Spielberg's Lincoln: In Three Paragraphs

[The_Squid]

Don't forget that South Africa modeled their system of apartheid after the Canadian Indian reserve system.

Other than a few minority opinions from some natives in Canada, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? Anything to back up this claim?

I am of the opinion that these claims are probably greatly exaggerated.

Edited November 21, 2012 by The_Squid

[bush_cheney2004]

Other than a few minority opinions from some natives in Canada, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? Anything to back up this claim?

I am of the opinion that these claims are probably greatly exaggerated.

How much apartheid is OK ?

http://www.stopracism.ca/content/two-fronts-anti-apartheid-struggle-south-africa-and-canada

http://www.fernwoodpublishing.ca/The-Black-Book-of-Canadian-Foreign-Policy-Yves-Engler/

[msj]

Other than a few minority opinions from some natives in Canada, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? Anything to back up this claim?

Nope.

Other than a bunch of trending that most likely conflates Canada with South Africa, in hindsight no less, it's all a bunch of baloney.

Edited November 21, 2012 by msj

[The_Squid]

Nope.

Other than a bunch of trending that most likely conflates Canada with South Africa, in hindsight no less, it's all a bunch of baloney.

That's what I thought.... Exaggeration and hyperbole by activists.

[Guest American Woman]

Other than a few minority opinions from some natives in Canada, is there any evidence that this is actually the case? Anything to back up this claim?

"A few minority claims? from some natives in Canada?" First of all, that's a pretty dismissive attitude, and a rather condescending attitude towards Natives' claims. Who would know better, and be willing to admit it more, than Natives? That aside, it appears to be an accepted concept, except for those who would rather not have to see it for what it is. There's plenty of information out there confirming the claim, and the similarities speak for themselves.

I can't help but note that you are not questioning the idea that Canada's Charter is being held as an example in the world. Do you require different proof depending on the claim? I don't doubt that Canada's Charter is being held as an example. I also don't doubt that Canada's Indian Act and the treatment of the First Nations people was held as an example in South Africa's apartheid. I've read enough about both to feel comfortable in my conclusions.

This is a very good article from Radio Canada International's website: CANADA AND SOUTH AFRICA SHARE A DARK PAST....Oppressive system links Canada and South Africa .... http://www.rcinet.ca...lSchoolsAbuses/

What happened was terrible, and it didn't fully come to an end until 1996. It's not a pleasant part of Canada's history, but it is a very real part. You can try to put it on the back burner and instead go on about the injustices in the U.S., but I'm beginning to wonder if that's why Canada has, in effect, gotten away with so much - it's simply buried, and the focus turns to the U.S.

Let me make it clear, again, that I admire and respect Canada and consider it among the world's best. I have not once said that the U.S. is better, as so many Canadians here say about Canada, but I'm not going to put Canada on some false pedestal, either, stroking egos and pretending atrocities like this don't exist. I know that makes me a troll in cybercoma's eyes, and he's made it clear what he thinks of Americans, but I would hope that some of you have a more open mind and aren't just all about patting Canada on the back in spite of its history and then criticizing the U.S. as some sort of exoneration of what Canada has done/is doing.

I am of the opinion that these claims are probably greatly exaggerated.

And what is that opinion based on?

That's what I thought.... Exaggeration and hyperbole by activists.

You drew that conclusion by looking at msj's link - how?? By reading the book? Or by looking at the cover? Considering the time frame, it's obviously the latter.

Did you even read the information in the links that were provided by bush_cheney? I'll highlight some of it for you here:

South Africa came to Canada at different times since the Boer War a

sking and [obtaining] permission to study the Canadian system

by which Indian people were controlled and managed separately from the politically dominant white population.

South African took what it needed and applied it to its own situation: first to segregation, and after the Second World War to apartheid.

as late as 1962,

the South African ambassador to Canada

, W. Dirkseven-Schalwyck,

made an extensive tour of reserves in western Canada

, meeting churches and visiting agency headquarters and educational and agricultural facilities. The ambassador studied the form of band government, the relationship of the central state apparatus of Indian Affairs to the bands, and social and economic problems encountered on the reserves. The ambassador’s interest was in how the Indians were maintained in their ‘homelands’, and how the central state related administratively to their maintenance.

a well-researched 1988 article in the western Canadian journal, Briarpatch, listed a host of right-wing and business-related groups hard at work defending apartheid

: the Western Canadian Society of South Africa and the extremely well-connected Canadian-South African Society, for example. Indeed the husband of Canada’s then Governor-General, Jeanne Sauve, was actually a member of the latter until shamed into resigning in 1985 (see Manz 1988).

