jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Stop arguing about the god damn word genocide and start recognizing the victims' stories. This idiotic pedantry completely misses the point of what exactly happened to these people. Genocide or not an atrocity occurred and that much should be recognized. Agreed. Whatever we call it, I think we all understand what was done ... in our name: Our governments attempted to destroy Indigenous Peoples as groups so they wouldn't have to honour the treaties and could gain full control of the land and it's economic benefits. . Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 We didn't fight any wars against Indigenous Peoples in Canada. . Really?? Conflicts along the Okanagan Trail in 1858 in British Columbia were related to the Yakima War in Washington Territory Fraser Canyon War (1858) British Columbia (white irregulars in British territory against the Nlaka'pamux) Lamalcha War (1863) British Columbia (Royal Navy vs Lamalcha people Chilcotin War (1864) British Columbia (White workers against the Tsilhqot'in) Fisherville War (1860s) British Columbia Tobacco Plains War (1860s) British Columbia Rossland War (1860s) British Columbia Red River Rebellion (1869) Nord-Ouest/Rupert's Land Great Sioux War (187677) Wild Horse Creek War (1880s) British Columbia (see Fort Steele) North-West Rebellion (1885) Saskatchewan Territory (Métis people against Canadian forces) Poundmaker's War (1885) Saskatchewan Territory (Canadian army against Cree warriors) Battle of Cut Knife (1885) (Canadian army against Cree and Assiniboine warriors) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_North_America I tried to exclude the ones that happened on US soil even though most of those were still British soldiers fighting the Indigenous. The treaties followed the wars as the natives realized that their best bet to survive. Of course I haven't touched on the brutal battles that First Nations used to have with each other because we all know that they were a peaceful group who only did bad things once the Europeans came Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) I don't see how wanting to include the Native people into the modern ways of our society as being a bad thing or "cultural genocide"? Is it your position that any assimilation is "cultural genocide"?Forced assimilation.People choose to assimilate into other cultures all the time. That's a choice. Forcing Indigenous Peoples to give up their religion, culture and governance in order to take control of their land ... that's an entirely different issue, isn't it? . Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote
Canada_First Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Forced assimilation. People choose to assimilate into other cultures all the time. That's a choice. Forcing Indigenous Peoples into another culture in order to take control of their land ... that's another issue, isn't it? . I don't think anyone's arguing that "Forced assimilation" is/was a good thing. You're losing me on the motive...you're saying it was to "take control of their land". We were already here by the time this came about. We already had control of the land so I'm just not seeing this as the motive. Also I'm not sure that we should be apologizing continuously. We have apologized, let's move on. Nothing more can be gained from this. Are the Native people after money? It seems they are interested in putting a guilt trip on the people of Canada. Why? What purpose is this going to serve? Quote
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Forced assimilation. It was actually quite natural. A stronger group came in and displaced the weaker one in the dominant role. Change or die has been the way of the world for a very long time. Edited June 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Really?? For someone who pretends to know so much about history...she doesn't know all that much about history. Quote
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Stop arguing about the god damn word genocide and start recognizing the victims' stories. This idiotic pedantry completely misses the point of what exactly happened to these people. Genocide or not an atrocity occurred and that much should be recognized. Who has denied that? The problem most people have is in the idea that Canada's aboriginal people were unique in their suffering. It was quite common the world over, and not just with brown people. I provided in this very thread an example of similar evils visited upon white Britons. What happened was, in many cases, terrible (though certainly not in all cases) and that should never be forgotten nor repeated. Now, lets move forward from there. Dwelling on the past is one of the things holding so many aboriginal people back today. Edited June 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 The treaties followed the wars as the natives realized that their best bet to survive.Conflicts occurred, treaties were made.Did our governments keep those treaties? . Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) We also didn't commit genocide. I bet there are many thousands of people, many now deceased of course, who would disagree with you. That would be those that actually were went through the process. Edited June 5, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 I bet there are many thousands of people, many now deceased of course, who would disagree with you. That would be those that actually were went through the process. And there would be many more who wouldn't agree. Okay, so that was a useless point, moving on. