Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[On Guard for Thee]

You know you're boring me, right?

With the type of ridiculous statements you keep coming up with, I don't doubt that a bit. Such as, well if other churches committed sex crimes, then we should simply forget about what the residential schools did. Oh my.

[TimG]

Then stop arguing about whether this fits the definition of genocide, discuss the issue and what is to be done about the damage it caused. Unless you just enjoy calling people names.

Unfortunately, the "truth and reconciliation" commission choose to engage in a propaganda exercise instead of focusing on the damage caused. It is unfortunate that they choose to use that term because it leaves people wonder what else in their report has been exaggerated and/or fabricated to better support the narrative that they clearly want to push. A commission that actually cared about "truth and reconciliation" would have adopted less divisive language.

Here is a good counter argument that SHOULD have been part of the official report (assuming, of course, that truth and reconciliation was the purpose of the report):

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clifton-rubenstein-debunking-the-half-truths-and-exaggerations-in-the-truth-and-reconciliation-report

Edited June 3, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

With the type of ridiculous statements you keep coming up with, I don't doubt that a bit. Such as, well if other churches committed sex crimes, then we should simply forget about what the residential schools did. Oh my.

I'm saying that children had no rights back then. Physical violence against them was considered good parenting. A kid who acted up at a boarding school or an orphanage got the crap beaten out of him. And it didn't take much provocation either. So if you were a sadistic sob and wanted to hurt kids there was no better place to be than a school of some kind, especially where the kid is away from home, even more especially if the kid has no home or no parents who can complain. Prince Charles often talks about what a nightmare he had at his Scottish boarding school, where deprivation was considered a good thing to 'toughen up' young boys. He called it Colditz with kilts. Older boys and masters did pretty much whatever cruelty they felt like to the younger ones. And that was the future king of England's school! If that was so horrible imagine what cheaper boarding schools for poor kids were like!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/12/child-abuse-at-prince-charles-former-school-scotland

So when you judge these schools in Canada you have to judge them based on the times, and not on our standards today. And that's not what's happening. I'm sure if some native testified he'd been tossed into a cage naked and left under a cold water shower everyone would be aghast. But that happened to freaking Prince Charles! Where is his truth and reconciliation commission?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

Unfortunately, the "truth and reconciliation" commission choose to engage in a propaganda exercise instead of focusing on the damage caused. It is unfortunate that they choose to use that term because it leaves people wonder what else in their report has been exaggerated and/or fabricated to better support the narrative that they clearly want to push. A commission that actually cared about "truth and reconciliation" would have adopted less divisive language.

Here is a good counter argument that SHOULD have been part of the official report(assuming, of course, that truth and reconciliation was the purpose):

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clifton-rubenstein-debunking-the-half-truths-and-exaggerations-in-the-truth-and-reconciliation-report

Or it could be that the language is totally accurate. What exactly would you call snatching kids from their homes and then forcing them to accept the perps whacky idea of religion, stopping them from speaking their native language, and sometimes forcing them to bend over the desk...

[Je suis Omar]

Then stop arguing about whether this fits the definition of genocide, discuss the issue and what is to be done about the damage it caused. Unless you just enjoy calling people names.

Jaysus, Wilber, tell the others to stop trying to obfuscate the issue! The issue is genocide as defined by international law.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm saying that children had no rights back then. Physical violence against them was considered good parenting. A kid who acted up at a boarding school or an orphanage got the crap beaten out of him. And it didn't take much provocation either. So if you were a sadistic sob and wanted to hurt kids there was no better place to be than a school of some kind, especially where the kid is away from home, even more especially if the kid has no home or no parents who can complain. Prince Charles often talks about what a nightmare he had at his Scottish boarding school, where deprivation was considered a good thing to 'toughen up' young boys. He called it Colditz with kilts. Older boys and masters did pretty much whatever cruelty they felt like to the younger ones. And that was the future king of England's school! If that was so horrible imagine what cheaper boarding schools for poor kids were like!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/12/child-abuse-at-prince-charles-former-school-scotland

So when you judge these schools in Canada you have to judge them based on the times, and not on our standards today. And that's not what's happening.

Is that just another desperate attempt to try and justify something....