http://www.stopracis...rica-and-canada

I found it ironic that cybercoma was highlighting the "happiness" factor in Canada as the suicide rate among Canada's First Nations population is among the highest in the world. Furthermore, Canada is still receiving criticism from a U.N. regarding Canada’s treatment of First Nations:

"I am struck that despite being sixth in terms of development of the countries of the world, the indigenous peoples (in Canada) are in 66th place.''

http://ca.news.yahoo...-183442188.html

[Black Dog]

Let me make it clear, again, that I admire and respect Canada and consider it among the world's best. I have not once said that the U.S. is better, as so many Canadians here say about Canada, but I'm not going to put Canada on some false pedestal, either, stroking egos and pretending atrocities like this don't exist. I know that makes me a troll in cybercoma's eyes, and he's made it clear what he thinks of Americans, but I would hope that some of you have a more open mind and aren't just all about patting Canada on the back in spite of its history and then criticizing the U.S. as some sort of exoneration of what Canada has done/is doing.

Shameful as Canada's treatment of First Nations has been, being lectured by citizens of a country that made the outright genocide of said people is a bit rich. And that's not even scraping the surface when it comes to slavery/Jim Crow etc.

To repeat: Canada has it's share of skeletons in its closet, no one would deny that. But you have no moral high ground here whatsoever.

[Guest American Woman]

Shameful as Canada's treatment of First Nations has been, being lectured by citizens of a country that made the outright genocide of said people is a bit rich. And that's not even scraping the surface when it comes to slavery/Jim Crow etc.

To repeat: Canada has it's share of skeletons in its closet, no one would deny that. But you have no moral high ground here whatsoever.

Did I say I did?? But thanks for proving the point I made. I appreciate it.

Now, Is this where you tell me to "die?" - as cybercoma calls me a troll?

Edited November 21, 2012 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Did I say I did?? But thanks for proving the point I made. I appreciate it.

Who brought residential schools into this again? You, troll.

Now, Is this where you tell me to "die?" - as cybercoma calls me a troll?

Live, die, whatever: you are a troll.

[Michael Hardner]

Can any good discussion come out of a discussion of whose skeletons are eviler ?

I think that the focus on the past (and maybe more generally lack of focus on what would work moving forward) hampers us from imagining something other than what has already happened.

[Guest American Woman]

Can any good discussion come out of a discussion of whose skeletons are eviler ?

Of course not. It just seems to serve some's purpose for ignoring what went on within their own history.

I think that the focus on the past (and maybe more generally lack of focus on what would work moving forward) hampers us from imagining something other than what has already happened.

The "focus on the past" is due to the comment out Canada's history vs. the U.S.'s history in the opening post, and some of the comments that have been made in response, but I agree that the "eviler" rebuttal adds nothing.

So I would say, also, that it's the accusations of "troll" when people can't handle/refute what's been said that prevents any sort of "discussion," never mind "good discussion."

Edited November 21, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

as late as 1962,

the South African ambassador to Canada

, W. Dirkseven-Schalwyck,

made an extensive tour of reserves in western Canada

, meeting churches and visiting agency headquarters and educational and agricultural facilities. The ambassador studied the form of band government, the relationship of the central state apparatus of Indian Affairs to the bands, and social and economic problems encountered on the reserves. The ambassador’s interest was in how the Indians were maintained in their ‘homelands’, and how the central state related administratively to their maintenance.

Funny that. The bantustans started back in the 1940's but somehow they were modeled on a trip to Canada as late as 1962.

There is no doubt of similarities between systems. That is an inevitable part of shared heritage (British colonial) which Americans also share.

But this is conflation pure and simple.

[Black Dog]

Of course not. It just seems to serve some's purpose for ignoring what went on within their own history.

Who is ignoring anything?

The "focus on the past" is due to the comment out Canada's history vs. the U.S.'s history in the opening post, and some of the comments that have been made in response, but I agree that the "eviler" rebuttal adds nothing.

Though it adds nothing, you felt compelled to get into it. Cool.

So I would say, also, that it's the accusations of "troll" when people can't handle/refute what's been said that prevents anysort of "discussion," never mind "good discussion."

"Troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."

Don't want to be called a troll? Don't troll.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Black Dog

[msj]

This is a very good article from Radio Canada International's website: CANADA AND SOUTH AFRICA SHARE A DARK PAST....Oppressive system links Canada and South Africa .... http://www.rcinet.ca...lSchoolsAbuses/

Actually, that is a very poor "article."

Other than one person providing her unsupported opinion:

"It is ironic because the Canadian Indian Act formed much of the basis for the oppressive apartheid policies in South Africa,” said Thunderbird. “ It’s kind of an understood custom and practice that Canada’s Indian Act came to be known as the acceptable role model for apartheid policies and there are books and websites that outline all of this.”

