Jump to content

Turtle Island: Fact Check


Bill67

Recommended Posts

As per NASA, the earth is not on a turtle's back.

 

But, they are white supremacists who work in an organization rooted in systemic racism so what do they know?

 

Imagine people doing land acknowledgements that recognize

 " turtle Island"? Sounds like a cult.

 

If you use a wheel or a wheel like product, thank colonialism.

The wheel did not exist in pre Colonial Americas.

 

Nor did electricity, roads, hospitals, schools, cars, planes, gas/ectric heated homes, refrigerators. If you are not Indigenous, you are a settler and you are in Canada because you love colonialism.

 

You cannot be a non indigenous person living in Canada and enjoying the wonders of European arrival and claim to be be against colonialism and to be pro Indigenous people. If you are a pro Indigenous settler, leave Canada, hand over your land and stop using Indigenous water, air, and resources.

Be honest.

 

If you believe that the earth sits on the back of a turtle, let me sell you the myth of systemic racism and white privilege too! Donate millions to radical violent organizations so they can buy luxury houses! And, you can virtue signal on social media what a hero you are!

If you want to honour the pre Colonial way, like the Aztecs and human sacrifices and slavery.

 

Slavery in the Pacific Northwest developed at some point between 500 B.C. and A.D. 500, long before European contact, and at contact, slaves were clearly set apart from the existing tribal ranking system and prestige-seeking in the region. Early indigenous peoples also possessed other practices that predated contact with the British and Europeans: cannibalism and the killing of slaves, the latter of which also occurred and for a variety of reasons: funeral feasts, the building of a new home, a new title, the erection of a totem pole, or as part of the ceremony at potlatches. A Russian Orthodox priest recounted how in one Sitka ceremony where a new clan chief was appointed, four slaves were strangled as part of the ritual. 

Ah...the good ole days.

Migwetch

 

Edited by Bill67
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bill67 said:

1. If you are a pro Indigenous settler, leave Canada, hand over your land and stop using Indigenous water, air, and resources.

2. If you believe that the earth sits on the back of a turtle, let me sell you the myth of systemic racism and white privilege too!

 

1. Well nobody is saying this, so not sure what you are punching the air for...
2. If you believe that a middle eastern zombie rose from the grave and was God's little boy then let me sell you the myth that Christianity is about being better than brown people...

You are a small-minded thinker whose posts have a limited perspective, and you want to think you're great because you were born into a race of conquerors.  Weirdly, you don't want to acknowledge the past wrongs and yet you are proud over achievements that had nothing to do with you.  You should really leave the forum and get an education before returning IMO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well nobody is saying this, so not sure what you are punching the air for...
2. If you believe that a middle eastern zombie rose from the grave and was God's little boy then let me sell you the myth that Christianity is about being better than brown people...

You are a small-minded thinker whose posts have a limited perspective, and you want to think you're great because you were born into a race of conquerors.  Weirdly, you don't want to acknowledge the past wrongs and yet you are proud over achievements that had nothing to do with you.  You should really leave the forum and get an education before returning IMO.

History is one of narratives.  A narrative holds a set of truths and perspectives that tell a story, but a story that is incomplete, because it leaves out other facts and perspectives.

The left will tell one set of narratives, typically focusing on the bad things the powerful have done and showing the weak to be victims of that power.  The right will tell another set of narratives, focusing more on the good things the powerful have done or how the weak have made poor choices that have contributed to their situation etc.

For instance:  the left will say the rich are greedy, horde their wealth, and take advantage of workers.  The right will say the rich create businesses that provide goods/services we all use, create jobs and wealth for society etc.  There is truth in both of these perspectives, but the left seems compassionate while the right seem like a-holes.  It's easier to seem moral when you're standing up for the weak rather than the powerful.

With the indigenous we typically only hear 1 set of narratives.  We don't hear how the West brought them medicine and modern healthcare, modern agriculture/nutrition, longer lifespans, tools, literacy etc.  We don't as often here that indigenous people pre-Columbus warred, raped, murdered, ensalved, looted, scalped/tortured each other etc at rights far higher than today, or how they had their own violent expansionist empires (Aztec, Incas).

