Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I mean, how far back are you going to go with your contemporary standards ?

because Canada is Britannia

and Britannia was founded by the Romans in 43 AD

are Canadians responsible for the Pagans throwing the Christians to the lions

then the Christians throwing the Pagans to the lions after ?'

Canada was the British Empire in the 19th century

should Canadians self flagellate for conquering the Indians of India too ?

painting1.jpg

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

even if it did, the prohibition against it did not exist at the time

the political legal definition of "genocide" wasn't even invented until 1915

As I understand it, the term genocide was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lempkin in 1943/44.

 

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

even if it did, the prohibition against it did not exist at the time

the political legal definition of "genocide" wasn't even invented until 1915

I agree. And if the prohibition did happen to exist at the time we probably wouldn't have done it. In hindsight, I get the sense that the government (and churches) at the time felt they were doing nothing wrong. As the world goes on we learn from our mistakes, and the only way to do that is by admitting to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's one for you

on 8 December 1941

HM Canadian Army was sent to Hong Kong

to defend the British Empire in China

only to be overrun by the Imperial Japanese two weeks later

2,700 Canadians killed, 2300 wounded, for the Empire

the survivors taken prisoner

where another 267 were were starved, beaten & tortured to death in captivity

how should Canadians self flagellate over that ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, suds said:

I agree. And if the prohibition did happen to exist at the time we probably wouldn't have done it. In hindsight, I get the sense that the government (and churches) at the time felt they were doing nothing wrong. As the world goes on we learn from our mistakes, and the only way to do that is by admitting to them.

at the time, "genocide" would have only been invoked in the context of slavery

but I don't think the British of the time meant this to be that

this was more like being made a "ward of the state"

child and family services still does this now

is going into a group home really much different ?

because my father worked for the Children's Aid for 37 years, so I know all the gory details

and being a ward of the state in a group home now, is not that different from a residential school

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

at the time, "genocide" would have only been invoked in the context of slavery

but I don't think the British of the time meant this to be that

this was more like being made a "ward of the state"

child and family services still does this now

is going into a group home really much different ?

because my father worked for the Children's Aid for 37 years, so I know all the gory details

and being a ward of the state in a group home now, is not that different from a residential school

I have no idea how Children's Aid works but I'd be surprised if it operated based on race or ethnicity.  So it seems there is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, suds said:

I have no idea how Children's Aid works but I'd be surprised if it operated based on race or ethnicity.  So it seems there is a difference.

I don't think the British saw it as a race issue actually

they saw it as a cultural issue

if it was a race issue, they wouldn't have been trying to make the Indians fit into British society

I don't think the Victorians in Canada were actually doing this from a White Supremacist angle

they thought they were doing good, they thought they were helping the Indians become British

the road to Hell is paved by the priggish Victorian British Missionary Impulse

and that is still driving Canadian societal attitudes to this day

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the American Indians were not actually a target of White Supremacists generally

the Indians fought the Yankees with the British Crown, Brock & Tecumseh the fathers of our nation

the Confederate States of America had many Indian soldiers in the ranks, the Indians fought against the Union

and even the Nazis held the American Indians in reverence, the Nazis called them a Master Race

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't think the British saw it as a race issue actually

they saw it as a cultural issue

if it was a race issue, they wouldn't have been trying to make the Indians fit into British society

I don't think the Victorians in Canada were actually doing this from a White Supremacist angle

they thought they were doing good, they thought they were helping the Indians become British

the road to Hell is paved by the priggish Victorian British Missionary Impulse

and that is still driving Canadian societal attitudes to this day

I agree.  Culture may have been a better word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, suds said:

I agree.  Culture may have been a better word.

