[Pants-of-dog]

I am not interested in seeing if a specific policy fits a specific definition.

I prefer to discuss why people do not hold the government accountable.

And if the reason is because there is no genocide happening, and some SJWs are merely overreacting to an inability to get rid of poverty, that would be a good reason.

[wat0n]

I'll take that as a "no".

I think poverty is something that should be addressed, regardless of the identity of the poor.

[Odiseizam]

WOW

Louis Theroux Meets A Racist

https://youtu.be/r1vKEu0JFYY

[Unthinking Majority]

So you believe that there is no intentional or systemic or systematic killing of Indigenous people.

You believe, instead, that a few cops are being racist because of stereotypes they absorbed over years of working on the force.

And you believe this because you saw a Netflix show about something similar and see a bunch of parallels.

Mostly. I don't really think the system itself is still racist towards indigenous people, the way the institutions and laws are designed. I do think there's bad actors within the system, like some cops or judges, who act outside the law and the spirit of justice. A system of justice can be designed but it doesn't mean it will always be followed, if those who don't follow the system are allowed to get away with abusing power.

I think there's a lot of complex social dynamics going on. We have laws which are based on logic and careful thought, but we also have humans enforcing them, and humans are prone to negative emotions outside of logic, like fear, anger, resentment, and ego. In the future maybe we'll have robot AI acting as police, which I think would be a lot safer for everyone. Robots wouldn't fear getting shot, wouldn't get angry if somebody cusses at them, and wouldn't be racist.

[Drlee]

I can't speak for Canada but their are very difficult factors to be overcome in providing equal health care and education to Native Americans. Among those factors is the requirement to accede to the wishes of tribal leaders. There is also the requirement to maintain private school systems in some cases.
There is a lot of territory between equal and the same. Considerations of maintaining the remaining vestiges of tribal culture and immersion into the prevalent society are not to be ignored.

A good example is the fact that Native Americans have free health care in the US. Despite this they do not have equal outcomes. The same is true in education for that matter.

What were supposed to be semi-autonomous nations have become wards of the state.

[Pants-of-dog]

Mostly. I don't really think the system itself is still racist towards indigenous people, the way the institutions and laws are designed. I do think there's bad actors within the system, like some cops or judges, who act outside the law and the spirit of justice. A system of justice can be designed but it doesn't mean it will always be followed, if those who don't follow the system are allowed to get away with abusing power.

I think there's a lot of complex social dynamics going on. We have laws which are based on logic and careful thought, but we also have humans enforcing them, and humans are prone to negative emotions outside of logic, like fear, anger, resentment, and ego. In the future maybe we'll have robot AI acting as police, which I think would be a lot safer for everyone. Robots wouldn't fear getting shot, wouldn't get angry if somebody cusses at them, and wouldn't be racist.

Okay.

Why do you believe this is a good description of the relationship between Canada and the Indigenous people living there?

By that I mean, what led you to the conclusion that this is the extent of state racism in Canada against Indigenous people?

[Godstud]

Maybe some people aren't familiar with the Canadian government's actions towards this...

FORCED STERILIZATION OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN IN CANADA
Modern-Day Forced Sterilization in Canada
Indigenous women in Canada have been subjected to forced sterilization in public hospitals, going back many decades and into 2018. This practice appears to disproportionately, and possibly exclusively, target Indigenous women. Dozens of victims have come forward on their own since late 2017, but the full scale of the problem is unknown because there has been no comprehensive investigation, and due to a lack of publicly available data.

Attorney Alisa Lombard represents several women in civil litigation against the relevant healthcare providers and governmental entities alleged to be responsible for forcibly sterilizing them. They are seeking certification of a class action on behalf of all Indigenous women forcibly sterilized in Saskatchewan. Doctors most often perform these sterilizations when the woman is in labor or is immediately post-partum, using a tubal ligation procedure that permanently prevents her from becoming pregnant again naturally and that can have profound consequences for her and her family. Some known cases involve women being sterilized despite expressly denying consent, while other women are unduly pressured, and others are simply not asked.

A forced sterilization is one performed without the woman’s free, prior, full, and informed consent. International human rights law has clearly established that forced sterilization violates multiple human rights and is an act of gender-based violence. See our four-page overview of recent decisions and statements on forced sterilization, and our webpage on forced sterilization for more information.
https://ijrcenter.org/forced-sterilizat ... in-canada/

[wat0n]

That one is more interesting and to the point, actually. Has that practice stopped? How widespread has it been?

[Drlee]

Now that is what I am talking about @Godstud

Good post. As was asked, has it stopped? Did heads roll?

