Indian residential school system an act of genocide: prof


captain morgan
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

I believe that your scenario was answered by Karrie.

I know little about this program outside of the horrors inflicted on many.That is why the questions were asked. These things just do not suddenly leap of a desk and take root. There has to be a story behind why all this happened.

The point I am trying to make is that it is a slippery slope and a definition from a group by the UN is only as good as the latest version that is released.
 
karrie
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

To end the race all would have to be killed - Genetic base would still be there.

As to culture - Were all children placed in Residential Schools?

What reasoning did the Govt's use to keep this going?

What were the initial reasons to start this abhorrent program?

What results were they (Govt) looking for?

Canada's goal was very similar to that of Australia.... to breed out rather than have to kill off the aboriginal population. As for why, do you seriously have to ask that given the costs of maintaining the treaties? I could do the research for you, but, well, it's just as easy for you to google the numbers and the techniques and policies used. What I will tell you instead, is the personal side of it, based on MY family.

I belong to two francoCanadian families. My mother's family and my husband's family are both very large, very Catholic. Both sides have First Nations relatives in them in different ways, and both have seen different impacts. On my mother's side, her sister married a native. My uncle is one of the most incredible men I've ever met, and despite my aunty's passing from cancer, is a huge part of our family. His family is 'illegitimate'. When his mother was sent away to a residential school, her records were destroyed, and her treaty status thus revoked. Without a legal marriage to a treaty man, she never was able to reclaim any rights, or claim any rights for her children.

On the other side, my husband's side of the family, 3 of his aunts and uncles are testament to the effectiveness of the efforts the government undertook. After sending kids off to residential school, beating them, abusing them, and having them 'raised' without love or care (btw, this is my white mother-in-law's recount of residential school as well, as not only native kids were sent in poor communities), they grew up to be incapable parents to the children they had. The foster system then placed those kids with families, and a whole generation of children 'grew up white'. My husband's family is one of the few exceptions who kept their fostered and adopted kids in contact with their birth parents, and helped in the healing process, helped keep them in touch with their roots, with their culture. They still 'grew up white' though, married their high school sweethearts, and assimilated.

I'm lucky to have these people in my family. And they don't bear grudges, don't whip out the victim card at every turn. But I can't ignore the fact that the way they came to be here, to be part of our family, was at the time a very concerted effort on the part of the government, to make sure that the number of people who have treaty rights declined rather than rose. That concerted effort WAS genocide by the UN's definition.
 
gerryh
#33
and with my family, my Great grandmother and her daughter, my Grandmother, were expelled from their village, bannished, and not by "whitey". They lost their status and taught their children and grandchildren how useless the "indians" were.That's how bad the blood was. That's how betrayed they felt.
 
karrie
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

and with my family, my Great grandmother and her daughter, my Grandmother, were expelled from their village, bannished, and not by "whitey". They lost their status and taught their children and grandchildren how useless the "indians" were.That's how bad the blood was. That's how betrayed they felt.

uhm... k, see, I gave my examples to explain the way different issues in the targeted government efforts to eliminated treaty rights played out. While I don't want to imply your background isn't important, I'm not seeing how it factors into what was or wasn't government policy, or what is or isn't genocide.
 
gerryh
+1
#35
Sorry, that was more of a continuance from the dip shytes on aptn facebook. Talking about the "virtuous" First Nations peoples.
 
CDNBear
+2
#36
I don't think it was genocide as the word is tossed around. It wasn't done to assimilate us into Canadian culture though. It was done simply to get rid of a problem the Crown knew was only going to get worse, as they wanted more and more resources, and we grew smarter and smarter about how things work.

Lets not forget, this policy came about after Canada and Britain were embarrassed by The Six nations being granted a chance to join the League of nations. Seeing as we met all the requirements, unlike Canada at the time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Ethnic absorbing maybe?

Nope. They weren't trying to absorb our culture, they were trying to ex sponge it.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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

Or what they think wil get a rise out of someone that recently stepped on their toes.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Talking about the "virtuous" First Nations peoples.

