It was cultural genocide and in some cases a massacre (the Beothuks). to call it anything less would be to belittle a culture and a people
Playground Bones Force Canada to Face Genocide Of Indian Children
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
It was cultural genocide and in some cases a massacre (the Beothuks). to call it anything less would be to belittle a culture and a people
And by aftermath I'm assuming you're including the inter-generational aftermath too. I remember all kinds of stories of children abused by adults who themselves had gone to the residential school system. I remember one story of a woman who'd murdered her child. One day while hugging the baby, she snapped its head and killed it. In prison, when interviewed, she explained that every time she hugged her child, it reminded her of how she was never hugged as a child except when she was being raped. She coldn't bear wthis constant reminder in her arms and so killed it with her own hands.
It will likely take another generation for the concequences of this genocide to heal... and that's if we change our attitudes. Otherwise, all what will be left of their culture will be in the library.
As for blaming the churches, the government was complicit in this, and obviously the Canadian people turned their backs. We hold collective responsibility to cure this wound.
Canadian residential school system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The residential schools continued to exist well into the last century. Hrdly colonial times. This was Canada, not the Old Country.
I guess you're all for belittling the issue and ignoring the horrendous results
That's your perogative. Fortunately it is not the perogative of the vast majority
....and it wasn't genocide. Natives weren't targeted for extermination such as they were in the 17th and 18th century in Canada
The term 'cultural genocide' is in fact a term officially used by the UN. It's not clearly defined, and has been attributed to any systematic action intentionally aimed at derooting a people from its culture. We're not just brandishing the term around for emotional effect. We're (or at least I'm) using the term according to the sense that is generally given to it.
The UN itself uses the term genocide when referring to such events. It's a commonly accepted term.
Don't kid yourself, Tyr. I'm an optimist for our collective future. But I also believe that we have yet alot of work to do. You'd be surprised at how much hate exists within our borders. It might be time for you to mingle with people outside your inner circle of friends. It might shock you to find just how many people would likely not shed a tear if we just slaughtered the whole bunch of them. Or at least by the way they talk.
It was cultural genocide by the most conservative definition of the word. In the 90's I'd heard one woman in her 30's telling us how her father refused to teach her his native language because of his memories of his teachers forcing needles through his tongue if he spoke his native tongue. Now that would not have been long ago. And if that is the treatment a whole generation of people got for speaking their language and practicing their culture, by even the strictest and most conservative definition of the word, that would be classified as cultural genocide. It's not just irrational emotionalism. We're using the terms quite conservatively here. If you're shocked at that, then you truly are ignorant of the extent of the abuse ad mare uste ad mare uste ad mare.
So if you don't accept the term "genocide", you are belittling the issue and ignoring the results. Do you have no concept of how silly your post is? I can only only assume that you are an extremist as it seems pretty clear that you can only see the opposite ends of any issue. That's unfortunate.
Do you have no concept of how silly your post is?
No but I see (as do most others) the silliness of your posts and there pathetic attempt at rationalization.
Genocide is the expressed action to exterminate a race or people. Cultural genocide is to elimate their beliefs and culture.
Why are you belittling the near massacre of a people within North America? A little genocide is not good enough. You have to have more bloodshed (Amenian, Jewish, etc) Genocide is not predicated on a set number
Whether a clear policy of genealogical genocide (i.e. the complete annihilation of the bloodline of an entire people) was ever put into force, either locally or nationally, I don't know. And if that is the objection to the term 'genocide' outside the context of 'cultural genocide', then we'd have to prove that such a policy was ever fully put into effect. I don't know the answer to that myself.
It has been proven though that the government long intended to Europeanize the First Nations, so the term 'cultural genocide', irrespective of whatever emotional baggage it might carry, I know for a fact is applicable.
It has been proven though that the government long intended to Europeanize the First Nations, so the term 'cultural genocide', irrespective of whatever emotional baggage it might carry, I know for a fact is applicable.
I think it's clear though that we have a collective duty in one way or another to develop Canada's indigenous languages and cultures that have been so devastated by the policy of culural genocide that was systematically implemented by the government with the expressed intent of Europeanizing them.
'Majority rule' just doesn't cut it in this case seeing that the majority was created through such an attrocious act.
I worked with native people for years. I heard some pretty gross stories about those schools and regular schools.
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."
Yes it is....and by that definition, the was no attempt at genocide where the North American aboriginal population is concerned.
So now that that is settled, do you have any suggestions as to how we can deal with the present situation vis-a-vis the aboriginal population. Personally, I would like to see reservations treated as the a separate level of government, similar to municipalities. They can be incorporated if they wish. The government can slice them a check to get them started. Then, they can do as they choose with little interference from the provincial or federal governments.