[Godstud]

Canada 'complicit in race-based genocide' of indigenous women
How was Canada found to be complicit?
The report found that "persistent and deliberate human and indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada's staggering rates of violence".

Past inquiries and investigations in Canada - from the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples to the more recent Truth and Reconciliation report - have put forward about 900 wide-ranging recommendations to deal with many of the underlying issues.

Many have never been applied.

"One of the family members' and survivors' biggest fears in opening themselves up to this process as intense as this one is that in the end, nothing is done - the report gathers dust on a shelf and the recommendations are left unanswered," the final report said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48503545

Survivors of Canada's 'cultural genocide' still healing
On Tuesday, the government of Canada released a report on residential schools, with testimony from nearly 7,000 witnesses, called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

From 1840 to 1996, more than 150,000 First Nations, Metis and Inuit children were taken from their families and placed in these schools, in order to "kill the Indian in the child".

TRC chair Justice Murray Sinclair said more than 6,000 residential school students died.

Many more suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Survivors of St Anne's Indian Residential School in Fort Albany, Ontario, are suing the government to release an unredacted version of documentation that shows staff used an electric chair to shock students as young as six and forced sick students to eat their own vomit.

The TRC report concludes that the government-led policy amounted to cultural genocide.

"These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will," says a summary of the report.

"The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources."
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33001425


Apologies and some financial redress, but nothing substantial, and no heads rolled, @Drlee

[Unthinking Majority]

Okay.

Why do you believe this is a good description of the relationship between Canada and the Indigenous people living there?

By that I mean, what led you to the conclusion that this is the extent of state racism in Canada against Indigenous people?

Is there any other state racism happening, besides rogue actors?

I think there's some old legislation like the Indian Act and treaty disputes that are problematic, but much of that isn't racism currently so much as politically difficult to change, or even politicians who don't care a lot about things other than what gets them re-elected. It's easy to neglect certain things if the people you neglect aren't a significant voting block or donate lots of money.

[Julian658]

Is there any other state racism happening, besides rogue actors?

I think there's some old legislation like the Indian Act and treaty disputes that are problematic, but much of that isn't racism currently so much as politically difficult to change, or even politicians who don't care a lot about things other than what gets them re-elected. It's easy to neglect certain things if the people you neglect aren't a significant voting block or donate lots of money.

People keep forgetting that as of 2021 Western nations bend over backwards to help minorities. That in itself is a first in world history where the dominant ethnicity is concerned about others. Lastly, sometimes good intentions have bad consequences. The war on poverty in the USA did not have the intended results.

[Verv]

Okay.

Why do you believe that the intent of the residential school system was to fix Indigenous communities and families?

Because they stated that they wanted to integrate them into the economy. This is not particularly heroic or philanthropic. It's an effort to turn unproductive government dependents and risks for crime and rebellion into law-abiding tax payers.

It's pretty obvious how it serves their interests. Why would they lie about that?

So in terms of state oppression, the only thing Canada did was not fund these schools enough, as compared to what the funding would have been if white kids were sent to schools like this.

How do you know this is true?

Because that's what the Canada Encyclopedia basically says happened. All of the ills of this were just compounded by the fact that the short-staffed and underfunded institutions also had some racist and backward attitudes.

And here you are referring to the medical experiments: that the idea was to help Indigenous kids.

And how do you know this?

Liberal articles that want to paint it as a very dark moment in history do not even attempt to prove that this was the intent of the peopel involved.

]I see. So Canada is only guilty if intentionally killing people if it makes an effort to do so by force.

And so intentionally starving someone would not count, if I read your argument correctly. Did I understand your argument properly?

I do not beleive there was any case where anyone was intentionally starved -- if such incidents occurred, it was an individual doing something evil, not by policy design.

Do you have any evidence that this occurred?

What do you think I mean by “cultural genocide”? How do Evangelicals and Mormons have to deal with this?

Evangelical Christian & Mormon religious conservatism and cultural nroms are actively fought against by the Human Rights commission, the CBC, the secular schools, etc., which try to paint the history of Christians in North America as negative, and also directly seek to promote homosexuality as a totally valid & life-affirming choice, just as how single motherhood and sex outside of marriage are healthy choices.

This clashes rradically with Chrsitian & Mormon world views.

Preaching these values to Evangelicals & Mormons is like trying to get Indian children to give up their ancestor worship and change their lifestyle by directly attacking their social norms and values.

[Drlee]

People keep forgetting that as of 2021 Western nations bend over backwards to help minorities. That in itself is a first in world history where the dominant ethnicity is concerned about others.

This is patently untrue though I understand you want it to be true.

Lastly, sometimes good intentions have bad consequences. The war on poverty in the USA did not have the intended results.