This is part of the trending - have enough people claim something and people believe it to be true.

Thunderbird providing an unsubstantiated opinion is not fact.

Once again, it is easy to conflate the two systems.

It is quite another to actually demonstrate real, substantial, links that would prove that South Africa's system was "modeled" on Canada's.

Provide links to real historians showing real research and clear links between the systems that do not arise from a shared colonial past and then we are getting somewhere.

[msj]

"Troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."

Don't want to be called a troll? Don't troll.

While I largely agree with you and CC that AW is being a troll here I'm not entirely sure if it is fair to single her out.

The movie does lead to talk of slavery which leads to talk of treatment of indigenous peoples etc....

There is a link however tenuous but I suppose it would also be fair to say that those links are what trolls latch onto in the first place.

Perhaps we should just ignore her then.

[The_Squid]

Comparing the Canadian treatment of natives, as bad as it was, to apartheid is just dumb. You may as well compare it to the holocaust while you are at it. Canada is as bad as the Nazis!! That's always a good debate tactic...

Did you even read the information in the links that were provided by bush_cheney?

I did. And the "proof" are the claims of an activist with no real evidence.

First of all, that's a pretty dismissive attitude, and a rather condescending attitude towards Natives' claims.

These are not natives' claims. They are a native activist's claims. Not every native would make such claims. Don't take one person's unsubstantiated claims and present it as an entire culture's opinion.

I've read enough about both to feel comfortable in my conclusions.

Then you should be able to provide something with a little more substance...

This is a very good article from Radio Canada International's website: CANADA AND SOUTH AFRICA SHARE A DARK PAST....Oppressive system links Canada and South Africa .... http://www.rcinet.ca...lSchoolsAbuses/

Once again, they are the claims of this same activist.

What happened was terrible

Now you are talking about residential schools? Yes, they were terrible.

You can try to put it on the back burner

I didn't know that this was even the topic of discussion! You're jumping around a bit here...

and instead go on about the injustices in the U.S.,

Where did I do that?

Edited November 21, 2012 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

Comparing the Canadian treatment of natives, as bad as it was, to apartheid is just dumb. You may as well compare it to the holocaust while you are at it. Canada is as bad as the Nazis!! That's always a good debate tactic...

The holocaust and apartheid are two very different things, you do realize that, right? But of course it adds drama to bring in the Nazis, as if that has any bearing at all on what I actually said.

First Nations People who lived through Canada's policies feel as if the comparison is legitimate, and your claim that it's "dumb" really does nothing to refute their claims.

I did. And the "proof" are the claims of an activist with no real evidence.

How about refuting the evidence then? You can start with this specific claim: "as late as 1962, the South African ambassador to Canada, W. Dirkseven-Schalwyck, made an extensive tour of reserves in western Canada. [...]" Are you saying that never happened? If so, what are you basing it on? We can move on to the other claims after you address that.

These are not natives' claims. They are a native activist's claims. Not every native would make such claims. Don't take one person's unsubstantiated claims and present it as an entire culture's opinion.

So now you are dismissing their claims by saying that they are "activists?" Martin Luther King was an activist, so does that mean what he said held no bearing? Most people who go up against how the system treats/treated them/their race are activists. Again. There are some very specific claims being made, with dates, names, places being specified.

Then you should be able to provide something with a little more substance...

What I provided does have substance and you haven't been able to refute any of it. All you have done is claim that "activists" somehow don't speak the truth, bring up Nazis, and say the comparison is "dumb."

Now you are talking about residential schools? Yes, they were terrible.

Of course. That's a big part of it all.

I didn't know that this was even the topic of discussion! You're jumping around a bit here...

Discussing how First Nations People were treated by Canadian policy is what's being discussed. Residential Schools are a big part of it. I'm not jumping around at all.

Where did I do that?

Looking back, I see that you didn't. My apologies.

[DogOnPorch]

Don't want to be called a troll? Don't troll.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21876&st=375#entry854661

Troll...lol.

[Black Dog]

http://www.mapleleaf...375#entry854661

Troll...lol.

Joking and trolling aren't the same thing.

Funny too that you never actually answered the question of where Gazans are supposed to go, given that they exist in the world's largest open-air prison.

[DogOnPorch]

Joking and trolling aren't the same thing.

Funny too that you never actually answered the question of where Gazans are supposed to go, given that they exist in the world's largest open-air prison.

I WAS joking. You.....not so sure. But, I'm a big boy. You need not fear the Mods with me.

[msj]

The holocaust and apartheid are two very different things, you do realize that, right? But of course it adds drama to bring in the Nazis, as if that has any bearing at all on what I actually said.

