Results 1 to 85 of 85

Thread: Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Report and Discussion

  1. #1
    grish
    Guest

    Default Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Report and Discussion

    From the Globe and Mail Editorial

    This is an incredibly nasty piece of Canadian history. I find the language describing the role of the government (and Canadian public by extension) as "genocide" appropriate and wish for all governments to move as fast as they can to implement the recommendations.

  2. #2

    Default

    It's not a genocide. That would entail killing them all. What was done was bad, but they weren't killed. Use a different term.

    As for the recommendations, let's wait and see what they are, mmkay?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  3. #3
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^Apparently the UN defines genocide to include forcibly removing children from their parents en mass, so that part certainly fits. You're right, it's not the same thing as the Holocaust or Rwanda, but there was an intent that large parts of who they are would cease to exist... and cultural characteristics including language are as much a part of what defines an ethnic group as genetics.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    "Genocide" doesn't fit, but I have also seen the term "cultural genocide" used, and that certainly is appropriate. I really don't understand the reluctance of past and present governments to include Aboriginals as equal partners in the Canadian cultural mosaic.

  5. #5

    Default

    Labels are entirely political.

    The reality is this: the residential schools were awful, but it is arguable that once they were abolished and not replaced with anything functioning, the situation actually got worse.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    I really don't understand the reluctance of past and present governments to include Aboriginals as equal partners in the Canadian cultural mosaic.
    In a way I can, because even Aboriginals aren't really a single group. For example, Mohawk, Cree, and Inuit are all very different and distinct cultures from each other, and often don't enjoy being lumped together as simply "Aboriginal".

  7. #7

    Default

    What, no mention of the church's part in all of this. Surely scorn should be shown to religious bodies that perpetuated a lot of the sorrow and hardships aboriginals went through. Has there ever been an apology from the church bodies that ran these schools, or are they just burying their heads in the sand as per usual. Or maybe the apology will come 400 years from now as per usual.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    ^^ I never suggested that Aboriginals are or ever were a homogeneous group. I use the term as an inclusive way of describing everyone whose ancestors lived in what is now Canada before European colonists arrived. They are the only remaining group of Canadians that are treated differently because of their ethnic origin. It is long past time for that to stop. Compensation for past injustices is warranted, but the paternalism that permeates policy towards Aboriginals needs to end.

  9. #9
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Yes.
    The Anglican Church has apologized, and has participated in the Truth and Reconciliation Process, and has stated that an apology is not enough.

    The United Church has apologized for their role in European cultural imperialism, as well as specifically for the damage done in their residential schools.

    The Canadian Catholic Church is apparently not a formal body, but many of the official bodies involved, including orders and dioceses have apologized. I read yesterday that the T&R commission has asked for an apology from the Pope.

  10. #10

    Default Justin Trudeau commits Liberals to a promise they can’t hope to keep

    I generally support most First Nations causes, and I do think this was cultural genocide (not genocide per say, but it was "cultural" genocide). However, I don't think we can simply give First Nations everything they want, which is what Trudeau has decided (more and more, Mulcair is proving to be the better left leader):

    Trudeau made no mention of the cost, or the practical implications involved. He hadn’t even considered the cost, he told one interviewer. As an expression of his deep sympathy for Canada’s aboriginal people, and a sincere desire to compensate for the epic wrongs done to them, it was admirable, and no doubt shared by millions of Canadians. But as a pledge by a potential prime minister it was something else. After more than two years as party leader, and just weeks from the launch of a general election, the Liberal leader has still not learned that authority comes with responsibility, and that leaders need to consider what they’re saying before they say it.

    The list of recommendations made in the TRC report is lengthy and far-reaching. There are 94 in all, but many include multiple parts, often accompanied by calls for “adequate funding” or extensive consultation involving many levels of government and society. It’s beyond the resources of even the most sympathetic government. Just marshalling, organizing and directing the people and facilities required to fulfil the level of national consultation and commitment sought by the natives would tax the government’s capabilities, while the costs could be staggering.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...t-hope-to-keep

    I'm personally of the view that the solution to aboriginal issues has to be driven not from consultation by governments, or various government programs per this report, but rather, by empowering first nations to improve / change from within - there are some fantastic examples of first nations who are leading change like Chief Robert Louie of Westbank First nation. Need more of such, and any programs that can promote that, need to be funded, rather than more ivory tower elites in Ottawa.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-06-2015 at 12:44 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Pope John Paul 11 apologized to the aboriginal people of Australia when the government and churches did the same thing there. I see no reason why this pope would not apologize. It would be a good gesture for him to come here and do it in person.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  12. #12

    Default

    A small step in the right direction. It was genocide.

    genocide the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

    They exterminated the way of life of the Indigenous peoples. That word really grinds gears. It upsets people they are from a nation who took part in genocide. They will wag there finger and say - they didnt murder them!! As a whole? No. Individually there were many murders, many rapes, many unmarked graves.

    This is the very beginning of the healing of this nation. We have much still to learn from the original Canadian peoples and a responsibility to heal alongside them.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  13. #13

    Default

    The more I think about it, the more I question the goals and results of this so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the less I welcome its existence.

    The truth about the residential schools has been known for years. No one has denied they were in many ways a horror. To call it a cultural genocide, however, is highly inappropriate in a country and a society that has made a proud point of extirpating so-called "barbaric practices" among certain of its citizens and newcomers, as well as abroad. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the aboriginal ways today, it is a simple and unpleasant truth that for decades native ways were exactly barbaric practices to be wiped out. Much as our pilots are trying to do as we speak, in Syria and Levant. The present-day society cannot condemn its antecedents for cultural genocide without condemning itself, and since we are not prepared to condemn ourselves, it is entirely inappropriate to condemn the past and in so doing to praise ourselves.

    It is furthermore (and here the argument goes completely from the other side of the coin) incendiary and inappropriate to demand, require, or even to offer apologies for residential schools and whatever happened in them. For it all happened a long time ago: the people who would offer an apology would do it not for their own deeds; but for the deeds of people long gone. There can be no contrition for the wrongdoing of others, only an appalling congratulation of one's own superiority.

    Then, this matter of reconciliation. Who is to be reconciled with whom? If it is to be the natives who are to be reconciled with the rest, that is something that is their responsibility and theirs alone, to whatever extent they feel possible. I am not native and cannot speak for them. If on the other hand it is the rest who are to reconcile themselves to the natives, I will say bluntly: no amount of commission recommendations will have any effect whatsoever. Those who see in the native someone they dislike may or may not be odious, but they will not change their ways. They will not reconcile. And the rest have reconciled already, and their flinging about of labels such as genocide is again mere self-praise, praise that diminishes the purity of their enlightenment.

    All the above is abstract moral casuistry. But it can scarcely be otherwise, for the Truth and Reconcialiation Commission is most of all a moral agency that has issued a catechism of ethical behavior toward the first nations. And its 94 recommendations omit the one that would in a stroke facilitate all the others. Namely, to abolish the reservation system, end the ludicrous legal fiction that the first nations are somehow wards of the crown, and place the native population on the same legal footing as the rest of us. Until that happens, the first nations cannot be equal; and so long as they cannot be equal, they must and will unfortunately continue to be less.

  14. #14

    Default

    ^I don't buy the "its a long time ago so it doesn't matter" argument. By that logic you wouldn't try war criminals from a long time ago either. Like it or not, residential schools were devestating for first nations communities, and people are still dealing with the consequnces today, and will be for some generations to come.

    That's not to say I think all the recommendations, ala Truedeua ("it doesn't matter the cost"), should be implemented - I don't.

