Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[Argus]

Did Ukrainians get an apology yet?

It was nasty.

Did they lose land?

I don't think it was on the same scale as for Indigenous Peoples.

.

What has land got to do with it? You're trying to lump in all kinds of things to a discussion which is basically about an attempt to help natives assimilate (for their own good).

[jacee]

As far as I've been able to determine, you think almost everything is based on racism.

With a small few people on here, it is.

They are the most vocal deniers, don't change their thinking with new information, deny deny deny.

And they continue to propose that forcing Indigenous Peoples to give up all legal rights and completely assimilate is the only possible solution to the 'Indian' problem.

Stuck in the 1920's I guess.

I understand that some business and political interests might still wish that was possible, but they're smart enough to know that there are legal issues involved.

For cement head racists, as I think of them, they have a visceral irrational reaction that seems not to change with new realities.

I saw a professor on TV once, faced with the undeniable truth about legal Aboriginal rights in Canada, get absolutely red-faced spitting, doubled right over and shrieking insults at the Indigenous professor guest.

It was very revealing ... and very disturbing to see that kind of base racism in a supposedly intelligent person on TV.

Racism is racism and doesn't seem to change.

I think the 99+ % of us who can learn from history, make amends and create new directions and relationships ... just move on past those relics.

But they continue to troll the Internet for places to spew their venom.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are we believing all of these stories at face value without empirical proof?

There were criminal charges in some cases - which would imply proof. Are you arguing that these abuses did NOT happen ? If so, I'm going to make a new thread for you and anybody who shares that viewpoint.

[Michael Hardner]

So sorry, you cannot claim that a majority of these stories must be true. Some of them are likely true but without independent evidence we have no way to determine how many are actually true.

So do you believe a majority of the claims aren't true then ? I feel like there are two distinct streams of discussion that need to be provided for.

[jacee]

What has land got to do with it? You're trying to lump in all kinds of things to a discussion which is basically about an attempt to help natives assimilate (for their own good).

The genocide of Indigenous Peoples is all about the land.

Your suggestion that we complete the genocide via forced assimilation is illegal, immoral ... and it make you look cement headed because you haven't grasped a single thing.

I think you choose not to understand the reality of Canada, Argus.

.

Edited June 14, 2015 by jacee

[eyeball]

I never said that such events didn't happen. I said that such events may have been more rare and often less serious, given that there was money on the line.

By the same token there is much incentive for a government to downplay it's atrocities when title, sovereignty or compensation are at stake.

[jacee]

There were criminal charges in some cases - which would imply proof. Are you arguing that these abuses did NOT happen ? If so, I'm going to make a new thread for you and anybody who shares that viewpoint.

Good idea, Michael.

.

Edited June 14, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

I said nothing about motivations. I pointed to biased and inconsistent arguments.

Ok. But it's two arguments: that the conclusion the original poster was making didn't follow and - two - that that fallacy is due to racism of some people.

Sure, it leads to this because people don't like facing the uncomfortable truth of their privilege.

Humouring these arguments as if they're valid is not the way to go.

Then you - or others on here - can ignore the argument, or claim it's racist first then stop arguing them.

Again, you're the one talking about motivations, not me.

No, I think WCR was and our discussion between us stemmed from that.

That people here don't and double down on them is their choice, but then they shouldn't be surprised that they're called racist/misogynistic when they double down on those arguments and opinions.

I doubt they're surprised. I don't think I said you can't call people racist, only that the argument starts to spiral at that point.

I do think a new thread would be warranted though for those who don't think that this investigation was valid, that it was overblown, that it was a conspiracy or whatever is behind it.

[Michael Hardner]

Good idea, Michael.

.

On second thought, I re-read the OP from Scott and realized that THIS is the thread where the legitimacy of the commission and of the evidence is being questioned.

As such - I'm going to re-name this thread more specifically and start a new one that talks about the findings and more about the 'reconciliation' part, with the assumption that the commission itself was legitimate.

