1807 children found buried at former Canadian schools

[Dakini]

So you have no problem with First Nations people, you just advocate the eradication of their languages and cultures and are indifferent when their children are stolen from them, abused and sometimes killed?

Is that you Vassenor? Baseless rhetoricals seem to be the fashion now.

It's not baseless when you're basically advocating for white supremacy by insisting that indigenous people should be required to assimilate, erasing their cultures, languages etc and you seem to be desperately ignoring genocide.

[Dakini]

The families of the children deserve compensation, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

The perpetrators have been dead for a hundred years.

The school closed in 1978.

[WayNeacTia]

Eh? What’s that got to do with anything?

I'm perhaps not convinced that the residential schools were any inherently bad thing. For me, it depends on if the objectives of the state were accomplished or not. Any unfortunate incidents that happened are akin to collateral damage from my perspective, not the fault of the schools or curriculum but rather the excesses of individuals or staff.

The residential schools were a horror show. The atrocities that took place in those institutions under protection of "god", and authorized by The Crown have been declared genocide and rightly so. It isn't what was just done to the residents themselves, but what it passed along as well. All of the survivors suffer from mental disorders, and severe alcoholism, and drug addiction. The next generation here the stories of the pain, and picks up the same dependencies and the cycle continues, to this day. You can directly trace the aboriginal incarceration rate directly to the long term of effects of those residential schools.

[Ifreann]

So you have no problem with First Nations people, you just advocate the eradication of their languages and cultures and are indifferent when their children are stolen from them, abused and sometimes killed?

Is that you Vassenor? Baseless rhetoricals seem to be the fashion now.

Nothing baseless about it. You said that these residential schools, which were explicitly intended to eradicate the languages and cultures of those forced to attend them, to "kill the Indian, save the man" as one of the founders of such a school put it, were a good idea. You might prefer the euphemism "cross-community homogenisation", but genocide does not become a lesser evil when called by another name.

---

And the various people indigenous to North America are, you know, various. The Iroquois, Yakama, and Cherokee people mentioned in that Medium article are different people than the Secwépemc. It's weird to be dismissive of legal claims to land in Canada because someone else from the same continent takes literally their creation myth despite it being contradicted by the evidence. It would be like saying that Sami property rights cases, if there are such things, should be thrown out because someone somewhere believes that you can climb Mount Olympus and literally shake hands with Zeus.

Ethnostates are hardly made more acceptable by them not having quite as much racial exceptionalism as their related neighbours.

What ethnostates? How is this even a response to anything I said?

---

The families of the children deserve compensation, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

The perpetrators have been dead for a hundred years.

This school was only closed in 1978, how can we be sure that all crimes there stopped in the 1920s?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I guess this is where the road, that begins they should learn to assimilate with us, ends up. Whether it is indigenous communities in colonialism, Uyghurs in China, or migrant children in the US, or Muslims in France.

Save the forced assimilation and just let people assimilate in their own way. Or not at all if they choose.

Integration is good. Assimilation is scary.

[Greater Cesnica]

Eh? What’s that got to do with anything?

I'm perhaps not convinced that the residential schools were any inherently bad thing. For me, it depends on if the objectives of the state were accomplished or not. Any unfortunate incidents that happened are akin to collateral damage from my perspective, not the fault of the schools or curriculum but rather the excesses of individuals or staff.

Astronomically shit take.

Of course, I expect nothing but shit takes from you.

I'm sure Greater Cesnica is gonna respond to this eventually. He was recently talking to me about how Canada doesn't give a shit about their indigenous people.

Yep, the Canadian government sees them as nothing more than chips they can use to gain virtue signaling points. Clean water? Nope. Getting land back? Nope. Having the RCMP not murder them? Nope. Empty apologies and promises? Absolutely.

[Nilokeras]

I've got an underdog story so I guess that's all that matters.