  15. #15

    Default

    ^You are so predictable, moahunter. I never said or implied it doesn't matter. That's just your convenient and ever so obvious reaction.

    What I said was that there was no one left who could make a proper apology, so it is inappropriate to offer one for the ones dead and gone.

  16. #16
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    From Wikipedia:
    The last residential school operated by the Canadian Government, Gordon Residential School, was closed in 1996.
    So I think you're a bit off base saying that it "all happened a long time ago".

    Not to mention the fact that it affects, as per the report, Aboriginal people today in a multitude of ways.

  17. #17

    Default

    Aboriginal tribes all across the North American Continent fought for years with each other and to settlers coming to 'the new world' it would have seemed barbaric to them. I suppose watching rain dances, pow wow's, sweat lodges, piece pipes seemed very odd. Instead of embracing the natives differences the settlers set out to neutralize and control them. Take away everything they were and counted for. What the T & R report is doing is acknowledging that it did happen and it caused havoc among the aboriginals. It will be (and should be) written into Canada's history and not be denied or sugar coated. Canada is apologizing as a nation The nation is sorry for it's past doings. After all it was the nations representatives at the time who perpetuated the way the natives were treat. The Pope should now step forward and apologize for the Catholic Church's part in all this and other church bodies that were part of this.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    From Wikipedia:
    The last residential school operated by the Canadian Government, Gordon Residential School, was closed in 1996.
    So I think you're a bit off base saying that it "all happened a long time ago".

    Not to mention the fact that it affects, as per the report, Aboriginal people today in a multitude of ways.
    Yup, right you are channing.

    Many of the schools were still in operation into the 1970s.

    Quite a few of us C2Eers were already in our own elementary schools when aboriginal students were still attending residential schools.

    To boot, most of the schools were not demolished until well into the 1980s and some not until the 1990s.

    Only to serve as ever present painful reminders for former students and their parents in those communities.

    Oh Canada !
    Last edited by Top_Dawg; 03-06-2015 at 04:39 PM.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The more I think about it, the more I question the goals and results of this so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the less I welcome its existence.

    The truth about the residential schools has been known for years. No one has denied they were in many ways a horror. To call it a cultural genocide, however, is highly inappropriate in a country and a society that has made a proud point of extirpating so-called "barbaric practices" among certain of its citizens and newcomers, as well as abroad. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the aboriginal ways today, it is a simple and unpleasant truth that for decades native ways were exactly barbaric practices to be wiped out. Much as our pilots are trying to do as we speak, in Syria and Levant. The present-day society cannot condemn its antecedents for cultural genocide without condemning itself, and since we are not prepared to condemn ourselves, it is entirely inappropriate to condemn the past and in so doing to praise ourselves.

    It is furthermore (and here the argument goes completely from the other side of the coin) incendiary and inappropriate to demand, require, or even to offer apologies for residential schools and whatever happened in them. For it all happened a long time ago: the people who would offer an apology would do it not for their own deeds; but for the deeds of people long gone. There can be no contrition for the wrongdoing of others, only an appalling congratulation of one's own superiority.

    Then, this matter of reconciliation. Who is to be reconciled with whom? If it is to be the natives who are to be reconciled with the rest, that is something that is their responsibility and theirs alone, to whatever extent they feel possible. I am not native and cannot speak for them. If on the other hand it is the rest who are to reconcile themselves to the natives, I will say bluntly: no amount of commission recommendations will have any effect whatsoever. Those who see in the native someone they dislike may or may not be odious, but they will not change their ways. They will not reconcile. And the rest have reconciled already, and their flinging about of labels such as genocide is again mere self-praise, praise that diminishes the purity of their enlightenment.

    All the above is abstract moral casuistry. But it can scarcely be otherwise, for the Truth and Reconcialiation Commission is most of all a moral agency that has issued a catechism of ethical behavior toward the first nations. And its 94 recommendations omit the one that would in a stroke facilitate all the others. Namely, to abolish the reservation system, end the ludicrous legal fiction that the first nations are somehow wards of the crown, and place the native population on the same legal footing as the rest of us. Until that happens, the first nations cannot be equal; and so long as they cannot be equal, they must and will unfortunately continue to be less.
    Basically my stance. Remove the barriers to prosperity and preservation of their culture so they can have what we all have.

    Beyond that, I have no skin in the reconciliation either way - I haven't been slighted by, nor have I slighted, any natives (due to race).
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  20. #20
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    From Wikipedia:
    The last residential school operated by the Canadian Government, Gordon Residential School, was closed in 1996.
    So I think you're a bit off base saying that it "all happened a long time ago".

    Not to mention the fact that it affects, as per the report, Aboriginal people today in a multitude of ways.
    Yup, right you are channing.

    Many of the schools were still in operation into the 1970s.

    Quite a few of us C2Eers were already in our own elementary schools when aboriginal students were still attending residential schools.

    To boot, most of the schools were not demolished until well into the 1980s and some not until the 1990s.

    Only to serve as ever present painful reminders for former students and their parents in those communities.

    Oh Canada !
    All true, but I would hazard a guess that those last residential schools to close were different in most aspects from the residential schools that we hear most about. Not that taking children from their families to be educated at the elementary level can ever be considered a good thing.

    A residential school demolition was featured on the news just this spring, and interestingly there were victim voices featured who expressed regret that the building itself couldn't have been turned into something good for the community.

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    The more I think about it, the more I question the goals and results of this so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the less I welcome its existence.

    The truth about the residential schools has been known for years. No one has denied they were in many ways a horror. To call it a cultural genocide, however, is highly inappropriate in a country and a society that has made a proud point of extirpating so-called "barbaric practices" among certain of its citizens and newcomers, as well as abroad. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the aboriginal ways today, it is a simple and unpleasant truth that for decades native ways were exactly barbaric practices to be wiped out. Much as our pilots are trying to do as we speak, in Syria and Levant. The present-day society cannot condemn its antecedents for cultural genocide without condemning itself, and since we are not prepared to condemn ourselves, it is entirely inappropriate to condemn the past and in so doing to praise ourselves.

    It is furthermore (and here the argument goes completely from the other side of the coin) incendiary and inappropriate to demand, require, or even to offer apologies for residential schools and whatever happened in them. For it all happened a long time ago: the people who would offer an apology would do it not for their own deeds; but for the deeds of people long gone. There can be no contrition for the wrongdoing of others, only an appalling congratulation of one's own superiority.

    Then, this matter of reconciliation. Who is to be reconciled with whom? If it is to be the natives who are to be reconciled with the rest, that is something that is their responsibility and theirs alone, to whatever extent they feel possible. I am not native and cannot speak for them. If on the other hand it is the rest who are to reconcile themselves to the natives, I will say bluntly: no amount of commission recommendations will have any effect whatsoever. Those who see in the native someone they dislike may or may not be odious, but they will not change their ways. They will not reconcile. And the rest have reconciled already, and their flinging about of labels such as genocide is again mere self-praise, praise that diminishes the purity of their enlightenment.

    All the above is abstract moral casuistry. But it can scarcely be otherwise, for the Truth and Reconcialiation Commission is most of all a moral agency that has issued a catechism of ethical behavior toward the first nations. And its 94 recommendations omit the one that would in a stroke facilitate all the others. Namely, to abolish the reservation system, end the ludicrous legal fiction that the first nations are somehow wards of the crown, and place the native population on the same legal footing as the rest of us. Until that happens, the first nations cannot be equal; and so long as they cannot be equal, they must and will unfortunately continue to be less.
    I don't agree with everything AShetsen said, but I do agree with his conclusion.