[Michael Hardner]

New thread: Truth and Reconciliation - Moving Forward

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24610-truth-and-reconciliation-moving-forward/

[jacee]

Ok. But it's two arguments: that the conclusion the original poster was making didn't follow and - two - that that fallacy is due to racism of some people.

After repeated discussions like that, and we have had many here, it does become apparent that it isn't about failure to comprehend: It's about refusal to acknowledge regardless of the facts.

It's racism.

Sure, it leads to this because people don't like facing the uncomfortable truth of their privilege.

And some simply refuse and will always be racists.

And some of them have embraced that in their lives. There are active white supremacist groups in Canada and part of their activity is trolling the Internet to disrupt discussions like this.

Canada does have a long history of white supremacist thinking.

Then you - or others on here - can ignore the argument, or claim it's racist first then stop arguing them.

OK.

Funny thing about racists ... they deny that too.

Not sure why when it's a point of 'pride' to them.

No, I think WCR was and our discussion between us stemmed from that.

I doubt they're surprised. I don't think I said you can't call people racist, only that the argument starts to spiral at that point.

And can't ever go anywhere.

I do think a new thread would be warranted though for those who don't think that this investigation was valid, that it was overblown, that it was a conspiracy or whatever is behind it.

I agree.

Please do.

.

Edited June 14, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

d

Edited June 14, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

On second thought, I re-read the OP from Scott and realized that THIS is the thread where the legitimacy of the commission and of the evidence is being questioned.

As such - I'm going to re-name this thread more specifically and start a new one that talks about the findings and more about the 'reconciliation' part, with the assumption that the commission itself was legitimate.

Thanks Michael.

How are you going to ensure that we can have that conversation without racist trolling?

Eta

There has never been a thread on Aboriginal issues on mlw that didn't get trolled.

Edited June 14, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

How are you going to ensure that we can have that conversation without racist trolling?

.

Trolling is always managed the same way, but that's a moderation question.

The topic will be about moving forward, people will bring their viewpoints to that discussion no matter what.

[jacee]

Trolling is always managed the same way, but that's a moderation question.

The topic will be about moving forward, people will bring their viewpoints to that discussion no matter what.

Thanks.

[cybercoma]

Now you've decided that some groups of mistreated people's are more privileged and that what happened to them really didn't count. hypocrisy much? I forgot, they aren't brown enough to count.

Being white in Canada is a privileged position. Yes. There's certain advantages white people have over people of colour. There were also certain advantage Ukrainians in particular had over first nations when we recruited Ukrainian immigrants to push the First Nations off their Western lands.

But sure. Let's pretend both groups have the same history, so you don't have to face inconvenient truths that you continue to ignore.

Edited June 14, 2015 by cybercoma

[overthere]

A well-run, quality program could have paid dividends. The spread of Europeans and the drastic reduction in native populations from disease was a fact. A good rather than abusive assimilation program could have incorporated natives into American and Canadian life.

Instead we got what seems to have been an atrocity.

In Canada and the US the goal was the same: to make native populations extinct. The reason was that they were seen as a threat to the Europeans taking their land, all the land, for their own use.

The reality si that they were a threat to that goal.

The most effective way to exterminate them was a matter opf traial and werror. The methods tried were varied. Simple slaughter of every Indian encountered(mostly in the US) was tried but there were always bleeding heart whites who backed off from killing every Indian person. Forced mass relocation to hopeless places with no food was pretty effective in both countries. Introduction- planned and accidental- of deadly disease worked quite well in both countries. Taking away all the children in forced assimilation attempts was popular in both countries, but was slow and expensive. It did have the side benefit of forceefully indoctrinating generations of children into religions- and not coincidentally into religuions that would force the kids into beleiving they themselves were somehow responsible for their own personal torture and guilt. And of course both countries continue formal assimilation plans via govt departments that try their best to keep the population under govt control at all times.

