Jump to content

The pope using the word "genocide" is a misuse of the word and therefore a blatant lie


Recommended Posts

The Pope said the residential school system was a genocide.

The word genocide is defined as follows:

quote   

gen·o·cide

[ˈjenəˌsīd]

NOUN

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group:

"a campaign of genocide" · 

[more]

synonyms:

racial killing · massacre · wholesale slaughter · mass slaughter · wholesale killing · indiscriminate killing · mass murder · mass homicide · mass destruction · annihilation · extermination · elimination · liquidation · eradication · decimation · 

[more]     unquote

He is obviously using the word for political purposes but in doing so is spreading a harmful lie to the world.  There was no massacre, racial killing, or slaughter.  Many native children were badly abused, sexually, physically and mentally.  Many died from diseases.  But they were not deliberately slaughtered or massacred as the word genocide  clearly means.  This shameful terminology is being used by the leader of the world's largest nominal church.  Many simply throw the word out and say genocide took place in residential schools.  This is completely false and a lie.  This will simply give more ammunition to the extremists and radicals to demand more and falsely accuse Canada of crimes against humanity, similar to war crimes or the holocaust, which never occurred.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

Cultural genocide or cultural cleansing is a concept which was proposed by lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as a component of genocide.[1] Though the precise definition of cultural genocide remains contested, the Armenian Genocide Museum defines it as "acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations' or ethnic groups' culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction."[2]

That is what Canada attempted with indigenous peoples.  It was a deliberate and determined attempt to eliminate them by eliminating their culture - essentially turn them into brown white people.   A quote from Sir John A. Macdonald,– was to 'take the Indian out of the child,' makes the intent clear.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, dialamah said:

From Wikipedia:

Cultural genocide or cultural cleansing is a concept which was proposed by lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as a component of genocide.[1] Though the precise definition of cultural genocide remains contested, the Armenian Genocide Museum defines it as "acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations' or ethnic groups' culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction."[2]

That is what Canada attempted with indigenous peoples.  It was a deliberate and determined attempt to eliminate them by eliminating their culture - essentially turn them into brown white people.   A quote from Sir John A. Macdonald,– was to 'take the Indian out of the child,' makes the intent clear.

 

 

I think it was more of an effort to bring indigenous people into modern society. Was harm done along the way? Yes of course but to my mind genocide brings up images of Nazi Germany and concentration camps and crematoriums. There have been other attempts at genocide as well but trying to educate people in schools is something different.

I've heard stories from old timers around here about how strict the schools were back then, nothing like today.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it all originates from Canada's deeply ingrained Victorian Missionary Impulse

and Canada is still doing it now

 treating the "indigenous" like helpless children who need the government to run every aspect of their lives

it never ends with the do gooder impulse gone overboard in Canada

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

I think it was more of an effort to bring indigenous people into modern society. Was harm done along the way? . There have been other attempts at genocide as well but trying to educate people in schools is something different.

The goal was to take the "Indian out of the child".  How did they try to do this?  Stealing them from their families as young as 5, cutting their hair;  removing their clothes, burning and ridiculing them; beating them if they spoke their own language; forcing Christianity upon them; shaming them for the color of their skin, their parents, their villages - anything that identified them as "not white".  They also fed them substandard food, and they spent most of their days working - not being schooled.  They were fed substandard food, many of them were physically beaten over minor infractions and some were sexually assaulted.

For the adults, they were literally confined to the reservation, needing a permit from the Indian Agent to leave; they were forbidden to practice any of their "heathen ways".  Later on, the women were sterilized, without consent, if they went into the hospital to have a baby - this occurred as late as the 1980s. That's a small sampling of their treatment.

"Take the Indian out of the child" was the underpinning of what went on - forcibly removing children from their parents and villages and putting them into an environment where they tried, through beatings and shaming, remove every thing that made them Indian.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The goal was to take the "Indian out of the child".  How did they try to do this?  Stealing them from their families as young as 5, cutting their hair;  removing their clothes, burning and ridiculing them; beating them if they spoke their own language; forcing Christianity upon them; shaming them for the color of their skin, their parents, their villages - anything that identified them as "not white".  They also fed them substandard food, and they spent most of their days working - not being schooled.  They were fed substandard food, many of them were physically beaten over minor infractions and some were sexually assaulted.