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Genocide
    Article 6 defines the crime of genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". There are five such acts which constitute crimes of genocide under article 6:

    - Killing members of a 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
    - Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
    - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group


    The definition of these crimes is identical to those contained within the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.
    Bold article points are true for the case of Aboriginal peoples in the last 60 years in Canada given:

    - Forced steralizations overwhelmingly directed at Aboriginal Women

    - Mass, systematic transfer of children

    - Starvation policies designed to push Aboriginal peoples off the land

    The other two points are also true in the last 100 years.

    Don't delude yourself people, it was genocide cut and dry. There is no argument to be had, just willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance.

    http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/...te_english.pdf

  23. #23
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ true. I think this attempt to acknowledge, yet make a caveat suggesting it is awful but not genocide has to do with our identity as Canadians: we send peace keepers to prevent genocides. We don't participate in genocides. So this thing, as you had said it, does bring a cognitive dissonance... I don't know if it is willful ignorance... It would take significant amount of time, effort, and will to realize that we had been wrong about our past all along, but that does not change our desire to help the world in the present. It's just we don't need to look beyond the nearest ocean to find a group of people in peril.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    And its 94 recommendations omit the one that would in a stroke facilitate all the others. Namely, to abolish the reservation system, end the ludicrous legal fiction that the first nations are somehow wards of the crown, and place the native population on the same legal footing as the rest of us. Until that happens, the first nations cannot be equal; and so long as they cannot be equal, they must and will unfortunately continue to be less.
    Pretty much my stance.

    It disgusts me that in this country, and in this day and age, people of a certain race get a different set of laws that governs their lives. This is a far more pressing issue than what happened in the past.

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    And its 94 recommendations omit the one that would in a stroke facilitate all the others. Namely, to abolish the reservation system, end the ludicrous legal fiction that the first nations are somehow wards of the crown, and place the native population on the same legal footing as the rest of us. Until that happens, the first nations cannot be equal; and so long as they cannot be equal, they must and will unfortunately continue to be less.
    Pretty much my stance.

    It disgusts me that in this country, and in this day and age, people of a certain race get a different set of laws that governs their lives. This is a far more pressing issue than what happened in the past.
    There is a lot more nuance and context to this than you are including. Simply put, treaties were signed as nation to nation agreements. We have different rights for Aboriginal peoples because we signed legal agreements with them that treated and defined them as separate peoples to Canadians.

    Your argument draws from the same strain that residential schools did. Erasing the reserve system and Indian Act is eliminating the last vestiges of natural Aboriginal rights in law.

    I also challenge the assertion that forcibly assimilating Aboriginal peoples into Canadian law and society would make them "equal", or that not doing so cements them as "less". A lot of Aboriginal people do not want to be "equal" in Canadian society, they want to secure their own culture, their own lands (which they have a natural right to), and their own way of life. Assimilating them into Canadian culture is not "improving" their life to them, it is degrading and destroying it.

    Again, your argument is exactly the same argument used to support residential schools. A BS notion that the colonial way of life is somehow "superior", and that we should "civilize" the Natives (in your words: bring them up to our standards or make them "equal"). You are taking a completely wrong approach, and are simply continuing to export colonial values on peoples that do not share the same epistemology.

    Do changes need to happen? Yes. Should those changes be oriented to assimilate Indigenous peoples? Absolutely not. Change needs to come from within - and many bands are actually making progress when given the tools to do it themselves. They need to reaffirm their culture and face the modern world with a basis in their OWN traditional values and ethics. See the Osoyoos band for an example here. Approach the modern economy and business with traditional work values and structures. It works extremely well, but they had the ability to work their land and the funding necessary to heal their people. Now they are self-sufficient.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 05-06-2015 at 11:15 AM.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    We have different rights for Aboriginal peoples because we signed legal agreements with them that treated and defined them as separate peoples to Canadians.
    Those agreements should never have been signed in the first place, because they clearly do not, and can not, work. It was an old British tool for colonialism to exploit the locals. You simply cannot have populations of people being "equal" under 2 different sets of rules and rights and expect them to peacefully coexist. The 2 peoples will always be treated differently (and often unfairly).

    Unfortunately, the Aboriginals are a conquered people. Like it or not, that is the truth. It has happened to everyone's ancestors at some point or another, and it will certainly happen here again sometime in the future. We can all try and pretend that no change or progress has happened in the world since those treaties were signed, but the fact remains that the old lifestyle of the Native Americans is gone forever.

    That's not a "residential schools" argument. That is a fact.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Those agreements should never have been signed in the first place, because they clearly do not, and can not, work. It was an old British tool for colonialism to exploit the locals. You simply cannot have populations of people being "equal" under 2 different sets of rules and rights and expect them to peacefully coexist. The 2 peoples will always be treated differently (and often unfairly).
    So when you don't like a law or a contract, you just pretend it doesn't exist? If you want to end this system, then the agreements will have to be settled, at whatever price that would command (I expect, a very high one).

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    We have different rights for Aboriginal peoples because we signed legal agreements with them that treated and defined them as separate peoples to Canadians.
    Those agreements should never have been signed in the first place, because they clearly do not, and can not, work. It was an old British tool for colonialism to exploit the locals. You simply cannot have populations of people being "equal" under 2 different sets of rules and rights and expect them to peacefully coexist. The 2 peoples will always be treated differently (and often unfairly).

    Unfortunately, the Aboriginals are a conquered people. Like it or not, that is the truth. It has happened to everyone's ancestors at some point or another, and it will certainly happen here again sometime in the future. We can all try and pretend that no change or progress has happened in the world since those treaties were signed, but the fact remains that the old lifestyle of the Native Americans is gone forever.

    That's not a "residential schools" argument. That is a fact.
    Yes, your argument is a neocolonial "residential schools" argument grounded in your false notion that colonial Canadian culture is superior to Aboriginal culture.

    Nobody anywhere is suggesting Aboriginal peoples return to living off the land. In fact, Aboriginal groups were often extremely fast in adopting European practices and methods of economic activity on their own. What people are advocating for is a reaffirmation of Indigenous culture, ethics, and values. As described in the Osoyoos band, this is about hard work ethic, relationship with nature (this doesn't mean living off the land in a teepee, it means respect and understanding), and respect for community. All of these things can fit very well in a modern society.

    The importance of the Indian Act (for all its flaws) and the reservation system is the ability to retain difference in culture, and retain "difference". Aboriginal peoples ARE different. They are not "another group of Canadians". They are a completely different culture that was usurped and nearly destroyed by abusive European colonists.

    What you are suggesting is the same thing that the colonists did. To destroy their culture and wrap them into Canadian society. That is the exact thing that caused all of the issues they are facing today - collective identity destruction, cultural dissonance, social ails - all caused by colonial assimilationist policy.

    We do NOT need to assimilate Indigenous peoples. We need to affirm their rights as a sovereign group of people, and assist them in rebuilding their own culture and way of life as they choose it. It is not up to us to define what someone else's culture is, or to tell them that they should start measuring themselves by our tools.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If you want to end this system, then the agreements will have to be settled, at whatever price that would command (I expect, a very high one).
    Indeed. But I don't think it's a bigger price than what has been paid already (and that continues to be paid).

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    The importance of the Indian Act (for all its flaws) and the reservation system is the ability to retain difference in culture, and retain "difference". Aboriginal peoples ARE different.
    That *is* the importance of it, isn't it? To maintain 2 different sets of rules for people depending on their ancestry. That's sickening. People are people.

