Indian residential school system an act of genocide: prof


gerryh
#1
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:
Quote:

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
#2
Quote:

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?
Last edited by petros; Sep 20th, 2011 at 11:08 AM..
 
captain morgan
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

but genocide imply's killing.

It's not an implication, the word genocide specifically identifies killing as the M.O..
 
lone wolf
#4
Assimilation just doesn't have the oomph....
 
captain morgan
#5
... But redefining the meaning of a word for political ends does?
 
gerryh
+1
#6
Helps with the brain washing.
 
Goober
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

... 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
#8
As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I suppose that employing highly controversial language is the "squeak"
 
lone wolf
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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

It got your attention, didn't it?
 
gerryh
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

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
#15
Ethnic absorbing maybe?
 
gerryh
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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
+1
#17
I rather like the native religion. With the exception of killing suspected Windigos I think it's pretty balanced.
 
karrie
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

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
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

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
#20
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

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.
 
gerryh
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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.

The use of the word incorrectly is to stir up the "victims". It does nothing towards healing.
 
karrie
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

The use of the word incorrectly is to stir up the "victims". It does nothing towards healing.

I think while part of healing is for victims to move on, I think part of healing is also for the victimizer to acknowledge what they were trying to achieve. So, what's the right word for what Canada was trying to acheive? Because assimilation isn't quite it. Assimilation doesn't usually require taking children away from their parents, or sterilizing people. So, what IS the word?

According to Wiki, and the United Nations as of 1948....

a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[3]
 
gerryh
#23
Ethnicide fits nicely. The destruction of an ethnic group. While genocide could have been used, it wasn't. While what the Government did could have achieved the same end result, does not make the use of the word correct.
 
Cliffy
#24
It was most definitely cultural genocide. Added to that are 50 thousand kids that disappeared and who knows how many that were sterilized and it starts to border on genocidal murder.

No matter how culturally these kids were assimilated, they were still visually aboriginal and considered inferior racially by the dominant culture. In the fifties they were still considered wild savages and people feared them even though aboriginal people were for the most part pacified by the assimilation process. They were discriminated by racism still.
 
karrie
+3
#25  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Ethnicide fits nicely. The destruction of an ethnic group. While genocide could have been used, it wasn't. While what the Government did could have achieved the same end result, does not make the use of the word correct.

But, they didn't just try to get rid of the culture. They split up families and forced sterilization. The definition of genocide that has stood with the UN since 1948 states it's genocide. The intent was clearly to end the race, not just the culture.
 
Goober
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

But, they didn't just try to get rid of the culture. They split up families and forced sterilization. The definition of genocide that has stood with the UN since 1948 states it's genocide. The intent was clearly to end the race, not just the culture.

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?
 
captain morgan
#27
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?


There are numerous other questions that are relevant. Unfortunately, in picking and choosing the 'relevant elements', you generate a scenario where you have a self fulfilling prophecy.

I find it interesting that no one is prepared to answer my question employing the scenario mentioned previously, yet are analytical on a minutae basis when supporting a different event.
 
Cliffy
#28
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.
 
Goober
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

There are numerous other questions that are relevant. Unfortunately, in picking and choosing the 'relevant elements', you generate a scenario where you have a self fulfilling prophecy.

I find it interesting that no one is prepared to answer my question employing the scenario mentioned previously, yet are analytical on a minutae basis when supporting a different event.

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.
 
Corduroy
#30
The 'legal' definition of genocide is problematic and political. The insistence from literal semantics that it must involve mass murder is not born out in the definition. Relevant to this topic, the legal UN definition of genocide includes forcibly transferring children from one ethnic group to another. So the -cide part is not taken literally. Nor is the geno- part as the attempted destruction of a religious group is included in the definition.

And that's when it gets political. Originally, the definition was meant to encompass political groups. Joseph Stalin objected to this because his reign of terror relied on the persecution and murder of political groups.

Declaring something a genocide under the Genocide Convention's definition has legal implications as well. Signatories of the convention are legally obliged to prevent, stop and punish any identifiable genocide. Which is precisely why, despite the decades after the convention's creation being full of genocide, the genocide convention has only ever officially identified two genocides - both after the fact. The international community is firmly committed to doing nothing about genocide, and will ignore ongoing genocides so as to not invoke their legal responsibilities.

Declaring something a genocide has powerful rhetorical and emotional implications, as well as legal ones. As the definition of genocide is steeped in politics and special interest groups have an insatiable lust to wallow in victimhood, you end up getting what should be a serious human rights issue being tossed around for rhetorical advantage.
 

Similar Threads

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