For the adults, they were literally confined to the reservation, needing a permit from the Indian Agent to leave; they were forbidden to practice any of their "heathen ways".  Later on, the women were sterilized, without consent, if they went into the hospital to have a baby - this occurred as late as the 1980s. That's a small sampling of their treatment.

"Take the Indian out of the child" was the underpinning of what went on - forcibly removing children from their parents and villages and putting them into an environment where they tried, through beatings and shaming, remove every thing that made them Indian.   

I'm not saying what they did was right, what I am saying is there is a big difference between putting someone in a school compared to putting them in a concentration camp where they would end up as smoke from a chimney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dialamah said:

The goal was to take the "Indian out of the child".  How did they try to do this?  Stealing them from their families as young as 5, cutting their hair;  removing their clothes, burning and ridiculing them; beating them if they spoke their own language; forcing Christianity upon them; shaming them for the color of their skin, their parents, their villages - anything that identified them as "not white".  They also fed them substandard food, and they spent most of their days working - not being schooled.  They were fed substandard food, many of them were physically beaten over minor infractions and some were sexually assaulted.

For the adults, they were literally confined to the reservation, needing a permit from the Indian Agent to leave; they were forbidden to practice any of their "heathen ways".  Later on, the women were sterilized, without consent, if they went into the hospital to have a baby - this occurred as late as the 1980s. That's a small sampling of their treatment.

"Take the Indian out of the child" was the underpinning of what went on - forcibly removing children from their parents and villages and putting them into an environment where they tried, through beatings and shaming, remove every thing that made them Indian.   

I don't disagree with your description about what was done with many of them, but that still does not justify the use of the word genocide which clearly means a massacre or mass killings.  The word genocide is being used incorrectly in this case and is therefore a lie.  You cannot use the word cultural with genocide and pretend it has a different meaning than what the word genocide actually means.  The words cultural and genocide simply do not go together because the word genocide has a specific meaning.  Many people misunderstand the term cultural genocide and have actually believed there was some kind of mass murder of aboriginal children.  They point to the reports of unmarked graves as proof of genocide.  That is dishonest.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In declaring it genocide, il papa has literally turned the tables on Justin Trudeau and the Government of Canada. Now the truth about Canada’s responsibility over residential schools has to fully come out.

Until now Trudeau has been quite sanctimonious himself, perhaps more so than the pope. 

Definitely more so than the pope, for the pope at least apologized. All we hear from Justin is how bad the church is, how this was all the church’s fault. Was it not Mr. Trudeau who invited, practically insisted, that the pope come to Canada and apologize? Yes he did.

Trudeau invites pope to Canada for Church apology to indigenous peoples

Laws, yes.

Justin called him out, never figuring the old man would drag himself out here to see what all the fuss was about. But there he was. Proving he is both stronger and smarter than Justin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

The word genocide is defined as follows:

 

I used the same word in the same context when we were discussing the mass graves found near Kamloops a year or so ago.

And back then you again disagreed and posted definitions.

I don't know what you believe,  but I know I was right in what I said back then and similarly the Pope is right.

Time for you to suck it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

I'm not saying what they did was right, what I am saying is there is a big difference between putting someone in a school compared to putting them in a concentration camp where they would end up as smoke from a chimney.

So you agree that cultural genocide was the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

In declaring it genocide, il papa has literally turned the tables on Justin Trudeau and the Government of Canada. Now the truth about Canada’s responsibility over residential schools has to fully come out.

Trudeau is only responsible for his own mess.  I am sure he did not participate in the genocide.    He is responsible for the vaccination mandates and measures he took against protesters as well as his scandals.

I am almost sure that this "Doctrine of Discovery" is not something unique to Canada.  The church must have used it across the world to lay hands on lands that were already occupied by other peoples.  Probably they did the same in Australia and New Zealand.   No idea what they would have done in Africa or Asia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

for the pope at least apologized. All we hear from Justin is how bad the church is, how this was all the church’s fault.

How soon we forget:

Trudeau sorry for ‘incredibly harmful’ residential schools

"because of actions that the federal government and other partners deliberately and willingly undertook.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cougar said:

Trudeau is only responsible for his own mess.  I am sure he did not participate in the genocide.    He is responsible for the vaccination mandates and measures he took against protesters as well as his scandals.