    It's very prejudiced to say that Aboriginal people are different.

  31. #31
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ To maintain two different sets of rules for two different sets of people, dependent on their sovereign nationhood.

    I do not see you calling differing legal systems between Canadians and Americans "sickening". This is the same thing. Two sovereign peoples, two nations (actually many nations, but you get the idea), two different systems.

    The issue here is you innately believe that Aboriginal peoples are inferior and cannot possible be a sovereign people with a different independent choice of values and laws. You are wrong in that.

    Our problem is not that we have two systems of rights. It is that we continue to limit the natural rights of Indigenous peoples and prevent them from reaffirming their own culture as sovereign peoples.

  32. #32

    Default

    No, I do NOT believe Aboriginal people are inferior, and I you are very close to owing me an apology for saying that.

    I merely believe that it is impossible for anyone within this country to peacefully exist with their own sovereign system of governance. Especially given that it is given that it is based on race, and NOT on choice. Your analogy to the different legal systems in Canada and USA is a silly one - I could choose to become an American citizen (and an American can choose to become a Canadian as well). But I can never be from Aboriginal ancestry (and an Aboriginal can never be non-Aboriginal), and THAT is why it can never work.

    This country needs ONE set of equal rights and laws for ALL people. Sorting it by race has been a disaster and it always will be.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Labels are entirely political.

    The reality is this: the residential schools were awful, but it is arguable that once they were abolished and not replaced with anything functioning, the situation actually got worse.
    Labels are often just overly generalized word's hence all the debate about semantics and definitions. However, genocide is a pretty broad based word but not all encompassing because it can and does mostly happen with a countries borders but it hasn't been a requirement to apply it to an entire population. i.e. Jews within Nazi controlled territory.

  34. #34
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^^ Could have fooled me. You seem to believe they don't deserve an independent culture, and they aren't worthy of being treated like a sovereign people.

    In this latest post, you are asserting that Indigenous peoples having their natural and legal rights asserted would somehow lead to violence:

    it is impossible for anyone within this country to peacefully exist with their own sovereign system of governance
    No idea where you got that notion from. Any conflict that has happened for the last 100 years is actually from exactly what you are suggesting: that we invalidate Indigenous sovereignty and rights. Exactly zero conflict has happened due to expanding those rights and reaffirming their sovereignty. In fact, the bands with the most sovereignty seem to do the best (Sechelt, Osoyoos etc).

    Seems very much to me like you have a corrupt image of Indigenous peoples as incompetent, and believe that they should abandon their dream of reaffirming the culture they have held since time immemorial. I don't know what else you could describe that as except as thinking they are inferior. Reeks of cognitive dissonance.

    Also, yet again, this is not "sorting by race". This is sorting by legal sovereignty. Your opinion that it is the Canadian government acting as a parent, handing out rights to people is exactly what I am talking about. That is the wrong logic. This is not the Canadian government treating two groups of Canadians differently, this is a Nation to Nation discussion. Much like the Canadian government discussing things with the American government. Two sovereign peoples. Two nations. Not two groups within one nation.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 05-06-2015 at 12:13 PM.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Two sovereign nations? That makes no sense on multiple levels. Aboriginals have never been one nation, not before European colonization and not after. There are dozens, if not hundreds of First Nations. They are also not sovereign nations in practice, regardless of the wordings of the treaties. They were invaded, surrounded and occupied, and were unable to regain full physical control of their territory. The reserves exist at the whim of the government of Canada. We can lament the actions of the invaders, but they cannot be reversed. There are 30+ million of their descendants living here who have nowhere else to go. We could restore some sovereignty to the First Nations by dividing the country into Bantustans like apartheid South Africa once did (with didn't really work for anyone), or we can find a way to move forward as one people under one set of laws.

    Canada is an officially multicultural nation, where the cultural contributions of recent immigrants are supposed to be encouraged and celebrated. Why can't the same framework be used to celebrate the cultural contributions of the descendants of the first immigrants to this part of the world? Dividing the country on the basis of when people's ancestors arrived here hasn't worked, isn't working and will never work.

  36. #36

    Default

    Jaerdo just want to pop in and say you are hitting the nail on the head over and over again. Clear, concise, rational thinking. Bravo.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^^ Could have fooled me. You seem to believe they don't deserve an independent culture, and they aren't worthy of being treated like a sovereign people.

    In this latest post, you are asserting that Indigenous peoples having their natural and legal rights asserted would somehow lead to violence:

    it is impossible for anyone within this country to peacefully exist with their own sovereign system of governance
    No idea where you got that notion from. Any conflict that has happened for the last 100 years is actually from exactly what you are suggesting: that we invalidate Indigenous sovereignty and rights. Exactly zero conflict has happened due to expanding those rights and reaffirming their sovereignty. In fact, the bands with the most sovereignty seem to do the best (Sechelt, Osoyoos etc).

    Seems very much to me like you have a corrupt image of Indigenous peoples as incompetent, and believe that they should abandon their dream of reaffirming the culture they have held since time immemorial. I don't know what else you could describe that as except as thinking they are inferior. Reeks of cognitive dissonance.

    Also, yet again, this is not "sorting by race". This is sorting by legal sovereignty. Your opinion that it is the Canadian government acting as a parent, handing out rights to people is exactly what I am talking about. That is the wrong logic. This is not the Canadian government treating two groups of Canadians differently, this is a Nation to Nation discussion. Much like the Canadian government discussing things with the American government. Two sovereign peoples. Two nations. Not two groups within one nation.
    If you think natives are sovereign, you're delusional. It's a grand gesture to be sure, but they were effectively conquered and have been living the illusion of sovereignty, which clearly hasn't been working out. It's time we just toss aside the illusion and call them Canadians, for better or worse. That's the reality of it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  38. #38

    Default

    I don't believe that natives having sovereign countries within a sovereign country would work at all. You would end up with pockets of sovereign countries dotted all over Canada. It's not like Quebec (if they ever got sovereignty) just in one place. How would that work declaring your own country within a country. Does that mean your on your own, no more money coming from Canada, negotiate your own trade laws, form your own governments, the list is endless.
    Only time will solve how native people feel about what is and has happened to them. At some point (could be 200 years from now) they have to come to terms with the fact that settlers came here and forged a different way of life. Just like they did in every other jurisdiction throughout the world. The history of their treatment will still be there but it's history, can't change it so might as well move forward.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  39. #39

    Default

    I think that attitudes will change over time as well, given that most immigration to Canada is coming from non-European countries, and the ancestors of those new Canadians had nothing to do with what happened between the European conquerors and the Aboriginals.

    In the next hundred or so years the cultural fabric of Canada will be quite a bit different than it is now, and Canada's population won't carry the same baggage that we do today.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    It is very hard to debate this with people because it is so emotional, and you have people making frankly empty and meaningless arguments like "we conquered them" (This is not actually an argument and trust me, I know, it is the source of all the issues we are trying to solve). The conversation needs to be about where the problems are coming from, why people are suffering, and how we can stop that suffering. Here are the facts:

    1) Assimilation policies do not work. Period. Flat out. End of conversation. They have never worked, people do not want to be assimilated, they only make things worse. This is an observable, historical fact. This means that saying things like "call them Canadians and leave it at that" are completely useless statements. You might have well been saying "who cares if there are issues, let them fester".

