it for all groups.

Sorry cybercoma.

I see you did .

Well ... it's not like we can change to a single cultural nation now, so we might as well embrace all, is how I see it.

But please remember that the topic is children who went missing in residential schools.

Loss of culture, land, and over 50,000 children ... but Indigenous Nations are still here.

Whether Indigenous Nations exist or not is not in question, and is not in fact Canada's choice.

Canada cannot choose to destroy another culture, by 'assimilation' or by 'extinguishment' of rights.

Not any more.

And even after the fighting (God forbid) we will all still be here, so I believe we have a responsibility to resolve issues honourably and peacefully.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

Canada, as a sovereign state, has every right to insist that the citizens within its borders respect its sovereignty. The state is even entitled to use force to protect its sovereignty and make nations within comply with the state's authority. My point about state sovereignty is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect the citizens of Canada to identify with the Canadian state. National identities can be consider divisive and destructive to state sovereignty.

I'm no necessarily saying I agree with the state primacy perspective; however, the ethnic sovereignty perspective poses unique problems in Canada. If you propose that first nations within the state should be given their autonomy, or sovereignty, then that sets the precedence that the Quebecois nation deserves its own autonomy or sovereignty. You can't say you support cultural autonomy for one but not the other. It's inconsistent and therefore unjust.

You can, however, say that the state is th e highest authority and all nations within the state must operate under the state authority. Any issues that the nations have need to be resolved through the state systems. Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the more that perspective makes sense; however, it has the drawback of reducing national autonomy, which can eventually lead to integration and loss of cultural identity.

[tango]

Canada, as a sovereign state, has every right to insist that the citizens within its borders respect its sovereignty. The state is even entitled to use force to protect its sovereignty and make nations within comply with the state's authority. My point about state sovereignty is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect the citizens of Canada to identify with the Canadian state. National identities can be consider divisive and destructive to state sovereignty.

I'm no necessarily saying I agree with the state primacy perspective; however, the ethnic sovereignty perspective poses unique problems in Canada. If you propose that first nations within the state should be given their autonomy, or sovereignty, then that sets the precedence that the Quebecois nation deserves its own autonomy or sovereignty. You can't say you support cultural autonomy for one but not the other. It's inconsistent and therefore unjust.

You can, however, say that the state is th e highest authority and all nations within the state must operate under the state authority. Any issues that the nations have need to be resolved through the state systems. Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the more that perspective makes sense; however, it has the drawback of reducing national autonomy, which can eventually lead to integration and loss of cultural identity.

You can, however, say that the state is th e highest authority and all nations within the state must operate under the state authority.

I think even the provinces would have difficulty with that statement, and certainly Quebec and some Indigenous Nations would too. I wouldn't go too heavy on the 'use force' part, anyway.

It's not simply a matter for centralized 'decision' I don't think. It's a matter of the facts, and for consultation and negotiation and agreement among provinces, territories (eg Nunavut status?), Indigenous Nations (which pre-date Canadian citizenship) and the Quebecois Nation (as they have already been defined in law).

Canada cannot unilaterally extinguish any existing Aboriginal Rights, including land rights and sovereignty too.

It's clear that Canada is evolving as a multi-national nation of peoples ... because that's who we are. We just have to deal with it ... truthfully and honourably, I hope.

Nunavut, for example, Official Language English, French, Inuktitut, and Inuinnaqtun

But they hire and give government services only in English and French, neither of which is spoken by the majority of people.

Now there's a challenge for Canada!

But certainly, we cannot do this again ...

cbc video (8 min) Stolen children

http://www.cbc.ca/video/popup.html?http://...eyard080609.wmv

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

All I'm saying is that some people think multinationalism is a good thing, but others think it's a powder keg. The debate cannot be resolved because both of them are right.

[tango]

All I'm saying is that some people think multinationalism is a good thing, but others think it's a powder keg. The debate cannot be resolved because both of them are right.

It's a false debate.

It will entirely depend on how multinationalism is handled.

I think we've already had as much violence as Canadians want - FLQ 'crisis', Oka, Burnt church, Ipperwash, Caledonia.