I do not disagree, but it may be too late to contain it now. Trudeau has cornered himself with his own virtue signalling. Opened pandora's box. Sowed the wind, reaped the whirlwind. Played with fire,

You get the picture.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I don't disagree with your description about what was done with many of them, but that still does not justify the use of the word genocide which clearly means a massacre or mass killings.  The word genocide is being used incorrectly in this case and is therefore a lie.  You cannot use the word cultural with genocide and pretend it has a different meaning than what the word genocide actually means.  The words cultural and genocide simply do not go together because the word genocide has a specific meaning.  Many people misunderstand the term cultural genocide and have actually believed there was some kind of holocaust or murder of aboriginal children.  They point to the reports of unmarked graves as proof of genocide.  That is dishonest.

It's not dishonest: 90% of the indigenous population was decimated by the arrival of Europeans.  Those that were left were forced into reservations, and their children forced into residential schools.

Read about it here.

The government’s aim, however, was even farther-reaching. It did not seek only to rearrange indigenous communities from within. It wanted all indigenous people in Canada to become “enfranchised,” effectively destroying indigenous nations as distinct groups" .

I understand the difference between the taking of a life and the destroying of a life, and both should be equally condemned - especially by someone who calls themselves a Christian - rather than minimizing the effect of one over the other.

By the way, the United Nations defines genocide as the following:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Canada, in it's treatment of Indigenous people fullfilled all of those criteria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How soon we forget:

Trudeau sorry for ‘incredibly harmful’ residential schools

"because of actions that the federal government and other partners deliberately and willingly undertook.”

 

Trudeau was jumping on the story before it was even verified. Most of these graves still are not verified from what I read. But they are not the only issue. That narrative was shut down and turned into an attack on the church. All the media wants to do is talk about the role of the church, not the whole truth that Canada is not yet willing to accept.

I am not judging it. Those who want to live by the sword, go ahead. In my opinion no person should be responsible for something their ancestors did.

The natives presented a case for genocide to the UN. They chose to appeal to an outside organization, as the Canadian government continues to cover up and lie about their commitments. Now that the pope agrees, it raises the credibility of their argument.

In a statement Monday, the UN Human Rights Office said the inquiry uncovered “reasons to believe” Canada’s past and present policies, actions and failures to act towards Indigenous peoples amount to genocide under international law.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/06/17/un-human-rights-office-calls-for-deeper-examination-of-inquirys-genocide-finding.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Sorry but I dont get this part. You’re saying the holocaust never occurred?

I mis-worded that or did not make it clear it appears.   I'm saying there was no holocaust of aboriginals, no genocide in residential schools.  The holocaust did occur under Hitler in WW2 and it was a real genocide of the Jews.  Will try to correct my wording on that.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, cougar said:

I used the same word in the same context when we were discussing the mass graves found near Kamloops a year or so ago.

And back then you again disagreed and posted definitions.

I don't know what you believe,  but I know I was right in what I said back then and similarly the Pope is right.

Time for you to suck it up.

I told you what I believe.   The use of the word genocide for residential school FNs makes absolutely no sense at all.  There was no massacre or mass murder.   They may have been denied their culture, language, and customs, but that does not mean the same thing as genocide.  There are fibs, propaganda, and lies.  The use of the word genocide in this case is used for fibs, propaganda and lies.  You cannot equate loss of culture with genocide.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dialamah said:

It's not dishonest: 90% of the indigenous population was decimated by the arrival of Europeans.  Those that were left were forced into reservations, and their children forced into residential schools.

Read about it here.

The government’s aim, however, was even farther-reaching. It did not seek only to rearrange indigenous communities from within. It wanted all indigenous people in Canada to become “enfranchised,” effectively destroying indigenous nations as distinct groups" .

I understand the difference between the taking of a life and the destroying of a life, and both should be equally condemned - especially by someone who calls themselves a Christian - rather than minimizing the effect of one over the other.

By the way, the United Nations defines genocide as the following:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Canada, in it's treatment of Indigenous people fullfilled all of those criteria.

 

No, that does not meet the definition of the word genocide.   There was no mass or deliberate killing of aboriginals in Canada.   There were some cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse, but this does not fit the definition of genocide at all.   

There were back in history high death rates of FNs from smallpox in some places.  I do not know what period in history that occurred and do not know the details..  That may have happened before the period of residential schools.  I think that happened in a number of countries.  There was also a lot of ignorance in previous centuries about how diseases were spread.  There were also some deaths in the 20th century from polio and TB and possibly other diseases.  But I would not assume all these deaths were deliberately inflicted on FNs.