    2) Devolved power (ie increased sovereignty) can and does work. Are there problems with corruption in some bands? Oh yes, you better believe it. However, that is an internal issue to them. When Canada signs a treaty with another nation that says "pay "x" dollars", we don't back out of it because we are worried about local politics. We pay it and let that nation figure it out. Indigenous peoples need to get their act together, but the fact is that reaching our hands in and meddling has only EVER made it worse. Bands that do get their act together benefit hugely from devolved power (again see: Sechelt, osoyoos etc).

    3) One of the largest issues is a problem of collective psyche. I know, soft science. However, this is something that Aboriginal leaders and scholars have been saying for a long time. This is a group of people with an open wound. They need something to rally around, they need something to help their community heal.

    To sum this up, I really find a lot of your comments counterproductive and empty. You are making emotional statements that translate to "we don't care". You need to rethink your frame of reference on this one if you ever want to be a part of the solution.

    ^Side point to Oilers last comment: Aboriginal populations are actually among the fastest growing in Canada. They are going through a later demographic transition than other parts of our society. Thus, they will have a LARGER role to play, and the issues will become MORE important.

  41. #41

    Default

    Time will solve a lot of these issues. There are countless natives that want to move forward and put the past behind. As each generation passes they will be better educated, more confident and have their own ideas of leaving their mark. They will have their own ideas of how to move forward. If native populations are growing hopefully all levels of government have a fair share of native representatives. There has to be a point were people are going to be sick of living in the past and blaming it for all their ills. It's not going to happen overnight but it will happen.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Time will solve a lot of these issues.
    Really? Has time solved the Palestinan crises, where one people was displaced from their land? I think the issues will get more serious, not less. I do hope for better First Nations leaderrship, and we are starting to see that, but its almost criminal the state of many reserve schools even today.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Aboriginal populations are actually among the fastest growing in Canada. They are going through a later demographic transition than other parts of our society. Thus, they will have a LARGER role to play, and the issues will become MORE important.
    Oh, I recognize that. My point is, people with European ancestry that were directly involved in creating today's problems will likely be playing a smaller and smaller role in any progress as time passes.

    What will happen in a couple of centuries when Canada's population is mostly composed of Aboriginals and people whose home countries had nothing to do with colonization? It's not important to the issue at hand, but I think it adds some context to where we should go, and not just focusing on past mistakes.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Gemini: Observably false to date. So far, the only positive change has happened from a combination of devolution of powers (increased sovereignty), and strong initiatives from within the band. The solution is not "let the wound fester".

    I find it incredible that your grand solution for people living in poverty who are victimized on every level to a huge degree is "let them suffer, eventually they will get sick of it and abandon their culture". Completely horrific attitude.

    ^ Oilers: What will happen is the obligations will remain the same, as they were made in nation-to-nation diplomacy (it, yet again, has nothing to do with "race" or "ethnicity"). The rights assigned in the Indian Act and in Treaties are a result of the British/Canadian governments negotiating with Aboriginal peoples. They will still need to ensure those rights are provided (right to medicine, assistance from pestilence/plague, right to hunt and fish etc). My hope is that less of these things are actually needed in the future, as bands become more self-sufficient on models like the Osoyoos community economic development strategy. However, yet again, that requires both an affirmation of sovereign rights, and considerable overhaul from within.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 05-06-2015 at 02:06 PM.

  45. #45

    Default

    Oh, FFS, where did I imply 'let them suffer' or 'let the wound fester'. It's you that is acting like the melodramatic drama queen. The world changes, views change, very little stays the same. What you fail to see if that natives themselves can change. Sure, they have every right to feel they have been treated very, very badly but that's not to say they cannot move forward. That's not to say the next generations of natives want their lot to stay the same. That's not to say that future generations of natives want to embrace sovereignty. Next generation natives may want to be governed by the system we have in place now. You talk as if future generations of natives are going to be like yesterdays and todays natives. Well, they are more than likely not. As for abandoning their culture. Nobody is asking them to do that, but like every other nation and nationality in this world parts of their cultures are abandoned. It's called 'progress'.
    Last edited by Gemini; 05-06-2015 at 02:19 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  46. #46
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ What I am advocating is letting them grow and change in the way that their advocacy groups, leaders, public demonstrations, and scholars have been arguing is what they want - to reaffirm their culture. Letting them guide their own future.

    What you are advocating is "growth" in the way that YOU want: assimilation to Canadian culture. As I stated before, this policy has never worked, and likely never will work. People don't like being forced to assimilate. It hasn't ever worked anywhere, and it isn't going to start now.

  47. #47

    Default

    No, it's not what I want, it's what they want. And there you go reading things I did not say. Nobody is forcing them to assimilate. I am not 200 years old, I did not live in those times when that was the case. I had no saying in what went on in the treatment of natives. No saying in residential schools, treaties, Indian Affairs etc. What you cannot seem to comprehend is that future natives may say that they were not around during those dark times either and they look ahead to different times. You even fail to see that the natives themselves may want to change. You seem to think they wallow in self pity and are frozen in the past, but you like it that way because it fits your agenda.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  48. #48

    Default

    I think assimilation has already happened.

  49. #49
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^^ If you were an adult prior to 1996, you did have a say in residential schools. You STILL have a say in the treatment of Indigenous peoples in Canada today (which is frankly abysmal). We still sign legal agreements in court to this day (land claims) that our government unilaterally reneges on and fails to uphold.

    I don't know why you are painting me as supporting some sort of noble savage ideal. I pretty explicitly stated before that I am NOT talking about what you are referring to in this last comment. Affirming Indigenous cultures does not mean returning to live on the land in a teepee.

  50. #50

    Default

    Affirming Indigenous cultures does not mean returning to live on the land in a teepee.

    ^Then why does every post you make come across that way.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  51. #51
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Evidently you didn't read them fully. Way back at post 28:

    Nobody anywhere is suggesting Aboriginal peoples return to living off the land. In fact, Aboriginal groups were often extremely fast in adopting European practices and methods of economic activity on their own. What people are advocating for is a reaffirmation of Indigenous culture, ethics, and values. As described in the Osoyoos band, this is about hard work ethic, relationship with nature (this doesn't mean living off the land in a teepee, it means respect and understanding), and respect for community. All of these things can fit very well in a modern society.
    The point of these policies is not to reaffirm some noble savage BS lifestyle (that never existed). It is to reaffirm a cultural identity and give latitude to Indigenous peoples in selecting the future they want for themselves.

    I hesitate to speak for such a large group of peoples, but what I have been told and researched surmises cultural values as hard work, relationship with nature, relationship with community, and spiritual association/health. If you read AFN publications or academic papers on decolonization efforts or other indigenous policies, this is what they mean by "reaffirming culture".

    Much literature on cultural suffering and group psychology related to this issue also argues that loss of identity was one of the primary causes behind current suffering. If you listen to groups like the Osoyoos band, reclaiming this identity is a large part of their success.

  52. #52
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I think assimilation has already happened.
    You need to get out a little more if you assume that to be the case.

    Despite tolerance on a very superficial level, there is no real integration, and probably won't be for many generations.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  53. #53

    Default

    ^You know, you can sugar coat this into all the kumbaya moments you want but until everybody is singing from the same page it's going to take a long time. The changes not only have to come from external forces they have to come from within the native community themselves. When tribal chiefs can receive funds and not account for them to the rest of the band there's a problem. They have to start getting some of their own houses in order. Until chiefs can explain to their own people where the millions of dollars have gone that had been allotted for housing, heating, schooling etc. then maybe some natives can maybe step out of their poverty cycles.
    That's only one of many problems that plague the native community. If you think that natives themselves are all on the same footing, there not. There are many instances of mismanagement within their own ranks.
    Last edited by Gemini; 05-06-2015 at 03:37 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I think assimilation has already happened.
    You need to get out a little more if you assume that to be the case.
    Oh, the assimilation certainly was not successful, if that's what you think I meant.

