Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[jacee]

That makes no sense because "genocide" implies that the end (the replacement of one culture by another) is wrong. But the end is not wrong - just the means.

Destruction of the legal existence and rights of cultures of people is wrong if it is not voluntary.

They can surrender their rights voluntarily, but their rights cannot be taken away.

.

[cybercoma]

I'm actually just agreeing that most of the TRC isn't truthful.

Care to back that claim up with any kind of official sources or information? Or is that just your feeling that "indians" are a bunch of liars?

[TimG]

If it's coersive, then it's forced. If it's forced, then it's genocide.

It makes no sense. One cannot claim an objective is fine if voluntary but call it "genocide" if it is not. It is an absurd abuse of the language that is only used for propaganda purposes.

By the way, genocide is a neutral term. Whether one considers it to be immmoral or not is a separate matter.

Geocide is NOT a neutral term - it conveys images of the nazi extermination camps. That is why people who are more interested in propaganda than communication and accuracy are so keen to use the word. Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

The parts reliant on human memory.

Well I guess you just threw out most of the justice system.

I would say in your case it's the reasoning part that is invalid.

But what is your point?

No children were abused, neglected or died in the 'Indian' Residential Schools?

They are all making it up?

Is that what you meant by

'most of the TRC is not the truth'?

.

Edited July 11, 2015 by jacee

[Second-class Canadian]

It makes no sense. One cannot claim an objective is fine if voluntary but call it "genocide" if it is not. It is an absurd abuse of the language that is only used for propaganda purposes. Geocide is NOT a neutral term - it conveys images of the nazi extermination camps. That is why people who are more interested in propaganda than communication and accuracy are so keen to use the word.

I don't use the term genocide for emotional effect, but to call something what it is. Eating apples is healthy, but its being healthy does not make sticking a tube down someone's throat to force him to eat apple puree desirable. And that's not even a good example since we can legitimately question the value of assimilation itself.

[TimG]

I don't use the term genocide for emotional effect, but to call something what it is. Eating apples is healthy, but its being healthy does not make sticking a tube down someone's throat to force him to eat apple puree desirable. And that's not even a good example since we can legitimately question the value of assimilation itself.

Let's put it another way: the phrase "coercive assimilation" describes a means to an objective. The word "genocide" describes an objective. The former is like "driving a car to get to a store" the latter is like "going to store". They describe two very distinct ideas and are not interchangeable.

You could argue that assimilation is always bad but you would find very very few people that agree with you.

You also cannot separate a word from its association. People keen to use the word genocide are only using it because of the association with the WW2 holocaust. If it did not have that association they would not have used it.

Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

It makes no sense. One cannot claim an objective is fine if voluntary but call it "genocide" if it is not. It is an absurd abuse of the language that is only used for propaganda purposes.

Let's but it another way: the phrase "coercive assimilation" describes a means to an objective. The word "genocide" describes an objective. The former is like "driving a car to get to a store" the latter is like "going to store". They describe two very distinct ideas and are not interchangeable.

In your analogy, genocide is more like being run over by someone driving to the store. :/

Geocide is NOT a neutral term - it conveys images of the nazi extermination camps. That is why people who are more interested in propaganda than communication and accuracy are so keen to use the word.

No actually as cybercoma pointed out, 80% of Canadians agree that Canada committed "cultural genocide".

The communication was very clear and there is widespread agreement among Canadians.

Your pretzel logic is amusing ... but irrelevant.

.

Edited July 11, 2015 by jacee

[Second-class Canadian]

The fact that many Canadians agree is irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy. I don't subscribe to the democratization of knowledge. I believe that it was an act of genocide based on the facts of the matter and not because most Canadians agree with me.

[Second-class Canadian]

As for voluntary assimilation, it can be a good thing, but not always. In our ever shrinking world, integration is usually preferable to assimilation so as to allow Canadians to maintain business and other beneficial ties abroad.

