[Verv]

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'm not.

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.

[Godstud]

@Verv Why did you ignore my post and links on cultural genocide taking place in Canada?

Survivors of Canada's 'cultural genocide' still healing
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33001425


Canada 'complicit in race-based genocide' of indigenous women
The report cited research finding indigenous women were 12 times more likely to be killed or to disappear than other women in Canada.

The inquiry blamed the crisis on deep-rooted colonialism and state inaction.

Among more than 200 recommendations is a call for all Canadians to help end violence, including by learning indigenous history.

The 1,200-page document released Monday is the culmination of almost three years of hearings and research by the inquiry into disproportionate violence faced by indigenous women and girls in Canada.

Red River women - the case that sparked the inquiry - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32115683

"Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social, and political marginalisation, racism and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society," said Marion Buller, chief commissioner of the inquiry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48503545


Does it not fit your narrative? Canadians aren't afraid to admit that we've made a lot of mistakes.

[Verv]

@Verv Why did you ignore my post and links on cultural genocide taking place in Canada?

Survivors of Canada's 'cultural genocide' still healing
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33001425


Canada 'complicit in race-based genocide' of indigenous women
The report cited research finding indigenous women were 12 times more likely to be killed or to disappear than other women in Canada.

The inquiry blamed the crisis on deep-rooted colonialism and state inaction.

Among more than 200 recommendations is a call for all Canadians to help end violence, including by learning indigenous history.

The 1,200-page document released Monday is the culmination of almost three years of hearings and research by the inquiry into disproportionate violence faced by indigenous women and girls in Canada.

Red River women - the case that sparked the inquiry - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32115683

"Despite their different circumstances and backgrounds, all of the missing and murdered are connected by economic, social, and political marginalisation, racism and misogyny woven into the fabric of Canadian society," said Marion Buller, chief commissioner of the inquiry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48503545


Does it not fit your narrative? Canadians aren't afraid to admit that we've made a lot of mistakes.

I was celebrating Lunar New Years & had a very lovely long weekend.

I didn't see your post.

And now, I do not see arguments in the text of your post, but just links again, and some excerpts.

How does it interact with what I've been posting?

I am engaged in enough in this thread now... I think it falls on you to develop your content in direct response to mine, as opposed to like aasking me to read your material and develop a whole new line against you.

Make a move, bro. I'm already in the middle of a game here. I don't need to initiate everything.

[Godstud]

Being purposefully obtuse, are you?

You have been making the claim that there is no genocide in Canada. This demonstrates that you are living in denial, as even the Canadian government has accepted responsibility for it. My posts support @Pants-of-dog and what he's been saying.

Ignoring posts because they don't support your narrative is pretty weaksauce.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

Why would Canada want to preserve any Indigenous cultures at all? According to their Christian religion, their Eurocentric paradigm, and their pocketbook, the settlers had every reason to get rid of these cultures and no reason to keep them.

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.

So you think that economic control over land is not a reason to kill non-whites?

You do not understand the scale differences here, I guess.

That does not clarify anything.

I'm not.

Okay, so you read that article and you decided that the only racism was this supposed lack of funding.

How about the fact that only Indigenous kids were sent to them? Does that seem at all racist?

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.

So, your idea that these medical experiments were done for the good of Indigenous kids is based on your assumption that the academies and the media and the NGOs are all in it together to make white people look bad.

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.

So, if it intentional, it is genocide, regardless of method.

I have no idea how you think it is not intentional if there is a will and a conscious decision to kill, but only a small number die. That part makes no sense.

So, by this metric, it seems like Canada is currently engaged in genocide. I predict you will not believe me.

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.

No one cares about that.

Why do you think that “the transition away from the premodern culture of natives was a very natural process”?

Obviously it's impossible because there was no organization of an actual genocide.

Yes, you obviously believe that. I note that you have made no attempt to verify that.

Is that because you feel you already know this and so have no reason to look it up?

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.

I simply do not think that you can compare the two.

When people say that Indigenous people have been targeted for “cultural genocide”, what do you think they mean?

