Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[jacee]

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

We have no control over that, and you are just using that as a convenient way to try to block any constructive discussion of ways of moving forward.

.

[jacee]

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.

You are quite free to read the report to try to find the answers to your questions.

The process was quite public.

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

OK...assuming it was "genocide", who is/was responsible ?

Who will be held accountable ?

Where is the Queen/GG in all this ?

[Accountability Now]

We have no control over that, and you are just using that as a convenient way to try to block any constructive discussion of ways of moving forward.

.

Yes 'we' do.....we stop saying it and being a proponent of the idea

[Je suis Omar]

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.

Laughable, approaching an absolute sense.

Recall, if you will, how last evening you, Poochy, et al, avoided the full posting of the legal definitions of genocide. Repeatedly, time after time, again and again, ... .

[Argus]

One of the definitions of genocide is to forcibly take children away from their families, the purpose of which is to exterminate a culture. That was the express purpose of the Canadian government, the churches and society at large.

They didn't take them away from their families. They made them go to school, then sent them home again.

[Scott Mayers]

You are quite free to read the report and testimonies.

.

If this is worthy of investment, you'd think that there would at LEAST be one such case that the media would have already been able to present of an illegitimate action or crime other than innuendos. You don't need to read the Bible in order to determine whether it is written by a God or not, contrary to some who'd like to think otherwise. Likewise, we are not given (or privileged) to have a media report that justifies further reading. (I probably will be investing the time to read it but do NOT represent the average person who wouldn't and yet pass strong judgment in sincere ignorance.)

[Accountability Now]

Laughable, approaching an absolute sense.

Recall, if you will, how last evening you, Poochy, et al, avoided the full posting of the legal definitions of genocide. Repeatedly, time after time, again and again, ... .

Holy F....for the last three days I have asked you every time after you have posted that definition the same question....why has the UN not called it genocide if they believe this example meets their definition. So far I have recieved nothing from you....similar to most of your posts....nothing

[jacee]

If this is worthy of investment, you'd think that there would at LEAST be one such case that the media would have already been able to present of an illegitimate action or crime other than innuendos. You don't need to read the Bible in order to determine whether it is written by a God or not, contrary to some who'd like to think otherwise. Likewise, we are not given (or privileged) to have a media report that justifies further reading. (I probably will be investing the time to read it but do NOT represent the average person who wouldn't and yet pass strong judgment in sincere ignorance.)

Good idea.

[jacee]

Holy F....for the last three days I have asked you every time after you have posted that definition the same question....why has the UN not called it genocide if they believe this example meets their definition. So far I have recieved nothing from you....similar to most of your posts....nothing

You have the answer.

You are just refusing to move forward.

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[Je suis Omar]

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.

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

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[jacee]

Yes 'we' do.....we stop saying it and being a proponent of the idea

You are free to do so ... And move on.

What do you think of the Principles of Reconciliation?

.

[Je suis Omar]

They didn't take them away from their families. They made them go to school, then sent them home again.

Ill-informed pronouncement.

[Accountability Now]

You have the answer.

You are just refusing to move forward.

.

No. No answer has been given just a bunch of deflections

[Argus]

Why is there more interest in talking about the meaning of 'genocide' than talking about what to do with this report moving forward ?

The aim seems to be to try to make White Canadians feel guilty and ashamed. I don't think it serves any useful purpose. The shrill proponents of this tactic seem to feel that if we wallow in guilt enough we'll give natives everything they want, regardless of what that does to the country. None of them have spent an iota of time considering what that is or what it would cost, nor will they ever. Condemning what are by today's standards racist and cruel policies seems to make them feel better about themselves since they get to strut around proclaiming their moral purity and righteousness.

As for the report. It's a waste of time. As one columnist I read this morning (can't find him) said, it has everything in there but the kitchen sink, including demanding more money for the CBC. It doesn't actually even discuss treaties, though. Weird.

A column by Jeffrey Simpson put things fairly well, however, in saying this dwelling again and again on the moral impurities of the past is just going to make 'reconcilation' more difficult, not less difficult.

There is in the picking-over of the residential schools’ history, and the deliberate use of “genocide” to describe the schools and other efforts to assimilate Indians, a demand for expiation of sins that the current generation of non-aboriginal people is unlikely to accept, since they were not responsible, and an encouragement to keep looking backward when what is more urgently needed today is to look forward in forging new relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/fixating-on-the-past-makes-progress-difficult/article24759214/

Edited June 3, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

They didn't take them away from their families. They made them go to school, then sent them home again.

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

The 'Convention on Genocide' was creeping up on Canada through the '50's and the residential schools were coming under scrutiny, so another genocidal strategy was implemented in the '60's ... The infamous 'Sixties Scoop' where thousands of Indigenous children were taken from their families and adopted into white families.

I believe those people are now preparing a similar Class Action suit.

It doesn't leave much doubt as to the government's intent ... in the 1960's.

You think it was different from 1872-1960?

.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

Okay, what do we do with it (beyond what has already been done)

And the discussion at hand (the meaning of words) is important to the discussion of what happened and what to do about it.

Why should we do anything? Again, quoting from the Simpson piece I just cited

The story of these schools is well known, having been described in books, speeches and a long section of a royal commission established by former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s government. Two other governments – those of Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper – offered solemn, formal apologies for the schools, the first at what used to be called the Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, the second in the House of Commons. A long, tangled process paid money to victims of sexual and physical abuse in the schools run by churches and financed by governments that thought, wrongly, that young Indians should be taught in the ways of the white man and in the process become less “Indian.”

[jacee]

No. No answer has been given just a bunch of deflections

You aren't capable of grasping that not every one of the UN's employees has the authority to make a legal judgement on genocide?

Do you ask your auto mechanic to examine your teeth too?

.

[Michael Hardner]

The aim seems to be to try to make White Canadians feel guilty and ashamed.

A column by Jeffrey Simpson put things fairly well, however, in saying this dwelling again and again on the moral impurities of the past is just going to make 'reconcilation' more difficult, not less difficult.

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.

[Argus]

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

Evidently not or they wouldn't still be on the damned reserves.

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for the report. It's a waste of time. As one columnist I read this morning (can't find him) said, it has everything in there but the kitchen sink, including demanding more money for the CBC. It doesn't actually even discuss treaties, though. Weird.

Now that is funny...the CBC didn't do a very good job of reporting on the "genocide" all those decades ago.

[Argus]

Look it up.

.

If you don't know then you can't even guess at whether the rate of deaths at the native schools were out of proportion to those on the reserves.

[On Guard for Thee]

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

Try reading article 7 of the UN declaration. Then get back and tell us how wrong your peanut gallery comments are.

[Accountability Now]

You aren't capable of grasping that not every one of the UN's employees has the authority to make a legal judgement on genocide?

Do you ask your auto mechanic to examine your teeth too?

.

I'm not asking everyone of them....I'm asking if just one of them. These guys are the mechanics of human rights and they have yet to say anything about genocide.

Keep deflecting jacee.

[Accountability Now]

Try reading article 7 of the UN declaration. Then get back and tell us how wrong your peanut gallery comments are.

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.