Focusing on 1 set of narratives over another is called politics.  The guilt for our wrongs is why we focus on 1 set over the other (understandable), while the rest of the truth is inconvenient and therefore downplayed.  If you point out other facts/narratives you are silenced and called a racist because these narratives are political & push a certain agenda & policy, which is why you're angry with the OP & want him to leave.  It's a conservative's job to tell us what the progressives conveniently leave out, and vice versa.  A self-correcting system.  Don't fear other facts and narratives Michael, if we listen to them we might find some truth amongst the bullsh!t.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, herbie said:

That was all in the past, we realize colonialism was bad and we'll never do that again.
(smiles at Martian)

In 1492 there was no international law, no UN, no Geneva Conventions, and state sovereignty (borders) weren't even recognized among European countries until 1648.  It was an all-out war of all against all, everyone trying to expand territory so a rival country wouldn't become more rich and powerful and conquer them.  The indigenous did it amongst themselves pre-Columbus.

It was a brutal worldwide situation of warfare and survival and it slowed down after WWII, empires decolonized rapidly, international law was implemented, the UN created.  This is Hobbes' "state of nature" on an international scale.  And it still exists (no global government) except there's no more territory to expand, and borders are more or less settled for the most part, so peace is more common, but civil war is still common.

I don't feel guilty for the British/Canada being stronger than others, because if Africa or indigenous had invented guns and ocean-faring ships etc before Europe they would have done the exact same thing.  Those societies were horribly brutal also, and West Africans took war prisoners amongst other African tribes to sell as slaves to Europeans.  You have to read history books to learn this stuff, they won't tell you on TV.

However, we should have known better about residential schools etc., there's no excuse for that cruelty.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

History is one of narratives.  A narrative holds a set of truths and perspectives that tell a story, but a story that is incomplete, because it leaves out other facts and perspectives.

The left will tell one set of narratives, typically focusing on the bad things the powerful have done and showing the weak to be victims of that power.  The right will tell another set of narratives, focusing more on the good things the powerful have done or how the weak have made poor choices that have contributed to their situation etc.

For instance:  the left will say the rich are greedy, horde their wealth, and take advantage of workers.  The right will say the rich create businesses that provide goods/services we all use, create jobs and wealth for society etc.  There is truth in both of these perspectives, but the left seems compassionate while the right seem like a-holes.  It's easier to seem moral when you're standing up for the weak rather than the powerful.

With the indigenous we typically only hear 1 set of narratives.  We don't hear how the West brought them medicine and modern healthcare, modern agriculture/nutrition, longer lifespans, tools, literacy etc.  We don't as often here that indigenous people pre-Columbus warred, raped, murdered, ensalved, looted, scalped/tortured each other etc at rights far higher than today, or how they had their own violent expansionist empires (Aztec, Incas).

Focusing on 1 set of narratives over another is called politics.  The guilt for our wrongs is why we focus on 1 set over the other (understandable), while the rest of the truth is inconvenient and therefore downplayed.  If you point out other facts/narratives you are silenced and called a racist because these narratives are political & push a certain agenda & policy, which is why you're angry with the OP & want him to leave.  It's a conservative's job to tell us what the progressives conveniently leave out, and vice versa.  A self-correcting system.  Don't fear other facts and narratives Michael, if we listen to them we might find some truth amongst the bullsh!t.

Michael is a typical Liberal who likes to say progressive sounding things that are only partly true because then when he actually lives his life benefitting from all the great aspects of “settler” culture, he can tell himself he’s a good person.  Of course his views mostly just reaffirm typical ignorant young activist misconceptions that lack historical context, but they sound flowery so we should all pretend they’re truth and slam they guy who started this threat as Mike did, even though that poster said nothing inaccurate.

It’s not about the truth or trying to discern it, it’s about saying progressive sounding stuff no matter whether your life really reflects it or you really believe it, because then you get to call others retrograde and pretend you’re especially noble.  It’s actually the main reason we’re lost as a society now and very divided: lack of honest conversation and refusal to question half-truths.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 1. The left will tell one set of narratives, typically focusing on the bad things the powerful have done and showing the weak to be victims of that power.  The right will tell another set of narratives, focusing more on the good things the powerful have done or how the weak have made poor choices that have contributed to their situation etc.