Why do you say that? If you were poor, the institutions constructed or enhanced during the "war on poverty" still serve you well.

If you are under some odd notion that the "war on poverty" failed because it was poorly constructed or conceived you are mistaken. Of course you are welcome to join many of us conservatives and liberals who believe we should do a great deal more to end poverty. And we should start by requiring employers to pay a living wage. It is absurd to expect the taxpayers to subsidize a person working his/her ass off in McDonald's or Joe's Hardware just so the employer can have vastly more money. The failure of the war on poverty is in part due to the fact that through the political process employers came to rely on it so they can pay less for labor.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there any other state racism happening, besides rogue actors?

Okay. This sounds like you are unaware of any other state racism happening, so you have no reason to believe it is happening.

I think there's some old legislation like the Indian Act and treaty disputes that are problematic, but much of that isn't racism currently so much as politically difficult to change, or even politicians who don't care a lot about things other than what gets them re-elected. It's easy to neglect certain things if the people you neglect aren't a significant voting block or donate lots of money.

So, other than the rogue actors you mentioned earlier, there are some policies that may still be left over from a past when the government was systemically racist.

————————

Because they stated that they wanted to integrate them into the economy. This is not particularly heroic or philanthropic. It's an effort to turn unproductive government dependents and risks for crime and rebellion into law-abiding tax payers.

It's pretty obvious how it serves their interests. Why would they lie about that?

So, I have no trouble accepting that they believed they wanted to help, and honestly thought their polices would help. And you accept this because you see a clear gain for all parties involved.

Because that's what the Canada Encyclopedia basically says happened. All of the ills of this were just compounded by the fact that the short-staffed and underfunded institutions also had some racist and backward attitudes.

Oh, I see.

Can you please quote the text to which you are referring.

I just want to see which words led you to the interpretation that this was the extent and limit of state racism.

Liberal articles that want to paint it as a very dark moment in history do not even attempt to prove that this was the intent of the peopel involved.

So, you think that the liberal media would have mentioned this evil intent, and since you did not read it in said liberal media, there was probably never any ill intent.

I do not beleive there was any case where anyone was intentionally starved -- if such incidents occurred, it was an individual doing something evil, not by policy design.

Do you have any evidence that this occurred?

Let us take a step back.

You are confusing two separate tangents here: the discussion about forced nutritional experiments, and a more hypothetical discussion on whether or not someone can be guilty of killing someone through neglect.

For the former discussion, I think the text you already quoted already answered whether or not any children were intentionally starved. It seems the children were not intentionally starved. Instead, they were intentionally malnourished.

The second discussion is more up your alley: a more philosophical question of whether or not a country can be held accountable for killing an ethnic minority if they do it through neglect (like starvation or withholding medical care) or if the killing has to done through force or violence. What do you think?

Evangelical Christian & Mormon religious conservatism and cultural nroms are actively fought against by the Human Rights commission, the CBC, the secular schools, etc., which try to paint the history of Christians in North America as negative, and also directly seek to promote homosexuality as a totally valid & life-affirming choice, just as how single motherhood and sex outside of marriage are healthy choices.

This clashes rradically with Chrsitian & Mormon world views.

Preaching these values to Evangelicals & Mormons is like trying to get Indian children to give up their ancestor worship and change their lifestyle by directly attacking their social norms and values.

Oh, if this is the threshold for “cultural genocide”, then the situation with Indigenous people does not really compare. The measures targeted at Indigenous communities was far more severe than that.

[Verv]

So, I have no trouble accepting that they believed they wanted to help, and honestly thought their polices would help. And you accept this because you see a clear gain for all parties involved.

So why did they do anything at all?

Did they have to put on this dog & pony show because the white population of Canada wanted to see the politicians pretend to help the natives?

Oh, I see.

Can you please quote the text to which you are referring.

I just want to see which words led you to the interpretation that this was the extent and limit of state racism.

Mostly this..

So, you think that the liberal media would have mentioned this evil intent, and since you did not read it in said liberal media, there was probably never any ill intent.

Yes, people writing on a historical topic with the goal of condemning it & raising awareness on it will usualy do their best job to present all the evidence of wrongdoing.

Let us take a step back.

You are confusing two separate tangents here: the discussion about forced nutritional experiments, and a more hypothetical discussion on whether or not someone can be guilty of killing someone through neglect.

For the former discussion, I think the text you already quoted already answered whether or not any children were intentionally starved. It seems the children were not intentionally starved. Instead, they were intentionally malnourished.

The second discussion is more up your alley: a more philosophical question of whether or not a country can be held accountable for killing an ethnic minority if they do it through neglect (like starvation or withholding medical care) or if the killing has to done through force or violence. What do you think?