  55. #55
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    The changes not only have to come from external forces they have to come from within the native community themselves. When tribal chiefs can receive funds and not account for them to the rest of the band there's a problem.
    Already raised this issue and agreed. There are two parts to play: self-determination, and good use of that self-determination. As I mentioned repeatedly, Indigenous peoples need to step up. However, the best success in this has been seen in examples where they have the latitude to make their own decisions, and change is coming - slowly, but it is coming.

    Again, we need to stop reaching our hands in and meddling if we want them to step up to the plate. We have LEGAL obligations from treaties and the Indian Act. We should uphold our part (which we are NOT doing), then let them deal with their issues from within.

    Until chiefs can explain to their own people where the millions of dollars have gone that had been allotted for housing, heating, schooling etc. then maybe some natives can maybe step out of their poverty cycles.
    Partly true, largely a myth on the funding. See: $1 billion in allocated and promised funding not being delivered. Other funding put into mind-bogglingly poorly designed programs, like the $300 million to fund mortgages in places where banks do not service loans, and places where no private land exists to have a loan on. Absolutely, mind-bogglingly bad programs.

    A point I always like to make: corruption exists in some reserves, but a minority. Corruption also exists in all communities, and all levels of government. That some people are corrupt is not an excuse to abdicate our responsibilities. We promised to provide funding. We should do so, and give Indigenous peoples self-determination to decide for themselves what to do with it, and how to govern themselves. Then, it is completely within their court.

    Right now, we promise funding, then refuse to deliver it while at the same time refusing them the opportunity to self-govern at every possible chance.

  56. #56

    Default

    It's a strange argument, there are now more Chinese and almost more East Indian decent people in Canada than First Nations. They come here and adhere to the set of laws put out to them, and then so do future generations. Somehow they don't all end up as beer drinking hockey fans. They stick to their cultures, they speak their languages and worship who they want all under the latter of the law with no "special treatment". These people have managed to forgo assimilation despite living here upwards of 100 years spanning several generations. They can "choose" to be who they want to be as equally as I can and it makes this country great. Walk through various parts of Vancouver (gvrd) and tell me that there even is one "Canadian" culture, we celebrate all. This is even with head taxes, turning boats around, internment camps, railway building "jobs", many other cultures wronged by the British system. People evolve. We've separated the natives for 100's of years. Time to let them run free like the rest of us, we'll get to see if they even want to keep their cultures and ultimately shouldn't they be deciding if they do?

  57. #57

    Default

    Time for the Assembly of First nations to gain the same status as a province. No more should the federal government be able to tell them how to live their lives beyond what the other provinces live under. We signed these treaties and it's time we lived up to them.

    And before anyone chimes in with "I didn't sign it", the country did as a whole, under the auspices of the crown. By that reasoning, any person should be able to separate and form their own country because they didn't sign a document to join Canada.

  58. #58
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    So, how can a treaty be binding in perpetuity as between sovereign nations when the treaty explicitly is forfeiture of first nations sovereignty to the crown? Post treaty they are not a sovereign nation.

    It doesn't change the reality that there's a lot to do, yet, or some level of aboriginal influence in government isn't a good thing.

  59. #59

    Default

    Each new generation of natives will want to do things differently from the past. Like any civilization things change. They will evolve and set their own paths.
    They may not want to be part of treaty rights, Indian Acts etc. They might want to be part of a whole and not a separate entity.
    Man to son:, I've been a miner all my life, my brothers were miners, my uncles were miners, my father was a miner, his father and fathers before that were miners.
    Son:, I'm not going down the mine dad.
    Newer generations of natives may not want to take the same paths as their fathers and their fathers before that. They can stay proud in their heritage but that does not mean they should get special treatment because of it.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  60. #60

    Default

    But, as long as they want the treaties to be in effect, we should honour them.

  61. #61
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That's right. That means $5/year per person, 1500 in ammo and twine for all treaty 6, and they may continue to hunt subject to crown restrictions.

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    So, how can a treaty be binding in perpetuity as between sovereign nations when the treaty explicitly is forfeiture of first nations sovereignty to the crown? Post treaty they are not a sovereign nation.

    It doesn't change the reality that there's a lot to do, yet, or some level of aboriginal influence in government isn't a good thing.
    Yes, interesting point. It's a bit like the right we think we have to own our land, our home, and other assets. I don't believe that right actual exists in our constitution. The monarchy, the Queen right now, still owns all of Canada or has a prior claim to it, doesn't it?

  63. #63

    Default

    This interview below puts a bit of the history behind the residential schools into context and provides some interesting comments on the Oblates and as well aboriginals in western Canada, particularly BC....



    Rex Murphy interview of Terry Glavin

    https://storify.com/CBCCheckup/will-...enable-aborigi

    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/will...ther-1.3102565
    Last edited by KC; 07-06-2015 at 03:47 PM.

  64. #64

    Default

    The "smoking gun" ?


    " Canada was ready to abandon 1948 accord if UN didn’t remove ‘cultural genocide’ ban, records reveal "

    Joseph Brean, June 8, 2015, National Post

    "In the aftermath of the Second World War, as the United Nations debated a ban on “cultural genocide” in its 1948 Genocide Convention, Canada urged its delegate to try to spike it. ..."

    ...

    "Edward Sadowski, who has done extensive research and archival work for the Shingwauk Residential Schools Centre at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., unearthed the diplomatic cable in an access to information request for Canada’s historical records of the genocide deliberations.

    He provided these records to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and although some of his other work is cited, he was surprised the cable was not mentioned in the final report.

    “I don’t understand why they did not use that cable and some of the other documents,” he said, as it would have been a “smoking gun.”

    The records he obtained also include reference to Canada’s apparent motivation in a transcript of a meeting in Geneva. In the transcript, ...who said Canada fundamentally disagreed with the idea of cultural genocide.

    “No drafting change of Article III would make its substance acceptable to his delegation,” the Egyptian said of the Canadian. He acknowledged Canadians were “horrified” at the very idea of cultural genocide, but they were also “deeply attached to their cultural heritage, which was made up mainly of a combination of Anglo-Saxon and French elements, and they would strongly oppose any attempt to undermine the influence of those two cultures in Canada, as they would oppose any similar attempt in any other part of the world.”


    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...#__federated=1




  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,171

    Default

    The concept of residential schools isn't a bad idea by itself. It was probably the only economic way at the time for a sparsely populated country to educate it's children. A bit later on it was possible to do schooling by radio (Australia's School of the Air for example), and today by internet.

    However what wasn't acceptable was to forcibly remove, deny their language and culture. Then you compound this with physical and sexual abuse, which ironically was conducted by churches whose very religion claims this is a sin to hurt others.

    As for the treaties they typically state "To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever". You can read the text of Treaty 6 here;
    http://www.canadiancrown.com/uploads...7/treaty_6.pdf

    I really don't think it is necessary for a current government to apologize for the sins of the past, it is necessary that they do not keep committing them. Honor the treaties and promises made.

    The next step would be for each band to realize they are in a similar situation that Hong Kong or Macao was, essentially almost a tax free haven, with properly administered business and economic development they should be the richest parts of any province.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    The concept of residential schools isn't a bad idea by itself. It was probably the only economic way at the time for a sparsely populated country to educate it's children. A bit later on it was possible to do schooling by radio (Australia's School of the Air for example), and today by internet.