What? I'm virtuous!
 
Machjo
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

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:

Have you ever heard of cultural genocide?
 
gerryh
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Have you ever heard of cultural genocide?


cultural genocide is not being claimed. Genocide, as in the killing of all Natives, is the claim that is asserted and the claim being made by commenters on aptn's facebook page.
 
karrie
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

cultural genocide is not being claimed. Genocide, as in the killing of all Natives, is the claim that is asserted and the claim being made by commenters on aptn's facebook page.

Okay, so, do you have a better definition of genocide than the UN does?
 
CDNBear
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

cultural genocide is not being claimed. Genocide, as in the killing of all Natives, is the claim that is asserted and the claim being made by commenters on aptn's facebook page.

That's because there were thousands of children that were, for all intents and purposes, gleefully murdered by your Church. At the behest of the Crown. i may not agree with the application of the word, but I can empathize.
 
gerryh
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post


What? I'm virtuous!


The kid that made the "virtuous" comment had said that the Europeans were lucky that the Indians were peaceful, virtuous peoples happy to help out where needed. They could have just slit the throats of the Europeans while they slept.

When I pointed out how those same "peaceful and virtuous" people had wiped whole neighbouring tribes he informed me that he was from the plains and couldn't speak to the eastern tribes or what they did. and yet........ he had informed me originally that they were "peaceful and virtuous". lol

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

That's because there were thousands of children that were, for all intents and purposes, gleefully murdered by your Church. At the behest of the Crown. i may not agree with the application of the word, but I can empathize.


Didn't say I didn't empathize with what happened, I feel the use of genocide does not help things on either side.
 
CDNBear
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

The kid that made the "virtuous" comment had said that the Europeans were lucky that the Indians were peaceful, virtuous peoples happy to help out where needed. They could have just slit the throats of the Europeans while they slept.

When I pointed out how those same "peaceful and virtuous" people had wiped whole neighbouring tribes he informed me that he was from the plains and couldn't speak to the eastern tribes or what they did. and yet........ he had informed me originally that they were "peaceful and virtuous". lol

When dealing with people who's intel intake consists of the MNN and some other way out there Native news outlets, what can you expect.

dumpster isn't the only half baked half wit on the planet. dumpster and the young man you were talking to are proof enough, that stupidity knows no colour boundaries.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Didn't say I didn't empathize with what happened, I feel the use of genocide does not help things on either side.

I agree. It's polarizing.
 
Machjo
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

cultural genocide is not being claimed. Genocide, as in the killing of all Natives, is the claim that is asserted and the claim being made by commenters on aptn's facebook page.

Interesting. I know there were intentional cases of spreading tuberculosis in some cases, but how widespread this practice was I'm unsure. There is no doubt cultural genocide was a systematic part of Canadian government policy for many years. As for actual genocide in terms of purposely exposing children to tuberculosis and whatnot, I'm not sure how high up the ranks it went or if it was more grassroots action.
 
karrie
+1
#44
Okay, stop just a nit picking minute.....

It's polarizing? You guys DO realize that the vast majority of people who were involved in deciding that these policies were okay, are no longer the ones discussing the issue right? So, how on EARTH is it polarizing to say 'Hey, this is historically what happened'? It seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to stick our heads in the sand. Initially I thought 'yeah, this wasn't genocide', but it took me a whopping two minutes of research after my initial post to find that this is PRECISELY what the UN has described as genocide for the last 60+ years. To me what seems more polarizing is to tell people who KNOW what it was that they should pretend it was something less because it would make it easier for us to all talk.
 
gerryh
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Okay, stop just a nit picking minute.....

It's polarizing? You guys DO realize that the vast majority of people who were involved in deciding that these policies were okay, are no longer the ones discussing the issue right? So, how on EARTH is it polarizing to say 'Hey, this is historically what happened'? It seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to stick our heads in the sand. Initially I thought 'yeah, this wasn't genocide', but it took me a whopping two minutes of research after my initial post to find that this is PRECISELY what the UN has described as genocide for the last 60+ years. To me what seems more polarizing is to tell people who KNOW what it was that they should pretend it was something less because it would make it easier for us to all talk.


