jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Del Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Assimilating is getting rid of them. That was the intent with both.And forced assimilation is ...?Genocide. Either we did or we didn't. Which is it? . Edited June 5, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 That's total historic revisionism. Treaties were made to get aboriginal people out of the way. That was the intent. That's why the effort is called genocidal. The treaties didn't work and now they want their countries back. Get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 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. Stop trying to distract and derail and answer my previous post. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 That's why the effort is called genocidal. The treaties didn't work and now they want their countries back. Get over it. Move out of the way is not genocide, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 And forced assimilation is ...? Genocide. Either we did or we didn't. Which is it? . Forced assimilation is forced assimilation. Just like apples are apples and not oranges. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Move out of the way is not genocide, sorry. Once again, according to the UN, the way Canada did it, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Stop trying to distract and derail and answer my previous post. . Then don't bring up the bloody treaties if you have no intent of talking about them or backing up your bogus claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Once again, according to the UN, the way Canada did it, it is. Nope...they've said nothing of the sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Nope...they've said nothing of the sort. I have already posted a link to the declaration earlier. Go read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 I have already posted a link to the declaration earlier. Go read it. A declaration that you continue to misinterpret. No one at the UN, past or present, has actually said this was genocide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 A declaration that you continue to misinterpret. No one at the UN, past or present, has actually said this was genocide Read article 7.2. If you need more clarification than that, I feel for ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Ok - how would you try to effect a change there ? I'm asking open-mindedly, even though I admit that I'm dubious about your approach. I feel the idea of 'corrupt chiefs' may be mostly a cultural meme in mainstream Canada (as I discovered during our Attiwapiskat thread) however I also feel that governments everywhere are disconnected from the people they serve so I am curious... You don't have to assume there's a cultural meme. You only have to look at human nature. Right now the chiefs have near absolute power to do as they want, with virtually no oversight. Why would they want to change that, regardless of culture? What politician in any culture wants more oversight and control over his spending? As for how, given the discussion on education, the Harper government wanted locally elected school boards to administer education and the funding for it. That's the way it's done everywhere else in Canada. Is there a cultural reason why this would be unacceptable to natives, as opposed to the chiefs? Every dollar that every other government spends in Canada is publicly accessible. Why shouldn't it be the same for the reserves? Every dollar that is taken in and spend by every band ought to be posted publicly. That would be a nice start. Edited June 5, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 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. What sort of point do you THINK you're making when you say it happened to others? That suddenly justifies forced assimilation and the decimation of a people and their culture? Give your damn head a shake. The systematic oppression and subjugation of the first nations isn't some relic of history. It has happened in recent history and arguably continues to happen today as the federal government underfunds them as compared to Canadians not living on reserves. It's nice that white people like you can just shrug their shoulders and just say, "well that's the natural order of things" since you weren't the one who had their ancestry destroyed. I can't believe that you're marrying a native woman and show such utter disrespect to the first nations. It makes me even sicker that you've alluded to the idea that somehow have power over them in your job as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Read article 7.2. If you need more clarification than that, I feel for ya. Read it already. Do have the people at the UN and they still havent called this genocide. Keep trying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Forced assimilation. People choose to assimilate into other cultures all the time. That's a choice. Granted. But how do you assimilate people living by themselves on a reserve who don't speak any English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Read it already. Do have the people at the UN and they still havent called this genocide. Keep trying.... I did try, apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension. Not my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 That's why the effort is called genocidal. The treaties didn't work and now they want their countries back. Get over it. If we'd performed genocide we wouldn't be having this discussion now because there'd be no Indians left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Forced assimilation is forced assimilation. Just like apples are apples and not oranges. Get it? It wasn't even forced assimilation. It was forced education. In areas where there were enough kids they went to local schools. In areas with small populations they had to go to these residential schools the churches ran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 If we'd performed genocide we wouldn't be having this discussion now because there'd be no Indians left. Hasnt it already been explained to you enough times here, you dont have to have killed every last one of a race in order for actions to be deemed genocidal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 It wasn't even forced assimilation. It was forced education. In areas where there were enough kids they went to local schools. In areas with small populations they had to go to these residential schools the churches ran. For those kids however I would say it was forced assimilation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Hasnt it already been explained to you enough times here, you dont have to have killed every last one of a race in order for actions to be deemed genocidal... Yeah, we only killed in the range of 80%, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 Hasnt it already been explained to you enough times here, you dont have to have killed every last one of a race in order for actions to be deemed genocidal... None of your definitions fit. It wasn't genocide. The only people who 'deem' it genocide are ideological zealots of the far left who are always yapping their stupid mouths about how horrible Canada, the US and all western countries are, along with each and every single White person who lives in them. If you guys want to give all your possessions to some natives put on a hair shirt and go live in a shack somewhere, begging forgiveness that's up to you. The problem is most of you don't HAVE much in the way of possessions so you want to give my stuff away instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) For those kids however I would say it was forced assimilation If you look up what boarding/residential schools were like back then, they were pretty regimented places. You'll see lines of little kids in tight, uncomfortable suits and dresses standing at attention at their desks, sitting up very straight, knowing they'll get beaten for the slightest lapse. Like I said, if they'd cage a naked young prince Charles and leave him under a cold shower what do you think they'd do to regular kids? So yes, I'm sure that they insisted those kids act the way they felt kids ought to act, which was like their kids. And of course, they needed to teach English. But the rule that you don't speak your own language while learning another is not unique to residential schools. It still exists today. The only difference is you don't get beaten for lapses. But then, you got beaten for any lapse back then. Edited June 5, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 5, 2015 Report Share Posted June 5, 2015 If we'd performed genocide we wouldn't be having this discussion now because there'd be no Indians left. No doubt they're heaving a great sigh of relief in Newfoundland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.