When the Canadian Supreme Court decided in 1997 to uphold Aboriginal title they didn't just wake up that morning and say 'Oh boy I'm feeling very SJW today, lets go piss off SD in particular'. They were interpreting a body of law going all the way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognised that First Nations titles to their land existed and would continue to exist until extinguished by treaty between the Crown and the individual Nations. That proclamation is still enshrined in our Constitution, and formed the legal basis upon which the government interacted with First Nations groups.

Whether by boat or foot, the Navajo people and other tribes are incorrect in thinking that their ancestors never came from Asia.

I'm struggling to see what this has to do with First Nations title in Canadian law or the residential schools

[SD_Film Artists]

Is that you Vassenor? Baseless rhetoricals seem to be the fashion now.

It's not baseless when you're basically advocating for white supremacy by insisting that indigenous people should be required to assimilate, erasing their cultures, languages etc and you seem to be desperately ignoring genocide.

You keep saying words but you don't actually show where I said that. Assimilation doesn't have to mean completely un-personing their identity. Also you seem to miss the fact that segregating people by race is a very white supremacisty thing to do; which is exactly what assimilation is against.

Is that you Vassenor? Baseless rhetoricals seem to be the fashion now.

Nothing baseless about it. You said that these residential schools, which were explicitly intended to eradicate the languages and cultures of those forced to attend them, to "kill the Indian, save the man" as one of the founders of such a school put it, were a good idea. You might prefer the euphemism "cross-community homogenisation", but genocide does not become a lesser evil when called by another name.

I called it evil. Any bad things that you want to attach to cross-community homogenisation as an ideal is either in your head or actually committed by the schools which I've been against from the start of this thread.

What ethnostates? How is this even a response to anything I said?

People wanting land dedicated purely to one race based on a claim of racial exceptionalism, ie that they're seperate from the rest of humanity and immigration being bad.

[Punished UMN]

I've got an underdog story so I guess that's all that matters.

When the Canadian Supreme Court decided in 1997 to uphold Aboriginal title they didn't just wake up and say 'Oh boy I'm feeling very SJW this morning, lets go piss off SD in particular'. They were interpreting a body of law going all the way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognized that First Nations titles to their land existed and would continue to exist until extinguished by treaty between the Crown and the individual Nations.

Whether by boat or foot, the Navajo people and other tribes are incorrect in thinking that their ancestors never came from Asia.

I'm struggling to see what this has to do with First Nations title in Canadian law or the residential schools

It doesn't he's just losing the argument and desperately needs to cling to something to justify his irrational position of "fuck the indigenous" and apparently the closest thing he can think of is that they have religion so therefore have no rights.

[Punished UMN]

It's not baseless when you're basically advocating for white supremacy by insisting that indigenous people should be required to assimilate, erasing their cultures, languages etc and you seem to be desperately ignoring genocide.

You keep saying words but you don't actually show where I said that. Assimilation doesn't have to mean completely un-personing their identity. Also you seem to miss the fact that segregating people by race is a very white supremacisty thing to do; which is exactly what assimilation is against.

Nothing baseless about it. You said that these residential schools, which were explicitly intended to eradicate the languages and cultures of those forced to attend them, to "kill the Indian, save the man" as one of the founders of such a school put it, were a good idea. You might prefer the euphemism "cross-community homogenisation", but genocide does not become a lesser evil when called by another name.

I called it evil. Any bad things that you want to attach to cross-community homogenisation as an ideal is either in your head or actually committed by the schools which I've been against from the start of this thread.

Assimilation in this case would mean their community ceasing to exist. The natives don't want to assimilate and have the right to not be assimilated.

[SD_Film Artists]

You keep saying words but you don't actually show where I said that. Assimilation doesn't have to mean completely un-personing their identity. Also you seem to miss the fact that segregating people by race is a very white supremacisty thing to do; which is exactly what assimilation is against.



I called it evil. Any bad things that you want to attach to cross-community homogenisation as an ideal is either in your head or actually committed by the schools which I've been against from the start of this thread.

Assimilation in this case would mean their community ceasing to exist. The natives don't want to assimilate and have the right to not be assimilated.

That sounds like the Native American* version of "we don't want those muslims coming in and banning Christmas"

*Native to North America to be clear.

