Truth and Reconciliation... Legitimacy

[TimG]

Yes, other linguistic communities suffered too, bUT nothing compared to those who went to residential schools.

And only a minority of natives went to residential schools.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually there is no international legal definition of cultural genocide because Canada among other countries had opposed its inclusion. That said, the definition of genie was worded broadly enough to arguably be able to accommodate cultural genocide. Going by the proposed definition of the time though, it was a deliberate act of cultural genocide.

The UN certainly has a definition of it, and what happened at residential schools falls into it.

[jacee]

It seems to not matter how often Tim gets shown the error of his ways on this topic, he still flogs the same old, long dead horse. Ad nauseum.

Yes that's Tim.

His mind is made up, closed up.

Being a 'white nation' was a point of 'pride' for old Canada, until recent decades. A few diehard racists still rally under the old flag - the red ensign - to push that agenda, though not much in public anymore due to being run out of every town they show up in. But they like the anonymity of discussion boards to troll with their racist pretzel 'logic'.

.

Sickening stuff for sure.

.

Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes that's Tim.

His mind is made up, closed up.

Being a 'white nation' was a point of 'pride' for old Canada, until recent decades. A few diehard racists still rally under the old flag - the red ensign - to push that agenda, though not much in public anymore due to being run out of every town they show up in. But they like the anonymity of discussion boards to troll with their racist pretzel 'logic'.

.

Sickening stuff for sure.

.

Just the contradictory nature of the so called logic has me scratching my head.

[Second-class Canadian]

I read it as being parallel to holocaust denial.

On the matter of cultural genocide, that does not exist on international law sinse the Canadian and other governments had rejected it. On the plus side though, genocide itself was worded broadly enough that it could be called genocide. But to not hurt the feelings of proud Euro-Canadians too much, we call it cultural genocide.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Second-class Canadian]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/aboriginal/cultural-genocide-label-for-residential-schools-has-no-legal-implications-expert-says-1.3110826

[jacee]

The UN certainly has a definition of it, and what happened at residential schools falls into it.

Second class Canadian is correct that "cultural genocide" is not specifically mentioned in the UN Convention on Genocide, largely because of Canada's efforts to keep it out. Elements of it remain in the Convention, but Canada specifically refused to put those elements in its own laws ... notably "forcibly transferring children to another group'.

For 50 years+, Canadian governments have been trying to wriggle out from under definitions and potential charges of genocide for the 'Indian' Residential Schools policies and programs.

It is a relief to me that a great majority of Canadians implicitly understand and accept that the governments' program was "cultural genocide", in spite of the complete silence of the federal government.

I think my faith in Canadians is being restored. Obviously we don't need our government to tell us what to think.

And we certainly don't need the white supremacist trash here on mlw to tell us what genocide is.

.

Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Second class Canadian is correct that "cultural genocide" is not specifically mentioned in the UN Convention on Genocide, largely because of Canada's efforts to keep it out. Elements of it remain in the Convention, but Canada specifically refused to put those elements in its own laws ... notably "forcibly transferring children to another group'.

For 50 years+, Canadian governments have been trying to wriggle out from under definitions and potential charges of genocide for the 'Indian' Residential Schools policies and programs.

It is a relief to me that a great majority of Canadians implicitly understand and accept that the governments' program was "cultural genocide", in spite of the complete silence of the federal government.

I think my faith in Canadians is being restored. Obviously we don't need our government to tell us what to think.

And we certainly don't need the white supremacist trash here on mlw to tell us what genocide is.

.

Resolution 260 article 3 seems pretty clear to me.

[TimG]

I read it as being parallel to holocaust denial.

Except no one is saying that the schools did not occur or that the schools were not wrong. The problem is only with the pathetic propagandists who want to attach an inappropriate emotional label to a bad government policy - a label that does not make any sense if you look at the meaning of the words. Edited July 12, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

Except no one is saying that the schools did not occur or that the schools were not wrong. The problem is only with the pathetic propagandists who want to attach an inappropriate emotional label to a bad government policy - a label that does not make any sense if you look at the meaning of the words.

It makes sense to reasonable people.

.

[jacee]

Except no one is saying that the schools did not occur or that the schools were not wrong. The problem is only with the pathetic propagandists who want to attach an inappropriate emotional label to a bad government policy - a label that does not make any sense if you look at the meaning of the words.

It makes sense to reasonable people.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except no one is saying that the schools did not occur or that the schools were not wrong. The problem is only with the pathetic propagandists who want to attach an inappropriate emotional label to a bad government policy - a label that does not make any sense if you look at the meaning of the words.

Why not just admit the schools were wrong, and move on. We get you don't like the word genocide or think it's applicable.

[TimG]

Why not just admit the schools were wrong, and move on.

When I have say that the schools where anything other than an atrocity? And words matter - that is why propagandists are so keen to use the "genocide" even though it makes no sense given the meaning of the word. Edited July 12, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

When I have say that the schools where anything other than an atrocity? And words matter - that is why propagandists are so keen to use the "genocide" even though it makes no sense given the meaning of the word.

Given your interpretation of the word, which of course you are welcome to.

[Second-class Canadian]

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide:

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

( a ) Killing members of the group;

( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The label fits.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Second-class Canadian

[Smallc]

Members...so like 3 people is enough.

[Second-class Canadian]

Members...so like 3 people is enough.

There were at least 2000 confirmed and it's believed it might have been closer to 3000. And that just deals with ( a) above. Then there are all the other actions that were taken.

[Second-class Canadian]

Members...so like 3 people is enough.

There were at least 2000 confirmed and it's believed it might have been closer to 3000. And that just deals with ( a) above. Then there are all the other actions that were taken.

[Keepitsimple]

Not according to international law. Killing is only the most severe form of genocide.

Do you have any cite or reference to that "fact"?

[Second-class Canadian]

Do you have any cite or reference to that "fact"?

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide:

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

( a ) Killing members of the group;

( b ) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

( c ) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

( e ) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Every one of these points applies to the residential school system, each to varying degrees.

[Smallc]

There were at least 2000 confirmed and it's believed it might have been closer to 3000. And that just deals with ( a) above. Then there are all the other actions that were taken.

That definition is terrible...and a tiny fraction of the population is far from a proper genocide.

[cybercoma]

That definition is terrible...and a tiny fraction of the population is far from a proper genocide.

The stated aims of the residential school program was to take the indian out of them. How you can't understand that this was clearly an attempt to end their culture is absolutely beyond me and I'm sure any reasonable person. The government themselves said that the purpose was to wipe out their culture. Any other interpretation is whitewashing the truth and ignoring the government's own stated plans.

[Machjo]

That definition is terrible...and a tiny fraction of the population is far from a proper genocide.

Second-Class Canadian was merely quoting the official legal definition. How are we supposed to understand one another if each person uses his own definition?

[On Guard for Thee]

That definition is terrible...and a tiny fraction of the population is far from a proper genocide.

How many times must it be explained that you don't have to actually kill them to attempt to wipe out their culture.

[Keepitsimple]

How many times must it be explained that you don't have to actually kill them to attempt to wipe out their culture.

Pretty poor attempt at "wiping them out"! There are over 600 First Nations, their population has doubled over the last 20 years and like all Canadians (although they don't consider themselves that), they have access to Healthcare and Education. From fragmented pockets of poverty as recently as 50 years ago, they have finally been making strides towards developing some form of common voice - yet their leadership still maintains that they are not Canadians and that our governments are "not their governments". But shamefully, that same First Nations leadership allows those isolated pockets of poverty (like Attawapiskat) to fester and wallow in despair as political sacrificial lambs.