Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Scott Mayers]

[Damn, I see there are 22 pages to catch up on so I apologize if I'm revamping anything discussed.]

Okay looking back a page I see that definition of "genocide" is in question. This word is definitely being used within the phrasal "cultural genocide" for political reasons only. The idea of those adhering to this label is to get the government to admit this so that they can use it further in legal precedence. This phrasal term, however, is rhetorically biased to emote a purposeful disgust against any form of assimilation and so is illegitimately forcing others (through a cultural bullying) to adapt the same view.

I'm not sure how far those supporting our segregationist ideals believe in staying separate. I know that it troubles me that we've redefined the more negative factors of segregation in terms of phony accolades of "diversity" and family ancestry. But it highly discriminates against any other humans that don't belong to established groups and treats those of us who simply have an more recent ancestry of European decent genetically as owning the historical crimes of the political past. In fact, as to the actual peoples who benefited from their direct contribution to other abuses historically, they distribute the weight of blame falsely upon the rest of us and relieves them of their responsibilities. [the catholic Roman and Anglican Churches and the particular established families inherent in Ontario and Quebec.]

Begging that the Prime Minister (and office) adapts the words, "cultural genocide", inappropriately sets the precedence that others want in order for further legal claims. But if this is accepted, it is irreversible should we find trouble with false claims made against government later on this subject.

[Je suis Omar]

[Damn, I see there are 22 pages to catch up on so I apologize if I'm revamping anything discussed.]

Okay looking back a page I see that definition of "genocide" is in question. This word is definitely being used within the phrasal "cultural genocide" for political reasons only. The idea of those adhering to this label is to get the government to admit this so that they can use it further in legal precedence. This phrasal term, however, is rhetorically biased to emote a purposeful disgust against any form of assimilation and so is illegitimately forcing others (through a cultural bullying) to adapt the same view.

The definition of genocide is not at all in question, Scott. It has long been an established one. It matches the genocidal policies carried out by the Canadian government, hence the Canadian people, for at least a century.

Odd that you consider asking people to accept the truth is "cultural bulling", especially when it is weighed against cultural genocide. Do you not see the huge disconnect here?

Begging that the Prime Minister (and office) adapts the words, "cultural genocide", inappropriately sets the precedence that others want in order for further legal claims. But if this is accepted, it is irreversible should we find trouble with false claims made against government later on this subject.

No one is "begging" for anything, least of all to the "PM" who never once showed up to hear what the very group he now leads has wrought.

[Accountability Now]

How old are you?

You are literally hopeless. We're discussing whether the term genocide should be used and now you deflect to another topic of whether the natives would have been better off with their own schooling. At what point will you actually defend your position with plausible, logical replies?

[Scott Mayers]

Principles of Reconciliation

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada believes that in order for Canada

to flourish in the twenty-first century, reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canada must be based on the following principles.

1

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

is the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors

of Canadian society.

Right from the start, I disagree as I see all humans on Earth as "Indigenous". Do I have a 'right' to go to my (multiple) ancestral countries and make claims upon the nature of my inheritance there based on whether I had an ancestor who was there 'first'? North American 'aboriginals' are less aboriginal than the animals evolved to the land. Should we NOT respect the wild aboriginal animals first. And since I have no real inheritance and no genetic relation to the 'first' people who got here, what does that make me born to this same Earth.

Claims of a right to original peoples is in itself a religious belief when we reference claims of ancestry long dead. I don't OWN my great-great-great grandparent's beliefs, claims, or dictates upon future unborn children who must automatically accept perpetuities unnegotiated by them. And for those who question this rationale, if your belief in inheriting things should be held up for benefits, then this should hold true about debts. That is, I question if you believe that if you should be allowed to inherit your parent's fortunes, should you also not accept their misfortunes regardless of your direct responsibility?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

The rules of the legal system can be changed at any time by the democratic majority.

Assuming such changes pass the SCC.

Obviously getting consensus on any change is difficult so the status quo has a lot of power but that does not mean the ability to change the system does not exist.

I'm betting it would effectively exist in this case by governments simply putting off it's resolution - explaining why the battle front will probably move into the streets and our lives in the meantime.

As for your nonsensical ramblings on the Queen: she can be booted out as the head of state at anytime. In fact, the constitution has an explicit provision that says she cannot block an amendment that boots her out.

Good luck with that with the provinces and at the SCC. The First Nations will probably have a really keen interest in being consulted and accommodated wrt booting out the top negotiator for our side too.

[Je suis Omar]

You are literally hopeless. We're discussing whether the term genocide should be used and now you deflect to another topic of whether the natives would have been better off with their own schooling. At what point will you actually defend your position with plausible, logical replies?

I'm at a loss to explain, or even to begin to understand, how "How old are you?" means all that, above.

I'm also wondering from where you gleaned that.

How old are you?

[Accountability Now]

The TRC report and recommendations are the issue under discussion.

