Why do we discuss Canada's attempted cultural genocide as it's

[Machjo]

As I pointed out the forced sterilization was done to people from many different minority groups and was not specifically targeted at aboriginals.

The only evidence of "forced" exposure to TB is evidence that the schools had no ability to deal with sick children that were forced to be there by government policy. It is one thing to note that the procedures when it comes to dealing with TB were known at the time but it is another thing to assert that the people running the schools had the knowledge, training and resources to implement those procedures but chose not to for some nefarious purpose.

There is a general rule that I think applies here: never assume conspiracy when incompetence is sufficient to explain what went wrong.

"I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our residential schools to spread infectious diseases... The mortality rate in the schools often exceeds fifty percent. This is a national crime."

Dr. Peter Bryce

The Story of a National Crime, 1907

[Riverwind]

Incompetance is certainly grounds for significant financial settlements in many other cases, gross incompetance even more so.

I have not objected to any of the financial settlements to people who experienced physical or sexual abuse. The only objection I have is the attempts to characterize what was at worst criminal negligence as "genocide" or anything remotely close to it.

[Machjo]

How hard is it to keep the Kids with TB away from the kids that don't?

And there are plenty of reports of children being forced to play with children who were known to be sick, of knowingly contaminated blankets being given to healthy Indians, and healthy children being forced to share beds with sick children. I'm not aware of any written document of some of these, but in the video I'd linked to above, some adults testify that this happened to them as children, resulting in only the naturally immune surviving. On the same video, a photo is presented as evidence of sick and healthy children sitting together even though even at that time it was known that tuberculosis was a quarantinable disease. Medicine was not that backwards then. We're not talking about five centuries ago here.

[Machjo]

I have not objected to any of the financial settlements to people who experienced physical or sexual abuse. The only objection I have is the attempts to characterize what was at worst criminal negligence as "genocide" or anything remotely close to it.

And what about intentional cover-ups that have been witnessed and recorded?

[Riverwind]

"I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our residential schools to spread infectious diseases... The mortality rate in the schools often exceeds fifty percent. This is a national crime."

Nothing but his opinion.

[Machjo]

Incompetance is certainly grounds for significant financial settlements in many other cases, gross incompetance even more so. At some point gross incompetance becomes criminal negligence and in the case of residential schools and other policies designed to address Canada's issues with aboriginals, its clear the government crossed this line a long time ago.

It had already been referred to as 'criminal' in a book published in 1907 by Dr Bryce, whose position was abolished soon after he'd reported the high cases of tuberculosis. That's not mere incompetence, but clearly intentional cover-up. You don't abolish such an important medical position right after the holder of that position announced epidemic death rates in the midst of that crisis. And even he himself in 1907 referred to it as 'criminal'.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nothing but his opinion.

So the opinion of a doctor isn't worth anything.

Edited August 16, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Machjo]

Nothing but his opinion.

He was a doctor working for the Department of Indian Affairs, and was soon to have his position abolished after reporting his findings.

Not suspicious in the least? Don't you think an insider of his stature would have known more than the average person on this?

[Riverwind]

And what about intentional cover-ups that have been witnessed and recorded?

There are plenty of indiviudals who are guilty of crimes in these schools and those individuals had an incentive to cover things up. We also no that the problem with clergy and pedophila was not confined to these schools and there are many cases where the church covered up crimes to save itself embarrassment. None of this is any evidence of a wider conspiracy to exterminate natives.

[Machjo]

So the opinion of a doctor isn't worth anything.

Not to mention a doctor who was working for the department of Indian Affairs and whose position had been abolished soon after his reports were presented, all that at the height of an epidemic.

Not suspicious?

[Guest TrueMetis]

There are plenty of indiviudals who are guilty of crimes in these schools and those individuals had an incentive to cover things up. We also no that the problem with clergy and pedophila was not confined to these schools and there are many cases where the church covered up crimes to save itself embarrassment. None of this is any evidence of a wider conspiracy to exterminate natives.

