Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

I would tend to classify assimilation into three broad categories:

1. Active voluntary assimilation. The only example that comes to my mind in this category is the Egyptians. Copic and Arabic are of the same language family. Muslim converts chose to assimilate to Arabic as the language of the Qur'an of their own free will. Initially it was a process of integration, but once most knew Arabic, they perceived Copic as redundant and chose to abandon it. Few Egyptians today know Coptic.

2. Forced assimilation through an official policy of cultural genocide. The Indian Residential school system comes to mind as a clear example, though the Official Languages Act and other such laws can be viewed as moderate variations of it.

3. Forced circumstantial assimilation in the absence of any official policy. A person settles in a city where no one knows his language but everyone knows another common language. He'll first integrate and might assimilate. His child will probably assimilate if he will not have done so already.

Apart from assimilation, there is also integration. Indonesia comes to mind where everyone agrees to learn Indonesian as a common second language evolved from a trade pidgin while promoting the mother tongue too so as to prevent assimilation.

I personally prefer integration to assimilation whenever possible. To impose an official policy of assimilation where integration would have sufficed amounts to cultural genocide.

eyeball · July 2, 2015

I tend to take a much broader view of reconciliation and cultural genocide.

If we set the residential school system aside for a moment (since the TRC's mandate was narrowly circumscribed to that) and focus instead on the beliefs on which it was raised, we find that that system shared the same credal foundations...

These are rooted in things like Papal Bulls, Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, Patriotism i.e. Rule Britannia, etc. Today the the 'moral' foundation is largely rooted in a sentiment that can basically be summed up as...meh...it's just human nature there's nothing we can or should do about it.

Welcome to the forum.

TimG · July 2, 2015

I personally prefer integration to assimilation whenever possible. To impose an official policy of assimilation where integration would have sufficed amounts to cultural genocide.

Assimilation and integration are basically the same thing in Canada so your argument is a strawman. You also abuse the language by misusing terms like "genocide" which covey murder. A culture can disappear via voluntary assimilation and that is no crime. Nor are policies that are designed to encourage people to make that choice. Coercive policies are wrong and the coercive policies of the past were mistakes - not genocide because assimilation would have been fine if it was voluntary. i.e. the problem was the means not the end. Edited July 2, 2015 by TimG

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

These are rooted in things like Papal Bulls, Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, Patriotism i.e. Rule Britannia, etc. Today the the 'moral' foundation is largely rooted in a sentiment that can basically be summed up as...meh...it's just human nature there's nothing we can or should do about it.

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks eyeball. I don't actually see patriotism as a bad thing though. If anything, it's an effective remedy against nationalism.

eyeball · July 2, 2015

They seem pretty much joined at the hip from where I'm sitting but I'm just a no account Earthling so what do I know?

That said, if aliens from planet X invaded tomorrow I suspect everyone would probably be singing from the same hymn book I subscribe to the day after.

Second-class Canadian · July 2, 2015

I understand patriotism as love for one's country. Nothing more, nothing less, nor does it necessarily exclude love for other countries. Depending on how one defines his "country", that could mean Cascadia, Canada, North America, or even earth.

I understand nationalism as a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

cybercoma · July 2, 2015

Assimilation is good

As long as you're not the one being assimilated, right?

Michael Hardner · July 2, 2015

As long as you're not the one being assimilated, right?

To be fair, I think the distinction was made between assimilation and forced assimilation. The action required of people to reconcile their cultural differences with similarities is an act of adaptation and a desirable thing for personal growth, and understanding yourself IMO.

We've all assimilated, in cultural and other ways.

jbg · July 2, 2015

As long as you're not the one being assimilated, right?

People have always moved around through history. The "host" populations are either assimilated or killed, or a perpetual, low grade state of war exists. Think the Philippines. Your preference?

cybercoma · July 9, 2015

Contrary to the bleating of the radicals on this forum, 7 out of 10 Canadians see residential schools as cultural genocide. The poll was conducted through an online panel, which are shown to be more reliable when asking respondents about questions that may induce social desirability bias.

Edited July 9, 2015 by cybercoma

Smallc · July 9, 2015

which are shown to be more reliable when asking respondents about questions that may induce social desirability bias.

Especially if you're looking for a certain outcome.

cybercoma · July 9, 2015

Especially if you're looking for a certain outcome.

I don't think you understood the point. In internet panels, people will give more racist and "undesirable" answers than if they're face-to-face with another person.

TimG · July 10, 2015

which are shown to be more reliable when asking respondents about questions that may induce social desirability bias.

This has NOT been shown. It is simply an assumption pulled out of hat by some researcher. You have a very bad habit of taking unsubstantiated opinions and treating them as facts simply because someone put them in a "study".