[Verv]

Why would Canada want to preserve any Indigenous cultures at all? According to their Christian religion, their Eurocentric paradigm, and their pocketbook, the settlers had every reason to get rid of these cultures and no reason to keep them.

I thought we were, in this line, initially talking about a specific attempt at killing IPs.

If we are talking about the cultural aspect, which I hinted at at the end of my post before, then yes, certainly, we would have a more interesting conversation because you are laregly right.

So you think that economic control over land is not a reason to kill non-whites?

I do not know why this is a line of discussion since this is not what happened.

There are millions of men who have motives to kill their wife for the wife's infidelity who never do simply because it violates the most basic values that they stand for.

That does not clarify anything.

It is very frustrating, isn't it.

Okay, so you read that article and you decided that the only racism was this supposed lack of funding.

How about the fact that only Indigenous kids were sent to them? Does that seem at all racist?

Not necessarily. They require education, and live in very remote areas with inadequate resources. It makes sense to save money by bringing them to places where specialized schools exist to handle the problem.

So, your idea that these medical experiments were done for the good of Indigenous kids is based on your assumption that the academies and the media and the NGOs are all in it together to make white people look bad.

You completely forgot what was said.

The 'medical experiments' were nothing more than altering the nutritional levels to see what would improve diets. There was no actual malicious experimentation.

So, if it intentional, it is genocide, regardless of method.

I have no idea how you think it is not intentional if there is a will and a conscious decision to kill, but only a small number die. That part makes no sense.

So, by this metric, it seems like Canada is currently engaged in genocide. I predict you will not believe me.

(1) Why would anyone believe that Canada is currently trying to commit genocide against IPs?

Prove your point.

(2) Genocide generally refers to actively killing people -- not having policies which can be argued as resulting in, say, a slightly elevated rate of death by tuberculosis of Natives versus white Canadians.

No one cares about that.

Why do you think that “the transition away from the premodern culture of natives was a very natural process”?

Because native American spirituality is insufficient and shallow compared to developed Western theology, and traditions which were centered around hunting or communal living become irrelevant in modern economies, and these cultures also did not have the literature or depth to compete with the modern West.

Yes, you obviously believe that. I note that you have made no attempt to verify that.

Is that because you feel you already know this and so have no reason to look it up?

I can't prove a negative.

Would you like to prove that the Canadian government in the late 19th and early 20th century attempted to exterminate the IPs?

I simply do not think that you can compare the two.

When people say that Indigenous people have been targeted for “cultural genocide”, what do you think they mean?

That there was an effort to destroy their culture.

Which I believe is the aim of the modern left against Evangelicals, Mormons, and other conservative groups.

[Verv]

Being purposefully obtuse, are you?

You have been making the claim that there is no genocide in Canada. This demonstrates that you are living in denial, as even the Canadian government has accepted responsibility for it. My posts support @Pants-of-dog and what he's been saying.

Ignoring posts because they don't support your narrative is pretty weaksauce.

OK, so what's the proof that the Canadian government tried to exterminate the IPs in the late 19th & 20th centuries?

[Pants-of-dog]

I thought we were, in this line, initially talking about a specific attempt at killing IPs.

If we are talking about the cultural aspect, which I hinted at at the end of my post before, then yes, certainly, we would have a more interesting conversation because you are laregly right.

Your confusion is noted.

Now, do you agree that the Canadian society has no reason to preserve Indigenous communities and strong financial incentives to eradicate them?

I do not know why this is a line of discussion since this is not what happened.

There are millions of men who have motives to kill their wife for the wife's infidelity who never do simply because it violates the most basic values that they stand for.

So you believe (without looking at evidence) that Canada would never engage in genocide, cultural or otherwise, because it violates Canada’s values, even when there are clear financial incentives.

It is very frustrating, isn't it.

I am used to it.

Not necessarily. They require education, and live in very remote areas with inadequate resources. It makes sense to save money by bringing them to places where specialized schools exist to handle the problem.