    However what wasn't acceptable was to forcibly remove, deny their language and culture. Then you compound this with physical and sexual abuse, which ironically was conducted by churches whose very religion claims this is a sin to hurt others.

    As for the treaties they typically state "To have and to hold the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever". You can read the text of Treaty 6 here;
    http://www.canadiancrown.com/uploads...7/treaty_6.pdf

    I really don't think it is necessary for a current government to apologize for the sins of the past, it is necessary that they do not keep committing them. Honor the treaties and promises made.

    The next step would be for each band to realize they are in a similar situation that Hong Kong or Macao was, essentially almost a tax free haven, with properly administered business and economic development they should be the richest parts of any province.
    Farmers were even more dispersed yet they had loads of small rural school houses.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That's right. That means $5/year per person, 1500 in ammo and twine for all treaty 6, and they may continue to hunt subject to crown restrictions.
    Don't forget the medicine chest that is to be held in one home for all of them to use.

  68. #68

    Default

    Interesting...


    The children taken from home for a social experiment
    By Ellen Otzen, BBC World Service, 10 June 2015, From the section Magazine
    Excerpt:

    "Far from serving as a model for cultural change in Greenland, the children ended up as a small, rootless and marginalised group on the periphery of their own society. Several of them became alcoholics and died young.

    "Some of them became homeless and some just broke down. They lost their identity and they lost their ability to speak their mother tongue and with that, they lost their sense of purpose in life," says Thiesen.
    She received a letter from the Danish Red Cross in 1998 in which it said it "regretted" its role in the episode.
    Finally, in 2009, Save the Children Denmark apologised too. But an internal investigation showed that some of the documents detailing the organisation's involvement have disappeared - Save the Children admits they could have been deliberately destroyed."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33060450

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That's right. That means $5/year per person, 1500 in ammo and twine for all treaty 6, and they may continue to hunt subject to crown restrictions.
    Don't forget the medicine chest that is to be held in one home for all of them to use.

    Ahh, but I wonder if this failure (see below) would constitute a beach of contract and they could ask for all their land and resources back...

    And further, Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made as to Her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it.

    Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that within the boundary of
    Indian reserves, until otherwise determined by Her Government of the Dominion of Canada, no intoxicating liquor shall be allowed to be introduced or sold, and all lows now in force, or hereafter to be enacted, to preserve Her Indian subjects inhab- iting the reserves or living elsewhere within Her North-west Territories from the evil influence of the use of intoxicating liquors, shall be strictly enforced.

  70. #70
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't know. They do maintain schools, and while they are relatively crappy compared to other schools they are schools that meet the letter of the contract.
    The alcohol provisions contain weasel words that make changes inconsequential to the contract. "Unless otherwise determined" excuses much.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I don't know. They do maintain schools, and while they are relatively crappy compared to other schools they are schools that meet the letter of the contract.
    The alcohol provisions contain weasel words that make changes inconsequential to the contract. "Unless otherwise determined" excuses much.
    Maybe not even meeting the letter of the law if they didn't have the capacity and teachers to teach all the children, many of which had been taken off the reserve. Also, the "wards of the state" treatment sounds very odd since they were considered fully capably of signing away huge amounts of their territory. Yet once signed, then for many decades they were then seen as having less mental or social capacity.

    “This branch of the Indian service has ever been recognized as one of the most, if not perhaps the most, important feature of the extensive system which is operating towards the civilization of our native races, having its beginning in small things—the first step being the establishment of reserve day-schools of limited scope and influence, the first forward step was the founding of boarding-schools both on and off the reserves. The beneficent effect of these becoming at once apparent, an impetus was thus given to the movement in the direction of industrial training, which was at once entered upon the establishment of our earlier industrial institutions ... until today the Dominion has had at its command a system which provides for its Indian wards a practical course of industrial training, fitting for useful citizenship the youth of a people who one generation past were practically unrestrained savages.” Dominion of Canada. Annual Report for the Department f Indian Affairs for the year ended 31st December 1896. p. 291. A.E. Forget, Indian Commissioner.

    "RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS AS POLICY
    Before long, the government began to hear many serious and legitimate complaints from parents and native leaders: The teachers were under-qualified, with an emphasis on religious zeal. Religious instruction was divisive. And there were allegations of physical and sexual abuse. These concerns, however, were of no legal consequence. Under the Indian Act, all Aboriginal people were by legal definition wards of the state. School administrators were assigned guardianship, which meant they received full parental rights. The complaints continued. School administrators, teachers, Indian agents, and even some government bureaucrats started to express their concerns. All of them called for major reforms to the system."

    http://wherearethechildren.ca/en/timeline/research/
    Last edited by KC; 11-06-2015 at 01:34 PM.

  72. #72

    Default

    worth reading.

    Here's just a couple excepts...

    Denise Balkissoon: Even if we missed the residential school report's 'moment,' we still need to understand this part of history
    DENISE BALKISSOON

    "Watching the videos isn’t less of a commitment than reading the report. At about 15 minutes a section, the entire project will require..."

    "Just as moving, but more painful, is the part handled by Edmonton professor Keavy Martin, whose section is the first time the report gets into details about how families were forcibly separated, under threat of law. She pauses and presses her lips together talking about children’s arrival at the schools. Some of them never said goodbye to their parents. At the schools, they were separated, maybe forever, from their siblings. Their beautiful hand-beaded clothes were thrown into the garbage in front of them, or burned."

    "Here in Canada, the residential schools system lasted more than 150 years, and affected at least 150,000 children and their families. There is no quick suture for such deep scars. The idea that six years of cross-country testimonials and one fat report could be dealt with in one breaking news cycle is wishful thinking, whether the wish is that healing didn’t take so long, or that..."


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...ticle25645532/
    Last edited by KC; 08-08-2015 at 06:00 AM.

  73. #73

    Default

    I think that for reconciliation, there needs to be forgiveness. I am not suggesting forgetting, but there needs to be a true and resounding forgiveness. If these suggestions are implemented, will this forgiveness come?

  74. #74

    Default

    This is a very interesting read:

    The Kamloops Residential School: Indigenous Perspectives and Revising Canada‟s History
    By
    Jenna K. Foster

    https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/do...66/1.0076003/2



    A privilege? Not a right?



    “Dear Parents,

    It will be your privilege this year to have your children spend Christmas at home with you. This is a privilege which is being granted if you observe the following regulations of the Indian Department.

    ...


    http://bannockandbutter.tumblr.com/p...rom-rev-ogrady

    Last edited by KC; 16-10-2016 at 09:13 PM.

  75. #75
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,620

    Default



    How condescending.

    Unreal.


    Just because we are so awesome we will let you have your kids home for Christmas.

    But after Christmas you bring them right back so they can continue to be our li'l sexual play thing.

    Ye'hear !

  76. #76
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    How condescending.

    Unreal.


    Just because we are so awesome we will let you have your kids home for Christmas.

    But after Christmas you bring them right back so they can continue to be our li'l sexual play thing.

