The Truth On Residential Schools Is Suppressed

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

False.

" 

One year ago today, the leaders of the British Columbia First Nation Band Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc announced the discovery of a mass grave of more than 200 Indigenous children detected at a residential school in British Columbia.

“We had a knowing in our community that we were able to verify. To our knowledge, these missing children are undocumented deaths,” Rosanne Casimir, chief of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, said in a statement on May 27, 2021."

Kamloops mass grave debunked: 'Biggest fake news in Canada' (nypost.com)

 

Yes, I know it is false, that is why I posted the article and said:

"Oh listen....is that noise I hear a herd of backbpeddlars????

Can't find shit so....blame someone else for false claims??

Was it us that started the orange shirt campaign or the indigenous???"

[Nationalist]

I only have 1 question.

Was it the colonialists who insisted on segregation, or the natives?

Edited September 7, 2023 by Nationalist

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I only have 1 question.

Was it the colonialists who insisted on segregation, or the natives?

Doesn't matter. In any conquest, one side loses.

Even in the wars between the tribes, one side lost and became slaves.

Edited September 7, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Doesn't matter. In any conquest, one side loses.

It matters TONS!

Ya gits wut ya pays fer. For you to ignore that very foundation of this "problem" is just begging for the mud puddle we currently have.

They should have worked towards assimilation like any reasonable people in their position at the time.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Nationalist

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It matters TONS!

Ya gits wut ya pays fer. For you to ignore that very foundation of this "problem" is just begging for the mud puddle we currently have.

They should have worked towards assimilation like any reasonable people in their position at the time.

I responded to your post "Was it the colonialists who insisted on segregation, or the natives? " and said it does not matter and "In any conquest, one side loses. "   That stands.

I ignored what? What foundation? That the conqueror won?

Who should have assimilated? The indigenous?

The issue is that we have become apologists for everything this country has done in the past 300+ years.

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Who should have assimilated? The indigenous?

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

The issue is that we have become apologists for everything this country has done in the past 300+ years.

Agreed.

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes.

 

Agreed.

You know assimilation was never going to happen as long as we gave everything.

The indigenous are our "refugees".

They have lived in camps for 300+ years, get everything handed to them. Never having to work for anything and then want more and we give more.

This is a Canadian problem. Look at how well most American indigenous have done. A lot better assimilation and societal involvement than here in Canada. Canadian indigenous are our largest welfare cases and drain on our economy..

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

You know assimilation was never going to happen as long as we gave everything.

The indigenous are our "refugees".

They have lived in camps for 300+ years, get everything handed to them. Never having to work for anything and then want more and we give more.

This is a Canadian problem. Look at how well most American indigenous have done. A lot better assimilation and societal involvement than here in Canada. Canadian indigenous are our largest welfare cases and drain on our economy..

Completely agree.

Thus...when I hear these slobs whine about their plight...I say F-U. I know lots of Natives and they work...they live well...they do NOT like this hand-out mentality.

As is always the case...

Ya gits wut ya pays fer. They got under development and poor living conditions, and we got a ball and chain.

Stupid both sides.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The issue is that we have become apologists for everything this country has done in the past 300+ years.

That's what we get for not completing the paper work, like official declarations of war and surrender documents. And no treaties in the case of most of BC.

[ExFlyer]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's what we get for not completing the paper work, like official declarations of war and surrender documents. And no treaties in the case of most of BC.

I do not understand the politics of long ago but, if Canada was conquered, it was conquered in it's entirety.

I do not get the part that BC had to sign treaties when it was not a province yet. Canada was but provinces were not. The treaties were for Canada.

I am pretty sure that there were not as many "tribes" as there are now. The indigenous have found the formula....declare a tribe and send the bill to the government LOL

Edited September 7, 2023 by ExFlyer

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not understand the politics of long ago but, if Canada was conquered, it was conquered in it's entirety.

I do not get the part that BC had to sign treaties when it was not a province yet. Canada was but provinces were not.

I think the idea of treaties was to avoid some kind of war.  Canada was a benevolent country.  Much different than the U.S. that had the Indian wars.  Yet listening to all the radical activists and liberal apologists today, you would think Canada was a monster.   It was the opposite.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I only have 1 question.

Was it the colonialists who insisted on segregation, or the natives?

As i recall it was actually the king.

The colonists, especially the french, worked with and welcomed the first nations people and respected their territory, but the king of england wanted to protect them from future abuses - and granted them lands that would be protected against the colony's activities - it wasn't segregation, first nations were welcome to live off those lands as well.  It was just land reserved for their exclusive use (things were different in the US)

It should be noted the king thought he was looking out after the first nations people and had nothing but good will towards them. But he didn't understand them, or how they lived. He thought of it from a european understanding of how people used land.

