Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Argus]

And who's idea was to build these schools.

Well, according to TimGs cite the natives wanted to send their kids to be educated. And some of these schools served all rural kids, not just natives.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, according to TimGs cite the natives wanted to send their kids to be educated. And some of these schools served all rural kids, not just natives.

Good point..so it was "genocide" against some "whites" too. What a mess !!

[Argus]

So ... the first principle in moving forward logically would be to support Indigenous cultures and rights.

That's meaningless. Support them how? What cultures should a government "support" and how should it support them?

[Argus]

What you are outright denying, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is the fact that the Canadian policy fits the international definition of genocide.

Actually, no evidence whatsoever.

[Argus]

Don't judge the responses of most Canadians by the people responding in this thread, Omar.

They represent only a small extremist group with specific entrenched prejudices.

.

You mean they have the critical thinking skills you lack?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

While I agree that we are seeing an extremist fringe

Anyone else here think it's freaking hilarious to see these two talking about others as extremists? :lol:

[jacee]

Yes, TimG and I already discussed above. I think the opinion expressed (by TimG ?) said that it almost seemed that the commission wanted to ensure nothing substantive would be done.

Because Canadians will never accept that we committed genocide?

I disagree.

Most have already.

Racists never will, and will always be sidelined as a miniscule minority, thus always frustrated and cranky.

There just happen to be quite a few racists here who still believe that genocide - destruction of Aboriginal rights and assimilation of Aboriginal Peoples - is the best policy and should continue.

And the wailing and gnashing of teeth is friggin hilarious!

But entirely irrelevant to where Canadians go from here.

.

[Argus]

That's probably what people thought when the 1st First Nation started reasserting their rights through our legal system.

Native governments will want to discuss terms of our country's re-constitution with our government. In our case that will be whoever's sitting in Buckingham Palace...a

You know this is so much drool, right?

[Je suis Omar]

Yes, TimG and I already discussed above. I think the opinion expressed (by TimG ?) said that it almost seemed that the commission wanted to ensure nothing substantive would be done.

This is exactly what you did in the 911 thread, Michael. You sail in pretending you are the voice of reason, the man in the middle ready to encircle all in a big hug. To bring things to a warm and fuzzy conclusion with grandfatherly wisdom that no one could possibly mistake.

But, like the 911 thread, you never focus on the actual issues. When there is focus on the actual issues, you seek to derail things.

Don't believe me? Point to where you have discussed the actual legal definition of genocide and where you have related it to actual historical conditions on the ground.

[jacee]

Actually, no evidence whatsoever.

Ya you'd have to actually click a link and read a report.

.

[Scott Mayers]

The folks who are raising this point you raise, Scott, do so with a studious avoidance of the actual language that describes genocide, which clearly describes the numerous actions taken by successive Canadian governments as acts of genocide.

Go read the definitions of genocide for yourself. Then read descriptions from the historical record that show it was a policy of genocide.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31790474/Colonial_Genocide_-_IRS_Chapter_-_D4_January_2013-8.docx?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1433349225&Signature=4ctD4Cug8ACgM4thBbcDpDJJ46U%3D

You can't dictate the definitions as being understood by the people using them. The legal or formal definitions are used to make particular laws and is necessary. As to this political controversy, here we are discussing the meaning(s) and intents of the words being used and so is alright to question the various meanings whether formal or not.

The term "genocide" to most people regardless of any new or specialized legal definition MEANS at least: an attempt to annihilate the gene pool of a particular group of people and understood as a pejorative term referencing mass murder.

Asserting any phrasal term using "genocide" is innuendo because it is purposely intended to associate the listener to presume crimes of the nature of mass murder involving at least one group of people who are hating and criminal perpetrators while the other as perfect victims. So "cultural genecide" is a term intended to make us think of this connection and is therefore an unfair term. A more 'fair' and neutral word might be, "cultural imposition".

Personally, I don't see a crime for natural evolutionary cultural changes. In some cases, even imposing some is normal. As humans we do this to ensure cohesion of common interests and what we use to determine our right to encourage others to adapt our ways and be more communal. It might be nice for us to revive old languages and cultures for us to understand history. But to command that we assure certain people a 'right' to conserve, preserve, or revive ancient traditions and cultures is MORE unfair as it does two things:

(1) It asserts an 'ownership' of a cult, culture, ethnicity, religion, etc, to specific people based on nothing more than genetic inheritance of most recent eras (I have to say this because in actuality, unless some want to propose us as different species, all humans are ancestors...and... I don't see too many fighting for returning rights to Africa!)

(2) It biases those not belonging to such special recognized groups in law to the neglects living in a society that opts to allow others to suffer without the same benefits of the privileged groups without a choice. I can't "choose" to be of some culture genetically determined.

Example, although I have successfully quit smoking, I smoked my whole life and have had to pay the extortionate taxes even though I share the similar background to many native families within my community. Namely, I've mostly been in poverty with all the similar family troubles involved in things like drugs and other abuses. Yet my native comrades don't have to pay taxes on tobacco products on the basis of some ancestral right to smoking. (...because their great grand parents smoked...) My Euro- ancestors drank alcohol likely for even longer than even the aboriginal discovery of the Americas. Yet do we have a right to alcohol without taxes based on this even stronger cultural factor of Europeans?

[Argus]

Ill-informed pronouncement.

True, though.

[Argus]

Did they try to destroy their culture and indoctrinate them by force in another culture?