    Ye'hear !
    There is no doubt that many, many terrible things were perpetrated on innocent children at residential schools by those in authority and so it is easy to paint a broad brush stroke of condemnation across them all. However, there were some schools where thankfully this abuse was not the norm. I just finished reading an article in Up Here Magazine about one such school called Grandin College which was located in Ft. Smith, NT. This school was key in shaping the lives of many Dene and Inuit that went on to be some of the most influential and well respected political leaders in the north including Ethel Blondin, Steven Kakwi, Robert McLeod to name a few. Yes, taking children from their homes and families was not an ideal situation, but remember back then there was no such thing as distance learning or video conferences. Anyway here is a link to the article....

    http://uphere.ca/articles/chosen-ones

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    There is no doubt that many, many terrible things were perpetrated on innocent children at residential schools by those in authority and so it is easy to paint a broad brush stroke of condemnation across them all. However, there were some schools where thankfully this abuse was not the norm.
    My neighbors told me that the residential schools they attended were very good and that they didn't experience any abuse. So they definitely were not all the same.

  78. #78

    Default

    There were good residential schools??

    Just look at the number of murdered or raped kids in the residential schools.... lets not downplay what the residential schools were or what they were being used for.

    Its like saying some concentration camps were better then others.... not as many people died there.

  79. #79

    Default

    just one quick quote from that article stated a kid was happy he was being taught to read and that all day he thought he was going to be abused like at the other place... the kids were so used to abuse that they were happy that someone was actually going to help them.

    This blows my mind.

    But they had to be abused for years where they took the abuse willingly..

    How about if the residential school never happened the crazy abuse of children wouldnt have happened.. we shouldnt be thankful because one school wasnt full of monsters.

  80. #80
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    just one quick quote from that article stated a kid was happy he was being taught to read and that all day he thought he was going to be abused like at the other place... the kids were so used to abuse that they were happy that someone was actually going to help them.

    This blows my mind.

    But they had to be abused for years where they took the abuse willingly..

    How about if the residential school never happened the crazy abuse of children wouldnt have happened.. we shouldnt be thankful because one school wasnt full of monsters.
    Not at all. Those that inflicted these atrocities in the name of God will be brought to justice if they haven't already in this life than eternally in the life hereafter. My point was to show that there was some light in the midst of the darkness. There were some that actually cared for the well being of the students that the government had put in their care. We don't often hear those stories. Not that we stop telling the other side by any means.

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post


    How condescending.

    Unreal.


    Just because we are so awesome we will let you have your kids home for Christmas.

    But after Christmas you bring them right back so they can continue to be our li'l sexual play thing.

    Ye'hear !
    There is no doubt that many, many terrible things were perpetrated on innocent children at residential schools by those in authority and so it is easy to paint a broad brush stroke of condemnation across them all. However, there were some schools where thankfully this abuse was not the norm. I just finished reading an article in Up Here Magazine about one such school called Grandin College which was located in Ft. Smith, NT. This school was key in shaping the lives of many Dene and Inuit that went on to be some of the most influential and well respected political leaders in the north including Ethel Blondin, Steven Kakwi, Robert McLeod to name a few. Yes, taking children from their homes and families was not an ideal situation, but remember back then there was no such thing as distance learning or video conferences. Anyway here is a link to the article....

    http://uphere.ca/articles/chosen-ones
    One major problem. You're suggesting that because they became respected political leaders, that their childhoods couldn't have been traumatic. Or that any trauma was worth it. Unfortunately, over and over again in our society we find that the 'driven', successful people often have a dark or twisted past or dark non-public life. They often work extremely hard to escape their past traumas or provide an offset their dark-sides. So, here,Moho knows, it may have been a great, great school experience that lead to their success - or maybe not.

    I was once at a Gabor Matea talk and he mentioned something quite interesting; saying something to the effect that the upper class British always sent their kids off to boarding schools where life was very tough and that Britain then sent these graduates as mandarins overseas to administer the bureaucracy in colonies like Canada.

    So the British basically had a highly dysfunctional family system that they prided themselves in, and exported it here. Conversely, Matea said, the traditional indigenous child rearing experience was the opposite of the British system and so the opposite of what would be seen as dysfunctional system today. That system was destroyed by colonization.



    Boarding school: the trauma of the ‘privileged’ child
    Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2004, 49, 683–705

    Joy Schaverien, Leicester, UK

    Abstract: Sending young children to boarding school may be considered a particularly British form of child abuse and social control. The trauma of the rupture with home may be followed by other ordeals such as emotional deprivation and, in extreme cases, physical and sexual abuse. The taboo on expressing emotion, which is common in such institutions, may lead to ...

    Introduction
    A Dutch colleague, who had been a hidden child in The Netherlands during the Second World War, worked with child survivors of the Japanese prison camps. These experiences led her to the observation that the British Establish- ment was a group of traumatized people as a result of the practice of sending young children away from home to be placed in the care of strangers. She was amazed that this was not because of some dire political situation but for the purposes of education. This, alongside the experiences of my patients, led me to consider the British boarding school system to be a particularly British form of child abuse.
    The ‘basic assumption’ (Bion 196 on which this practice is based is a common, socially condoned, and usually unquestioned premise that sending children to boarding school is good for them. A common phrase used to justify...

    ...

    Primary attachments and the Self

    The reasons that the boarding school survivor may have difficulty in making and maintaining intimate personal relationships are multi-faceted. For some people problems began before they were sent away. However there are common factors that can be traced back to the rupture of the early, primary attachments. Intimate relationships with parents, siblings and pets are lost and substituted by many anonymous strangers. ...


    Thus it is that boarding school can affect the core of the personality. In terms of developmental processes we might turn to ...The little boy or girl abandoned, at an early age, in a strange institution, where the rules are unknown, is tense, on guard, and so has little opportunity for genuine reverie. There is a lack of privacy; very often lavatories have no doors and showers are taken communally; ...At night ... In the past the system of fagging meant that junior boys had to be available as glorified servants for the older boys and this condoned bullying as a privilege of age. There is no ...
    Last edited by KC; 21-10-2016 at 08:35 PM.

  82. #82
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    601

    Default

    I don't disagree with you that boarding schools are not the ideal place for any children, aboriginal or not. I just don't know what the alternative would have been available for these children back then other than for them to have to leave their home communities for school. It has only been in recent years that many smaller Inuit communities have even had their own high schools. Any post secondary degrees have to be sought outside the Territories which is why the vast majority of Inuit graduates do not continue on to post secondary studies even though their tuition and travel are pretty much covered for up to 4 years.

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    lets not downplay what the residential schools were or what they were being used for.

    Its like saying some concentration camps were better then others.... not as many people died there.
    I am not downplaying. And no, saying that is not the same thing.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quite the repudiation:

    'Nothing good' about residential school system, Anglican Church tells Senator Beyak

    https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4033335

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    I don't disagree with you that boarding schools are not the ideal place for any children, aboriginal or not. I just don't know what the alternative would have been available for these children back then other than for them to have to leave their home communities for school. It has only been in recent years that many smaller Inuit communities have even had their own high schools. Any post secondary degrees have to be sought outside the Territories which is why the vast majority of Inuit graduates do not continue on to post secondary studies even though their tuition and travel are pretty much covered for up to 4 years.
    Historical revisionism is or should be an interesting area of study. As the Anglican Church states in the post above, there was nothing good about this system. However life in Canada was very different when they were started. I can only begin to understand the issues they faced and their intentions, beliefs and biases. Genocide? I doubt it. Cultural genocide? Most definitely. Have we stopped engaging in cultural genocide in our multicultural society? Definitely not. We still do it today and entrench it in our systems and laws.

    In many ways today we continue to have problems and try to ignore them or to employ if not impose incredibly bad if not outright evil solutions yet we can't seem to view today's failing in a similar critical light as we can wigh the mistakes of our parents' and grandparents' generations. We too extend our failing processes long past the day that we recognize that the practices are despicable.
    Last edited by KC; 21-03-2017 at 05:25 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •