What is more brutal, taking children away ripping out their culture and language and having only 50% survive, or battle and be butchered by men in uniforms. Same kind of tradegy i believe.
Genocide in Canada
- Thread starter Researcher87
- Start date
What is more brutal, taking children away ripping out their culture and language and having only 50% survive, or battle and be butchered by men in uniforms. Same kind of tradegy i believe.
So Residential Schools didn't occur.
Then why is there a settlement to up to 2 billion for Residential School Survivors. And why does the government, use the word "Survivor" to describe them?
Then why is there a settlement to up to 2 billion for Residential School Survivors. And why does the government, use the word "Survivor" to describe them?
Since you're a mere 19 years old I'll forgive that bit of disingenuous foolishness. Be warned though: it's a losing tactic, every time, against people who have any brains.Researcher87 said:
Nobody's said that, it's a matter of public record that they did, and that there were abuses and neglect and other assorted nastiness going on at them. What people are saying is that the scale and scope of them has been wildly exaggerated. That always happens when there's a legitimate social cause: the tales get padded, exaggerated, invented, distorted, all in the name of dramatizing the cause and drawing sympathetic attention to it. A key point to remember is that you cannot trust people's memories. Memory is subject to editing and rewriting, so when you hear from an aged aboriginal man something to the effect that he remembers when he was five years old a couple of kids were killed by lethal injection in the next room, he's almost certainly remembering it wrong. You need independent verification of such extraordinary claims, and much better evidence than just people's memories, or you're just going to come across as an inflammatory extremist and you won't be taken seriously. You can see some of that happening in this thread already.
Any psychologist will tell you that eye-witness accounts and memory are extremely unreliable, especially when there's a strong vested interest that they be a certain way. Don't trust memory, or reports of memory, alone. Not even your own.
Dexter Sinister said:
I don't buy this one either, Dex.
The Great Canadian Genocide of Native Peoples was supposedly our elimination of the Beothuk of Newfoundland, as laid out by Pierre Berton.
This was also somebody's fantasy. It never happened.
Since I have recorded records from Duncan Cambell Scott saying that 50% of Aboriginal Children who went to Residential school died in the year 1910, that is when the quote was. I do believe there story.
Aboriginal ssociety unlike White man's society, have had oral tradition, it has changed, but I do believe I would believe an old aboriginals words, if I found evidence from the school he went too.
Aboriginal ssociety unlike White man's society, have had oral tradition, it has changed, but I do believe I would believe an old aboriginals words, if I found evidence from the school he went too.
Died frrom what?
A couple of things you should remember here........
Natives, especially those from remote areas with little contact with whites, were very vunerable to the white mans' diseases.......as late as the 1940s, when the Yanks were building the Alaska Highway, native populations suffered a high mortality from disease upon contact with whites.
The residential school system was a disgrace.
It was not genocide.
It was genocide. Plain and simple, cultural genocide. As it is well documented that the church staff that ran these schools did try to have the kids contract TB, by making native children sleep together with other children that had TB, and then did not treat the children who had diseases at all and let them die.
Now I have seen the pictures and actual documents of health reports saying that anywhere from 25-69% of school children died by school to school basis. Kipur Island near Nanaimo costs hundreds of lives on its own.
Now I have seen the pictures and actual documents of health reports saying that anywhere from 25-69% of school children died by school to school basis. Kipur Island near Nanaimo costs hundreds of lives on its own.
The powers that be of the time handed out blankets infected with small pox and influenza or contaminated with mercury, to a race of people that had no immunity to it, with the express purposses of inflicting damage. There is no other conclusion to that other then the act of murder of a specific group of people. Hence yes it was genocide and yes to some extent, could be considered a holocoust.
Considering there were 20,000 Haudenosaunee (Iroquois/Six Nations) in the 1600's. It's safe to say your source for there only being 100,000 to 125,000 in the whole of Canada. By the 1930's when the residential schools were at there hight, there were a lot more then that here. Of this I can assure you.
Perhaps it was from this gentlemen, and I use that term losly.
1913 - 1932
Duncan Campbell Scott, Head of Indian Affairs takes a romantic interest in Native traditions, but disdains ‘living’ Natives. In 1920 he said, "I want to get rid of the Indian problem. Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed. They are a weird and waning race...ready to break out at any moment in savage dances."
You don't believe or won't believe? One is fixed be being open to facts and educating ones self, the other would make you an ignorant bigot.
Yes I will contend that exageration may accure from time to time, but I can also assure you that the stories passed down to me by a residential school survivor are real.
My experience with the Roman Catholic Nuns, is evidence enough. i was born left handed, but I am now right handed, thanx to the loving sisters. I was beaten, chastised and coerced into using my right hand, because to use my left was to use the hand of satan. This occured in the 70's. If you remeber the 70's were just ripe with the birth of child protection laws. So can you imagine how it was during the era of the residential schools and a government sanction to rid the Native child of his "Nativeness"?
My experience with the Roman Catholic Nuns, is evidence enough. i was born left handed, but I am now right handed, thanx to the loving sisters. I was beaten, chastised and coerced into using my right hand, because to use my left was to use the hand of satan. This occured in the 70's. If you remeber the 70's were just ripe with the birth of child protection laws. So can you imagine how it was during the era of the residential schools and a government sanction to rid the Native child of his "Nativeness"?
Aw, not that foolish old canard again. That's just another example of exactly what I was talking about, exaggeration and hyperbole. Read this: http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm .
And in case you don't bother, I'll give you the key point: There is only one documented case of white people giving smallpox infected blankets to Indians, by a Captain Eucyer of the British Army at the seige of Fort Pitt in 1763. There was smallpox in the fort, it was surrounded by Chief Pontiac's forces, and there was a lot of killing and mangling going on. A few blankets would have had very little to do with the spread of smallpox among the besieging Indians, they were routinely in contact with many other sources of contamination.