Anybody who thinks that assimilation is anything other than institutional cultural, and physical, genocide is fooling themselves. It is understandable, who wants to be though of as supporting policies that kill so many people in such a generous, friendly, helpful way? No matter how hard we try, there is no denying that what we have done and what we now do with relation to First Nations is not to their benefit. It is unquestionably to their detriment, as any cursory review of health outcomes, death rates, incarceration stats, income levels, education outcomes and many other stats confirm.

We're still trying to help them join us, or having them die from us trying. Time for a different approach perhaps. admit defeat in exterminating them?

[Smallc]

Did Ukrainians get an apology yet?

It was nasty.

Did they lose land?

I don't think it was on the same scale as for Indigenous Peoples.

.

You don't think? Do you have proof? Do you know what happened in the boarding schools?

[Smallc]

By the same token there is much incentive for a government to downplay it's atrocities when title, sovereignty or compensation are at stake.

No doubt. People are driven by their own interests above all else.

[Smallc]

Being white in Canada is a privileged position. Yes. There's certain advantages white people have over people of colour. There were also certain advantage Ukrainians in particular had over first nations when we recruited Ukrainian immigrants to push the First Nations off their Western lands.

But sure. Let's pretend both groups have the same history, so you don't have to face inconvenient truths that you continue to ignore.

You do understand why Ukranians (and Polish) came here in such large numbers I hope. Mistreatment continued here, though definitely not on the same level. You make a mockery of your own position within posts like that.

[jacee]

In Canada and the US the goal was the same: to make native populations extinct. The reason was that they were seen as a threat to the Europeans taking their land, all the land, for their own use.

The reality si that they were a threat to that goal.

The most effective way to exterminate them was a matter opf traial and werror. The methods tried were varied. Simple slaughter of every Indian encountered(mostly in the US) was tried but there were always bleeding heart whites who backed off from killing every Indian person. Forced mass relocation to hopeless places with no food was pretty effective in both countries. Introduction- planned and accidental- of deadly disease worked quite well in both countries. Taking away all the children in forced assimilation attempts was popular in both countries, but was slow and expensive. It did have the side benefit of forceefully indoctrinating generations of children into religions- and not coincidentally into religuions that would force the kids into beleiving they themselves were somehow responsible for their own personal torture and guilt. And of course both countries continue formal assimilation plans via govt departments that try their best to keep the population under govt control at all times.

Anybody who thinks that assimilation is anything other than institutional cultural, and physical, genocide is fooling themselves. It is understandable, who wants to be though of as supporting policies that kill so many people in such a generous, friendly, helpful way? No matter how hard we try, there is no denying that what we have done and what we now do with relation to First Nations is not to their benefit. It is unquestionably to their detriment, as any cursory review of health outcomes, death rates, incarceration stats, income levels, education outcomes and many other stats confirm.

We're still trying to help them join us, or having them die from us trying. Time for a different approach perhaps. admit defeat in exterminating them?

Great post overthere.

Frame it.

[Smallc]

What you and over there promote - the continued apartheid of aboriginal people by aboriginal leadership - is not to anyone's benefit - especially not aboriginal people.

[jacee]

You don't think? Do you have proof? Do you know what happened in the boarding schools?

I think a thread is in order to educate us about the discrimination against Ukrainians in Canada. Do that.

I don't think it's appropriate to set oppressed groups against each other when the fault lies elsewhere.

.

Edited June 14, 2015 by jacee

[Smallc]

I think a thread is in order to educate us about the discrimination against Ukrainians in Canada. Do that.

But I don't think it's appropriate to set oppressed groups against each other when the fault lies elsewhere.

.

I think the only people who did that were those who downplayed one over the other. My point all along has been this - many aboriginals and there supporters forget that what happened, though terrible, was a common historical wrong. There are varying degrees, and the Canadian situation, no matter the group, was similar and more tame. Context is important.

[jacee]

What you and over there promote - the continued apartheid of aboriginal people by aboriginal leadership - is not to anyone's benefit - especially not aboriginal people.

It isn't ours to decide.

Indigenous Peoples have self-determination.

.