[Je suis Omar]

Unfortunately, the "truth and reconciliation" commission choose to engage in a propaganda exercise instead of focusing on the damage caused. It is unfortunate that they choose to use that term because it leaves people wonder what else in their report has been exaggerated and/or fabricated to better support the narrative that they clearly want to push. commission that actually cared about "truth and reconciliation" would have adopted less divisive language

rl]

Tim, for dog's sakes, you have to look at the accepted definition of "that term" that you can't even bring yourself to voice.

And you have the gall to accuse others of fabricating, of creating a false narrative.

Un******believable!

[TimG]

Or it could be that the language is totally accurate. What exactly would you call snatching kids from their homes and then forcing them to accept the perps whacky idea of religion, stopping them from speaking their native language, and sometimes forcing them to bend over the desk...

The name of the report is "truth and reconciliation" - not "shame and accuse". The title of the report should have required the use of language that reports the facts in ways that are are going to lead to a constructive conversation about what happened. We did not get that. We got a multi-million dollar propaganda piece that makes no attempt to reconcile. The over the top language makes me wonder how much of the report is pure fiction. Edited June 3, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Unfortunately, the "truth and reconciliation" commission choose to engage in a propaganda exercise instead of focusing on the damage caused. It is unfortunate that they choose to use that term because it leaves people wonder what else in their report has been exaggerated and/or fabricated to better support the narrative that they clearly want to push. A commission that actually cared about "truth and reconciliation" would have adopted less divisive language.

Here is a good counter argument that SHOULD have been part of the official report (assuming, of course, that truth and reconciliation was the purpose of the report):

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/clifton-rubenstein-debunking-the-half-truths-and-exaggerations-in-the-truth-and-reconciliation-report

Ah yes ... There can only ever be one genocide in the world ...

:/

What a load of crap.

And this ...

Was this an ethnocentric goal? Absolutely. So was the goal of educating the children of the millions of disadvantaged immigrants who came from all over the world during the same period, resulting in the same acculturation ­spuriously called cultural genocide that has occurred around the world since the origin of human beings.

Another load of crap:

You come to another land ... BY CHOICE.

Different scenario than having another culture FORCED on you and being FORCED to give up your own culture and LAND RIGHTS.

Don't ever forget: Canada's genocide is ALL ABOUT THE LAND.

.

[Smallc]

What makes you think its not real...

The fact that it isn't genocide, for one.

[jacee]

Tim, for dog's sakes, you have to look at the accepted definition of "that term" that you can't even bring yourself to voice.

And you have the gall to accuse others of fabricating, of creating a false narrative.

Un******believable!

Tim, Argus and AccNow don't generally need any information to make up their minds.

Not worth my time.

I just correct their errors in information for the benefit of others reading here.

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Sometimes its like teaching frikkin public school. The term was coined as far back as 1944. Not yesterday.

It's true, though, that the UN doesn't have a special category for "cultural" genocide: because committing acts with "intent to destroy" a culture ... is genocide.

Some churches have been using the term "cultural genocide" for some years. It makes it more palatable to their congregations I guess.

And to most Canadians, I suppose.

But Tim is right ... "cultural genocide" is a made in Canada term not used elsewhere.

It's kind of a weasel word.

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[poochy]

Sometimes its like teaching frikkin public school. The term was coined as far back as 1944. Not yesterday.

Can you post anything without twisting the facts? The word genocide was coined in 1944 to describe the holocaust, GENE OCIDE, in other words the deliberate killing off of a genetic line. Culture doesn't have genes, and even if that was the case, no attempt was ever made to systematically kill off our native population. Now, i fully believe you know this, but on a forum where any left leaning nonsense is protected it's no wonder you feel free to lie about it. Not even to mention that since what happened here to those children is so far removed from what happened to the people who were killed in the holocaust you might as well be urinating on the graves of holocaust victims when you use it to describe the residential school system.

There is a continual effort by some to use the word genocide to describe any number of situations that the word was clearly not intended to describe, i wonder if that is simply ignorance, or an effort to make the word so commonplace as to diminish the event it was first used to describe, when i read some of the absolute nonsense written by some posters here i have no doubt that for at least some the latter applies.