2. For instance:  the left will say the rich are greedy, horde their wealth, and take advantage of workers.  The right will say the rich create businesses that provide goods/services we all use, create jobs and wealth for society etc.  There is truth in both of these perspectives, but the left seems compassionate while the right seem like a-holes.  It's easier to seem moral when you're standing up for the weak rather than the powerful.

3. With the indigenous we typically only hear 1 set of narratives.  We don't hear how the West brought them medicine and modern healthcare, modern agriculture/nutrition, longer lifespans, tools, literacy etc. 

4. We don't as often here that indigenous people pre-Columbus warred, raped, murdered, ensalved, looted, scalped/tortured each other etc at rights far higher than today, or how they had their own violent expansionist empires (Aztec, Incas).

5. Focusing on 1 set of narratives over another is called politics.  The guilt for our wrongs is why we focus on 1 set over the other (understandable), while the rest of the truth is inconvenient and therefore downplayed.  If you point out other facts/narratives you are silenced and called a racist because these narratives are political & push a certain agenda & policy, which is why you're angry with the OP & want him to leave.  It's a conservative's job to tell us what the progressives conveniently leave out, and vice versa.  A self-correcting system.  Don't fear other facts and narratives Michael, if we listen to them we might find some truth amongst the bullsh!t.

1. Ok, and the centre needs to overlap these two at least to some extent.  And some of the stories told will be nonsense.  Nobody, even "the left", is telling whites to move out of Canada and so we waste bandwidth by putting these rants into the mainstream of discussion.

2. It's easy to seem practical when you're describing actual limits to our resources and capacities than dreaming about utopias too.

3. If you expect groups to thank other groups for what they have provided, what form does that take ?  I don't think that European settler descendents universally thank natives for things, nor do they even accept us apologizing.  That phenomenon is just starting, as a kind of detente and examination of the relationship.  First Nations etc. ask for symbolic concessions and they get pushed back by people who say we shouldn't even apologize so it's hard to create any kind of progressive dialogue.  I"m sure there are lots of first nations people who appreciate what technology has brought us all.

4. We also don't ever hear of the horrible war times in the 17th through 19th centuries very much.   We hear of a few select battles such as Little Bighorn but not the pervasive terror that persisted for centuries on both sides.  I think some of this can be owed to a refusal to listen to ugly stories.

5. In what forum are you called a racist though ?  Describe the forum where these things are discussed that you want to exist ?  Isn't it just MapleLeafWeb/RePolitics ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Michael is a typical Liberal who likes to say progressive sounding things that are only partly true because then when he actually lives his life benefitting from all the great aspects of “settler” culture, he can tell himself he’s a good person.  Of course his views mostly just reaffirm typical ignorant young activist misconceptions that lack historical context, but they sound flowery so we should all pretend they’re truth and slam they guy who started this threat as Mike did, even though that poster said nothing inaccurate.

It’s not about the truth or trying to discern it, it’s about saying progressive sounding stuff no matter whether your life really reflects it or you really believe it, because then you get to call others retrograde and pretend you’re especially noble.  It’s actually the main reason we’re lost as a society now and very divided: lack of honest conversation and refusal to question half-truths.  

The problem is that different groups of people on each side of the aisle have their own set of narratives they're trying to push that contain truths and/or subjective perspectives that are diametrically opposed to each other because of the reasons I stated (philosophical morality).  So people end up just yelling at each other and telling each other how the other's perspective is not complete or accurate, because they typically are indeed missing something.

IMO if you are a progressive or conservative you are at least half full of BS and half full of truth.  A lot of people are trying to indoctrinate everyone with their selective truth and agenda.  Many people are so caught up in their ideology they don't even realize that's there's another set of truths & perspectives out there, and they call the other side evil.

Today's progressives and conservatives are so extreme that they often venture into the realm of unreasonable insanity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Michael is a typical Liberal who likes to say progressive sounding things that are only partly true because then when he actually lives his life benefitting from all the great aspects of “settler” culture, he can tell himself he’s a good person.  Of course his views mostly just reaffirm typical ignorant young activist misconceptions that lack historical context, but they sound flowery so we should all pretend they’re truth and slam they guy who started this threat as Mike did, even though that poster said nothing inaccurate.