[Immortan Khan]

Who the flying fuck cares about a fucking landbridge that existed in the last ice age and how the fuck is that relevant to this thread? No it isnt. Get fucking real.

As I said earlier, it's brought up as a cudgel against indigenous communities when they demand justice for the abuses they've suffered. Which is exactly what SD is doing.

[Nilokeras]

When the Canadian Supreme Court decided in 1997 to uphold Aboriginal title they didn't just wake up and say 'Oh boy I'm feeling very SJW this morning, lets go piss off SD in particular'. They were interpreting a body of law going all the way back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognized that First Nations titles to their land existed and would continue to exist until extinguished by treaty between the Crown and the individual Nations.



I'm struggling to see what this has to do with First Nations title in Canadian law or the residential schools

It doesn't he's just losing the argument and desperately needs to cling to something to justify his irrational position of "fuck the indigenous" and apparently the closest thing he can think of is that they have religion so therefore have no rights.

It is becoming ever more difficult to interpret their obsession with 'racial unity' as anything other than a desire to uphold white supremacy. Here we have probably the most cut-and-dry case of First Nations being denied legal rights in the Western hemisphere and their response is 'you ignorant savages shouldn't have any of these rights afforded to you by law, you need to shut up and stop complaining about all these awful things the Canadian government did and is doing to you'

[SD_Film Artists]

Who the flying fuck cares about a fucking landbridge that existed in the last ice age and how the fuck is that relevant to this thread? No it isnt. Get fucking real.

As I said earlier, it's brought up as a cudgel against indigenous communities when they demand justice for the abuses they've suffered. Which is exactly what SD is doing.

I brought it up because indigenous tribes (apparently not Canadian ones if Ifreann is correct) take the 'native' thing very literally by believing that their ancestors never came from Asia and by extension Africa, because only white people do colonialism apparently. If people use it as a cudgel for other reasons then that's on them.

[Punished UMN]

Assimilation in this case would mean their community ceasing to exist. The natives don't want to assimilate and have the right to not be assimilated.

That sounds like the Native American* version of "we don't want those muslims coming in and banning Christmas"

*Native to North America to be clear.

The comparison to nativist hysteria might be apt if the colonists hadn't literally moved in in large numbers with military forces, rounded up the natives, and basically put them in concentration camps. Saying the natives are hysterical by saying they fear that they will be replaced by white people doesn't really work as well when that's basically what has happened, that they've been replaced by white people.

[Immortan Khan]

As I said earlier, it's brought up as a cudgel against indigenous communities when they demand justice for the abuses they've suffered. Which is exactly what SD is doing.

I brought it up because indigenous tribes (apparently not Canadian ones if Ifreann is correct) take the 'native' thing very literally by believing that their ancestors never came from Asia and by extension Africa, because only white people do colonialism apparently. If people use it as a cudgel for other reasons then that's on them.

As I said, it wouldn't be an issue agreeing to that (in fact I can't think of a time when I've encountered an indigenous person that didn't believe their ancestors crossed over from Asia or the Pacific), if people like you didn't use it as cudgel when they are demanding justice for the abuses suffered. Which is what you've been doing.

[Immortan Khan]

That sounds like the Native American* version of "we don't want those muslims coming in and banning Christmas"

*Native to North America to be clear.

The comparison to nativist hysteria might be apt if the colonists hadn't literally moved in in large numbers with military forces, rounded up the natives, and basically put them in concentration camps. Saying the natives are hysterical by saying they fear that they will be replaced by white people doesn't really work as well when that's basically what has happened, that they've been replaced by white people.

It's worth knowing that genocide is the best term we have to describe what happened because we have no better term to describe the horror that was inflicted.

[Ifreann]

It's not baseless when you're basically advocating for white supremacy by insisting that indigenous people should be required to assimilate, erasing their cultures, languages etc and you seem to be desperately ignoring genocide.

You keep saying words but you don't actually show where I said that. Assimilation doesn't have to mean completely un-personing their identity. Also you seem to miss the fact that segregating people by race is a very white supremacisty thing to do; which is exactly what assimilation is against.