There is plenty of evidence of genocidal intent in the statements of policy leaders at the time, and genocide is about intent - ie, the destruction of Aboriginal Peoples and their rights "as such".

The report and recs are huge and thus very hard to discuss.

Perhaps it's more feasible to consider the Principles underlying them:

Principles_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf

Principles of Reconciliation

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada believes that in order for Canada

to flourish in the twenty-first century, reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canada must be based on the following principles.

1

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

is the framework for reconciliation at all levels and across all sectors

of Canadian society.

2

First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, as the original peoples of

this country and as self-determining peoples, have Treaty, consti-

tutional, and human rights that must be recognized and respected.

3

Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires

public truth sharing, apology, and commemoration that acknowl-

edge and redress past harms.

4

Reconciliation requires constructive action on addressing the

ongoing legacies of colonialism that have had destructive impacts

on Aboriginal peoples education, cultures and languages, health,

child welfare, the administration of justice, and economic opportu-

nities and prosperity.

5

Reconciliation must create a more equitable and inclusive society

by closing the gaps in social, health, and economic outcomes that

exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

6

All Canadians, as Treaty peoples, share responsibility for establish-

ing and maintaining mutually respectful relationships.

7

The perspectives and understandings of Aboriginal Elders and

Traditional Knowledge Keepers of the ethics, concepts, and prac-

tices of reconciliation are vital to long-term reconciliation.

8

Supporting Aboriginal peoples cultural revitalization and inte-

grating Indigenous knowledge systems, oral histories, laws, pro-

tocols, and connections to the land into the reconciliation process

are essential.

9

Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust build-

ing, accountability, and transparency, as well as a substantial

investment of resources.

10

Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue,

including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of res-

idential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal rights, as well as the his-

torical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal peoples to

Canadian society.

.

Well done jacee. Another cut and paste job with the intent of deflecting away from anything I actually said in my post.

Do you acknowledge that the only real debate here is the use of the word genocide?

[Accountability Now]

I'm at a loss to explain, or even to begin to understand, how "How old are you?" means all that, above.

I'm also wondering from where you gleaned that.

How old are you?

Instead of asking questions about my age, perhaps you should be asking questions as to why the United Nations has not declared this genocide.

[Accountability Now]

According to the UN as well I'm afraid.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong. Step up and show the citation where the UN has stated its genocide? Until then your peanut gallery comments arent wanted

[jacee]

We learn from History and plan for a better tomorrow - but it applies to both "sides". With over 600 Nations, what culture do you teach?

You leave that up to them. Logically, each Indigenous Nation would teach their own culture and language.

There's a whole lot more to supporting Indigenous cultures than that: Respecting Aboriginal and treaty rights is critical too.

No matter what the Government of the day does, the obstacle of Aboriginal government will exist until these "nations" gain some leadership that puts the archaic Bands and Chief system into some recognizable form. Structural, foundational change is screaming to be made. Can you imagine the power and influence of a single Aboriginal entity of a million of more people? There's so much government and annual resource money available that funding everything from Education to potable water. Speak with one voice - leave no nation behind. It should be this new entity that deals with the Attawaspikats.

Interesting concept ...

You do know that the Band Council system was forced on Indigenous Peoples in the 1920's, sometimes at gunpoint?

It was part of the attempt to destroy their cultures, replacing traditional Chiefs and Clan Mothers with a system more easily controlled by Ottawa.

Canada has a lot to regret - a lot of shame to shoulder, regardless of the context of those times.....but it's long overdue for First Nations to unite and begin to help themselves. I want to see aboriginals succeed and thrive without losing their culture - I'm longing for it - but I've seen not one iota of leadership that would truly unite the 600 Nations. Without leadership and a leader on the Aboriginal side - how can Canadians get behind the changes that have to occur.

The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) is intended to serve the national purposes you address.

Not sure what changes you propose, or why.

.

[Je suis Omar]

Instead of asking questions about my age, perhaps you should be asking questions as to why the United Nations has not declared this genocide.

The issue relating to your age has only come up because of your confusing and highly disjointed posts.

Surrendering gracefully to youth the things of youth does not entail encouraging them in hopeless confusion.

[jacee]

Instead of asking questions about my age, perhaps you should be asking questions as to why the United Nations has not declared this genocide.

You are waving around a ridiculous red herring.

James Anaya had no UN mandate to do that, nor would the UN interfere with an ongoing Truth Commission in that way.

.

[Michael Hardner]

The issue relating to your age has only come up because of your confusing and highly disjointed posts.

It shouldn't "come up". It's irrelevant.

[Accountability Now]

The issue relating to your age has only come up because of your confusing and highly disjointed posts.

Surrendering gracefully to youth the things of youth does not entail encouraging them in hopeless confusion.

No confusion here. Just waiting for you to present some sort of clear argument showing it was genocide instead of your constant deflection and outright avoidance

[Accountability Now]

You are waving around a ridiculous red herring.

