eyeball Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 How are we supposed to understand one another if each person uses his own definition? I think we're supposed to fight to the death over the definitions we use and the last one standing gets to write the rules. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Machjo Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 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. None of what you just described wipes out the legal definition of genocide, which is the definition I follow for a common agreed on definition. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
eyeball Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Pretty poor attempt at "wiping them out"! There are over 600 First Nations, their population has doubled over the last 20 years... All this shows is how badly our government sucks at accomplishing its goals...tell me something else I don't know. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 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? I'm pretty big on definitions. That's an interpretation of it. This is the actual dictionary definition: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Quote
Machjo Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 I'm pretty big on definitions. That's an interpretation of it. This is the actual dictionary definition:the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. So according to international law, it was genocide. According to your dictionary, it was not. Now we're all agreed? Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 It's actually quite common for the legal and dictionary definitions of words to diverge somewhat. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Machjo Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 I think I'd read on here that 3000 children died. It was over 6000. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
On Guard for Thee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Here's one from Merriam Webster Full Definition of GENOCIDE : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group Another dictionary, another definition. Quote
Machjo Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Here's one from Merriam Webster Full Definition of GENOCIDE : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group Another dictionary, another definition. That Fits What happened Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
cybercoma Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Radicals want to argue over definitions because they don't want to face the realities of what happened and continues to happen to indigenous people in this country. Genocide or not it's immaterial. We should instead focus on exactly what happened. It was a planned and coordinated effort to "kill the indian in the child." There was a national program to "civilize the savages," which it should go without saying, and it's sad that it doesn't, that this line of thinking ignores the indigenous peoples' histories. They had their own culture, laws, and social organization that were completely misunderstood by most European foreigners who came into contact with them. The historical record clearly shows the devastation our nation waged against the original inhabitants of this land. Arguing about definitions of genocide abstracts and ignores what we know happened because not only was it written down, but we also have first hand accounts of it. Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Aboriginal customs and laws were supplanted by new ones. That's the reality that 'radicals' don't want to face. Aboriginals are part of the Canadian fabric now, not separate. Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 That Fits What happened Actually it doesn't since they're still here much as many other groups of Canadians. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 That Fits What happened It certainly fits what was attempted. Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 I'm pretty big on definitions. ... You said you were big on "data" too, but you haven't answered my question: Smallc said: ...most of the TRC isn't truthful. What "data" do you have to support that allegation, Smallc? . Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 You said you were big on "data" too, but you haven't answered my question: Smallc said: ...most of the TRC isn't truthful. What "data" do you have to support that allegation, Smallc? . I have the absence of data. You have asserted something (like the TRC) without much if any data to support if. Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) It certainly fits what was attempted.That's what Indigenous Peoples say too, defiantly and with a lot of pain: ... "attempted ... but we are still here!"Canada was running scared once the Convention on Genocide was in effect. Like the gas ovens running full tilt as the Allies closed in, the residential schools last ditch attempts at genocide was particularly vicious and brutal in the 1950's. Then the massive 60's Scoop to hurriedly 'transfer' even more children from their own to our culture. And then what was to them the an attempt to complete the genocide: Trudeau ' s 1969 White Paper on repatriating the Constitution, proposing that they be Canadian citizens without Aboriginal rights. That attempt didn't succeed either. However, genocide is genocide even if not 'complete'. The Jewish Holocaust was genocide, but there are many Jews still alive today. Genocide is defined as " ... acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such " Eta: Today's 'modern treaty' attempts to bribe and extort surrender of all Aboriginal rights continue that pattern. . Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 So it's an attempted cultural genicide now. Quote
The_Squid Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 That's what Indigenous Peoples say too, defiantly: ... "attempted ... but we are still here!" Canada was running scared once the Convention on Genocide was in effect. Like the gas ovens running full tilt as the Allies closed in, the residential schools last ditch attempts at genocide was particularly vicious and brutal in the 1950's. Then the massive 60's Scoop to hurriedly 'transfer' even more children from their own to our culture. And then what was to them the final attempt to complete the genocide: Trudeau ' s 1969 White Paper on repatriating the Constitution, proposing that they be Canadian citizens without Aboriginal rights. That attempt didn't succeed either. However, genocide is genocide even if not 'complete'. The Jewish Holocaust was genocide, but there are many Jews still alive today. . Comparing what happened to Jews in the Holocaust to residential schools is in extremely poor taste. It minimizes both atrocities and deflates your argument completely. It shows that you can't make an argument to save your life and have to resort to the most extreme hyperbole.... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 So it's an attempted cultural genicide now. I know sometimes legal stuff is a bit difficult to comprehend so here is another look at the wording. "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: Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) None of what you just described wipes out the legal definition of genocide, which is the definition I follow for a common agreed on definition.Good plan. The UN definition is the one used in the International Courts for legal proceedings on genocide. Are we agreed, folks? . Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Comparing what happened to Jews in the Holocaust to residential schools is in extremely poor taste. It minimizes both atrocities and deflates your argument completely. It shows that you can't make an argument to save your life and have to resort to the most extreme hyperbole.... I was defining genocide with reference to those two examples. There is no need for comparison, only for acknowledgement that both genocides have occurred. . Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Ummm, no.Well then you can take up your dispute with the UN.I will be just pointing out from now on that your 'opinion' is contrary to the law. And where is your "data" to support your allegation that "most of the TRC is not the truth"? Did you not find it yet? . Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 Anything reliant on memory is not proper data. Quote
jacee Posted July 12, 2015 Report Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Aboriginal customs and laws were supplanted by new ones. That's the reality that 'radicals' don't want to face. Aboriginals are part of the Canadian fabric now, not separate.Canada has three founding peoples and three legal traditions:French Civil Code British Common Law Aboriginal Law. Aboriginal laws were never "supplanted". That's a blatant lie. You are really stooping to devious and deceitful methods. You must be getting paid to troll here. Either that, or you are unglued. And where is your "data" to support your allegation that "most of the TRC is not the truth"? Did you not find it yet? . Edited July 12, 2015 by jacee Quote
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.