Nothing baseless about it. You said that these residential schools, which were explicitly intended to eradicate the languages and cultures of those forced to attend them, to "kill the Indian, save the man" as one of the founders of such a school put it, were a good idea. You might prefer the euphemism "cross-community homogenisation", but genocide does not become a lesser evil when called by another name.

I called it evil. Any bad things that you want to attach to cross-community homogenisation as an ideal is either in your head or actually committed by the schools which I've been against from the start of this thread.

I don't see any way to read "cross-community homogenisation" other than as a euphemism for removing the languages and cultures of one community and replacing them with those of another. Which is genocide.

What ethnostates? How is this even a response to anything I said?

People wanting land dedicated purely to one race based on a claim of racial exceptionalism, ie that they're seperate from the rest of humanity and immigration being bad.

Who are you talking about?

[Seangoli]

I brought it up because indigenous tribes (apparently not Canadian ones if Ifreann is correct) take the 'native' thing very literally by believing that their ancestors never came from Asia and by extension Africa, because only white people do colonialism apparently. If people use it as a cudgel for other reasons then that's on them.

As I said, it wouldn't be an issue agreeing to that (in fact I can't think of a time when I've encountered an indigenous person that didn't believe their ancestors crossed over from Asia or the Pacific), if people like you didn't use it as cudgel when they are demanding justice for the abuses suffered. Which is what you've been doing.

I have met a good many natives who find the notion that their ancestors migrated from Asia to be utterly offensive. I have known quite a few who hold the belief that their ancestors have always occupied the Americas, and more specifically their specific tribe has inhabitated the land they occupy since time immemorial. Truth is, most tribal lands are not held by the tribes that occupied those lands even in recent memory and history, with some only coming to occupy those specific territories in the last couple hundred years.

A broad tangent, but the Sioux, for instances, have only been in the Dakotas for about 300 years, and only came to control the Black Hills in 1776 after conflicts with the Cheyenne. However, to most I have ever met, the Black Hills are ancestral territory dating back generations, and has always been Siouan territory, for millenia. South Dakota in particularly was inhabited by numerous tribal entities well into the 1800s, whom were driven out by the Sioux, whose claim to the entirety of the land was only solidified by the 1848 summit in Fort Laramie, and led to the expellation of numerous tribes that occupied the region well before the Sioux were even a contemplation in the region. And this expellationnwas both at the behest of (the Ponca, whom the Sioux requested the US forcibly remove) and hands of (the Arikara, whom the Sioux nearly wiped out entirely on theirnown) the Sioux.

The historicity of specific Native claims to land is often fairly loose, to be frank, and certain beliefs held strong are largely ahistorical.

Now granted, this is a tangent, but it's not at all inconsequential to the discussion. The notion that Natives migrated from Asia, or that there was significant population movement and displacement, is viewed by many natives to be near heretical, and I've often found it wiser to not even bring it up to avoid argument. That said, the notion it is used as a cudgel is also not entirely true; often, many of the claims to specific tracts of land are based entirely on narratives that argue against both recent history and migrational concepts. Rather, the notion they have always occupied the land is used as a cudgel to extinguish any discussion on the topic.

[Nilokeras]

Now granted, this is a tangent, but it's not at all inconsequential to the discussion. The notion that Natives migrated from Asia, or that there was significant population movement and displacement, is viewed by many natives to be near heretical, and I've often found it wiser to not even bring it up to avoid argument.

It is pretty inconsequential to the Canadian experience. The Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations for example have overlapping territorial claims in what is now Vancouver. Instead of fighting over who had what, they instead signed an accord between them expressing their mutual interest in exerting their Aboriginal title together, and where their claims overlap they hold property that they acquire in common between them all via a joint management committee.

[Seangoli]

Now granted, this is a tangent, but it's not at all inconsequential to the discussion. The notion that Natives migrated from Asia, or that there was significant population movement and displacement, is viewed by many natives to be near heretical, and I've often found it wiser to not even bring it up to avoid argument.