Considering it was the government and RCMP helping to cover it up and not just individuals who were guilty of the crimes your theory has holes and rather large hole at that.

[Machjo]

There are plenty of indiviudals who are guilty of crimes in these schools and those individuals had an incentive to cover things up. We also no that the problem with clergy and pedophila was not confined to these schools and there are many cases where the church covered up crimes to save itself embarrassment. None of this is any evidence of a wider conspiracy to exterminate natives.

I agree about the point on paedophilia. But how do you explain the forced mixing of healthy students with tuberculosis-ridden students in nearly every school in Western Canada that the doctor inspected? How do we dismiss the still-living survivors who testify to their forced contact with the sick children? How do we explain that in this doctor's opinion, the rates were too high to be just accidental or incompetence? What about the nurse who kicked a five-year-old to death in 1966 in front of the other children, or the child who was beaten to death for having stolen a peach, or the baby thrown in the oven, again witnessed by living survivors and recorded on vido on-line?

All of this proves the value placed on their lives and thus corroborates the suggestion that the exposure to tuberculosis was intentional and thus criminal.

[Machjo]

Considering it was the government and RCMP helping to cover it up and not just individuals who were guilty of the crimes your theory has holes and rather large hole at that.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/068.html

And this from 2003, an attempted cover-up of a contemporary kiddy sex ring the historical roots of which can be traced back to the residential school syste, with native leaders, church leaders, RCMP, and politicians implicated in the cover-up:

http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/intro2.html

[Machjo]

So the government is still involved in trying to cover up current activities today. Of course the residential schools are over, and we hole so is forced sterilization. But why so many people in so many places trying to cover up a kiddy sex ring?

[Riverwind]

Not suspicious in the least? Don't you think an insider of his stature would have known more than the average person on this?

Or perhaps he lost his job because he had a penchant for making imflamatory accusations with no evidence? It is really pointless to speculate on the motives of people long dead. We have the facts: too many aboriginal kids died of disease in schools. The lessons we need to learn from this is the government should not be using its power to take kids from their parents in any but the most extreme circumstances and that forced assimilation can be extremely harmful.

Trying to impose a genocide narrative on these facts is a distraction that actually hinders a frank discussion about what went wrong and how to remedy the consenquences.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Guest TrueMetis]

Trying to impose a genocide narrative on these facts is a distraction that actually hinders a frank discussion about what went wrong and how to remedy the consenquences.

They knew what went wrong back then and they knew how to remedy it but they didn't.

Edited August 16, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Machjo]

So how do we remedy the consequences, seeing that forced assimilation continues to varying degrees in that our whole system is Eurocentric?

[Riverwind]

So how do we remedy the consequences, seeing that forced assimilation continues to varying degrees in that our whole system is Eurocentric?

If someone lives in a society then they must expect that they will have adapt to the majority culture. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise and the need to adapt is not what I call forced assimilation because people can adapt without giving up their cultural identity. Forced assimilation only occurs when the government actively suppresses a culture by doing things like prohibiting the use of a language.

[Machjo]

If someone lives in a society then they must expect that they will have adapt to the majority culture. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise and the need to adapt is not what I call forced assimilation because people can adapt without giving up their cultural identity. Forced assimilation only occurs when the government actively suppresses a culture by doing things like prohibiting the use of a language.

Watch the video I'd liknked to earlier. Children were beaten for speking their language. I remember one woman on TV whose father had refused to teach her his language because of his memory of having had a needle stuck through his tongue for having dared to speak his language.

So now that we've taken their land, we should be rewarded by having become the majority over the generations?

We don't owe them anything at all as far as helping them maintain their culture is concerned? We can just wash our hands of it and say its' the distant ancient past, and that they must now integrate to our rules.

That's rewarding imperialism.

[Riverwind]

We don't owe them anything at all as far as helping them maintain their culture is concerned? We can just wash our hands of it and say its' the distant ancient past, and that they must now integrate to our rules.

I don't recall saying anything about not helping first nations maintain their culture. I just said that even if they maintain their culture they are going to have to adapt to the larger society that they live in.