[On Guard for Thee]

The fact that many Canadians agree is irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy. I don't subscribe to the democratization of knowledge. I believe that it was an act of genocide based on the facts of the matter and not because most Canadians agree with me.

It seems to not matter how often Tim gets shown the error of his ways on this topic, he still flogs the same old, long dead horse. Ad nauseum.

[TimG]

I believe that it was an act of genocide based on the facts of the matter and not because most Canadians agree with me.

A position that is completely nonsensical if you look at the meaning of the words. The only reason you like that word is because it re-enforces your pre-existing beliefs so you are willing to ignore the fact that it is nonsensical. The one survey of Canadians on this particular topic likely indicates that people did not put much thought into the question and are just repeating what they are told in the media.

I am also willing to bet that a large majority of Canadians would say that voluntary assimilation is a good thing and that the only thing wrong with government policy on natives was the coercive means - not the objective itself. More importantly: if they were asked about genocide after being asked questions about voluntary assimilation I bet the number of people supporting the term would drop significantly.

Edited July 12, 2015 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

It seems to not matter how often Tim gets shown the error of his ways on this topic, he still flogs the same old, long dead horse. Ad nauseum.

Nothing dead about that horse......when you use the word "genocide" for anything less that the intentional killing of a "people", you do an injustice to all those who fell victim to such atrocities through too many years.

[Second-class Canadian]

So an official government policy of separating children from their families to put them in residential schoold in which they are prohibited by force to speak their languages does not amount to cultural genocide?

[Smallc]

So an official government policy of separating children from their families

Only to return them when school wasn't in session.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nothing dead about that horse......when you use the word "genocide" for anything less that the intentional killing of a "people", you do an injustice to all those who fell victim to such atrocities through too many years.

Not according to international law. Killing is only the most severe form of genocide.

[Second-class Canadian]

“In order to educate the children properly we must separate them from their families. Some people may say that this is hard but if we want to civilize them we must do that.”

Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works under John A. MacDonald

[Second-class Canadian]

"When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men."

John A. MacDonald

[TimG]

So an official government policy of separating children from their families to put them in residential schoold in which they are prohibited by force to speak their languages does not amount to cultural genocide?

Only a minority of natives attended these schools (<30%). The majority attended day schools like everyone else.

[Second-class Canadian]

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in the residential schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian Problem."

Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs

[Second-class Canadian]

Not according to international law. Killing is only the most severe form of genocide.

Actually there is no international legal definition of cultural genocide because Canada among other countries had opposed its inclusion. That said, the definition of genie was worded broadly enough to arguably be able to accommodate cultural genocide. Going by the proposed definition of the time though, it was a deliberate act of cultural genocide.

[Second-class Canadian]

Only a minority of natives attended these schools (<30%). The majority attended day schools like everyone else.

Only because of a lack of funding. And even those in day school suffered active suppression of their languages too.

[Second-class Canadian]

Only to return them when school wasn't in session.

Some did not return in the summer month, being kept to work on the school farm instead to produce food for the following year.

[TimG]

Only because of a lack of funding. And even those in day school suffered active suppression of their languages too.

Now you are making crap up. Residential schools were only used when a day school was not practical. As for active suppression of languages: it happened to everyone. My mother encountered abuse for speaking her mother tongue at school in MB. Edited July 12, 2015 by TimG

[Second-class Canadian]

"Recommendations made in this report followed the examinations of hundreds of children; but owing to the active opposition of Mr. D.C. Scott, and his advice to the then Deputy Minister, no action was taken by the Department to give effect to the recommendations made."

Dr. P.H. Bryce, A National Crime, 1920

[Second-class Canadian]

Now you are making crap up. Residential schools were only used when a day school was not practical. As for active suppression of languages: it happened to everyone. My mother encountered abuse for speaking her mother tongue at school in MB.

“In order to educate the children properly we must separate them from their families. Some people may say that this is hard but if we want to civilize them we must do that.”

Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works under John A. MacDonald

Yes, other linguistic communities suffered too, bUT nothing compared to those who went to residential schools.