I don't think they were intentionally malnourished.

The original diet is not one designed to produce malnourishment; it was the regular one.

The new diet was potentially the better one, and was experimental.

When one Army unit is given new boots, and the other Army unit does the same training with the original boots, it is not to forcing one unit to train with substandard boots. It's seeing if the new boots actually make an improvement.

Oh, if this is the threshold for “cultural genocide”, then the situation with Indigenous people does not really compare. The measures targeted at Indigenous communities was far more severe than that.

It was an assault on the Indigenous People's religions (though many at this time may already have even been Christians at these schools, so I am not sure), and likely involved separating them from the traditional education they would have received that was representative of their tribe and culture.

I do not really see how it is that different.

Taking the child of a conservative Christian and telling them they can be gay, have sex outside of marriage, get divorced, that science is the only valid explanation for how man came to be on Earth, that the Canadian government is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, that all ethics comes down to treating everyone as rote equals and allowing anything between consenting adults...

This is literally brainwashing children against the viewpoints of their parents and ancestors, quite the same.

The latter is probably less worthy of forgiveness because when we are talking about erasing Indigenous Identities, we are talking about removing things that the natives themselves were in the process of removing through their own modernization. Tribal peoples are not much in the business of conserving their whole complex social & spiritual practices because they themselves see the waning value of complex kinship systems or protocols for hunting.

[Julian658]

This is patently untrue though I understand you want it to be true.

OK!

Can you name the nations, other than Western Nations where the dominant majority ethnicity is trying to help the minority that is disenfranchised?

Why do you say that? If you were poor, the institutions constructed or enhanced during the "war on poverty" still serve you well.

If you are under some odd notion that the "war on poverty" failed because it was poorly constructed or conceived you are mistaken. Of course you are welcome to join many of us conservatives and liberals who believe we should do a great deal more to end poverty. And we should start by requiring employers to pay a living wage. It is absurd to expect the taxpayers to subsidize a person working his/her ass off in McDonald's or Joe's Hardware just so the employer can have vastly more money. The failure of the war on poverty is in part due to the fact that through the political process employers came to rely on it so they can pay less for labor.

Poverty a decline up until the 1960s. Afterwards it is a wavy line with no significant further downtrend. A new approach is needed. It may also be that most measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. The latter may be improving, however, most on the left rather emphasize the difference for obvious reasons.

[Pants-of-dog]

So why did they do anything at all?

Did they have to put on this dog & pony show because the white population of Canada wanted to see the politicians pretend to help the natives?

I am not sure what you are asking here. All I said was that I understand why you believe this was solely about helping Indigenous people.

Can you think of any reason why Canada would want to get rid of Indigenous people?

Mostly this..

So you read that entire article and your take away was that the only racism was that these schools were not funded enough when compared to how these schools would be funded for white kids.

Yes, people writing on a historical topic with the goal of condemning it & raising awareness on it will usualy do their best job to present all the evidence of wrongdoing.

That liberal media, eh?

I don't think they were intentionally malnourished.

The original diet is not one designed to produce malnourishment; it was the regular one.

The new diet was potentially the better one, and was experimental.

When one Army unit is given new boots, and the other Army unit does the same training with the original boots, it is not to forcing one unit to train with substandard boots. It's seeing if the new boots actually make an improvement.

And I guess the same is true here. You read the article and this was your take away.

Anyway, is it only genocide when force is used, or can it also be genocide when neglect is used? Please note that this is the third time I have asked this question, and I would appreciate an answer.

It was an assault on the Indigenous People's religions (though many at this time may already have even been Christians at these schools, so I am not sure), and likely involved separating them from the traditional education they would have received that was representative of their tribe and culture.

I do not really see how it is that different.

Taking the child of a conservative Christian and telling them they can be gay, have sex outside of marriage, get divorced, that science is the only valid explanation for how man came to be on Earth, that the Canadian government is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, that all ethics comes down to treating everyone as rote equals and allowing anything between consenting adults...

This is literally brainwashing children against the viewpoints of their parents and ancestors, quite the same.

The latter is probably less worthy of forgiveness because when we are talking about erasing Indigenous Identities, we are talking about removing things that the natives themselves were in the process of removing through their own modernization. Tribal peoples are not much in the business of conserving their whole complex social & spiritual practices because they themselves see the waning value of complex kinship systems or protocols for hunting.

So you think Indigenous people were and are choosing to get their rid of their own traditions because they see their culture as irrelevant. And because of this, taking steps to get rid of their culture is less problematic than, for example, tolerating homosexuality in the presence of conservative Christians.