Okay, so you can imagine a rationale for only doing this to Indigenous kids, and you will simply assume that only Indigenous kids loved in remote rural areas.

I will assume that you did not verify any of this before you typed it.

You completely forgot what was said.

The 'medical experiments' were nothing more than altering the nutritional levels to see what would improve diets. There was no actual malicious experimentation.

Yes, I know what you think happened. I am not arguing with you about what happened. I am trying to understand why you believe what you do.

(1) Why would anyone believe that Canada is currently trying to commit genocide against IPs?

Prove your point.

Maybe they read the recent BBC article, and looked up a few Wikipedia articles.

(2) Genocide generally refers to actively killing people -- not having policies which can be argued as resulting in, say, a slightly elevated rate of death by tuberculosis of Natives versus white Canadians.

If you mean “intentional” when you say “actively” here, then yes, you are now repeating your previous clarification in different words.

Are you saying that you do not think Canada is intentionally killing Indigenous people?

Because native American spirituality is insufficient and shallow compared to developed Western theology,

I would bet folding money that you have no understanding of Indigenous theology and are claiming this out of complete ignorance.

and traditions which were centered around hunting or communal living become irrelevant in modern economies, and these cultures also did not have the literature or depth to compete with the modern West.

I will assume your knowledge of Indigenous hunting and communal living practices and their relevance is as strong as your knowledge of Indigenous theology.

I can't prove a negative.

Yes, actually you can.

Can you, for example, prove that the Bible does not support Satan worship?

Would you like to prove that the Canadian government in the late 19th and early 20th century attempted to exterminate the IPs?

No. I am more interested in why you do not Google it. Please explain.

That there was an effort to destroy their culture.

Which I believe is the aim of the modern left against Evangelicals, Mormons, and other conservative groups.

Oh, I see.

You are looking solely at one metric: intent.

So on the issue of Canadian genocide, you think the intent is not and was not there, while you think the intent is there for your religion.

The nice thing (for you) about intent is that it is not provable. Much like your ideas about negatives.

[Godstud]

OK, so what's the proof that the Canadian government tried to exterminate the IPs in the late 19th & 20th centuries?

The Canadian government has admitted as much. You aren't even trying to have an honest discussion on this topic, despite @Pants-of-dog humouring your willful ignorance and belligerence.

Genocide against Indigenous Peoples recognized by Canadian Museum for Human Rights
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/cmhr ... -1.5141078


Genocide and Indigenous Peoples in Canada
On 4 June 2019, while speaking to a crowd in Vancouver, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognized the inquiry’s conclusions, saying: “we accept the findings of the commissioners that it was genocide.”While many in Canada recognize the atrocities against Indigenous peoples, use of the term genocide generated some backlash among those who did not believe the term was appropriate or warranted. However, others argue that use of the term is important, and that downplaying the inquiry’s findings overlooks and undervalues the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The inquiry’s use of “genocide” influenced important changes. Notably, in 2018, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights decided to change its description of the atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples in Canada from “cultural genocide” to “genocide.”
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... -in-canada

[Verv]

Your confusion is noted.

Now, do you agree that the Canadian society has no reason to preserve Indigenous communities and strong financial incentives to eradicate them?

Just as how a regular guy would have a reason to kill his wife if he cheated on her, I mean, sure, motive can be said to exist, yes.

Would you agree that Canadian IPs and black people have strong motivation to commit genocide against regular Canadians?

So you believe (without looking at evidence) that Canada would never engage in genocide, cultural or otherwise, because it violates Canada’s values, even when there are clear financial incentives.

Yes.

I think it would not be too hard to find examples from the 18th century where policies may have been aimed towards the literal destruction of natives, but in the late 19th & 20th c, there'd be nothing like that.

I am used to it.

Then I'd recommend another hobby -- I do not really do this stuff as much as I used to because, with some more age, I find this less joyful, and am more inclined to just stop arguing on the internet.

Being frustrated for no good reason si always a waste of time.

Okay, so you can imagine a rationale for only doing this to Indigenous kids, and you will simply assume that only Indigenous kids loved in remote rural areas.

