Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

jacee · July 11, 2015

I'm in favour of the payouts to end the problem.

How would you determine who gets compensation, compared to the way the TRC/IAP made those decisions?

What are your exact criticisms of the way it was done?

.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

How would you determine who gets compensation, compared to the way the TRC/IAP made those decisions?

What are your exact criticisms of the way it was done?

.

I wouldn't change it. There's no way to prove what happened. Because we know things did happen, the only solution for compensation is to have a lower standard of evidence than normal.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

So you think that assimilation is bad and immigrants who come here should not learn English or French and should not adopt the values and norms of this society. And if they do it is a "crime"?

So should we forcefully rip the kids out of their parents arms, send them to schools hundreds of miles away, and stick needles through their tongues when they dare speak the only language they know?

Those who established the system used the argument that such extreme measures were required for assimilation to occur, and on that point they were probably right. But then that us assimilation as a policy into question.

TimG · July 11, 2015

So should we forcefully rip the kids out of their parents arms, send them to schools hundreds of miles away, and stick needles through their tongues when they dare speak the only language they know?

You should read the thread before responding.

The point I made was that coercive assimilation is wrong. But voluntary assimilation is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the word "genocide" is simply wrong because it implies that the objective was wrong rather than the means used to achieve that objective.

Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

jacee · July 11, 2015

So you think that assimilation is bad and immigrants who come here should not learn English or French and should not adopt the values and norms of this society. And if they do it is a "crime"?

TimG, I have sufficiently pointed out the stupidity of your position.

A child could easily grasp that if someone freely gives you his marbles ... they are yours.

But if you steal someone's marbles, they are still his and you are a thief.

.

jacee · July 11, 2015

You should read the thread before responding.

The point I made was that coercive assimilation is wrong. But voluntary assimilation is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the word "genocide" is simply wrong because it implies that the objective was wrong rather than the means used to achieve that objective.

No your reasoning is wrong.

Genocide implies that regardless of the objective, forceful abusive "means" were wrong.

.

jacee · July 11, 2015

I wouldn't change it. There's no way to prove what happened. Because we know things did happen, the only solution for compensation is to have a lower standard of evidence than normal.

So what are you complaining about?

.

TimG · July 11, 2015

TimG, I have sufficiently pointed out the stupidity of your position.

No you haven't. All you have done is post incoherent ramblings that have absolutely no connection to the point I made.

As I said: almost everyone agrees that there nothing wrong with voluntary assimilation. Therefore, it was not wrong to want natives to voluntarily assimilate. The harm was only caused by the coercive means used to achieve assimilation.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

So what are you complaining about?

.

I'm actually just agreeing that most of the TRC isn't truthful.

jacee · July 11, 2015

I'm actually just agreeing that most of the TRC isn't truthful.

What data do you have to support that accusation?

.

On Guard for Thee · July 11, 2015

No you haven't. All you have done is post incoherent ramblings that have absolutely no connection to the point I made.

As I said: almost everyone agrees that there nothing wrong with voluntary assimilation. Therefore, it was not wrong to want natives to voluntarily assimilate. The harm was only caused by the coercive means used to achieve assimilation.

I think we all get who is rambling incoherently. Do you not understand that coercive means, (your words) makes it not voluntary, hence the term cultural genocide applies.

Shady · July 11, 2015

Using terms like cultural murder doesn't foster constructive discussions.

TimG · July 11, 2015

Do you not understand that coercive means, (your words) makes it not voluntary, hence the term cultural genocide applies.

One cannot volunteer to be murdered. Even suicide is seen as a tragedy. One can voluntarily assimilate and the vast majority of people agree that it is generally better for people to voluntarily assimilate. The term "genocide" implies that voluntary assimilation is wrong when it is not. Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

Smallc · July 11, 2015

What data do you have to support that accusation?

.

I don't need data, you do.

On Guard for Thee · July 11, 2015

One cannot volunteer to be murdered. Even suicide is seen as a tragedy. One can voluntarily assimilate and the vast majority of people agree that it is generally better for people to voluntarily assimilate. The term "genocide" implies that voluntary assimilation is wrong when it is not.