First Nations People who lived through Canada's policies feel as if the comparison is legitimate, and your claim that it's "dumb" really does nothing to refute their claims.

How about refuting the evidence then? You can start with this specific claim: "as late as 1962, the South African ambassador to Canada, W. Dirkseven-Schalwyck, made an extensive tour of reserves in western Canada. [...]" Are you saying that never happened? If so, what are you basing it on? We can move on to the other claims after you address that.

So now you are dismissing their claims by saying that they are "activists?" Martin Luther King was an activist, so does that mean what he said held no bearing? Most people who go up against how the system treats/treated them/their race are activists. Again. There are some very specific claims being made, with dates, names, places being specified.

What I provided does have substance and you haven't been able to refute any of it. All you have done is claim that "activists" somehow don't speak the truth, bring up Nazis, and say the comparison is "dumb."

Of course. That's a big part of it all.

Discussing how First Nations People were treated by Canadian policy is what's being discussed. Residential Schools are a big part of it. I'm not jumping around at all.

All this and you still don't know what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the extent to which the Canadian Indian Reserve system was used as "the model" for South African apartheid. As you stated back in post #44.

Yes, we all can all state some things about how terrible the residential school system and various other parts of the reserve system have been. Many Canadians are very critical of the system (and still are).

One may even be able to find lots of First Nations people who may agree with Thunderbird's opinion.

But that does not make it fact, nor does it lend support to the claim that is being disputed. An opinion is an opinion.

What I want to see is hard evidence to back up your claim that our system was a "model" for apartheid.

This claim does not pass the smell test due to dates (as I have mentioned above) and due to lack of information about the extent that any South African actually spent studying our system and then the amount of time they spent in South Africa to implement.

Just because two systems share similarities does not mean that one was modeled on the other.

As already stated, there is shared colonial history here and people can easily conflate this just as easily as people mix up correlation with causation.

IOW: put up real evidence showing real people doing real studying of our system and then doing real implementation of that system in South Africa.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

As you so far have only produced unsubstantiated opinion, a weak claim as to a visit to Canada in 1962, and other weak links, and then go on this tangent quoted above I have to take back what I said in post #64.

It is entirely fair to single you out as a troll because you are clearly acting like one.

Edited November 21, 2012 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

...It is entirely fair to single you out as a troll because you are clearly acting like one.

Translation: " I disagree with your position so I will label you a troll." Ignore the consistent history of British colonialism in Africa, Americas, Asia, and Australia - New Zealand for indigenous peoples because Canada is special.

Edited November 21, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Black Dog]

Translation: " I disagree with your position so I will label you a troll." Ignore the consistent history of British colonialism in Africa, Americas, Asia, and Australia - New Zealand for indigenous peoples because Canada is special.

Just because two systems share similarities does not mean that one was modeled on the other.

As already stated, there is shared colonial history here and people can easily conflate this just as easily as people mix up correlation with causation.

Oops.

The U.S, of course, still has colonial holdings to this day.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's see....this might be difficult math. Canada's Indian Act dates to 1876, while South Africa's "reserve system" followed later in the next century. The reigning monarchy was pleased either way.

[Black Dog]

Let's see....this might be difficult math. Canada's Indian Act dates to 1876, while South Africa's "reserve system" followed later in the next century. The reigning monarchy was pleased either way.

What specific parts of the Indian Act are we talking about?

[bush_cheney2004]

Following this trail in the most successful nation on earth without any films stating same:

It is said that before South Africa enacted native administration laws it sent officials to Canada to study the reserve system provided for in Canada’s own Indian Act. Canada’s founding document, the British North America Act 1867, gives the Canadian parliament power to make laws about Indians and Indian reserves. Parliament enacted the Indian Act in 1876.

The Indian Act regulates a large number of matters affecting First Nations aboriginals in reserves, like its clones the South African native-administration laws. The Act declares the Aboriginal-affairs minister to be ‘superintendent general’ of Indian affairs in Canada. His department keeps a register of all registered Indians and lists of members of First Nations bands. The minister has power to divide and amalgamate bands whenever he considers it desirable, even if affected band members are in favour. Powers of band councils are specified.

...South Africa has repealed its apartheid laws. Its courts have struck down native-succession rules, as being contrary to the equality clause in the bill of rights. Laws requiring official approval of native transactions with outsiders have been revoked. South Africa’s indigenous communities use the courts to cut down powers of chiefs. Native land laws have been abrogated, though vestiges remain.

In Canada, it is now evident that the Indian Act’s arrangements are not a success.

http://www.freedomwriters.ca/opinion/canada-native-apartheid/