It’s not about the truth or trying to discern it, it’s about saying progressive sounding stuff no matter whether your life really reflects it or you really believe it, because then you get to call others retrograde and pretend you’re especially noble.  It’s actually the main reason we’re lost as a society now and very divided: lack of honest conversation and refusal to question half-truths.  

Your complaints about me are very proceeded to insult religious beliefs.. nothing to do with liberalism to take down such a garbage post.. but I guess you were offended.general, and don't refer to anything specifically I said. 

Whereas my complaints about the poster you're rushing in to rescue are very specific.

He came up with a strawman, then insulted somebody's religion. Nothing to do with liberalism to take down a garbage post like that, but I guess you were offended enough that you had to comment on my dialogue with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The problem is that different groups of people on each side of the aisle have their own set of narratives they're trying to push that contain truths and/or subjective perspectives that are diametrically opposed to each other because of the reasons I stated (philosophical morality).   

That has always been true. What is different today is that fringe views like the post I criticized masquerade as mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, and the centre needs to overlap these two at least to some extent.  And some of the stories told will be nonsense.  Nobody, even "the left", is telling whites to move out of Canada and so we waste bandwidth by putting these rants into the mainstream of discussion.

2. It's easy to seem practical when you're describing actual limits to our resources and capacities than dreaming about utopias too.

3. If you expect groups to thank other groups for what they have provided, what form does that take ?  I don't think that European settler descendents universally thank natives for things, nor do they even accept us apologizing.  That phenomenon is just starting, as a kind of detente and examination of the relationship.  First Nations etc. ask for symbolic concessions and they get pushed back by people who say we shouldn't even apologize so it's hard to create any kind of progressive dialogue.  I"m sure there are lots of first nations people who appreciate what technology has brought us all.

4. We also don't ever hear of the horrible war times in the 17th through 19th centuries very much.   We hear of a few select battles such as Little Bighorn but not the pervasive terror that persisted for centuries on both sides.  I think some of this can be owed to a refusal to listen to ugly stories.

5. In what forum are you called a racist though ?  Describe the forum where these things are discussed that you want to exist ?  Isn't it just MapleLeafWeb/RePolitics ?

1.  Sure.  Some narratives might be based on complete falsehoods.

2. Not sure what that means.

3. Many settlers now honour indigenous peoples with land acknowledgements, that could be seen as thanking, or gratitude.  I like the word "detente" that you used.  I think some things we can come to peace with.  Forgiving past wrongs is easy.  The hard part is present politics, where legal battles like treaties/land claims and land rights etc make things real and messy.  Politics is power relations amongst humans, sometimes there is no choice but for there to be a winner and a loser.

4.  We don't teach a much history in Canada.  We are the opposite of Americans like that, we seem mostly indifferent or sometimes ashamed of our history.  How odd.

5.  Not usually called a racist on this forum since there's fewer progressives here.  Been called racist on other forums.  I've been moderated on some forums for stating facts.  I was recently banned from a popular forum for simply stating pro-choice views.  I have progressive friends who get mad at me, and friends of friends who dislike me because I state facts that disagree with their narratives on race and feminism etc.  They aren't capable of dialog.  People don't like their worldview challenged.  I would never post this stuff on my Facebook page with my name attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That has always been true. What is different today is that fringe views like the post I criticized masquerade as mainstream.

Maybe social media means democracy of viewpoints:  they all get airtime.  This can be good and bad.

But also, the news is more like tabloids now, they just want views/ratings, and extreme views and stories get more eyeballs.

What's odd is that these fringe views get traction.  Maybe some people are just dumb.  Maybe humans can't handle freedom of viewpoints.  Maybe many people are better to be brainwashed.  Religions did it for thousands of years, things went ok, but not perfect.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.  Not sure what that means.

2. We don't teach a much history in Canada.  We are the opposite of Americans like that, we seem mostly indifferent or sometimes ashamed of our history.  How odd.

3.  Been called racist on other forums.  I've been moderated on some forums for stating facts.  I was recently banned from a popular forum for simply stating pro-choice views. 

 

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 

4. What's odd is that these fringe views get traction.  Maybe some people are just dumb.  Maybe humans can't handle freedom of viewpoints.  Maybe many people are better to be brainwashed.  Religions did it for thousands of years, things went ok, but not perfect.