I will assume that you did not verify any of this before you typed it.

I would guess that only indigenous children in high volumes lived in remote areas, and that it was not uncommon for whites to send their kids to nearby settlements (or just literally have their wife & children permanently living apart) if they were in very remote areas.

Yes, I know what you think happened. I am not arguing with you about what happened. I am trying to understand why you believe what you do.

OK, you should just ask more open ended questions, then.

Maybe they read the recent BBC article, and looked up a few Wikipedia articles.

OK...

So, where's the punchline?

If you mean “intentional” when you say “actively” here, then yes, you are now repeating your previous clarification in different words.

Are you saying that you do not think Canada is intentionally killing Indigenous people?

Why would anyone think that the Canadian government is committing genocide against IPs currently?

I would bet folding money that you have no understanding of Indigenous theology and are claiming this out of complete ignorance.

I read Anastaplo's But Not Philosophy: Seven Introductions to Non-Western Thought (Amazon) some years back and it gave a very good overview of various primitive people's spiritualities, and he talks about the many variations that can exist on any given story and how these are not really large systems of thought with immutable characteristics.

Theology can only exist when there is writing or some other form of institutionalized hard preservation, like a strong oral tradition that holds across different cultures that is unchanging.

So, I do not think it could ever qualify as theology, regardless of how rich and high quality it may be.

I will assume your knowledge of Indigenous hunting and communal living practices and their relevance is as strong as your knowledge of Indigenous theology.

My knowledge of indigenous hunting and communal living practices is about equal to my knowledge of pre-Christian Scandinavian hunting and communal living practices.

Yes, actually you can.

Can you, for example, prove that the Bible does not support Satan worship?

LOL, it specifically repudiates Satan.

... Let me guess, you are going to fire back with b-b-b-b-but does it actually say 'don't worship Satan,' lit-uh-rilly?

No. I am more interested in why you do not Google it. Please explain.

I don't think it's my job to go and make your case for you.

Oh, I see.

You are looking solely at one metric: intent.

So on the issue of Canadian genocide, you think the intent is not and was not there, while you think the intent is there for your religion.

The nice thing (for you) about intent is that it is not provable. Much like your ideas about negatives.

My initial statement in post #15,155,711 was actually:

If yuo are talking cultural genocide, then, geez, IDK, man.

I think we could then have the IPs on the list, then, in between Evangelicals & Mormons.

Which eventually was elaborated on as

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.

in post #15,155,930.

Do you have any questions on the position?

[Verv]

The Canadian government has admitted as much. You aren't even trying to have an honest discussion on this topic, despite @Pants-of-dog humouring your willful ignorance and belligerence.

Genocide against Indigenous Peoples recognized by Canadian Museum for Human Rights
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/cmhr ... -1.5141078


Genocide and Indigenous Peoples in Canada
On 4 June 2019, while speaking to a crowd in Vancouver, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognized the inquiry’s conclusions, saying: “we accept the findings of the commissioners that it was genocide.”While many in Canada recognize the atrocities against Indigenous peoples, use of the term genocide generated some backlash among those who did not believe the term was appropriate or warranted. However, others argue that use of the term is important, and that downplaying the inquiry’s findings overlooks and undervalues the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The inquiry’s use of “genocide” influenced important changes. Notably, in 2018, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights decided to change its description of the atrocities committed against Indigenous peoples in Canada from “cultural genocide” to “genocide.”
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... -in-canada

PM Trudeau is famous for his liberalism and SJW-esque remarks.

If he meant something like cultural genocide, then I would not argue against him necessarily, but say what I said to POD -- cultural genocide is happening all over the place, if you want to play with words like that, and the chief victims of it over the last fifty years have been evangelicals & mormons.

He is just omitting the cultural part to make it in the papers and rally his base.

If he wants to argue that it was literal genocide, then I wonder if it is going to be based on specific incidents from centuries ago, and then it would be hard to argue with that. I am sure you can point to some specific massacre and the intent behind some colonial era policy and argue that it was intended for genocide, and it wouldn't even be completely wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

Just as how a regular guy would have a reason to kill his wife if he cheated on her, I mean, sure, motive can be said to exist, yes.