[Verv]

I am not sure what you are asking here. All I said was that I understand why you believe this was solely about helping Indigenous people.

Can you think of any reason why Canada would want to get rid of Indigenous people?

(I) I was asking you why the Canadian government made any effort at all to help the natives through this program if their goal was ultimately the eradication of the natives. But I think that you did acknowledge earlier that their goal was to help natives, but that it was misguided.

(II) There would be a clear motive for anyone to want to get rid of the natives if you are skeptical enough about the motives of people. Just as such, there would be a clear motive for natives to want to get rid of "Canada."

BTW, I do find it interesting how you refer to Canada as wanting to get rid of the IPs.

I thought the IPs are a part of Canada.

So you read that entire article and your take away was that the only racism was that these schools were not funded enough when compared to how these schools would be funded for white kids.

No, that's not fully what I have been saying at all, and you have quoted what I have said about this several times.

That liberal media, eh?

I don't think that the Canada Encyclopedia is done by the media.

And I guess the same is true here. You read the article and this was your take away.

Anyway, is it only genocide when force is used, or can it also be genocide when neglect is used? Please note that this is the third time I have asked this question, and I would appreciate an answer.

It can only be genocide when there is killing en masse.

So you think Indigenous people were and are choosing to get their rid of their own traditions because they see their culture as irrelevant. And because of this, taking steps to get rid of their culture is less problematic than, for example, tolerating homosexuality in the presence of conservative Christians.

No, I was suggesting that the transition away from the premodern culture of natives was a very natural process. Of course, there were blatant attempts by these resident schools to completely erase these things, and we should question that. Indeed, perhaps the most interesting thing to discuss would be the cultural genocide aspect, but we are stuck with some bizarre conversation about this from some perspective of there being actual genocide, but there wasn't.

And if your take is that the modern anti-Christian perspectives being taught in school is simply promoting the tolerance of one thing, then we can say that the perspective taught in these 20th century Residential Schools was simply modernizing Indians.

[Pants-of-dog]

(I) I was asking you why the Canadian government made any effort at all to help the natives through this program if their goal was ultimately the eradication of the natives. But I think that you did acknowledge earlier that their goal was to help natives, but that it was misguided.

What if I told you that Canada thought that they were helping Indigenous people by ultimately eradicating Indigenous cultures? Would you buy that?

(II) There would be a clear motive for anyone to want to get rid of the natives if you are skeptical enough about the motives of people. Just as such, there would be a clear motive for natives to want to get rid of "Canada."

So you can not think of a reason why Canada would want to eradicate Indigenous communities.

Would you believe me if I told you it was because Canada wants this land which Indigenous people still consider their own, and so there is a clear financial interest in destroying Indigenous communities?

BTW, I do find it interesting how you refer to Canada as wanting to get rid of the IPs.

I thought the IPs are a part of Canada.

Yes, a lot of people assume that.

No, that's not fully what I have been saying at all, and you have quoted what I have said about this several times.

Yes, I have asked you several times to clarify exactly what you think the racism was in Indian Residential schools, and you have consistently explained that the racism was only shown in the lack of funding these institutions received as compared to how much you imagine the Canadian government would have spent had the system been for white kids.

I am not sure why you are changing your position now, but if you are, please clarify.

I don't think that the Canada Encyclopedia is done by the media.

I never claimed it was. It was you who claimed the liberal media would have mentioned intentional harm if there had been any, since the liberal media wants to make white people look bad.

And you argued that since the liberal media did not mention it, this evil intent never happened.

It can only be genocide when there is killing en masse.

Okay. This can be another criteria if you wish.

But again, you have not answered the question.

Is it still genocide if force and violence are not used, and the mass killings are done by methods like starvation or lack of medical care?

No, I was suggesting that the transition away from the premodern culture of natives was a very natural process.

Why do you think that?

Is the move away from religiously based homophobia also natural?

Of course, there were blatant attempts by these resident schools to completely erase these things, and we should question that. Indeed, perhaps the most interesting thing to discuss would be the cultural genocide aspect, but we are stuck with some bizarre conversation about this from some perspective of there being actual genocide, but there wasn't.

Is it possible that Canada did both? Or, more correctly, tried the one and is now doing the other?

And if your take is that the modern anti-Christian perspectives being taught in school is simply promoting the tolerance of one thing, then we can say that the perspective taught in these 20th century Residential Schools was simply modernizing Indians.

We can say all sorts of things. Whether or not one thing logically follows from another is a different thing.

The treatment of Indigenous people in residential schools has no logical connection to the imaginary persecution of Christians in schools today, so it would be difficult to make comparisons.