1. You said that it's easy for 'the left ' to moralize against the evils of wealth.  Ok but it's also easy for 'the right ' to ask for pragmatism as a response to leftist utopias.  Just because these natural positions are easy, doesn't mean that they aren't essential.

2. I was referring to a period of history that is ignored by all American culture - by Canada and the US - in both education and culture.  Hollywood movies started trying to push this false noble savage caricatures in response to the racist John Wayne Indian trope.  The truth about that time is too awful to talk about.

3. I was using the term forum generally, not talking about online forums specifically but... Wow.  Your post reminds me of how rare this place is, in that it's not a bubble.

4. On this and your points about social media: I feel that the unrestricted flow of ideas is a good thing, but it makes it hard to establish a consensus based on objectivity.  It's postmodernism in action... anarchy and amoral nihilism. 

But the opposite should happen.  In real life, fringe ideas die and consensus forms on those ideas that live.

I find that frustrating...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 12:32 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

However, we should have known better about residential schools etc., there's no excuse for that cruelty.

Not a lot happened in residential schools that did not happen in regular boarding schools. The very idea of adult sexual abuse of children was a foreign notion to most people. We ignored it up until about the 1990s.

Much of what is in the air about residential schools is exaggerated by our liberal culture of self-loathing. For example, there was no requirement to go until 1920. And by 1950 90% of native kids were attending day schools on their reserves. So we're basically talking about a 30 year period.

Almost all of the deaths at schools came from diseases we didn't understand and couldn't cure. The same diseases swept through native reserves and white cities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 6:51 AM, I am Groot said:

Not a lot happened in residential schools that did not happen in regular boarding schools. The very idea of adult sexual abuse of children was a foreign notion to most people. We ignored it up until about the 1990s.

Much of what is in the air about residential schools is exaggerated by our liberal culture of self-loathing. For example, there was no requirement to go until 1920. And by 1950 90% of native kids were attending day schools on their reserves. So we're basically talking about a 30 year period.

Almost all of the deaths at schools came from diseases we didn't understand and couldn't cure. The same diseases swept through native reserves and white cities.  

Students in regular boarding schools were not forcibly removed from their families and denied their language and culture.

Where are the cemeteries outside regular boarding schools?

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Students in regular boarding schools were not forcibly removed from their families

Most of the ones I knew were - with their parents doing the forcing, not the police. Big difference.

You tend to grow a thick skin on this forum after all the racists posting racist bullshit and immediately claiming everyone else is the racist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Students in regular boarding schools were not forcibly removed from their families and denied their language and culture.

Where are the cemeteries outside regular boarding schools?

The government only set schools up where there were enough students around that area to attend, as in towns and cities. The residential schools were built because big chunks of native kids were on tiny reserves without enough people to fill a school, and where you'd never get a schoolmarm to travel to and live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The government only set schools up where there were enough students around that area to attend, as in towns and cities. The residential schools were built because big chunks of native kids were on tiny reserves without enough people to fill a school, and where you'd never get a schoolmarm to travel to and live. 

 

Where there any white kids from remote areas in those schools? They were built to turn them white. Do you think regular boarding schools would just bury kids in the yard with no records or notifying families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Yup. They were built to educate kids, not turn them white.

You can't possibly still believe that. That's what they told us when we were in school, but now they all admit the agenda was to wipe out their culture. They were torn away from their parents like an infant from a crackhead Mom. Teachers told us they were just like Private or militar schools, but no one I know was beaten for speaking Italian or Cantonese among themselves.

But there are certain points. I am sick of hearing every candidate and speaker at every public meeting acknowledge it's taking place on such and such territory. The emcee can say that once. And I don't know any local natives referring to N America as Turtle Island, yet CBC seems stuck on that.
Maybe if the politicians say it is so, everyone will think it is so like Great Bear Rainforest for Central Coast and Metrotown for Old Orchard in Burnaby.
I was also annoyed to hear one of the native leaders refer to mass graves instead of unmarked ones, as if they bulldozed children into a pit like the Einsatzgruppen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Aristides said:

Students in regular boarding schools were not forcibly removed from their families and denied their language and culture.

Where are the cemeteries outside regular boarding schools?

I think the deaths might have some similarities to what happened in orphanages, and later, group homes.  They still treat kids like crap in group homes, or at least make them a low priority.  The cultural genocide part i assume is more unique.

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
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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