Playground Bones Force Canada to Face Genocide Of Indian Children

[Machjo]

Now the question to us voters is: What are we collectively prepared to do about it?

So far governments have been throwing money at the problem for good PR. But never has there been any significant new legislation (and I don't mean cosmetic PR stuff like letting them use their language on the reservations). What would we be prepared to do to strenghen the use of their cultures off the reserves?

This might come as a shock to you, but Maori is one of New Zealand's official languages (along with Sign Language) in the New Zealand Constitution!

I'm not necessarily suggesting we go that far in Canada (we have over 60 such languages and cultures!) at the national level, but why couldn't we give them some symbolic recognition at the local government level.

Here in Ottawa, for example, I'd be more than willing to support a local law giving priority to speakers of Algonquin for any local government position, all other qualifications being equal. this could be one way of increasing the market value of the local indigenous languages off the reservations. THis would incite some people to learn the language for this new found economic benefit, and over time it might even lead to some non-natives learning their languages and allowing some local government offices to use the language for internal communication where all members speak the language, thus giving them locations besides just on reservations where the language could be used to preserve their culture.

Without any economic incentive, their languages do risk death. While I'd consider such a move to be quite moderate, I bet most people woudl argue 'let the fittest survive, and if it happens to be English, so be it.' with no concern for the local language and culture.

 

[Machjo]

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."

Then I guess that's genocide.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

We have no "duty to develop" any language or cultures. Languages and cultures have risen and fallen since the dawn of man. We have a "duty to respect" all languages and cultures.

 

[Tyr]

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."

So now that most agree that the action perpetrated by colonizing Europeans was genocide, the way to make it "alright" is far from easy.

Short of giving the land back (won't happen), paying reparations (won't help - that's a bandaid), issuing an "apology" (generalyy good for about 30 seconds), we might make the Native's (including the Inuit) and autonomous region within Canada. Where would be the most appropriate area (if there was to be just one (very large) area)?

 

[Said1]

Well, first order of the day would be getting the more lucrative nations (James Bay Cree) to give up their territory (reserves).

 

[Cannuck]

So now that most agree...

I guess I missed the vote....or perhaps you feel you speak for everyone.

 

[Machjo]

We have no "duty to develop" any language or cultures. Languages and cultures have risen and fallen since the dawn of man. We have a "duty to respect" all languages and cultures.

If we knock a culture down to the brink of extinction, and then think we're doing it justice by leaving it alone just when it's about to fall, we have a pretty low view of the people whose identity we've destroyed. We have a duty not just to leave it alone, but to bring it back up again so that it doesn't just fall in future. After all, don't forget, French and English are both foreign to the North American continent. They are both guest languages and cultures here. The indigenous languages and cultures are the host languages and cultures. Now just look at how we've treated our hosts. And we have the guile to say that 'it's a god-eat-dog world out there and let the fittest survive? That is pure savagery. I'm sure even Darwin would have objected to such gross corruption of his natural theories by trying to apply them to civilized (?) societies.

 

[Tyr]

I guess I missed the vote....or perhaps you feel you speak for everyone.

You were the only dissenting vote. Everybody else viewed it as genocide. Live with it

 

[karrie]

I have to ask... how does this article 'force' a recognition anymore than the recent payments do?

 

[Machjo]

One point to make is that for a culture to survive, it must have an environment within which to survive. I can see two ways of doing this:

Regional protection: The reservation system could be a good example of this. Bear in mind though that if the reservations are all far from major cities, it's difficult for the natives to take advantage of world markets without assimilaitng to the majority cultures in Canada's big cities.

Domain protection: Here we would give a particular social domain not necessarily geographically circumscribed to the First Nations. One among many possible scenarios would be to give hiring priority to speakers of the local indigenous language for all local governmetn jobs when all other qualifications are equal. Unlike the regional protection, this one is not limited to any geographical area, thus allowing First Nations to work in the cities and still have their cultures thrive within a particular social domain. But do you think Europeanized Canadians would be willing to even give that much back to their hosts? Yeah right. I'm telling you, I'd say the majority of Canadians coulldn't care less for the First Nations even today. If we did, something would have been done long ago.

 

[Machjo]

"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."

According to this definition, it would seem to me that it was genocide. Not my opinion, just fact. Bear in mind though that this definition is a broad one that includes cultural genocide. But for the sake of agreement, I think an official UN definition is good enough for me.

Now if we disagree with the definition, and insist that it means the planned systematic killing of a race, then I'd agree that it wasn't genocide. So let's just agree that what we did to the Indians may or may not be genocide depending on the definition we choose to use. I think we could at least agree to that. But it would certainly be genocide if we go by the UN definition at least.