The term genocide has nothing to do with voluntary assimilation. You do keep going in circles I see.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

You should read the thread before responding.The point I made was that coercive assimilation is wrong. But voluntary assimilation is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the word "genocide" is simply wrong because it implies that the objective was wrong rather than the means used to achieve that objective.

I don't understand. The moment assimilation is done through coercive laws, does it not automatically become forced however subtle the laws are? In that sence, the difference between forced assimilation and cultural genocide falls in a grey area of intensity. One could legitimately argue that they are the same.

Of course we could distinguish between forced assimilation and forced integration. As an example, making English the compulsory language I'd instruction in school could be viewed as part of a policy of assimilation or cultural genocide whereas making English the compulsory second language in public schools while leaving the choice of first language to the school itself could be viewed as a policy of forced integration in that it still allows for the maintenance of the mother language and culture.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

One cannot volunteer to be murdered. Even suicide is seen as a tragedy. One can voluntarily assimilate and the vast majority of people agree that it is generally better for people to voluntarily assimilate. The term "genocide" implies that voluntary assimilation is wrong when it is not.

If it's voluntary, then it's not genicide.

TimG · July 11, 2015

I don't understand. The moment assimilation is done through coercive laws, does it not automatically become forced however subtle the laws are? In that sence, the difference between forced assimilation and cultural genocide falls in a grey area of intensity.

Not at all because assimilation, when voluntary, is widely accepted as a good thing everywhere in the world. Even natives would want assimilation if their bands were large enough that such a thing were possible. Obviously, the consequence of voluntary assimilation is another culture disappears but the people involved are usually much better off so it is hardly a tragedy.

As an example, making English the compulsory language I'd instruction in school could be viewed as part of a policy of assimilation

We need a common language. This is question of practicality. So compulsory instruction is a common language is as necessary for a modern society as a police force or a tax collection agency. But instruction in one language does not need to exclude or prohibit the use of other languages. Edited July 11, 2015 by TimG

jacee · July 11, 2015

I don't need data, you do.

You made a serious allegation about a 5 year court mandated process:

Smallc, on 11 Jul 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

I'm actually just agreeing that most of the TRC isn't truthful.

What data do you have to support your allegation of "isn't truthful"?

.

Edited July 11, 2015 by jacee

jacee · July 11, 2015

I don't understand. The moment assimilation is done through coercive laws, does it not automatically become forced however subtle the laws are? In that sence, the difference between forced assimilation and cultural genocide falls in a grey area of intensity. One could legitimately argue that they are the same.

Of course we could distinguish between forced assimilation and forced integration. As an example, making English the compulsory language I'd instruction in school could be viewed as part of a policy of assimilation or cultural genocide whereas making English the compulsory second language in public schools while leaving the choice of first language to the school itself could be viewed as a policy of forced integration in that it still allows for the maintenance of the mother language and culture.

Coerced or forced assimilation is genocide.

.

TimG · July 11, 2015

Coerced or forced assimilation is genocide.

That makes no sense because "genocide" implies that the end (the replacement of one culture by another) is wrong. But the end is not wrong - just the means. That means that "genocide" is not an appropriate word for coercive assimilation unless you want argue than mass murder is acceptable as a long as correct means are used.

Smallc · July 11, 2015

You made a serious allegation about a 5 year court mandated process:

Smallc, on 11 Jul 2015 - 11:55 AM, said:

I'm actually just agreeing that most of the TRC isn't truthful.

What data do you have to support your allegation of "isn't truthful"?

.

The parts reliant on human memory.

Second-class Canadian · July 11, 2015

If it's coersive, then it's forced. If it's forced, then it's genocide.

By the way, genocide is a neutral term. Whether one considers it to be immmoral or not is a separate matter. I personally consider it to be immoral due to the means that are necessary to make it successful. Integration is another matter, but then that requires a combination of not only coercion but also cooperation.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

cybercoma · July 11, 2015

Yeah, sorry for pointing out what data is.

Data is information. Testimony is information about what that person saw or experienced; therefore, it's data. I'm sorry you don't know what it is and are actually trying to be condescending to people who do.

cybercoma · July 11, 2015

What "data" would you like to have to make appropriate judgements on that?

.

I'm in favour of the payouts to end the problem. I'm in favour of a lot of other things to end the problem too. To pretend that any human account of life is 100% accurate is to fool yourself.

You avoided her question.