From the first nations perspective i'm sure it sounded great - they get to live as they always have and they get metal and booze and  guns and beads and all kinds of cool things that must have seemed near-god-like and their lives didn't change much at all.

It's improtant to remember that for the first few hundred years of european/first nations interactions, the relationship was VERY friendly and cooperative.  It wasn't until Canada became a real country and started to grow that things really went off the rails. Samuel Hearn, the hudsons' bay company, the voyageurs... all that was good times for both.

 

[Nationalist]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As i recall it was actually the king.

The colonists, especially the french, worked with and welcomed the first nations people and respected their territory, but the king of england wanted to protect them from future abuses - and granted them lands that would be protected against the colony's activities - it wasn't segregation, first nations were welcome to live off those lands as well.  It was just land reserved for their exclusive use (things were different in the US)

It should be noted the king thought he was looking out after the first nations people and had nothing but good will towards them. But he didn't understand them, or how they lived. He thought of it from a european understanding of how people used land.

From the first nations perspective i'm sure it sounded great - they get to live as they always have and they get metal and booze and  guns and beads and all kinds of cool things that must have seemed near-god-like and their lives didn't change much at all.

It's improtant to remember that for the first few hundred years of european/first nations interactions, the relationship was VERY friendly and cooperative.  It wasn't until Canada became a real country and started to grow that things really went off the rails. Samuel Hearn, the hudsons' bay company, the voyageurs... all that was good times for both.

 

Hmmm...not the story I remember. What I remember is that the Iroquois demanded the reserves in exchange for helping the colonists fend off the US attacks.

[herbie]

Massive response by the clods on politics by those without a clue how their own govt works, on economics and the virtues of capitalism by those who've never run a business or sold a $2 item at a garage sale for $2.50 and deny it's even possible, and those who think because they haven't panned a riverbed it proves there's no gold in there.

By those I don't need to say anything about at all, as they'll reveal it all publicly themselves and are dumb enough to be proud of doing so.

Enjoy DISC and HIST channels' ancient aliens and those grainy 1947 b&w shots as proof of reality. Hide in Mom's basement cuz the post you read about the murder in Tanzania proves it's not safe to venture outside.

[Nefarious Banana]

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

Massive response by the clods on politics by those without a clue how their own govt works, on economics and the virtues of capitalism by those who've never run a business or sold a $2 item at a garage sale for $2.50 and deny it's even possible, and those who think because they haven't panned a riverbed it proves there's no gold in there.

By those I don't need to say anything about at all, as they'll reveal it all publicly themselves and are dumb enough to be proud of doing so.

Enjoy DISC and HIST channels' ancient aliens and those grainy 1947 b&w shots as proof of reality. Hide in Mom's basement cuz the post you read about the murder in Tanzania proves it's not safe to venture outside.

What's your point?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not understand...

I do not get...

Neither do the politicians which is why everything ends up in court.

[herbie]

The point is... the point was made in previous posts, but to paraphrase a Judge I once heard "This is your seventh possession charge but putting you in jail is not gonna make you any smarter. $100 fine, get out of my court".

ie You're never going to counter anyone who just doesn't want to believe, who thinks taking their ball and going home is winning the game.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

The point is... the point was made in previous posts, but to paraphrase a Judge I once heard "This is your seventh possession charge but putting you in jail is not gonna make you any smarter. $100 fine, get out of my court".

ie You're never going to counter anyone who just doesn't want to believe, who thinks taking their ball and going home is winning the game.

Yeah but they have their ball and are safely at home. You on the other hand are still outside and it's raining.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hmmm...not the story I remember. What I remember is that the Iroquois demanded the reserves in exchange for helping the colonists fend off the US attacks.

I think that would have been much later than the initial 'reservation' concepts but i'd really have to look

[PIK]

On 8/28/2023 at 3:21 PM, herbie said:

The reality is that "mass graves" are when you bury a bunch of people in ONE common grave and has been used by everyone to sensationalize the issue. And that has never been claimed by any survivors.

What has been claimed for many, many years is that some kids who died in mysterious circumstances were buried unrecognized on school grounds. The record of students that did die and were never buried in a recognized, recorded manner does exist. The well known fact that some were buried and the markers were removed or vandalized proves it did happen.

