One Degree wrote:Please note: @Pants-of-dog is actually refusing to accept the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments as evidence. Lmao
Edit: @Pants-of-dog did you even see my edit above showing the obvious way slavery had to be abolished in the Indian nations?
Post a link to another source that gives information about your claim.
Quote the text that supports your claim.
——————————
Saeko wrote:So we are agreed that the laws themselves are not racist. Great.
Yes, and this does not chnage the fact that the laws are often applied in such a way as to perpetuate racism.
This depends on what counts as support for racism. I will continue that argument below.
No, it does not depend on any definition. Voter Id laws have been shown to disenfranchise voters of colour.
Racism, a way of thinking so socially acceptable that, even though it is believed by a large percentage of the population (supposedly), its adherents are forced to communicate in coded language and secret handshakes, lest they be exposed.
Not really. Everyone knows they are being racist. Dig whistle terminology is ised so that they can point to their words and say that they did not really say something racist and pretend they were just discussing states rights, or whatever the term is.
Oh for fuck's sake. This is literally MUH WHITE GENOCIDE for indigenous people.
No. It has actually been defined as cultural genocide by a Canadian judge who worked on the TRC.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e24688854/Civil Rights Act.
And we have seen how the issues supoosedly addressed by this piece of legislation have not actually been addressed by this piece of legislation.
What? In the last 50 years? Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia ... ool_systemIn Canada, the Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous peoples.[nb 2] The network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and administered by Christian churches.
The school system was created for the purpose of removing children from the influence of their own culture and assimilating them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's more than hundred-year existence, about 30% of, or roughly 150,000, Indigenous children were placed in residential schools nationally.[3][4]:2–3 At least 6,000 of these students are estimated to have died while residents.[5][6]
The system had its origins in laws enacted before Confederation, but was primarily active from the passage of the Indian Act in 1876. An amendment to the Indian Act in 1884 made attendance at day schools, industrial schools, or residential schools compulsory for First Nations children. Due to the remote nature of many communities, school locations meant that for some families residential schools were the only way to comply. The schools were intentionally located at substantial distances from Indigenous communities to minimize contact between families and their children. Indian Commissioner Hayter Reed argued for schools at greater distances to reduce family visits, which he thought counteracted efforts to civilize Indigenous children. Parental visits were further restricted by the use of a pass system designed to confine Indigenous peoples to reserves. The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996.
I've already given you the argument, you've just chosen to ignore it.
No, you just said that the government could come up with a reason for seizing indigenous lands. You never actually told me what the basis is.
If they are taking land from people of a certain race, and they do not provide justification like they do when they take lnad from other races, this is a double standard based on race.
Both can be socially insignificant and both can be socially significant. You just chose to believe which is which when it suits your argument, and besides that you have no good reason for believing why saving the life of a (as I said many times before) PROMINENT Neo-Nazi is of no social significance.
Please explain how the social impact from a doctor treating a neo-Nazi is the same as cops perpetutating racism.
And for the umpteenth time. What is the name of the prosecutor? Are you saying that the defendant (the Muslim man) cooperated with the prosecution in his own trial? Why can't I get a goddamn straight answer out of you on any of these questions?
Yes, the defendant worked with the prosecutor who was prosecuting his case.
This is clear in the excerpt I quoted for you specifically to answer this. Please feel free to read it.
I haven't dismissed them at all. I've showed you way they do not prove your claims or are seriously flawed.
No, you dismissed one because of some claim about leftist ideology and ignored the rest.
——————————
Verv wrote:... We literally made treaties with them to preserve settlements and tried to come to precise deals to avoid bloodshed and the likes.
I just.. don't know why you would think that what you've described was this official policy proceeding forth from us.
Because it was an official policy. It was called the Indian Removal Act. I posted a link to the wiki article.
That is pretty silly. That would not describe a classical view at all. While there would be some minority concept of the right to slave labor of Africans and perhaps the need to genocide, these were often tempered by the majority of people that even if they supported slavery as an institution they supported eventual manumission of slaves. Moreover, there were countless attempts (and so many successful) to convert the Natives to Christianity, and to reach good conclusions.
A classical view of race would be that there is a clear separation of groups but that there is not some global entitlement to absolutely everything.
Just check out the 16th century Valladolid debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate
You really just overplay your hand and then you add to it this note like... Oh yeah, wypipo still believe they can enslave everyone & take their land and have zero universal obligation to treat others well.
This isn't a discussion -- this is just being audacity of zealotry on display.
Considering that you have brought no evidence, this seems like something I can just dismiss.
For the record, indigenous people in Latin America are still being killed and arrested for trying to own their own land. Where I come from, the government is using anti terrorism laws thatnwere written in the time of the dictatorship for use against the rebels. Now the same rebels who are now the government are using those same laws against indigenous people.
——————————
@One Degree and @Zamuel
What does this civil war discussion have to do with the thread topic?