More importantly, if natives want the majority to respect and support their culture then they have to recognize that it is two way street. You can't expect that respect and support if you are constantly lecturing people about how they should feel guilty for wrongs that they had nothing to do with.

[tango]

I don't recall saying anything about not helping first nations maintain their culture. I just said that even if they maintain their culture they are going to have to adapt to the larger society that they live in.

More importantly, if natives want the majority to respect and support their culture then they have to recognize that it is two way street. You can't expect that respect and support if you are constantly lecturing people about how they should feel guilty for wrongs that they had nothing to do with.

That's a very immature understanding you promote, riv: "It wasn't genocide and anyway, I didn't do it".

Genocide against Indigenous Peoples was and is conducted for a purpose: To gain control of the land and its re$ource$.

Every Canadian today continues to benefit from that since Canada's economy is entirely dependent on resources taken from traditional Indigenous land without their consent and with no compensation.

Every Canadian has a responsibility to understand the whole truth, and to pressure our governments to honour their legal duty to "consult, and to accommodate" the rights of Aboriginal Peoples on all traditional land.

Examples are ...

oil/gas pipelines

the oil fields

Brantford/Caledonia

Frontenac mining

Platinex mining

Dump Site 41

... and many many other places where Indigenous Nations are trying to get our governments to honour our legal obligations, instead of destroying the land.

Because the land was not 'given'; It was 'borrowed', and we owe a legal debt for its use. We also have a legal obligation to treat the land in a manner that allows it to sustain itself, and human life.

Not only have we destroyed the lives of millions of traditional Indigenous people, we have destroyed the water, soil and air that sustain all human life.

And by the way, the sterilization of traditional Indigenous leaders, which was rampant in the 20th century and paid for by our federal government, is a key indicator of genocidal intent.

Canada is not innocent, and we are all responsible.

Edited August 18, 2009 by tango

[M.Dancer]

Because the land was not 'given'; It was 'borrowed', and we owe a legal debt for its use. We also have a legal obligation to treat the land in a manner that allows it to sustain itself, and human life.

20 Strings of colourful beads

200 axe heads

200 point blankets (NEW)

200 coffee pots

2000 lbs of suger

That's my final offer

[tango]

20 Strings of colourful beads

200 axe heads

200 point blankets (NEW)

200 coffee pots

2000 lbs of suger

That's my final offer

Your racist colonial contempt is noted.

Do you not have anything of any intelligence to say?

Edited August 18, 2009 by tango

[Moonbox]

20 Strings of colourful beads

200 axe heads

200 point blankets (NEW)

200 coffee pots

2000 lbs of suger

That's my final offer

Despite the slur Dancer that was REALLY funny! One of the funniest things I've read here so far.

[Riverwind]

Genocide against Indigenous Peoples was and is conducted for a purpose: To gain control of the land.

So what? Every nation in existence today was created as groups of people moved in a took over territory occupied by others The term Anglo-Saxon reflects the fact the people we call Anglo-Saxon are descendants of the Saxons who invaded and annexed land belonging to the angles. Even the aboriginals did it but the details are lost in history.

What this means is people that live today are NOT responsible for injustices of the past - period, end, full stop. It is simply irrational to claim that they are.

What you are trying to do is claim that the government bears some responsibility because in Canada we have had a continuous system of government for 400+ years. The trouble with this logic is the government is really nothing more than the people that it represents and demanding that the government correct past wrongs is the same as demanding that people who are innocent of the crime be made to pay for it.

No matter how to want to spin it you cannot correct an injustice by demanding more injustice. The SCC has made this point clear in its own judgments.

No matter how much you want to believe otherwise only a tiny minority of the 33 million Canadians alive today believe they should be required to make significant personal sacrifices to compensate for these past wrongs. The only non-aboriginals support anything close to the demands you are making are those that think they can use aboriginals for their own purposes (e.g. environmentalists) and those who believe the government will force someone other than them to pay.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Riverwind