Also, I do not accept that all the bad things that happened in history, 50, 100, or 150 years ago are to be blamed on the people living today.  We had nothing to do with it.  Many bad things happened in history.  The whole world was settled by people migrating from one place to another.  Being an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant is not a crime.  No ethnic group such as FNs has sole ownership or rights to live on a continent such as north America simply because their ancestors were here first.  

Your third point is another false allegation.  There is no evidence or proof that the government or churches were deliberately trying to bring about the physical destruction of FNs.

There were at the mid 20th century some cases of forced sterilization of native women.  This was one of those things that has been condemned by authorities since then.  Churches had nothing to do with it.  It was a measure done by some child welfare departments of government because they thought the women were not capable of raising children.  But, as far as I know, forced sterilization has been stopped; however I am not an expert on it.  There may be some cases where forced sterilization could be justified in a court of law, but that would likely be extremely rare.  What should be done with someone who is a drug addict who is incapable of looking after a child and has already produced a number of children that the state has had to take into foster care to protect them?

On your fourth point about transferring children from FNs communities to non native groups, you must be referring to foster homes for children requiring care.  In the 1950s to 1980s, child welfare departments of governments did apprehend children they deemed were in danger and placed them in non-native foster care.  But this was not done to bring about the destruction of FNs culture or ethnic groups.  The authorities at the time really thought they were protecting children from harm.  But more recent political thinking is that they should not have removed them from FNs communities and government is trying to change the system.  It has been difficult to change because of the problem of finding suitable places to place homeless FN children in foster homes within the native communities.  That is why there are still a large number of FN children in non-native foster care.  It is not an easy system to change.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I do not disagree, but it may be too late to contain it now. Trudeau has cornered himself with his own virtue signalling. Opened pandora's box. Sowed the wind, reaped the whirlwind. Played with fire,

You get the picture.  ;)

Trudeau is always pandering to the lunatic left

and so is the Pope

they don't call him Red Francis for nothing

Whore of Babylon

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cougar said:

I used the same word in the same context when we were discussing the mass graves found near Kamloops a year or so ago.

And back then you again disagreed and posted definitions.

I don't know what you believe,  but I know I was right in what I said back then and similarly the Pope is right.

Time for you to suck it up.

while there have been claims of mass graves, have there in fact been any remains uncovered

I know that there have been things found by ground penetrating radar but, have any bones been dug up?

What about the records? They have been asked for yet there has been no talk of whether they were provided or what was in them.

I have no doubt that children dies whilst in the residential schools, that would naturally have occurred but, many accusations and many claims and the responses and evidence is still sort of obscure.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

Also, I do not accept that all the bad things that happened in history, 50, 100, or 150 years ago are to be blamed on the people living today.

50 years ago ?

that is on Ottawa

100 to 150 years ago ?

that was the British Empire

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

So you agree that cultural genocide was the goal.

I do not agree with using the term genocide here. It's a can't-win situation because we all know that if governments of the past and present had gone with a hands off policy there would be just as much criticism and complaints today. It would have been seen as cruel to let them live without any benefits of modern society.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pope's declaration that residential schools was a genocide just proves that truth with the Vatican and Catholic church is a rare commodity.  This is a total perversion of the word genocide.  There is a purpose in the Pope's use of this word.  It has more to do with the RCC's long term goals of increasing power.  The RCC has been known by many as an unbiblical and false church throughout the centuries.  This is just another proof.  The Papacy is not a biblical entity but is a political entity masquerading under Christianity.  There are many books that explain how the Vatican is an unbiblical entity.  The website Chick Publications has some simplified literature explaining that.  Many other books have been written exposing it, even books and literature written by former priests and bishops.   Alberto Rivero, former Jesuit priest, revealed a lot about it.   It has it's own nation state, diplomats, and huge government bureaucracy with various departments.  It is also one of the richest entities in the world, holding real estate throughout the world and billions in wealth.  The book The Vatican Billions goes into that.  It has been accumulated over the centuries on the backs of it's followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

The use of the word genocide for residential school FNs makes absolutely no sense at all.  There was no massacre or mass murder.  

It makes no sense to you only.  Poor language skills on your part.

As pointed out to you genocide also refers to a deliberate attempt to wipe out a specific group of people .

You can't come up here start a threat under "The Pope lies!"   just because of your limited understanding of one word!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,355
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    JoshDotoli
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • whoshere earned a badge
      First Post
    • TomT earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • TomT went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Tony Hladun went up a rank
      Explorer
    • TomT earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...