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 And there would be many more who wouldn't agree. Okay, so that was a useless point, moving on. As has been already pointed out to you, the useless point here is flailing around trying to understand whether the word genocide should be used. Its in the UN wording and its in the TRC report. So yes, move on. Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 I don't think anyone's arguing that "Forced assimilation" is/was a good thing. You're losing me on the motive...you're saying it was to "take control of their land". We were already here by the time this came about. We already had control of the land so I'm just not seeing this as the motive. Treaties were made to share the land ... and it's revenues.Canada did not fulfill the terms of the treaties. Also I'm not sure that we should be apologizing continuously. We have apologized, let's move on. Nothing more can be gained from this. Are the Native people after money? It seems they are interested in putting a guilt trip on the people of Canada. Why? What purpose is this going to serve? The Truth Commission is reporting it's findings after 6 years of research and testimony on the destruction and damage to children's lives in Canada's 'Indian' Residential Schools. I think we could show some interest and respect. It's often reported that Harper's apology seems to have been hollow as few improvements have followed. More white man's words signifying ... nothing? It is our responsibility to ensure that our governments take appropriate action. Ongoing public education and involvement is important. But you are certainly free to ignore it all if you choose. . Quote
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Treaties were made to share the land ... and it's revenues. That's total historic revisionism. Treaties were made to get aboriginal people out of the way. That was the intent. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 except it isn't. It most assuredly is. Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) That's total historic revisionism. Treaties were made to get aboriginal people out of the way. That was the intent.That intent is denied by the Supreme Court of Canada, which insists that the Crown must be assumed to have acted honourably, and thus treaties and Aboriginal rights must be honoured.Seems to me you can't have it both ways: You can't claim the attempt to destroy Indigenous Peoples as such was the intent, and then claim there was no attempt to destroy Indigenous Peoples. :/ Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 For someone who pretends to know so much about history...she doesn't know all that much about history. That's total historic revisionism. Treaties were made to get aboriginal people out of the way. That was the intent. No kidding. She likes to rewrite history according to her liking. It's sad that there's people out there who believe this Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 That intent is denied by the Supreme Court of Canada, which insists that the Crown must be assumed to have acted honourably :/ You still haven't answered my question about the pending SCC ruling on Metis rights. Scared of something? Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) No kidding. She likes to rewrite history according to her liking. It's sad that there's people out there who believe thisYou have the same problem with your reasoning as smallc. See above.(And your personal attacks betray that you have no legitimate points to make and you know it.) 'Yes we tried to get rid of them.' (via the treaties) 'No we didn't try to get rid of them.' (via the residential schools) So which is it AN? smallc? Did Canada have the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part ..." Indigenous Peoples of Canada? . Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) You still haven't answered my question about the pending SCC ruling on Metis rights. Scared of something?It would derail this thread. Start a new one.It's not of interest to me either. Legal decisions will be made. . Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Conflicts occurred, treaties were made. Did our governments keep those treaties? . Changing your tune so suddenly? So I guess we did have wars. What treaties did Canada break. Be specific to the exact treaty Quote
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Changing your tune so suddenly? So I guess we did have wars. What treaties did Canada break. Be specific to the exact treaty Find one we didn't break! And instead of trying to derail this discussion, answer my post above. Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 It would derail this thread. Start a new one. It's not of interest to me either. Legal decisions will be made. . So it's ok for you to spew your stuff about the SCC but asking questions about it is now derailing the thread? Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 You have the same problem with your reasoning as smallc. See above. (And your personal attacks betray that you have no legitimate points to make and you know it.) 'Yes we tried to get rid of them.' (via the treaties) 'No we didn't try to get rid of them.' (via the residential schools) So which is it AN? smallc? Did Canada have the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part ..." Indigenous Peoples of Canada? . Assimilating is getting rid of them. That was the intent with both. Is that too complex for you? Quote
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Find one we didn't break! And instead of trying to derail this discussion, answer my post above. You said we broke the treaties.....STEP UP and support your claim or retract it. You have been asked to provide evidence that Canada broke the treaties. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.