Would you agree that Canadian IPs and black people have strong motivation to commit genocide against regular Canadians?

As far as I can tell, Canada has a motive but Indigenous and black people do not.

Yes.

I think it would not be too hard to find examples from the 18th century where policies may have been aimed towards the literal destruction of natives, but in the late 19th & 20th c, there'd be nothing like that.

Okay.

I guess this is one of the ways that states get away with state racism: many people believe it is somehow too immoral to be true, so there is no reason to check if it is true.

Then I'd recommend another hobby -- I do not really do this stuff as much as I used to because, with some more age, I find this less joyful, and am more inclined to just stop arguing on the internet.

Being frustrated for no good reason si always a waste of time.

Moving on....

I would guess that only indigenous children in high volumes lived in remote areas, and that it was not uncommon for whites to send their kids to nearby settlements (or just literally have their wife & children permanently living apart) if they were in very remote areas.

Yes, you can imagine even more convoluted scenarios that would somehow make it so that you do not have to address past or present racism. Exactly.

OK, you should just ask more open ended questions, then.

You have been very helpful and very clear.

OK...

So, where's the punchline?

I am not sure what you are asking.

You asked why people would believe that Canada is committing genocide, so I explained: they read the news and some history.

Why would anyone think that the Canadian government is committing genocide against IPs currently?

I just answered that. Twice.

But for the third time: there are news articles discussing the current genocide and there are historical sources that corroborate and provide context for said genocide.

I read Anastaplo's But Not Philosophy: Seven Introductions to Non-Western Thought (Amazon) some years back and it gave a very good overview of various primitive people's spiritualities, and he talks about the many variations that can exist on any given story and how these are not really large systems of thought with immutable characteristics.

Theology can only exist when there is writing or some other form of institutionalized hard preservation, like a strong oral tradition that holds across different cultures that is unchanging.

So, I do not think it could ever qualify as theology, regardless of how rich and high quality it may be.

You are revealing even more of how little you know about Indigenous beliefs.

For example, you seem to be unaware of the invention of writing among Indigenous people or their oral traditions.

My knowledge of indigenous hunting and communal living practices is about equal to my knowledge of pre-Christian Scandinavian hunting and communal living practices.

I will assume your knowledge of the latter is very poor, then.

LOL, it specifically repudiates Satan.

... Let me guess, you are going to fire back with b-b-b-b-but does it actually say 'don't worship Satan,' lit-uh-rilly?

Congratulations, you just proved a negative and disproved the claim that you cannot prove a negative.

I don't think it's my job to go and make your case for you.

I did not make a case.

But you think mere burden of proof is a good enough reason for you to proclaim there is and was no genocide and not have to even verify if you are correct or not.

My initial statement in post #15,155,711 was actually:

Which eventually was elaborated on as

in post #15,155,930.

Do you have any questions on the position?

Is this relevant?

[Verv]

As far as I can tell, Canada has a motive but Indigenous and black people do not.

The motivation would be the same as the Haitian revolution.

Okay.

I guess this is one of the ways that states get away with state racism: many people believe it is somehow too immoral to be true, so there is no reason to check if it is true.

It's unnecessary to check if it is true, because there was no actual genocide.

Yes, you can imagine even more convoluted scenarios that would somehow make it so that you do not have to address past or present racism. Exactly.

I've conceded that there was racism.

I am not sure what you are asking.

You asked why people would believe that Canada is committing genocide, so I explained: they read the news and some history.

...

I just answered that. Twice.

But for the third time: there are news articles discussing the current genocide and there are historical sources that corroborate and provide context for said genocide.

Alright, so I assume that you cannot prevent anything beyond what I presented as the circumstances of the Residential Schools, so there was no literal genocide that occurred.

What we have is people talking about the anglicizing of Indian kids as cultural genocide, and then just omitting the adjective whenever they say it.