I've always had very cordial relations with the Indians

the Iroquois, particularly the Mohawks

I was toe to toe with them on Op Salon/ Feather in 1990

and I was able to diffuse the situation with parley in the name of Her Majesty

I dated a Mohawk girl, but it was she who broke it off

because she said the Mohawks would never accept her having a British boyfriend

I go to Grand River, and those Mohawks know that I respect them as brothers in arms

for they are the ones who saved Upper Canada at the Heights of Queenston on 13 October 1812

and you serve side by side with a lot of Indians in the Canadian Army too

the Liberal elites are going to lecture me about relating to the Indians ?

yeah, okay, whatever

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Christians and white people are working. 

Not if you say something the religion of woke doesn't like. Then you are cancelled. Ie all lives matter or Jesus is the only way to heaven

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Calling something brown on the ground shit does not prove it is shit.

Can you imagine all those apologies and the Pope coming here from the Vatican to also apologize, if there was nothing conclusive about the images???

I would say, lets leave it for what it is, and what it has been recognized to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cougar said:

Can you imagine all those apologies and the Pope coming here from the Vatican to also apologize, if there was nothing conclusive about the images???

I would say, lets leave it for what it is, and what it has been recognized to be.

Yup. If there were some bones instead of fuzzy images, there may be evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People talk about colonialism in Canada as though the French and later the English arrived to a populous, settled Canada and took over against the will of the locals.   For the first couple of centuries of European settlement it was fairly easy for Indigenous to live as they had in the past and for Europeans to do the same.  In fact there was much intermarriage (Métis) and the Indians chose their alliances based on perceived threats and vice versa, I.e. French with Hurons, English with Mohawks, etc.  The Indians had warred with each other much as the Europeans had warred with each other.

The issues really seem to have started when the English were unable to prevent US western expansion (Manifest Destiny), which ended Tecumseh’s goal of an Indian state in the Ohio valley.  After that the protection of Indian lands and way of life became negotiated through treaties.  The outcomes worked against the Indigenous because the European and now American Loyalist settlers kept coming.  The Americans basically went to war with the Indians, defeated them, then set the terms for the reserve system.  The Brits (who had recently taken over from the French and lost the US to the Patriots) were trying to manage the reality of massive immigration, which they encouraged in part to build a bulwark against American expansionism.

It wasn’t all bad for Indigenous because they too benefited from trade and scientific progress.  Almost everyone wanted public education and access to opportunity.

The decision to create Residential Schools was in part a way of getting education to children from remote communities, which still happens today when Indigenous kids leave home to attend high school.  The religious institutions that ran those schools could be harsh, but they were also harsh towards white kids.  My mother remembers the strappings, hitting, and verbal abuse.  People were harsher.  Life was harsher.   Indigenous got it worse because of cultural bias.  Also the Indian Act and Indian agents who enforced it were misguided.  The act created a strange kind of double standard, with privilege attached to ethnic status.   It’s quite arguable that with the tax exemptions and government subsidies, Indigenous enjoy many privileges over other Canadians today, which is why we have to be careful in discerning past injustices to understand how they came about but also to understand that throwing more privileges at Indigenous isn’t fair and has helped reinforce social divides.  There have been payouts to victims and no doubt there will be calls for “reparations”.  Who should make them and to whom?   How far back do we reach to right the past?   Patriots vs Loyalists?  Romans versus early Christians?   Should we go back to Macedonia?   What about the invasions of Jerusalem?   Persia?

We need to stop privileging people and remember that merit is the only bellwether in a free, democratic, and honest society.

Genocide literally means killing people.  Was there ever a program in Canada to kill Indigenous people?  Absolutely not.  Was forced assimilation a form of cultural genocide?   It seems unfair by today’s standard to have imposed education on Indigenous, but we still have mandatory public education for good reasons.  The teachers were of European ancestry and spoke English or French, the official languages.

The injustice was the suppression of culture and language, as well as the forced separation from parents.  I don’t think that happened to the same degree with white non-English or non-French speaking immigrants from Europe, though it did to some extent.   People who committed abuse must be held accountable for their actions.

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

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

People talk about colonialism in Canada as though the French and later the English arrived to a populous, s....

...............