I have no doubt there are other words that could be used to describe this situation, or invent one. While were at that, maybe we could talk about the death rate of aboriginal children outside of residential schools, not all of them went, and of those that did, not all were forced, or the death rate for the general population, maybe we can find even more 'genocides', since it seems we can use the word to describe almost anything and were all so interested in the truth. Perhaps we should have a chat about why our current Inuit population was not the original inhabitant of our arctic, we might want to ask them why they actually eradicated the people who first lived there. Although, there is no one left to apologize to, and after all, the current Inuit population only, 'displaced' the Dorset Inuit, which is a nice way of saying genocide.

[Argus]

Is that just another desperate attempt to try and justify something....

Justify? No. I"m providing context most of you don't seem to understand. You're reading the tales of abuse as a horrible attack on natives by evil White society, but in reality, that's just the way a lot of schools were back then.

[dre]

The fact that it isn't genocide, for one.

I dunno... I had a quick look around and theres at least a decent ammount of recognition for the defintion (both legal and otherwise) of genocide that includes attempts to extinguish a culture - especially by forcefully removing children from their parents.

But overall I wish the vocabulary we all used was more precise. Rape can mean anything from consensual sex with someone under an arbitrary age to the use of violent sexual force... Terrorism can mean blowing up a school full of kids, to attacking members of an invading army. Facism can mean just about ANYTHING bad.

Seems like it would just make sense to agree that "cultural genocide" and "genocide" are both real terms... that mean different things.

[poochy]

It's true, though, that the UN doesn't have a special category for "cultural" genocide: because committing acts with "intent to destroy" a culture ... is genocide.

Some churches have been using the term "cultural genocide" for some years. It makes it more palatable to their congregations I guess.

And to most Canadians, I suppose.

.

I can decide the word murder also applies to a bad beating, but no one in their right mind should believe it, the word had a specific meaning, invented to describe a specific event, it should only apply to those types of events, it doesn't mean what you want it to, no matter how much you or any other person tries to change it, you are wrong, the UN is wrong, culture does not have genes, and there was never an attempt to kill off our native population, never ever ever ever ever ever. Use another word.

[poochy]

I dunno... I had a quick look around and theres at least a decent ammount of recognition for the defintion (both legal and otherwise) of genocide that includes attempts to extinguish a culture - especially by forcefully removing children from their parents.

But overall I wish the vocabulary we all used was more precise. Rape can mean anything from consensual sex with someone under an arbitrary age to the use of violent sexual force... Terrorism can mean blowing up a school full of kids, to attacking members of an invading army. Facism can mean just about ANYTHING bad.

Seems like it would just make sense to agree that "cultural genocide" and "genocide" are both real terms... that mean different things.

Rape can mean any of those things because over time the definition has been changed by people with an agenda, and not all of the definitions should apply, you would think that a word used to describe one of the most horrid events in our history could be left with out being changed by people with a different agenda. Genocide describe the extermination of a genetic line, nothing else.

[Je suis Omar]

Can you post anything without twisting the facts? The word genocide was coined in 1944 to describe the holocaust, GENE OCIDE, in other words the deliberate killing off of a genetic line. Culture doesn't have genes,

Good dog!!! The "Can you post anything without twisting the facts?" is especially good.

This is a list of scholarly and international legal definitions of genocide,[1] a word coined with genos (Greek: birth, kind, race) and an English suffix -cide by Raphael Lemkin in 1944.[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[dre]

I can decide the word murder also applies to a bad beating, but no one in their right mind should believe it, the word had a specific meaning, invented to describe a specific event, it should only apply to those types of events, it doesn't mean what you want it to, no matter how much you or any other person tries to change it, you are wrong, the UN is wrong, culture does not have genes, and there was never an attempt to kill off our native population, never ever ever ever ever ever. Use another word.

It's true, though, that the UN doesn't have a special category for "cultural" genocide: because committing acts with "intent to destroy" a culture ... is genocide.

Some churches have been using the term "cultural genocide" for some years. It makes it more palatable to their congregations I guess.

And to most Canadians, I suppose.

But Tim is right ... "cultural genocide" is a made in Canada term not used elsewhere.

It's kind of a weasel word.

.

Yeah, normally words suffixed with "cide" involve the actual "death" of something...