You are revealing even more of how little you know about Indigenous beliefs.

For example, you seem to be unaware of the invention of writing among Indigenous people or their oral traditions.

Which IPs of Canada had writing?

Or are you going to talk about the glyphs of the Aztecs and Mayans? Completely legitimate because, indeed, they had writing, but it is hard to think of them as 'indigenous people' any more than we would think of the Chinese or Indians as "indigenous." They were on a different level of development.

Congratulations, you just proved a negative and disproved the claim that you cannot prove a negative.

>Inferred the Bible does not tell us to worship Satan
>You can now prove anything.

Sure.

]I did not make a case.

But you think mere burden of proof is a good enough reason for you to proclaim there is and was no genocide and not have to even verify if you are correct or not.

If you don't want to argue on behalf of your absurd points, all the better for me.

Is this relevant?

[Julian658]

As far as I can tell, Canada has a motive but Indigenous and black people do not.



Okay.

I guess this is one of the ways that states get away with state racism: many people believe it is somehow too immoral to be true, so there is no reason to check if it is true.



Moving on....



Yes, you can imagine even more convoluted scenarios that would somehow make it so that you do not have to address past or present racism. Exactly.



You have been very helpful and very clear.



I am not sure what you are asking.

You asked why people would believe that Canada is committing genocide, so I explained: they read the news and some history.



I just answered that. Twice.

But for the third time: there are news articles discussing the current genocide and there are historical sources that corroborate and provide context for said genocide.



You are revealing even more of how little you know about Indigenous beliefs.

For example, you seem to be unaware of the invention of writing among Indigenous people or their oral traditions.



I will assume your knowledge of the latter is very poor, then.



Congratulations, you just proved a negative and disproved the claim that you cannot prove a negative.



I did not make a case.

But you think mere burden of proof is a good enough reason for you to proclaim there is and was no genocide and not have to even verify if you are correct or not.



Is this relevant?

POD: If every single Canadian of European ancestry left Canada. Do you think Canada would be better off? Who would run the government? The Indigenous or the POC immigrants?

[Pants-of-dog]

The motivation would be the same as the Haitian revolution.

This only makes sense if we assume conditions for Indigenous and black people are the same as pre-revolution Haiti. This would contradict your claim that no racism is happening, and it would contradict your claim that Christian communities are suffering to the same extent as Indigenous communities.

And yet, you are apparently willing to believe this so that you can justify the fallacy of whataboutism and thereby ignore the fact that Canada has a vested financial interest in killing Indigenous communities. Interesting.

It's unnecessary to check if it is true, because there was no actual genocide.

Yea, you are already so certain of your “knowledge” that you not only refuse to verify your own arguments, but also seem to be ignoring the evidence that @Godstud is providing.

And so you do not look it up, you do not educate yourself, you make no effort to hold Canada (or the US, for that matter) and Canada keeps getting away with it.

I've conceded that there was racism.

But since it was only a slight lack of funding, there is nothing to address. According to you.

Alright, so I assume that you cannot prevent anything beyond what I presented as the circumstances of the Residential Schools, so there was no literal genocide that occurred.

What we have is people talking about the anglicizing of Indian kids as cultural genocide, and then just omitting the adjective whenever they say it.

If you want to choose to believe your own argument because I am not trying to defend one myself, go ahead. Logically, that makes no sense, since it is entry possible for you t9 be wrong even if I do not support any claim.

And that is what I am trying to do: figure out why you will not even look up your own claims and support them.

So, why not just read the BBC article and a few Wikipedia articles?

Which IPs of Canada had writing?

Or are you going to talk about the glyphs of the Aztecs and Mayans? Completely legitimate because, indeed, they had writing, but it is hard to think of them as 'indigenous people' any more than we would think of the Chinese or Indians as "indigenous." They were on a different level of development.

Your assumptions about development are probably another whole can of worms that prevent you form learning and also prevent you from seeing Indigenous cultures as being as complex as western ones.

>Inferred the Bible does not tell us to worship Satan
>You can now prove anything.