We need to stop privileging people and remember that merit is the only bellwether in a free, democratic, and honest society.  

Thoughtful and reasonable and Very well said and explained.

Edited by ExFlyer
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Genocide literally means killing people.  Was there ever a program in Canada to kill Indigenous people?  Absolutely not.

 

It was explained to you what it means, but you prefer to be as ignorant as Blackbird. Maybe the two of you studied together in whatever god forsaken school, where your teacher taught you nothing.

The French and British definitely settled in lands that were previously occupied and used by First Nations.  And this is why you have the Metis you mention.  Not because the First Nations really got together with the settlers, but most likely because the settlers were mostly men when they arrived and needed women.

I have no time to rebut all nonsense in your long post.

Be grateful the First Nations are not Afghans, or we would have had a very tough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cougar said:

It was explained to you what it means, but you prefer to be as ignorant as Blackbird. Maybe the two of you studied together in whatever god forsaken school, where your teacher taught you nothing.

The French and British definitely settled in lands that were previously occupied and used by First Nations.  And this is why you have the Metis you mention.  Not because the First Nations really got together with the settlers, but most likely because the settlers were mostly men when they arrived and needed women.

I have no time to rebut all nonsense in your long post.

Be grateful the First Nations are not Afghans, or we would have had a very tough time.

Gen means people.  Cide means kill.  Genocide means the killing of people.  The government of Canada never had a genocide program.  Don’t twist language to suit your political agenda.

The Brits were far from perfect in their treatment of Indigenous, but if the Indigenous were the more dominant group, I’m not sure they would have been any friendlier.

In Ontario there were battles between Indigenous groups and only temporary Indigenous settlements because they moved when the soil depleted.  During early European settlement the land seemed infinite.   Anyway you need to read more about the history because your views seem quite shallow and one-sided.  

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

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The government of Canada never had a genocide program. 

Also means to kill a people.  Like explained on page one by other posters.

Canada did have in place a program to assimilate or kill the indigenous people, so those in power could rule their lands and use take the resources for themselves, while keeping the survivors in check.

I do not need to convince you or anyone, as long as our present government and the Pope are convinced.  You would think they would not be admitting things that harm their institutions, unless what was said really happened.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cougar said:

Also means to kill a people.  Like explained on page one by other posters.

Canada did have in place a program to assimilate or kill the indigenous people, so those in power could rule their lands and use take the resources for themselves, while keeping the survivors in check.

I do not need to convince you or anyone, as long as our present government and the Pope are convinced.  You would think they would not be admitting things that harm their institutions, unless what was said really happened.

Ignorance

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Ignorance

..on your and Blakbird's part.

 

hey, let's begin a new thread and call the Pope a liar, because we did not understand the meaning of "genocide".

hey, let's continue to post and pretend our definition is the correct one and there is nothing more to it.   Forget about the Pope, the government and millions of people who understand and accept what "genocide" is.  They are "ignorant", because this is not what I think !  Eh?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

appeal to authority fallacy

Please, let me know under what circumstances you would publicly declare you were a child molester, rapist and killer ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cougar said:

..on your and Blakbird's part.

 

hey, let's begin a new thread and call the Pope a liar, because we did not understand the meaning of "genocide".

hey, let's continue to post and pretend our definition is the correct one and there is nothing more to it.   Forget about the Pope, the government and millions of people who understand and accept what "genocide" is.  They are "ignorant", because this is not what I think !  Eh?

Your argument of genocide is nonsensical.

By your interpretation, every war/battle/skirmish/fight/insurrection/coup/overthrow by all peoples all over the world any time throughout history would be genocide.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

By your interpretation, every war/battle/skirmish/fight/insurrection/coup/overthrow by all peoples all over the world any time throughout history would be genocide.

What is "my interpretation" ?   There is only one interpretation and it was mentioned on page 1.

Nobody is talking about "war/battle/skirmish/fight/insurrection/coup/overthrow"

What we are talking about is wiping out a nation by destroying its culture and heritage.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...