So what? So was my mother, in an all-white public school in southern Ontario. She never claimed compensation for it. It wasn't because you're aboriginal, it was because you're left handed and your teachers were ignorant. Get over it.
Researcher
The problem is not your topic, but how you present it. I understand you didn't write the article, but its intent was to provoke an emotional response, and you got it.
There have been several books written about what the article claims. Residential Schools both in Canada and the US were used as a means of "assimilating" the indigenous populations into the new "western" society. When assimilation failed, intentional extermination was used. This happened moreso in Canada than the US for one simple reason. The US went to war with the Indian population (which led to an overt extermination via war or forced relocations), hence they were subdued and very few Residential Schools were needed.
British North America however decided to get rid of them the "covert" way, this has been a tactic of the British Empire since it swept over the planet. Australia, South Africa, India, all of them were intentionally (attempted) eradicated by injecting disease into the populations.
The problem with Canadians is that they haven't faced much of their past (no offense), hence why the issue with Native Americans or First Nations or however else you prefer to refer to the peoples of the Americas is constantly brought up. If you rely on Pierre Burtons "twist" on historical events to make it "colorful", then you get the wrong message. Pierre Burton attempted to make "Canadian" history interesting to Canadians, you're not going to do that easily by stating there was a systemic movement of eradication.
Canadian history does not give one the impression of a country that "evolved" into independence, it is steeped in quelled rebellions, fifth columns and war. You were the British Empire and dam proud of it (and I'm not arguing that point), but that pride comes with a price. There was nothing "noble" about the British Empire, and that's exactly who you were.
Americans have dug into history and is open for all to see and critisize, it's time Canadians do the same.
My two cents and no offense intended.
The problem is not your topic, but how you present it. I understand you didn't write the article, but its intent was to provoke an emotional response, and you got it.
There have been several books written about what the article claims. Residential Schools both in Canada and the US were used as a means of "assimilating" the indigenous populations into the new "western" society. When assimilation failed, intentional extermination was used. This happened moreso in Canada than the US for one simple reason. The US went to war with the Indian population (which led to an overt extermination via war or forced relocations), hence they were subdued and very few Residential Schools were needed.
British North America however decided to get rid of them the "covert" way, this has been a tactic of the British Empire since it swept over the planet. Australia, South Africa, India, all of them were intentionally (attempted) eradicated by injecting disease into the populations.
The problem with Canadians is that they haven't faced much of their past (no offense), hence why the issue with Native Americans or First Nations or however else you prefer to refer to the peoples of the Americas is constantly brought up. If you rely on Pierre Burtons "twist" on historical events to make it "colorful", then you get the wrong message. Pierre Burton attempted to make "Canadian" history interesting to Canadians, you're not going to do that easily by stating there was a systemic movement of eradication.
Canadian history does not give one the impression of a country that "evolved" into independence, it is steeped in quelled rebellions, fifth columns and war. You were the British Empire and dam proud of it (and I'm not arguing that point), but that pride comes with a price. There was nothing "noble" about the British Empire, and that's exactly who you were.
Americans have dug into history and is open for all to see and critisize, it's time Canadians do the same.
My two cents and no offense intended.
Wow, I'm impressed. You managed to only take one shot at one item. Care to on the rest? Good luck. I may have been hasty to use that. I only pulled that from my preverbial hat, but on the rest my Nation has explicit knowledge and documented proof. Care to continue?
One incorrect instance. Get your facts straight. There are quite enough legitimate, documented grievances in the case you're trying to make, you don't have to make stuff up. It only damages your credibility.
There's no need for that. If you can't display better manners you'll just go on the short list of posters here I'll no longer pay any attention to.
Go back and re-read that link. I can't find any documentation that contradicts my first assertion. If fact. The very fact that the diseas spread through the eastern seaboard quite rapidly, dispite the seperation of the tribes amounst themselves, lends credence to the forementioned act of deliberate infection.
Really, and your comment...
...was chaulk full of intellectually stimulating reason and or compassion.
And yes it was because I'm Native. I got off the bus that came off the rez, I was instantly a trouble maker, a bad kid or worse. Until you have taken a single step in the history of my shoes. Do not make assertions as to why I was treated as I was or for what reasons. You claim your mother was treated poorly in an "all white" public school. Then there was a problem. When you are systematically seperated from the "white" students and made to be an example of because of where you come from or what you are, is a completely different issue all together.
All i am glad is that I did not grow up in that time, because I am left handed.
Now the fact of the matter is, with Indigenous or first nations oral histories and they are histories of a time period, they have to take on a Western Knowledge. For example, I have been drilled on the fact that this happened here and this and that and that army documentation proves that this unit did this and so many did that.
However, you don't get the other side of it if you don't take the oral history if the other side is an oral tradition. in movies and all that, Custer is believed to have had a galiant last stand. Well research combined with the oral histories of captured Sioux leaders and warriors at the battle tell a whole different story now.
You have to balance it out, with written docunmentation Oral History, but it should not be shunned or thrown out as stories, because it doesn't do justice to the issue.
Now the fact of the matter is, with Indigenous or first nations oral histories and they are histories of a time period, they have to take on a Western Knowledge. For example, I have been drilled on the fact that this happened here and this and that and that army documentation proves that this unit did this and so many did that.
However, you don't get the other side of it if you don't take the oral history if the other side is an oral tradition. in movies and all that, Custer is believed to have had a galiant last stand. Well research combined with the oral histories of captured Sioux leaders and warriors at the battle tell a whole different story now.
You have to balance it out, with written docunmentation Oral History, but it should not be shunned or thrown out as stories, because it doesn't do justice to the issue.