It is pretty inconsequential to the Canadian experience. The Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations for example have overlapping territorial claims in what is now Vancouver. Instead of fighting over who had what, they instead signed an accord between them expressing their mutual interest in exerting their Aboriginal title together, and where their claims overlap they hold property that they acquire in common between them all via a joint management committee.

This is fair; Canadian-tribal relations are an entirely different beast than American-Triabl relations, and have their own historicity to them. I actually don't know the specific viewpoints towards asian migrations of native groups in Canada. That said, it's largely irrelevant also, as these conceots didn't inform the legal structures of the treaties and agreements made, so there is that.

[SD_Film Artists]

I brought it up because indigenous tribes (apparently not Canadian ones if Ifreann is correct) take the 'native' thing very literally by believing that their ancestors never came from Asia and by extension Africa, because only white people do colonialism apparently. If people use it as a cudgel for other reasons then that's on them.

As I said, it wouldn't be an issue agreeing to that (in fact I can't think of a time when I've encountered an indigenous person that didn't believe their ancestors crossed over from Asia or the Pacific), if people like you didn't use it as cudgel when they are demanding justice for the abuses suffered. Which is what you've been doing.

The National Geographic doing evil white supremicist cudgel stuff. Oh my it's practically braitbart!

Also, "people like you"?

That sounds like the Native American* version of "we don't want those muslims coming in and banning Christmas"

*Native to North America to be clear.

The comparison to nativist hysteria might be apt if the colonists hadn't literally moved in in large numbers with military forces, rounded up the natives, and basically put them in concentration camps. Saying the natives are hysterical by saying they fear that they will be replaced by white people doesn't really work as well when that's basically what has happened, that they've been replaced by white people.

Hysteria? I'm talking about racial segregation which is a bad thing.

You keep saying words but you don't actually show where I said that. Assimilation doesn't have to mean completely un-personing their identity. Also you seem to miss the fact that segregating people by race is a very white supremacisty thing to do; which is exactly what assimilation is against.



I called it evil. Any bad things that you want to attach to cross-community homogenisation as an ideal is either in your head or actually committed by the schools which I've been against from the start of this thread.

I don't see any way to read "cross-community homogenisation" other than as a euphemism for removing the languages and cultures of one community and replacing them with those of another. Which is genocide.

What I mean by "cross-community homogenisation" is 'be nice to your neighbour and don't start segregatory ethnostates". Really this is getting so off-topic and I'm only explaining it further as you can't seem to handle the fact that not subscribing to identity politics doesn't make one a simp for the residential schools.

People wanting land dedicated purely to one race based on a claim of racial exceptionalism, ie that they're seperate from the rest of humanity and immigration being bad.

Who are you talking about?

Precisely, racial segregationist groups can be difficult to tell apart when you can't see their skin colour; kinda ironic really that they're so similar while preaching difference.

[Kubra]

Here's the real question: what exactly does "assimilation" mean here, anyways? Most aboriginals speak english or french, work normal ass jobs, go to normal ass schools, what exactly is the next step? joining the orange order?

[Salus Maior]

The Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations for example have overlapping territorial claims in what is now Vancouver. Instead of fighting over who had what, they instead signed an accord between them expressing their mutual interest in exerting their Aboriginal title together, and where their claims overlap they hold property that they acquire in common between them all via a joint management committee.

Nice.

[Kubra]

It is pretty inconsequential to the Canadian experience. The Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations for example have overlapping territorial claims in what is now Vancouver. Instead of fighting over who had what, they instead signed an accord between them expressing their mutual interest in exerting their Aboriginal title together, and where their claims overlap they hold property that they acquire in common between them all via a joint management committee.

This is fair; Canadian-tribal relations are an entirely different beast than American-Triabl relations, and have their own historicity to them. I actually don't know the specific viewpoints towards asian migrations of native groups in Canada. That said, it's largely irrelevant also, as these conceots didn't inform the legal structures of the treaties and agreements made, so there is that.

*some* indigenous people have somewhat wacky views about how the people of the continent came to be. However, like name a people who don't have a wacky religious origin story.