You're right, of course. The Canadian government in collusion with the Christian Churches were systematically killing ALL Natives in Canada. Those you see claiming to be Natives are liars and wannabe's only.
 
Nuggler
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

I think over the almost 100 years the program was operated, goals changed with the times. Going back to the beginning you will see the attitude that Christianity was the only religion and that aboriginal beliefs were born of Satan. I have encountered similar beliefs even today with some of the evangelical types. In fact, I lost my family because my inlaws were evangelicals and they pressured my wife to leave me because I practiced aboriginal spiritual ceremonies - I was, to them, a minion of Satan and they told me that in no uncertain terms.


That sucks. Sorry Cliffy.

---------------------------------------------

"""" the Bear""""What? I'm virtuous!"""

Not that I've noticed, but, hey, could be............................

Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

That sucks. Sorry Cliffy.

---------------------------------------------

"""" the Bear""""What? I'm virtuous!"""

Not that I've noticed, but, hey, could be............................

time for byes. nite all.
 
karrie
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

You're right, of course. The Canadian government in collusion with the Christian Churches were systematically killing ALL Natives in Canada. Those you see claiming to be Natives are liars and wannabe's only.

So you haven't bothered to read the definition? Or you're just cherry picking? And I suppose the fact that there are still Jews means that the Holocaust wasn't a genocide, right?
 
gerryh
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

So you haven't bothered to read the definition? Or you're just cherry picking? And I suppose the fact that there are still Jews means that the Holocaust wasn't a genocide, right?


ok..I concede.
 
CDNBear
+2
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Okay, stop just a nit picking minute.....

It's polarizing?

Yes it is.

Quote:

You guys DO realize that the vast majority of people who were involved in deciding that these policies were okay, are no longer the ones discussing the issue right?

Yes, I realize that.

Quote:

So, how on EARTH is it polarizing to say 'Hey, this is historically what happened'?

I know what historically happened. I'm loath to call it genocide for a couple reasons.

1, The word is tossed around far to much. It diminishes the severity of the word.
2, It's an 'end' word. It automatically puts most Church folk and bureaucrats on the defensive.
3, IMHO, it doesn't rate the label.

Quote:

It seems to me to be a bit ridiculous to stick our heads in the sand.

Who's sticking their heads in the sand?

Quote:

Initially I thought 'yeah, this wasn't genocide', but it took me a whopping two minutes of research after my initial post to find that this is PRECISELY what the UN has described as genocide for the last 60+ years.

Do I really have to tell you how I feel about the UN?

Quote:

To me what seems more polarizing is to tell people who KNOW what it was that they should pretend it was something less because it would make it easier for us to all talk.

Murder is murder. Putting a severe label on it doesn't make it any less ignorant. It does however make some groups involved in the equation squeamish about being forthright.

That stifles forward action and so on.

I want communication. Not defensive posturing.

How do you feel about continuing to go to and contributing to a Church that committed genocide, refuses to tell us where the bodies are, and apologize?
 
karrie
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post


I want communication. Not defensive posturing.

How do you feel about continuing to go to and contributing to a Church that committed genocide, refuses to tell us where the bodies are, and apologize?

This is half my point.... does what you call it change the facts of what people are trying to get history to own up to? Truly?

If I'm sitting there as a Catholic attempting to talk to a native person who knows this was exactly what it was, do you think they really care that I don't like the term because I'm mentally applying the extreme to it? Do you really think that MY feelings, as someone who 'voluntarily' belongs to the wrong doing party, is what matters the most in the discussion?

If I'm feeling good enough today I'd really like to take a longer look at Australia and how their admission that what they had done (the same tactics as Canada), was indeed genocide, has impacted the relations between the aboriginal and white populations. Because it seems on the surface that despite this horrendous word, they've made a lot greater strides than we have on that front.