TimG · July 10, 2015

Contrary to the bleating of the radicals on this forum, 7 out of 10 Canadians see residential schools as cultural genocide

All this shows is Goebbels is right: repeat a lie enough and people will start to believe it. That said, it is difficult to know how many people actually heard the arguments against the the term because a lot of the media coverage was so sycophantic (the NP being the lone exception). I know from private conversations that I had that people are generally inclined to agree with the term but once I explained the reasons why I am against the term they would agree with me. Edited July 10, 2015 by TimG

The_Squid · July 10, 2015

Contrary to the bleating of the radicals on this forum, 7 out of 10 Canadians see residential schools as cultural genocide. The poll was conducted through an online panel, which are shown to be more reliable when asking respondents about questions that may induce social desirability bias.

That is exactly the reason the schools were set up... Potlatches were banned... Cultural items were stolen... Cultural practices were banned.... Etc, etc.

I don't see how anyone could call it anything other than cultural genocide.

On Guard for Thee · July 10, 2015

All this shows is Goebbels is right: repeat a lie enough and people will start to believe it. That said, it is difficult to know how many people actually heard the arguments against the the term because a lot of the media coverage was so sycophantic (the NP being the lone exception). I know from private conversations that I had that people are generally inclined to agree with the term but once I explained the reasons why I am against the term they would agree with me.

The term is quite clear and was obviously what was going on with residential schools. Whether or not you agree with the attempt, they weren't able to take the Indian out of the child.

TimG · July 10, 2015

The term is quite clear and was obviously what was going on with residential schools. Whether or not you agree with the attempt, they weren't able to take the Indian out of the child.

Do you believe is it wrong for a minority culture to voluntarily assimilate into the majority culture? If not then it would not be wrong for natives to voluntarily assimilate. The problems in the past were the rights abuses resulting from coercive assimilation. So we have a situation where the end outcome of a policy would be perfectly acceptable if it was the free choice of the affected people, but an abuse of rights when it is imposed. This makes the term "genocide" completely absurd because "genocide" is always bad but what actually happened is only bad because of the coercive means. Edited July 10, 2015 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · July 10, 2015

Do you believe is it wrong for a minority culture to voluntarily assimilate into the majority culture? If not then it would not be wrong for natives to voluntarily assimilate. The problems in the past were the rights abuses resulting from coercive assimilation. So we have a situation where the end outcome of a policy would be perfectly acceptable if it was the free choice of the affected people, but an abuse of rights when it is imposed. This makes the term "genocide" completely absurd because "genocide" is always bad but what actually happened is only bad because of the coercive means.

If the people had voluntarily assimilated we wouldn't be discussing the term.

TimG · July 10, 2015

If the people had voluntarily assimilated we wouldn't be discussing the term.

Exactly, which is why it is NOT genocide. It makes no sense to use the term "genocide" to describe a policy objective that would have been completely acceptable if it was voluntary. Edited July 10, 2015 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · July 10, 2015

Exactly, which is why it is NOT genocide. You cannot use to term "genocide" to describe a policy objective that would have been completely acceptable if it was voluntary.

Except it wasn't voluntary, which is why the term cultural genocide certainly does apply. What you have to consider is the intent of residential schools.

Edited July 10, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

TimG · July 10, 2015

Except it wasn't voluntary, which is why the term cultural genocide certainly does apply.

You have a poor grasp of the English language. Genocide implies that the objective (the assimilation of native culture) was wrong. But the objective was not wrong. What was wrong was the means used to achieve the objective. Edited July 10, 2015 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · July 10, 2015

You have a poor grasp of the English language. Genocide implies that the objective (the assimilation of native culture) was wrong. But the objective was not wrong. What was wrong was the means used to achieve the objective.

Its quite clear who has the language failing. When you stick pins in kids tongues to punish them for speaking their native tongue, the objective is quite clearly exposed.

Second-class Canadian · July 10, 2015

Likewise when you force tuberculosis-free kids to play with sick kids while being fully cognizant of the consequences beforehand, or conducting nutrition experiments on starving kids (which means they were well aware the kids were being undernourished.

And of course it was common for chiefs' daughters to be sterilized without their knowledge as adults.

The death rates were also well above the national average as one would expect.

TimG · July 10, 2015

Likewise when you force tuberculosis-free kids to play with sick kids while being fully cognizant of the consequences beforehand, or conducting nutrition experiments on starving kids (which means they were well aware the kids were being undernourished.

I am pretty sure you have zero evidence to support this claim since it would require you to know what was in the minds of people long dead.