Indian residential school system an act of genocide: prof

[gerryh]

Indian residential school system an act of genocide: prof | APTN National News


Now, the article is fine, and I don't have too much problem with it aside from the characterization of genocide. I would definatly agree with the reason for the schools was to destroy native culture and integrate Natives into the rest of Canada, but genocide imply's killing.

The main reason for this post though is the reactive post on face book from a young man who personally would never have seen the inside of a residential school and who seems to have been taught only one side of history. His attitude is one that will NOT be conducive to peaceful resolutions of squat between Natives and non.

Here is his response:

Wow we needed a western professor to tell us what we already knew. Come on APTN, catch up with the ppl... We all knew its an act of genocide, the whole occuption of turtle island is an act of war.

 

[petros]

We all knew its an act of genocide, the whole occuption of turtle island is an act of war.

Cool. War eh? Does that mean my neighbourhood will finally get marshall law to end the gang issues?

 

[captain morgan]

but genocide imply's killing.

It's not an implication, the word genocide specifically identifies killing as the M.O..

 

[lone wolf]

Assimilation just doesn't have the oomph....

 

[captain morgan]

... But redefining the meaning of a word for political ends does?

 

[gerryh]

Helps with the brain washing.

 

[Goober]

... But redefining the meaning of a word for political ends does?

Knowing that I am on ignore, Gerry seems to have become fixated on First Nations - 3 threads in a row on First Nations?????

 

[captain morgan]

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose that employing highly controversial language is the "squeak"

 

[lone wolf]

... But redefining the meaning of a word for political ends does?

It got your attention, didn't it?

 

[gerryh]

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose that employing highly controversial language is the "squeak"

Using genocide has a lot more punch. While the Europeans, and then Canada did not truly use genocide, they did try to wipe out First Nations ethnically, which would have achieved the same end result.

 

[Goober]

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose that employing highly controversial language is the "squeak"

It grabs the attention, and only appeals to those that are not familiar with the meaning, or those that are just looking for another term to use in their fight and those types will use inflammatory language all the time.

 

[captain morgan]

Using genocide has a lot more punch. While the Europeans, and then Canada did not truly use genocide, they did try to wipe out First Nations ethnically, which would have achieved the same end result.

Allow me to use this example (employing an extreme interpretation):

Can the removal of Christian religious components from the public educational system be interpreted as cultural genocide as well?.. It fits with the overall definition of subverting a specific ethnic (or theological) ideal.. Potentially, can it achieve 'the same result'?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the underlying logic isn't really that different.

 

[gerryh]

Allow me to use this example (employing an extreme interpretation):

Can the removal of Christian religious components from the public educational system be interpreted as cultural genocide as well?.. It fits with the overall definition of subverting a specific ethnic (or theological) ideal.. Potentially, can it achieve 'the same result'?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the underlying logic isn't really that different.

What the residential schools did was more than just remove the "theological" idea's. Residential schools removed children from their families, both immediate and extended, removed their language, their "religion", anything and everything that would say that those kids were First Nations. It wasn't a matter of removing one thing, it was the removal of everything connected to what a First Nations person was. Your example is severely flawed.

 

[captain morgan]

What the residential schools did was more than just remove the "theological" idea's. Residential schools removed children from their families, both immediate and extended, removed their language, their "religion", anything and everything that would say that those kids were First Nations. It wasn't a matter of removing one thing, it was the removal of everything connected to what a First Nations person was. Your example is severely flawed.

I don't disagree with your comment regarding the extreme actions and ramifications, but it's a slippery slope. Again, to use an extreme interpretation of the aforementioned example, can it not be argued that the effects might be interpreted in a similar manner?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Ethnic absorbing maybe?

 

[gerryh]

I don't disagree with your comment regarding the extreme actions and ramifications, but it's a slippery slope. Again, to use an extreme interpretation of the aforementioned example, can it not be argued that the effects might be interpreted in a similar manner?

No, religion can still be practiced at home and else where. The children who attended the residential schools lived there 24/7.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I rather like the native religion. With the exception of killing suspected Windigos I think it's pretty balanced.

 

[karrie]

Knowing that I am on ignore, Gerry seems to have become fixated on First Nations - 3 threads in a row on First Nations?????

yeah, sometimes people post about what's currently relevent to them.

 

[captain morgan]

No, religion can still be practiced at home and else where. The children who attended the residential schools lived there 24/7.

Don't take offense to this, but you're rationalizing this by splitting hairs.

In it's most base form, society is preventing the ethnic and cultural expressions of a specific group.

 

[karrie]

I'm of two minds on this one gerry....

1. To be technically correct, Canada was instigating assimilation tactics, not genocidal ones.

2. To steal away a generation of children is to attempt to physically end a race, and from the standpoint of a mother who's had her children taken, and possibly been forcibly sterilized, it IS the death of their family, and so the difference is one meant only to comfort the minds of the victimizers.

Don't take offense to this, but you're rationalizing this by splitting hairs.

In it's most base form, society is preventing the ethnic and cultural expressions of a specific group.

Don't take offense, but you're running off on a really thin tangent to try to prove a point about something that isn't relevant to what this thread is asking.