James Anaya had no UN mandate to do that, nor would the UN interfere with an ongoing Truth Commission in that way.

.

You're saying the UN wouldn't intervene if they actually thought it was genocide. That is rich considering they intervene on everything else.

[jacee]

Well done jacee. Another cut and paste job with the intent of deflecting away from anything I actually said in my post.

Do you acknowledge that the only real debate here is the use of the word genocide?

I'm OK with the word genocide. I've moved on to looking at the Principles of reconciliation.

Perhaps we can find some common ground for constructive progress there.

You do agree that constructive progress is an appropriate goal?

.

[Je suis Omar]

Well done jacee. Another cut and paste job with the intent of deflecting away from anything I actually said in my post.

Do you acknowledge that the only real debate here is the use of the word genocide?

What do you have against Jacee posting the actual issues that Canadians have to address to help rectify this century long genocide.

You actually haven't said anything in so many posts now that it is futile for you to even consider these as posts.

[Je suis Omar]

It shouldn't "come up". It's irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, Michael. Youth are often confused about such things. That's why there are such things as schools, colleges, ... .

[Accountability Now]

I'm OK with the word genocide. I've moved on to looking at the Principles of reconciliation.

Perhaps we can find some common ground for constructive progress there.

You do agree that constructive progress is an appropriate goal?

.

Constructive progress is only accomplished when false narrative such as using the word genocide is not done. After its removal I would be all for it

[jacee]

You're saying the UN wouldn't intervene if they actually thought it was genocide. That is rich considering they intervene on everything else.

I am saying that isn't James Anaya's job.

And I said before that if Indigenous Peoples are not satisfied with the justice they receive from Canada, they are still free to take a lawsuit to the International court that does have a mandate to make legal judgements about genocide.

Now move on.

Take a look at the 10 Principles of Reconciliation: Which do you agree with? Have trouble with?

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Youth are often confused about such things. ... .

So what if it IS a young person ? You either debate their points or not - their background is irrelevant. Please don't pursue this, it's just a veiled insult.

[Scott Mayers]

The definition of genocide is not at all in question, Scott. It has long been an established one. It matches the genocidal policies carried out by the Canadian government, hence the Canadian people, for at least a century.

Odd that you consider asking people to accept the truth is "cultural bulling", especially when it is weighed against cultural genocide. Do you not see the huge disconnect here?

No one is "begging" for anything, least of all to the "PM" who never once showed up to hear what the very group he now leads has wrought.

It is so in question as I and others are doing so here. To declare we use such a clear rhetorically biased term begs the question of its justice in a neutral way. Governments cannot nor should speak using language loaded with emotional indication of preferential biases if one does not want to set a permanent precedence. By accepting such derogatory terms and the claims they imply, it fixates our view to some set of beliefs based solely on emotions and NOT the facts, if there even is any.

You who command this group-speak IS bullying as you assert us as naturally already believing in the faults of the Residential Schools when WE as a pubic are NOT even privileged to see ANY evidence of the multitude of supposed abuses being claimed. Note that if such judgments are done in closed doors no matter who or why it is being used to 'protect' victims, etc, it is still UNPROVEN to the rest of us and should NOT be used to accept such authorities rights to declare official 'truths' on the matter.

What does, "6 thousand children died in Residential Schools," mean? By simply claiming this, as an example of such crap rhetoric, is clear innuendo that actually communicates: "6 thousand children were murdered by scrupulous means through hatred and genocidal intents." This has NOT been proven.

The truth is that this whole thing is a smoke-screen to hide those actually culpable (where true) and for others to take advantage of any benefits that can be endured by continuing in this. Governments siding with this can easily use such debts (reconciliation expenses) to hide (launder) or excuse moneys being used inappropriately later on and is why most parties would accept it regardless of any untrue claims; The particular natives who went to these schools (even without ANY abuses) can use this to receive financial claims. When the incentives to gain on these political claims against moral conduct of the past without adequate evidence benefit many groups both in government and in the public, this sets and even worse precedence than addressing any supposed injustice it is meant to relieve.

[Je suis Omar]

You're saying the UN wouldn't intervene if they actually thought it was genocide. That is rich considering they intervene on everything else.

This illustrates a lack of knowledge as regards history.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Accountability Now]

What do you have against Jacee posting the actual issues that Canadians have to address to help rectify this century long genocide.

You actually haven't said anything in so many posts now that it is futile for you to even consider these as posts.

The way this works Omar is that you respond to what is said in people's posts not some random narrative. You do the exact same thing....it's called deflection and it happens when you don't want to answer the question because you know it will show the weakness in your argument.

She can post anything she wants but it is common courtesy to reply to posts with answers and conversations about the post.

[Accountability Now]

That is, to be generous, naive.

Coming from you I take no offense. You have shown a lack of logic in your posts and an inability to carry an argument. This post is no different