Pants-of-dog wrote:What if I told you that Canada thought that they were helping Indigenous people by ultimately eradicating Indigenous cultures? Would you buy that?
It would depend on the scope. I do not think they were interested in the total destruction of IP culture. But yes, to some extent, this is true.
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?
I would say that you believe in conspiracy theories if you told me that, or you are playing fun word games that enable you to call anything genocide.
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.
You do not understand the scale differences here, I guess.
I am not sure why you are changing your position now, but if you are, please clarify.
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.
Sure, the Canada Encyclopedia is likely done by NGOs/academics, which is not part of the media, but is generally part of the same power block.
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?
It depends on the intentionality.
If people accidentally die in large numbers, it isn't genocide. And these would have to be extremely large numbers for it to even by intentional genocide, IMO. You can't say that negligence or lack of funding that results in elevated death rates is genocide.
Why do you think that?
Is the move away from religiously based homophobia also natural?
Of course, that could be argued, but there's nothing in a scientific perspective which says that glorification of sodomy is virtuous. Indeed, a rote scientific perspective can be more condemning of it.
Is it possible that Canada did both? Or, more correctly, tried the one and is now doing the other?
Obviously it's impossible because there was no organization of an actual genocide.
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.
A conversation on "cultural genocide" would tie in. But, of course, that is where the comparison ends.
I never attempted to cross wires on other issues with residential schools -- I do not know why you would try to do so.
August 8th, 2019