I think we will find better ways to reconcile the rights in the nation of nations that is Canada.

Better ways than we are using now, though.

And the first step is to tell the truth, not allow any nation(s) to be maligned and used as political pawns.

I think the truth about the children who died in Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools is long overdue.

Edited April 18, 2009 by tango

[cybercoma]

It will entirely depend on how multinationalism is handled.

Right, that's the crux of the debate. How do you feel it should be handled? Are multi-national states a problem? Should states engage in programs that promote patriotism which undermines nationalism? Should states reinforce national identities by allowing cultural autonomy, as is the case with Nunavut? These questions are fundamental to the understanding of residential schools. We don't need to debate the abuse that happened in these schools because any rational person would agree that child abuse is wrong. What we need to discuss is how to deal with multinationalism within the state.

[tango]

Right, that's the crux of the debate. How do you feel it should be handled? Are multi-national states a problem? Should states engage in programs that promote patriotism which undermines nationalism? Should states reinforce national identities by allowing cultural autonomy, as is the case with Nunavut? These questions are fundamental to the understanding of residential schools. We don't need to debate the abuse that happened in these schools because any rational person would agree that child abuse is wrong. What we need to discuss is how to deal with multinationalism within the state.

Please respect that the topic is children who died in residential schools. This has not been discussed, is not even known among Canadians.

It's the truth that must be known before we can discuss resolutions, reconciliation.

Children died BECAUSE Canada wanted to destroy Indigenous families, communities, people, culture.

Why did Canada do that?

To destabilize and destroy their land rights.

To extinguish Indigenous Peoples, culture and land rights.

The land and resources that sustain Canada's economy are the 'booty' taken from Indigenous Peoples by force, by abuse, by oppression and by the death of over 50,000 children and destruction of their families and culture.

[cybercoma]

Posters like this should come with a warning label.

[tango]

but this is very encouraging ...

But Watts says “there’s a lot more hope than ever before, because this will be the first new group of leaders that weren’t actual attendees of residential schools.” At Gathering Our Voices, a provincial aboriginal youth conference that was held in March, he says teens expressed excitement about getting an education and achieving success while retaining ties to the community. In fact, the survey found that 82 per cent of aboriginal teens agree that it’s important to gather for traditional ceremonies, and 84 per cent say family is “very important,” compared to a national average of 67 per cent. “Our leadership look at these youth, and say, ‘Wow, we’re going to be okay,’ ” says Watts.

Part of this optimism stems from connections that aboriginal youth are making with each other. Though Internet access may still be limited in remote areas (61 per cent reported using the computer more than two hours daily, compared with the national average of 75 per cent), he says social networking websites Bebo and Facebook are making a huge difference in combating feelings of isolation. In fact, 45 per cent of on-reserve teens said they had met a close friend online, more than double the national average. Watts says that securing Internet access is an important goal for those First Nations communities where it is not currently available. “They realize that’s the means of communication for their youth,” he says.

[tango]

Posters like this should come with a warning label.

???

I don't like to participate in false debates about important topics, it's true.

What we need to discuss is how to deal with multinationalism within the state.

Without representation from the nations involved, I don't believe we can have that discussion. We don't know their issues or represent them and any suggestions of how they 'should' be dealt with would come from our own limited cultural perspective.

In fact, Canadians and our governments continue to arrogantly make judgments and decisions for Indigenous Peoples and about their lives and livelihoods and lands without consulting with them. It is one of Canada's worst failings - uninformed, ill-intentioned unilateral decision making about the lives of Indigenous Peoples, imo.

Ask yourself instead ... how did Canadians allow our governments to perpetrate these crimes against thousands of defenceless children?

Ask your self as Canadians how we can make sure we never allow that again.

And then ask yourself how can Canadians prevent the still ongoing encroachment of Canadians on Indigenous lands?

How can we make sure that all levels of our governments respect Aboriginal Rights and Titles?

We Canadians have a strong inclination to shy away from anything that involves engaging with our governments and political systems, because we know they are immovable. So instead ... we try to go around them and instead of addressing our own democratic deficits, we instead try to tell others - the victims of our governments - what they should do.