 

[Tyr]

If we knock a culture down to the brink of extinction, and then think we're doing it justice by leaving it alone just when it's about to fall, we have a pretty low view of the people whose identity we've destroyed. We have a duty not just to leave it alone, but to bring it back up again so that it doesn't just fall in future. After all, don't forget, French and English are both foreign to the North American continent. They are both guest languages and cultures here. The indigenous languages and cultures are the host languages and cultures. Now just look at how we've treated our hosts. And we have the guile to say that 'it's a god-eat-dog world out there and let the fittest survive? That is pure savagery. I'm sure even Darwin would have objected to such gross corruption of his natural theories by trying to apply them to civilized (?) societies.

I'm all for giving the indigeneous people far more than they have the right to now. I'd like to see them return to their native culture (where possible) to the extent of them being self sufficient on their terms

I would also be ok with "giving" them autonomy over all the land north of Ft. McMurray. that means all of the the NWT, Yukon and Nunavat including the NorthWest passage

 

[Cannuck]

And we have the guile to say that 'it's a god-eat-dog world out there and let the fittest survive? That is pure savagery.

It may very well be but it is also the reality. The world, like it or not is moving toward one single dominant language and culture. It is an inevitable byproduct of our increasingly efficient communications technology. There are presently more English speaking people in China then there is in the US.

While it may be desirable to sustain, promote, encourage or otherwise prop up dieing cultures it will invariably be a losing proposition. Like it or not, the "American" melting pot will outlive "Canada's" multiculturalism.

 

[karrie]

BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that the article appears to be about the residential schools, yet couples it with the image of smallpox blankets, which was something which was a completely separate issue occurring decades if not almost a century before?

 

[Tyr]

It may very well be but it is also the reality. The world, like it or not is moving toward one single dominant language and culture. It is an inevitable byproduct of our increasingly efficient communications technology. There are presently more English speaking people in China then there is in the US.

While it may be desirable to sustain, promote, encourage or otherwise prop up dieing cultures it will invariably be a losing proposition. Like it or not, the "American" melting pot will outlive "Canada's" multiculturalism.

...and somehow that makes it right?

With futher and further glovbalization, the world will move towards a multilingual, multicultural society. It's pretty much already there in most 1st world countries

The "melting pot" amd the cultual mosiac" are two entirely differnt policies that focus on two very different goals

Cultural mosaic is a term used to describe the mix of ethnic groups, languages and cultures that co-exist within Canadian society. The idea of a cultural mosaic is intended to champion an ideal of multiculturalism, differently from other systems like the melting pot, which is often used to describe the neighboring United States' ideal of assimilation.

 

[Tyr]

It may very well be but it is also the reality. The world, like it or not is moving toward one single dominant language and culture. It is an inevitable byproduct of our increasingly efficient communications technology. There are presently more English speaking people in China then there is in the US.

While it may be desirable to sustain, promote, encourage or otherwise prop up dieing cultures it will invariably be a losing proposition. Like it or not, the "American" melting pot will outlive "Canada's" multiculturalism.

The world, like it or not is moving toward one single dominant language and culture. It is an inevitable byproduct of our increasingly efficient communications technology. There are presently more English speaking people in China then there is in the US.

Can we count on being a model of Chinese language and culture in 50-60 yrs? They have been around for a few millenia longer than the anglo culture/language. Maybe we're just a historical "hiccup"

As the Anglo culture ascended from the caves, the Chinese culture didn't "disappear"

How many "Chinese speaking" people are there in teh world outside of China? A billion?

 

[Machjo]

It may very well be but it is also the reality. The world, like it or not is moving toward one single dominant language and culture. It is an inevitable byproduct of our increasingly efficient communications technology. There are presently more English speaking people in China then there is in the US.

While it may be desirable to sustain, promote, encourage or otherwise prop up dieing cultures it will invariably be a losing proposition. Like it or not, the "American" melting pot will outlive "Canada's" multiculturalism.

We as a society choose to make our reality. We have it within ourselves to change it. If it deosn't change, it's because we don't want it to change.

I fully agree that the world is moving towards one common language and culture, but it doesn't have to be a common first language; it could be a common second language. Again, it's up to us, but unfortunately, many want to exploit the historical advantages accrued to their language through colonialism rather than promote alternatives (which do exist by the way).

As for English-speakers in China, if they spoke English so well, I wouldn't know Chinese today. I do. Tell ya somethin'?

As for questions of efficiency, if people could think outside the box, we could easily either adopt or create a language that is easy to learn as a common second language for all, thus allowing us to have both monolingualism and bilingualism simultaneously, with each person needing to learn nothing more than their first language plus the agreed-upon second language. But again, it requires a spirit of justice for us to be willing to do that. And we all know how for the most part religion is dead in Canada.

 

[Machjo]

The reason no alternative is possible is because we're happy with our privileges and would have it no other way (i.e. we don't want it to change).

 

[Cannuck]

...and somehow that makes it right?

Did you see anything in my post that referenced the morality of it?

 

[Machjo]

Try this as just one possible solution, and from some 'backward' country like Croatia to boot:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001240/124020e.pdf

Canada's speakers of former colonial languages would never go for something like this because it would require justice for our languages. And knowing most Canadians, they wouldn't stand for that when they're priviledged already.