In the end, I really think as a country we're kidding ourselves if we try to manage 'how it looks' when facing up to and dealing with our history.
 
CDNBear
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

This is half my point.... does what you call it change the facts of what people are trying to get history to own up to? Truly?

"Get history to own up to"? We all know the history, we're waiting for the Church to apologize, and tell us where the bodies are.

Quote:

If I'm sitting there as a Catholic attempting to talk to a native person who knows this was exactly what it was, do you think they really care that I don't like the term because I'm mentally applying the extreme to it?

Depends.

Quote:

Do you really think that MY feelings, as someone who 'voluntarily' belongs to the wrong doing party, is what matters the most in the discussion?

Since the Church refuses to apologize, and tell us where the bodies are, making it an on going criminal act, IMHO, it does to me.

Quote:

If I'm feeling good enough today I'd really like to take a longer look at Australia and how their admission that what they had done (the same tactics as Canada), was indeed genocide, has impacted the relations between the aboriginal and white populations. Because it seems on the surface that despite this horrendous word, they've made a lot greater strides than we have on that front.

Come back when you have, and try and make that closing statement again.

Quote:

In the end, I really think as a country we're kidding ourselves if we try to manage 'how it looks' when facing up to and dealing with our history.

I'm not trying to manage anything. In my opinion, it's the wrong label.
 
The Old Medic
#52
I find it amusing when people that do not belong to a certain group, attempt to determine what is good and proper for that group of people to do.

Natives and Métis should "just move on", and forget that several generations of their children were stolen from them, were brainwashed by the government and by the agencies that the government contracted with, and those children often ended up outside of both the "mainstream culture" and of their own ancestral culture.

Sorry, but this is NOT something that any Native or Métis person should EVER "get over".

This was nothing less than a bald faced attempt to totally destroy the Native cultures in Canada. Pierre Elliot Trudeau personally prepared a "White Paper" calling for all natives to be fully integrated into the Canadian Culture (meaning their native cultures were to be effectively eliminated) within a 20 year period. When he became P.M., he tried to implement that plan.

MY family ARE Métis. Some are ashamed of that ancestry, and do everything possible to conceal it. I have a cousin, a retired Crown Attorney in Saskatchewan, who will not speak with me any longer, because " You destroyed the memory of my Mother by proving that she had Native ancestry."

Others are more realistic, knowing that we are what we are, and embracing ALL of our ancestral roots and branches, in their complexity.

The government did indeed attempt to do "Cultural Genocide", and they succeeded in all too many cases, leaving people, "betwixt and between", not truely fitting into any culture. That behavior should be roundly condemned, and the government should pay reparations to all of those living people that they treated so badly.

I AM Métis, and I am proud of that ancestry. My people were rejected by BOTH sides, so they created their own culture in every sense of that word. They had their own language, their own music, their own foods, their own dress, that took elements from both their Native ancestry and their European ancestry, and melded them into something totally unique.

My particular ancestors were called "half-breeds", because we were of Scots and Native ancestry. But they were treated no differently than those of French and Native ancestry by the government.

My paternal Grandmother was denied the right to attend the public schools in Manitoba in the 1890's, because she was a "filthy half-breed". She did not look native however (black hair and eyes, but a pale complexion and European features), and she married a man from Nova Scotia who ad no prejudices against the Métis, and after moving to Winnipeg, she "passed" as a "white woman". Her children were never told that they had Native ancestry, and were not allowed to meet their maternal grandmother.

That's what "cultural genocide" does to people, it makes them ashamed of their own families. It SHOULD be a criminal offense.

Canada has been cited, repeatedly, by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, because of its horrible treatment of it's native peoples. Isn't that odd, that Canada, who was one of the earliest signers and ratifiers of the Human Rights Resolution by the United Nations in 1948, has repeatedly been cited by that very organization, because it refuses to treat it's own Native people properly?
 

Similar Threads

1
Visiting Port Alberni Residential School
by Researcher87 | Oct 14th, 2006
2