Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Extermination means dead bodies. So does genocide. Cultural extinguishment would be a far superior term for what we mean by destroying culture.

Also, forced sterilization is not like those other things at all. Forced sterilization is definitely treading on genocide territory. As in, not merely awful, but actually completely effed up. An assimilated person can still have children and their children can have children and so on. Apparently being assimilated makes them worth less as human beings, at least one could easily draw that conclusion from the way activists talk about these things, but their lot is orders of magnitude better than those than have forcibly sterilized.

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

4 out of every 100 children died at those schools, what was the death rate outside of them? even if it was 0 out of 100, which at that time was very unlikely, it would still be a very poor attempt at extermination.

And the VAST majority of these deaths resulted from tuberculosis which was a highly infectious disease that accounted for many deaths worldwide.

Posted

You are one of the most dishonest people i have ever come across, you're right, the Germans didn't quite manage to get it done, they only murdered several million Jews, while in Canada children died while in the custody of the church and the government, and that was wrong, but at no time did anyone attempt to murder all native people, or even attempt to systematically murder the children that went to those schools. 4 out of every 100 children died at those schools, what was the death rate outside of them? even if it was 0 out of 100, which at that time was very unlikely, it would still be a very poor attempt at extermination.

They've just barely begun counting how many children died.

.

Posted (edited)

Let me guess...it will soon be 100% of the children died from residential schools even though only 30% went?

Apparently math is not your strong suit. Of course 100% of the kids in residential school didnt die. But it is reported about 6000 of them did. Is that more understandable for you rather than those complicated percentage calculations...

Edited by On Guard for Thee
Posted

They've just barely begun counting how many children died.

.

O surely, and im sure that the number will quickly climb from 4 out of 100 to 100 out of 100, which in the case of children kept captive by people with the intent to exterminate is something you might expect, or, your narrative is complete and utter nonsense as it almost always is. Canada intended to exterminate native people, starting with their children, took all of them into custody, while only actually getting a third of them, and tried to kill them all, while only killing 4 out of every 100. The worst part about this is how wrong it was without it needing to be turned into a holocaust-genocide equivalent.

Posted (edited)

Let me guess...it will soon be 100% of the children died from residential schools even though only 30% went?

Estimates are 25-50%, based on last available data in 1907. The feds stopped collecting info about deaths after that ... because the high death rates were in accordance with government policy. (See DC Scott cited earlier.)

Your estimates of enrolments were interesting, and pretty much the same as mine.

So the number of children who died will likely be eventually found to be far more than anyone can imagine now.

.

Edited by jacee
Posted

Your estimates of enrolments were interesting, and pretty much the same as mine.

.

No....no.....you were adamant that attendance was mandatory which means all kids went through when the reality is only 30% went through

Posted

No, it isnt genocide. It is more than wrong enough without you diminishing the meaning of that word.

You also don't understand how language works, Poochy. Murder is murder whether you have one or ten.

But your, not just you, biggest mistake is how y'all are ignoring the wider implications of what genocide actually encompasses.

Posted

No....no.....you were adamant that attendance was mandatory which means all kids went through when the reality is only 30% went through

I based my estimates on enrolment reported by the church:

Anglican (25% of the schools) 100,000 enroled

United (10% of the schools) no report

Catholic (65% of the schools) no report

So somewhere north of 300,000.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,896
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    postuploader
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User earned a badge
      One Year In
    • josej earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • josej earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...