Which idiot was it who got the ball rolling to denigrate the Father of our country?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Seems to me when Sir John came there was no Canada. THerefore he was not an immigrant but a citizen of Britain which owned the land later to become Canada.
Its not really important to people that hate white people. They just want john status to disappear.
One, it's SIR John A McDonald.
Two, fuc koff and go live some where else since you hate so much about this country.
If you want to defend the residential school system and the planned and systematic attempted cultural genocide of Canada's indigenous peoples, that's your choice.
I don't think anyone is defending that. If we eradicate MacDonald who is going to be next? Harding, Grant, Nixon? Christopher Columbus made a huge f**k up too.....................thought he was in India when he was really in the Caribean! History is history, we can judge it, we can learn from it but we can't change it. Look at all the hundreds of explorers of Canada, did all of them treat the Indians kindly? I doubt it. Should we erase their names from the history books?
Up until a few days ago, White Unifier forgot that he should be outraged over Sir John A.
He's posted absolutely nothing on the topic for years on this forum.
But all of a sudden, now he's got his nuts in a lather.
Ahhh... 'revisionist outrage'...you can't beat it, folks!
He's posted absolutely nothing on the topic for years on this forum.
But all of a sudden, now he's got his nuts in a lather.
Ahhh... 'revisionist outrage'...you can't beat it, folks!
As I've said above, why not just get rid of his name through attrition whenever the lettering needs to be replaced for example so as to not waste money needlessly.
I don't consider this matter to be a priority among the school boards work, but I still agree in principle of replacing the name of a person who co-authored the cultural genocide of peoples.
The topic has come up in the news so I'm now discussing it. Had it not, I probably wouldn't be discussing it now again because I don't consider it to be a priority.
And on the topic of revisionist history, MacDonald's co-authoring of the residential school system and other atrocities are historical facts.
Hopefully nobody, but once the movement gets started....................Look out! You might be next!
I would have thought even a far left moron would understand that if the prime minister had wanted to commit genocide against natives there would be no natives left today.
You mean he actually thought savages could be civilized?! That if they were educated and taught western ways they could live in our towns and cities with US!?
What a madman!
Do you know how many people back then would have been shocked an horrified at the very idea of those savages living together with us?
I realize that your social justice warrior hairs - all three of them - are standing on end because he called them savages, but that really wasn't all that poor a description for the time, and certainly what just about everyone else believed. But he wanted to embrace them and draw them into the Canadian family, and you equate him with Hitler, who wanted to exterminate Jews. Do you have any concept of how idiotic that is?
MacDonald wasn't an immigrant. Canada was British territory. Him coming here from Scotland was akin to me going from Nova Scotia to the Yukon.
Please stop offending White Unifier. He doesn't need to man up...
Correction/
He needs to 'person up'.
Correction/
He needs to 'person up'.
Cultural genocide does not require the physical elimination of the people. As for calling them savages, even that doesn't necessarily bother me. forcefully separating them from their families to assimilate them is cultural genocide. Dr. Bryce's report of 1907 concerning the Indian residential school system that MacDonald co-authored referred to it as a "national crime."
Duncan Campbell Scott stated:
“It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem." [emphasis added] 1910
“…the system was open to criticism. Insufficient care was exercised in the admission of children to the schools. The well-known predisposition of Indians to tuberculosis resulted in a very large percentage of deaths among the pupils. They were housed in buildings not carefully designed for school purposes, and these buildings became infected and dangerous to the inmates. It is quite within the mark to say that fifty per cent of the children who passed through these schools did not live to benefit from the education which they had received therein." 1914
“I want to get rid of the Indian problem.....Our objective is to continue until there is not an Indian that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department…”1920
Interesting. I figured you'd be the kind of person who would have objected to redefining Canada's borders, citizenship, and identity. Perhaps I'm more conservative than you are on that front. I wish we would have kept a common citizenship. But I would have abandoned the residential school system idea myself.
I think one of the most egregious offenses against history and human decency the Left have committed over the past decade is to try and stretch the term 'genocide' which has a particularly unique, horrifying and violently bloody past, to encompass their pet causes. There is no such thing as cultural genocide. It's a stupid made-up term that was once used to mention that the culture of a people who were the victims of genocide was also destroyed. The left have now begun to use it on its own, without the actual genocide, thus demeaning the actual term and its victims. I find it disgusting.
And how many individuals or small groups have violently protested how many government policies over the last hundred and fifty years by asserting how horrible, evil and cruel they were? So someone protested against the policy and that's supposed to mean everyone then thought the same way?
Duncan Campbell Scott stated:
The Truth and Reconciliation commission says that there were 6,000 deaths out of 150,000 children who went to residential schools, so this idiot had no idea what he was talking about. Boarding schools of the time, even for white kids, were rough, and discipline was harsh. The concept of spare the rod and spoil the child was taken to an extent which would have gotten much of the staff at white boarding schools arrested today. Read up on Prince Charles' experience at boarding school in Scotland some time. Furthermore, lots of people, especially natives, died of TB and other diseases at that time which had nothing to do with the residential schools.
Sounds like a pretty good plan to me, even today. It sure would be nice if the natives could live together with us, just as a hundred other ethnicities have come to do, instead of wasting their lives without purpose out in the boonies doing nothing but getting drunk and fighting.
Nobody is allowed to have an opinion that gerryd doesn't approve of otherwise, it's fukk off to somewhere else. It happens to people who have a closed mind and think their way is the only way.
Ooooo! A right wing snowflake. Read the definition of genocide as defined by the UN charter of human rights. Cultural genocide is when you take away a groups language, spirituality, identity. The buffalo were slaughtered to starve the natives into submission. In BC, the Columbia River system was dammed and one of the world's largest salmon fishery was destroyed for the same reason. I find your complete lack of empathy and your attempts to white wash history disturbing, to say the least.
Okay. I read it. It says you don't know what you're talking about.
But I didn't need that information. I had already figured that out.
Convention on Genocide