The claim that in one instance, at one place, no bodies were found does not prove that "the issue has been debunked" at all. Try to refrain from perpetuating racist bullshit on the thinnest of grounds.

I would bet many if not most Is TB. And not all native. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by PIK

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, PIK said:

I would bet many if not most Is TB. And not all native. 

The vast majority of residential school deaths were tb.  I believe it was somewhere in the 80+ percent range. TB was rampant, and for whatever reason fn's are highly susceptible to TB. That's true even today - the rate of tb in first nations community is 40 times higher, but at least now we have medication for it.

Of the remainder the vast majority died of influenza, mostly during the outbreak in the 20's.  Another illness that hit young people and old people hardest.

The tiny fraction left died of various other things such as farming accidents and the like, other illnesses such as menigitis, etc.  The world was less safe 120 years ago than it is today.

The number of kids who's deaths are not easily explained or might possibly be suspicious like "fell and hit head while playing" and such is tiny. Absolutely tiny.  And i haven't heard of a single case of a kid going 'missing' where the school just said "Dunno WHERE that guy went.. he was here a few days ago?"  So 'missing' children seems like a complete hoax.  There may have been a few cases where kids ran away or something but the idea that they just 'vanished' off the books with no explanation seems pretty far fetched. and if there were any it would be a very small number.  Not 'hundreds'

[herbie]

17 hours ago, PIK said:

I would bet many if not most Is TB. And not all native. 

The whole issue is that they died at the schools and were buried without being returned to their homes, without proper markings and no record of who, when or why. Yes, mostly from TB, polio, etc. That some died of abuse, infanticide or neglect is highly probable due to the sheer volume of stories of survivors from all over Canada.

The AFN has since apologized for referring to 'mass graves', and yes I heard some native speakers refer to them as that in the heat of the moment.
The forcible abductions, the physical, mental and sexual abuse, the intent to stamp out their culture did happen, it is part of admitted and proven historical fact and a shame on our country.

It is entirely shameful to insist that as there hasn't been absolute CSI evidence of outright murder and mass burial "proves" that none of it ever happened. Only an utter bigot would conclude so. To use such logic it would follow that as they didn't raise the Arizona and recover the bodies, Pearl Harbour never really happened. That not recovering the dead from that imploded mini sub for 'proof' was due to the backward, savage respect for the dead beliefs of 'the white man'.
 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

The whole issue is that they died at the schools and were buried without being returned to their homes, without proper markings and no record of who, when or why.

Can't return them home. TB bodies are still contageous after death.  And in 1910 you're not going to have refrigerated box cars or other means of shipping them. Never mind the costs.

And the graves were marked at the time. The parents COULD have easily attended and done more if they wished, or had the bodies exhumed and taken home.

The record keeping was trash. That much is entirely legit. But it's not that there was no records.

But the whole thing is no where nearly as bad as they suggest.

12 minutes ago, herbie said:

The AFN has since apologized for referring to 'mass graves',

Well i was emotionally traumatized by their actions - where's my reparations?

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

It is entirely shameful to insist that as there hasn't been absolute CSI evidence of outright murder and mass burial "proves" that none of it ever happened. Only an utter bigot would conclude so

It is beyond !diotic to suggest that IF you need evidence of a crime before you accept there was a crime that this makes you a bigot.

IT's the traditional leftie ploy -  if you DARE question these unfounded and unsupported facts then you are a bigot and an evil person and probably kill children yourself!!

No, you pathetic little weasel  - it is NORMAL to say there needs to be evidence if someone is making a claim that there's a crime, and that's true if the person is white black red yellow or chartreuse.  Suggesting that people who would like to see evidence before accepting something are evil people would make YOU the bad person, not them.

[herbie]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Can't return them home. TB bodies are still contageous after death.  And in 1910 you're not going to have refrigerated box cars or other means of shipping them. Never mind the costs.

Oh FFS can you get more petty? Maybe even return them in a coffin and tell Mom they died from TB? And the cost... the cost,., who shall PAY who shall PAY why should I have to pay ????

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS can you get more petty?

ROFLMAO -  so truth and facts are 'petty' to you? Actually that explains a lot....

Quote

Maybe even return them in a coffin and tell Mom they died from TB?

return them how? This should be entertaining - kiddies of tb in the summer in 1924 - his body is contagious.  What do you suggest?

Quote

And the cost... the cost,., who shall PAY who shall PAY why should I have to pay ????

If cost isn't an issue then the parents can pay.  Why wouldn't they? Who did you THINK should pay?

And you sound like you're having a brain aneurysm.  Why is it always like this with you whenever facts get mentioned?