Jump to content

The benefits of colonialism


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Because you say so?

Let’s assume you’re correct.  Do you think all the good things could have been introduced without needing to separate children from families or force them out of their lands?

The children had to be taken care of by the powers that be.  Otherwise you would have had genocide by starvation.  Then you would be whining about that.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

 

Let’s assume you’re correct.  Do you think all the good things could have been introduced without needing to separate children from families or force them out of their lands?

Nobody was forced out of their lands. Some land was set aside not to be messed with so they'd always be able to live in their traditional way.  But they were free to live wherever they wanted. Not a lot of buffalo hunting to be done in downtown toronto tho, so living away from the land reserved for their use elusively meant living differently.

And no that wouldn't have been possible. Development of the land meant things were going to change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Because there is no proof of genocide.  It is a fake claim.  It is useful to claim endless compensation from the government.

Not only is there no proof- there is ample proof that it never happened. 

THe goal of the gov't was to integrate and assimilate first nations into the new nation being born. That is not genocide.

The children died at res schools because of illness - especially tuberculosis which affects first nations more and killed people on the reserves just as much. To this very day first nations catch tuberculosis at something like 40 times the rate of everyone else.  That accounted for something like 80 - 90 percent of the dead children

Of the remainder the majority died of spanish flu. Of the small remainder of deaths after that  a number were to other illness

A tiny tiny number died of injury or misadventure. IS it possible some of those were abused or killed? Maybe - but there's no evidence so far.

So no genocide.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Where did the supreme court rule that?  I'll wait...

My mistake, the SC didn't rule that, a chief justice did call it a cultural genocide but that's not a ruling yet. Probably will be one day if people continue to rail against acknowledgement and reconciliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

My mistake, the SC didn't rule that, a chief justice did call it a cultural genocide but that's not a ruling yet. Probably will be one day if people continue to rail against acknowledgement and reconciliation.

Mistakes happen.   But i doubt that it ever will be offically ruled as a genocide. It doesn't match the definition unless you twist it out of shape entirely and it cheapens the term. That's why you see it watered down often with things like "cultural" genocide,  which is just silly.

The problem for the gov't is that an actual ruling on genocide would have serious consequences - none the least of which would be with the chinese.  Can't call what happened with the first nations a genocide and NOT call what's happening with the uyhgurs there genocide.

The fact is if they'd actually wanted a genocide that would have been very easy. That's npt what they wanted.  Obviously.

It was an attampt at assimilation. We can talk about how smart an idea assimilation is, or other things that could have been done maybe, but that's what it was. No genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Lies.  That’s a sin.  

What?   Children's aid taking neglected or abused kids into foster care and government putting kids in residential schools that would otherwise receive no education? That has always been the role of the government, provincial and federal.

Why has it suddenly become wrong for the government to try to help the native kids for the last 150 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 

Why has it suddenly become wrong for the government to try to help the native kids for the last 150 years? 

IF we're being honest - the problem is that the gov't DIDN"T help the native kids with schools, they subbed it out to the churches and then washed their hands of it. They didn't inspect or follow up to make sure everything was good or the like. And that really was an error. They should have at least had min standards and made sure they were met and inspected for abuses.

Most of the res schools were decent enough i think - but there are a few where its clear there are horror stories. And a report was given to Laurier (liberal) showing that there WERE concerns and that bad things were happening in some places and that was ignored.

So - while obviously it was not the intent of the gov't for bad things to happen they shirked their duty of care to make sure the kids were being looked after and just signed the cheques.  And of COURSE predators are going to infiltrate the church, there's a prosperous hunting ground there for a scumbag who can fake his belief and then be turned loose amongst the sheep.

We should have done more. But that's not the same as 'we committed the crimes'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Question: Was it the colonials or the natives who insisted on segregation?

I don't know that either insisted on it. The king at the time was adamant that the natives be looked on as brothers and he was pretty clear that he didnt' want their way of life destroyed, and the english knew that the land would be claimed and used so i think it was basically suggested as a good idea that some land be set aside and reserved for the first nations exclusive use. I think it was something mutually agreed on by both parties as a 'good idea'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 4:07 PM, CdnFox said:

Oh for sure - back then i could have split your head open with an axe (or in your case a butter knife),  crapped in your skull and used your skin to make a blanket for my dog and sold your family into slavery and nobody would have said a thing. Nowadays if i did that i'd have to sit through the judges lecture... "Look, i totally get where you were coming from and considering his stupidity i think everyone agrees with it in concept but.. "

I didn't realize you were indigenous...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s revisionist history.  They took perfectly happy kids away from their parents too.  Just for being indigenous.    

THAT would be the revisionist history.

They didn't take kids away "just for being first nations". (the first nations aren't indigenous.).

There were always other factors and although we can look back and say that  some of them were wrong now at the time they were done for altruistic reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s revisionist history.  They took perfectly happy kids away from their parents too.  Just for being indigenous.    

Nonsense.  I have firsthand knowledge of the kind of thing that happened.  Social services put two indigenous kids in my home for a week or so and the little girl said a man in the indigenous home where she lived, perhaps a father, or grandfather, put her hand on the stove to teach her a lesson.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read recently that the president of Rwanda or Burundi made a speech and he said ( I am paraphrasing), "Yes, they did terrible things. They came to our land and conquered us. However, that is the past. We need to move towards a time where we have no foreign aid, no foreign investors, and are sustaining ourselves." I would wholly agree with this. You can't go forward if you are always looking in the rearview mirror. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  I have firsthand knowledge of the kind of thing that happened.  Social services put two indigenous kids in my home for a week or so and the little girl said a man in the indigenous home where she lived, perhaps a father, or grandfather, put her hand on the stove to teach her a lesson.

No one is arguing that “social services” isn’t doing that.  But that has zero to do with the topic of colonialist government and churches removing children from homes many, many years ago. 
 

They literally took indigenous children away from their homes by force, well before “social services” was ever a thing.  
 

https://learning.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/pathways/residential-schools-reconciliation/   
Together with Christian churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican) the Canadian government worked to create these schools as an attempt to educate and ‘civilize’ the Indigenous peoples of Canada. They wanted Indigenous children to accept European culture and ways of being.

By the 1930s there were 80 residential schools across Canada. These schools took Indigenous children aged 5 to 16 from their homes and communities and separated them from their culture. Speaking First Nations’ languages was against the rules and the schools often had poor living conditions. Many children were underfed. Many became ill.

44 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You can't go forward if you are always looking in the rearview mirror. 

You can’t go forward without acknowledging the wrongs of the past and reconciling with those who suffered at the hands of the government at the time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No one is arguing that “social services” isn’t doing that.  But that has zero to do with the topic of colonialist government and churches removing children from homes many, many years ago. 
 

They literally took indigenous children away from their homes by force, well before “social services” was ever a thing.  
 

https://learning.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/pathways/residential-schools-reconciliation/   
Together with Christian churches (Roman Catholic and Anglican) the Canadian government worked to create these schools as an attempt to educate and ‘civilize’ the Indigenous peoples of Canada. They wanted Indigenous children to accept European culture and ways of being.

By the 1930s there were 80 residential schools across Canada. These schools took Indigenous children aged 5 to 16 from their homes and communities and separated them from their culture. Speaking First Nations’ languages was against the rules and the schools often had poor living conditions. Many children were underfed. Many became ill.

You can’t go forward without acknowledging the wrongs of the past and reconciling with those who suffered at the hands of the government at the time.  

would you agree that eventually at some time you have focus your eyes forward?  Or do you continually rail against the past?

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
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Caswell Thomas went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Gator went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Gator earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

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