I say we have to start taking full responsibility as citizens for the actions and inaction of all levels of our governments, past and present.

I think the true stories of the children who went missing in Canada's residential schools is a good place to start.

We don't have an ideal world, a clean slate. We have to work from where we are towards an ideal.

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[tango]

Two interesting parallels to the treatment of Indigenous Peoples in Canada:

British (English?) treatment of the Irish ...

http://www1.american.edu/ted/potato.htm

The British instituted Penal laws, which denied the Irish

peasant population freedom. Irish were forbidden: to speak their

language, to practice their faith, to attend school, to hold an

public office, to hold certain jobs, to own land, or to ". . .own

a horse worth more than $10." (22) These Penal laws were enacted to

push the Irish into submission by force and inferiority and were

justified by the British government as necessary to retain the

character of the Irish.(23)

...

To limit the number of people seeking relief and the expense

to the British government, The Poor Law Extension Act of 1847 was

instituted to deny aid to tenant farmers with over a quarter acre

of land. This Act promoted emigration, increased land clearance,

and disintegrated the structure of rural society, which were

beneficial to British landowners, who sought profit, power, and

larger plots of land. (45) According to the Poor Laws, landlords

were bound to support peasants sent to the workhouse, which cost

$12 pounds a year. Instead, some landlords sent peasants to Canada

on "coffin ships", which cost $6 pounds.(46) Coffin ships were

"wet, leaky holds" of timber ships returning to North America that

were "crammed in with as many as 900 [people], with barely room to

stand."(47) Approximately half of the people died during the voyage

and the other half arrived in North America unable to disembark,

without assistance, due to sickness and starvation. (48)

And the Scots ...

Clans have existed in many parts of the world but it was in the Highlands of Scotland that the clan system developed most fully as a way of life. It ended with the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie's Highlanders on the moors of Culloden

, near Inverness, on April 16, 1746.

Following this defeat, the Clan system was abolished by law and for many years all weapons were forbidden to the Highlanders, as were the tartans, clan dress, clan symbols and paraphernalia, clan music and gatherings. Even the bagpipe was forbidden as it was considered an instrument of war.. At the same time a program known as the "clearances" was carried out with the stated objective of "clearing the Highlanders from the land to make it fit for the raising sheep". It was this program that was largely responsible for the scattering of the Highlanders to the far reaches of the world.

That's where my family came from to Canada, from Highland Clearances and Irish Potato Famine to Canada ... where the 'lairds' are doing the same thing ... clearing the land of Indigenous Peoples for their monetary benefit.

While Indigenous children were taken to residential schools, enforced by law, their traditional families were also subjected to the outlawing of traditional practices. Ceremonies were banned, people were imprisoned, etc.

That law was not enforced after the 1960's, but was not changed until 1985.

The last government-run 'Indian' Residential School closed in 1996.

Siblings of children who died in the schools are still alive today, and still wondering where their siblings are buried ... in Canada.

Edited April 19, 2009 by tango

[kuzadd]

hmm just reading through this thread....

Yes, the white christian fold ensured the deaths and disappearance and destruction of an indigenous culture.

But! It was done for all the 'right' reasons, god, country, religious and ethnic superiority????

So why question these actions?

Right august 1991?

well tango, interesting topic, but the people who believe they are superior in every way shape or form, don't like to have their ugly little imperfections pointed out to them.

It causes them to go into finger pointing denial mode.

[M.Dancer]

hmm just reading through this thread....

Yes, the white christian fold ensured the deaths and disappearance and destruction of an indigenous culture.

It's gone? Like the Cornish?

Okay, lets move on then....

[kuzadd]

It's gone? Like the Cornish?

Okay, lets move on then....

yes move on.

That is what the white christian superior race has done, moved on, have you missed it?

On to the next genocide, verbatim.

that is what those who prefer finger pointing denial mode do, they move on, pretend their killings are somehow less criminal , or more justified then the lives they have taken or destroyed

Then they sit in church and pray to their God, to keep them safe.

The irony of it all.

[M.Dancer]

yes move on.

Okay then.