Sure.

You can choose to believe one of two things but not both:

1. You cannot prove a negative. Or...
2. You can prove that the Bible does not advocate Satan worship.

If you don't want to argue on behalf of your absurd points, all the better for me.

Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am using you as a subject to understand why people who do not condemn racism choose to do so.

According to your behaviour, they use a variety of tactics, some of which are racist.

[noemon]

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

I'm really interested to hear why you are not holding the Chinese government accountable for an ongoing genocide that is happening as we speak?

I find your evasion of Verv's point about anti-christianism quite inadequate. Can you elaborate on why you consider Indigenous religious practices and customs as more important than Christian religious practices & customs?

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm really interested to hear why you are not holding the Chinese government accountable for an ongoing genocide that is happening as we speak?

Because I do not have enough conclusive evidence either way, nor do I know enough of the history to understand the context at the required level.

And this knowledge of history seems to be important when discussing state racism. So, if there were a 500 year history of oppression of Uighurs by the Chinese government and one knew about it, the racism angle would be obvious and would support your genocide argument. While this history of racism may exist, I am not aware of it.

I find your evasion of Verv's point about anti-christianism quite inadequate. Can you elaborate on why you consider Indigenous religious practices and customs as more important than Christian religious practices & customs?

I did not address @Verv’s claims about anti-Xian cultural genocide for two reasons:

1. Anti-religious bigotry is not the subject of this thread, and....

2. There is no reason to address this beyond pointing out that the comparison is not valid.

Again, history is important.

If you compare the history of the two different camps, it is obvious that one group has been deliberately targeted by government for the last few centuries while the other group has effectively ruled the government for the last few centuries.

To see the two as being equally oppressed by government now would be to completely ignore this history. Thus, the comparison rests on ahistorical assumptions.

[noemon]

Because I do not have enough conclusive evidence either way, nor do I know enough of the history to understand the context at the required level.

Evidence of the ongoing genocide conducted by China is in the thread awaiting your opinion on whether it is conclusive or not.

]I did not address @Verv’s claims about anti-Xian cultural genocide for two reasons:

1. Anti-religious bigotry is not the subject of this thread, and....

Anti-religious bigotry is called racism and it is indeed the subject of the thread.

2. There is no reason to address this beyond pointing out that the comparison is not valid.

Again, history is important.

If you compare the history of the two different camps, it is obvious that one group has been deliberately targeted by government for the last few centuries while the other group has effectively ruled the government for the last few centuries.

That depends on the identity of the government and the identity of the group you are referring to.

To see the two as being equally oppressed by government now would be to completely ignore this history. Thus, the comparison rests on ahistorical assumptions.

Verv did not claim that they are 'equally oppressed' but that anti-christian bigotry is a form of oppression which you now seem to recognise from what I understand.

[late]

1) Anti-religious bigotry is called racism and it is indeed the subject of the thread



2) Verv did not claim that they are 'equally oppressed' but that anti-christian bigotry is a form of oppression which you now seem to recognise from what I understand.

1) That's a new one to me. You just said religious bigotry is determined by race... Or something like that?

2) As an atheist, I can tell you there is very real prejudice against non-believers. If you lost both your hands, you could still count all the admitted atheists in Congress with your fingers...

That is typically a Right wing line of thought that leads to a desire to alter the government from secular, to sectarian.

This is not a good idea.

[noemon]

1) That's a new one to me. You just said religious bigotry is determined by race... Or something like that?

Racial boundaries can involve many factors (such as ancestry, physical appearance, national origin, language, religion, and culture), and maybe set in law by governments, or may depend on local cultural norms.

Of course racism happens on religious grounds.

2) As an atheist, I can tell you there is very real prejudice against non-believers. If you lost both your hands, you could still count all the admitted atheists in Congress with your fingers...

That is typically a Right wing line of thought that leads to a desire to alter the government from secular, to sectarian.

This is not a good idea.

The problem is that there is not just the US microcosm in the world. The substantive point here is not on the religion but on whether prejudice based on it is true.