That isn't the point. You said they took the kids from their families. Yet we have a cite showing the natives demanded education for their kids and wanted to send them to the church schools. We know two thirds were educated locally. We know that non-native kids were at these schools. And we know the children were returned home. So the one thing you've claimed meets your definition of 'cultural genocide' fails utterly.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

You can't dictate the definitions as being understood by the people using them. The legal or formal definitions are used to make particular laws and is necessary. As to this political controversy, here we are discussing the meaning(s) and intents of the words being used and so is alright to question the various meanings whether formal or not.

The term "genocide" to most people regardless of any new or specialized legal definition MEANS at least: an attempt to annihilate the gene pool of a particular group of people and understood as a pejorative term referencing mass murder.

The intent is to destroy them as distinct peoples, remove any rights and identities "as such". Mass murder is only one strategy.

Asserting any phrasal term using "genocide" is innuendo because it is purposely intended to associate the listener to presume crimes of the nature of mass murder involving at least one group of people who are hating and criminal perpetrators while the other as perfect victims. So "cultural genecide" is a term intended to make us think of this connection and is therefore an unfair term. A more 'fair' and neutral word might be, "cultural imposition".

Destroying cultures is about gaining control of their assets and especially removing any distinct rights they may have.

It's about what is taken away - Aboriginal rights - not what is added.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Still waiting on that citation from one person at the UN stating Canada's treatment of residential schools was genocide. Until then your peanut gallery interpretations of their declarations means nothing to me.

Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental

integrity, liberty and security of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom,

peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to

any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly

removing children of the group to another group

[Je suis Omar]

Read about the conditions at the Mushole, the Mohawk Institute.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/TRC/RussMoses.pdf

[On Guard for Thee]

That isn't the point. You said they took the kids from their families. Yet we have a cite showing the natives demanded education for their kids and wanted to send them to the church schools. We know two thirds were educated locally. We know that non-native kids were at these schools. And we know the children were returned home. So the one thing you've claimed meets your definition of 'cultural genocide' fails utterly.

And we know that children who died at theses schools were simply buried in what should have been a playground, and the parents never notified.

[Michael Hardner]

But, like the 911 thread, you never focus on the actual issues. When there is focus on the actual issues, you seek to derail things.

I don't think focussing on the meaning of a word is focusing on 'actual issues'. I want to know what changes are being done, what benefits, and so on.

Don't believe me? Point to where you have discussed the actual legal definition of genocide and where you have related it to actual historical conditions on the ground.

I would rather talk about helping first nations get healthy than talk about history.

[Argus]

Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental

integrity, liberty and security of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom,

peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to

any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly

removing children of the group to another group

ALL individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity (whatever that is) and liberty and security of the person. So? How is this related to anything?

As far as "forcibly removing children from the group to another group' that was never done. The citation has in mind stealing kids and giving them to the families of other ethnicities to raise as their own. In this case we have evidence the natives wanted their kids educated in the White mans' ways, and that two thirds were educated on the reserve while another third, probably the ones in the really tiny, rural reserves, had to go to boarding schools. But then they went home again just like all the white kids who attended such schools.

[Michael Hardner]

Because Canadians will never accept that we committed genocide?

I disagree.

Most have already.

Racists never will, and will always be sidelined as a miniscule minority, thus always frustrated and cranky.

Right - they NEVER will. So why would you waste time trying to convince racists, or even people that you perceive as such?

There just happen to be quite a few racists here who still believe that genocide - destruction of Aboriginal rights and assimilation of Aboriginal Peoples - is the best policy and should continue.

So ? Why concern yourself with such people?

But entirely irrelevant to where Canadians go from here.

.

I agree. I'm going to be writing a message to my MP to ask what she's going to do.

[jacee]

That isn't the point. You said they took the kids from their families. Yet we have a cite showing the natives demanded education for their kids and wanted to send them to the church schools. We know two thirds were educated locally. We know that non-native kids were at these schools. And we know the children were returned home. So the one thing you've claimed meets your definition of 'cultural genocide' fails utterly.

Adding education in another language and culture was agreeable.

Destroying their culture and rights and abusing and damaging or destroying their children was not.

.

[Argus]

And we know that children who died at theses schools were simply buried in what should have been a playground, and the parents never notified.

I'm sure they were at some point. I mean, your kid doesn't come home you're going to ask why. Then again, if you go far back enough, things weren't all that organized, especially in rural Canada. I'm sure there were outrages committed, even by the loose standards of the times. But that is a far cry from genocide. If the government had actually wanted to destroy natives as a people they would have removed all their kids, not one third, and wouldn't have sent them back again.

[Smallc]

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.

You act as if aboriginal people were in perfect harmony in the past, with a perfect system of government...one completely devoid of democracy.

[Je suis Omar]

You can't dictate the definitions as being understood by the people using them. The legal or formal definitions are used to make particular laws and is necessary. As to this political controversy, here we are discussing the meaning(s) and intents of the words being used and so is alright to question the various meanings whether formal or not.

I'm not dictating anything. All I have done, repeatedly, is point to the accepted, legal, international definition of genocide.

[quite]The term "genocide" to most people regardless of any new or specialized legal definition MEANS at least: an attempt to annihilate the gene pool of a particular group of people and understood as a pejorative term referencing mass murder. ".

It's really of no consequence what uninformed people think. Obviously we know that genocide has a pejorative meaning. It retains that pejorative meaning whether genocide is committed by nazis, PolPot, the USA, Canada or any other country or individuals.

[jacee]

I don't think focussing on the meaning of a word is focusing on 'actual issues'. I want to know what changes are being done, what benefits, and so on.I would rather talk about helping first nations get healthy than talk about history.

Agreed.

So what are your thoughts about the Principles of Reconciliation, Michael?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24578-truth-and-reconciliation/?p=1059571

.