A

• aborticide
• acaricide
• algicide
• amebicide
• amicicide
• aphidicide
• apricide
• arachnicide
• arborcide
• arboricide
• auto-ethnocide
• autocide
• avicide
• avunculicide

B

• bacillicide
• bactericide
• biocide

C

• chronocide
• computercide
• copicide
• culturcide
• cytocide

D

• deicide
• democide
• dominicide

E

• ecocide
• endectocide
• episcopicide
• ethnocide

F

• familicide
• felicide
• feticide
• filicide
• foeticide
• formicide
• fratricide
• fungicide

G

• gendercide
• genericide
• genocide
• geriatricide
• germicide
• giganticide
• gynecide
• gynocide

H

• hepcidin
• herbicide
• homicide
• hospiticide

I

• infanticide
• insecticide

J

• Judeocide

L

• larvacide
• larvicide
• liberticide
• licecide

M

• magistricide
• mariticide
• matricide
• memocide
• microbicide
• mildewcide
• molluscicide
• mosquitocide
• multicide
• municide

N

• nematicide
• nematocide
• nepoticide
• niggercide

O

• omnicide

P

• parasiticide
• parricide
• patricide
• pesticide
• politicide
• populicide
• prolicide
• pseudocide

R

• regicide
• rodenticide

S

• scabicide
• siblicide
• sororicide
• spermicide
• suicide

T

• taeniacide
• taenicide
• technocide
• terracide
• trypanocide
• tsaricide
• tyrannicide

U

• uxoricide

V

• vaticide
• vermicide
• viricide
• vulpicide

X

• xenocide

Z

• zoocide

But people play fast and loose with terms when they are looking to invoke an emotional response, and we end up with all these nearly universal epithets.

[jacee]

I can decide the word murder also applies to a bad beating, but no one in their right mind should believe it, the word had a specific meaning, invented to describe a specific event, it should only apply to those types of events, it doesn't mean what you want it to, no matter how much you or any other person tries to change it, you are wrong, the UN is wrong, culture does not have genes, and there was never an attempt to kill off our native population, never ever ever ever ever ever. Use another word.

FYI

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide is not an "event".

It can go on for many years ... centuries even.

The key element is "with intent to destroy ..."

How many of the acts of genocide did Canada commit?

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[poochy]

Good dog!!!

Do you have something to say troll?

"It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves"

He invented the word, this is his definition, this is THE definition, this did not happen here, nor was it ever attempted.

[jacee]

Rape can mean any of those things because over time the definition has been changed by people with an agenda, and not all of the definitions should apply, you would think that a word used to describe one of the most horrid events in our history could be left with out being changed by people with a different agenda. Genocide describe the extermination of a genetic line, nothing else.

I think you mean intent to exterminate ...

.

[poochy]

FYI

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide is not an "event".

It can go on for many years ... centuries even.

The key element is "with intent to destroy ..."

How many of the acts of genocide did Canada commit?

.

"It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves"

Original definition, from the man who invented it, i dont care how you are anyone else wants to change the word, what happened here was nothing like the holocaust and therefore the word invented to describe the holocaust does not apply. You are diminishing the significance of the original event that inspired the word by using it to describe this situation, not that you could care less.

[dre]

Do you have something to say troll?

"It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves"

He invented the word, this is his definition, this is THE definition, this did not happen here, nor was it ever attempted.

Lemkin did not only include physical death in his definition though. You intentionally C&Ped only part of how he defined the terms.

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

He says it could include a bunch of other things AND EVEN death. Not that it must include death.

Original definition, from the man who invented it, i dont care how you are anyone else wants to change the word, what happened here was nothing like the holocaust and therefore the word invented to describe the holocaust does not apply. You are diminishing the significance of the original event that inspired the word by using it to describe this situation, not that you could care less.

Stop lying... you posted one small piece of the "origional definition" and intentionally left out the rest, which clearly makes reference to actions with the objective of targetting culture, language, religion, health, or economic health of a certain group.

Edited June 3, 2015 by dre

[poochy]

I think you mean intent to exterminate ...

.

Yep, just keep making things up, it's what you seem to be best at. Its amazing how bad were were at this intent to exterminate, what with only 4 out of every 100 children dying at residential schools, you would think that the evil catholic church and it's colonialist co conspirators would have been more efficient.