1807 children found buried at former Canadian schools

[Kubra]

Well that's fine and dandy and all, but what does it all have to do with the period relevant here?

Landmines are a similar weapon of war. They remain active long after being planted. These institution were "laid" when exactly?

Well for one thing, I don't think mines were placed in Vietnam with the objective of blowing up farmers a half decade later, and I can get a good general picture of when they were "laid".
if you're asking me when these "institutions" were laid, I'd say the most relevant point was 1876, no?

Well that's fine and dandy and all, but what does it all have to do with the period relevant here?

Ayytaly previously said the fellowing:

As someone of First Nations descent, I have to say something: This is less on the religion and more on European colonialism in general. This is the result of narcissistic racists subjugating an entire people based on looks and tradition. Regardless of what religion they followed (if at all), they would deliberately change its context and claim divine right to commit their atrocities.

Most of them never opened the Bible; they merely stood on them just to look down on us.

It's been over 500 years, and my people's blood is still fresh on their hands.

If you'd like to report him to Moderation for threadjack then be my guest.

Methinks you've latched on too hard to the "500 years" statement.

[Ifreann]

viewtopic.php?p=38772450#p38772450

Thanks.

I'm talking to you and asking you to explain the things you have posted.

Yes and you seemed to be questioning the relevance of what I posted, thus I gave you the context behind it.

No, you aren't. Telling me that someone mentioned European colonialism, which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide, does not tell me the context you think is provided by the vague references to wars between Indigenous American tribes. So what if they fought amongst themselves? So what if they had weapons before Europeans ever arrived? What does that have to do with anything? And why the fuck have you been talking about boats this whole thread? Is this some kind of meme you're importing from somewhere else on the internet?

[Ostroeuropa]

Landmines are a similar weapon of war. They remain active long after being planted. These institution were "laid" when exactly?

Well for one thing, I don't think mines were placed in Vietnam with the objective of blowing up farmers a half decade later, and I can get a good general picture of when they were "laid".
if you're asking me when these "institutions" were laid, I'd say the most relevant point was 1876, no?

Ayytaly previously said the fellowing:



If you'd like to report him to Moderation for threadjack then be my guest.

Methinks you've latched on too hard to the "500 years" statement.

My point is that these institutions are long-lasting and only recently have we had a lens by which to examine them as weapons of war which need to be removed and dismantled. Landmines lain in previous conflicts do in fact kill people decades after the fact. It's why there's now treaties against them and efforts to remove them, but it still happens on occasion. Similarly these institutions should be, and to my understanding, have been, dismantled.

The point is that this is not a uniquely european phenomena. All countries go to war. All countries innovate methods of war. None of them is particularly worse as a means than any other in the context of history, and the modern notion of trying to limit the kinds of war and weaponry and targets was not present at the time and arguably is still just virtue signalling guff that nobody actually adheres to because of the nature of warfare itself.

Certainly these incidents are somber moments, but they should be viewed in the appropriate context rather than used to advance anti-white and racist theories and frameworks that, as we can see, inculcate a revanchist attitude and the reignition of intercommunity violence.

I want you to imagine a landmine lain in vietnam killed someone.

Not "We found some bodies from the war that happened back then.". But straight up killed someone in the modern day.

And then I want you to imagine a bunch of racist demagogues used this opportunity to push an ideological framework that inflamed tensions and led to the Vietnamese attacking American cultural centers.

Can you imagine such a thing happening?

Let's go a step further. Suppose we found a mass grave of vietnamese persons who died long ago and the same occured.

Would the reaction be for a section of the vietnamese to get angry and start burning down McDonalds?

What then is the difference here?

Well, it's that the colonialism narrative and framework inculcates revanchism.

[SD_Film Artists]

Landmines are a similar weapon of war. They remain active long after being planted. These institution were "laid" when exactly?

Well for one thing, I don't think mines were placed in Vietnam with the objective of blowing up farmers a half decade later, and I can get a good general picture of when they were "laid".
if you're asking me when these "institutions" were laid, I'd say the most relevant point was 1876, no?

Ayytaly previously said the fellowing:



If you'd like to report him to Moderation for threadjack then be my guest.

Methinks you've latched on too hard to the "500 years" statement.

Ayytaly said that his people's blood is still fresh on "their" hands. Perhaps the previous sentences were just a mistake and he was actually talking about certain current members of the Canadian establishment who were complicit in the schools.

[Dylar]

Crossposting Lumi from the CDT

A meeting between Pope Francis and First Nations leaders has been scheduled for December!:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6084245

[Kubra]

Well for one thing, I don't think mines were placed in Vietnam with the objective of blowing up farmers a half decade later, and I can get a good general picture of when they were "laid".
if you're asking me when these "institutions" were laid, I'd say the most relevant point was 1876, no?

Methinks you've latched on too hard to the "500 years" statement.

Ayytaly said that his people's blood is still fresh on "their" hands. Perhaps the previous sentences were just a mistake and he was actually talking about certain current members of the Canadian establishment who were complicit in the schools.

Because, as has been said before, victims of the treatment of the indigenous, in the ways it manifests, walk our streets, they are our fellows. You're talking to one, at least in a technical sense.
It's not something vague and across the pond for us.

[Nilokeras]

I have to say, the construction of a distinctly Canadian colonial process in the minds of NSGs foremost empire defenders as being 'European' and subject to 'anglophobic tropes' sure is a juicy bit of ideological construction.

Ayytaly brought up the 'European colonialism' thing. Does that mean he's an NSG empire defender?

They brought it up, but right on cue you both popped in to apologize for 'European colonialism' and try and discredit claims of genocide as being 'just an extension of war', which is the genocidaire's favourite bit of apologia from Akkad all the way to Nuremberg.

[Kubra]

Well for one thing, I don't think mines were placed in Vietnam with the objective of blowing up farmers a half decade later, and I can get a good general picture of when they were "laid".
if you're asking me when these "institutions" were laid, I'd say the most relevant point was 1876, no?

Methinks you've latched on too hard to the "500 years" statement.

My point is that these institutions are long-lasting and only recently have we had a lens by which to examine them as weapons of war which need to be removed and dismantled. Landmines lain in previous conflicts do in fact kill people decades after the fact. It's why there's now treaties against them and efforts to remove them, but it still happens on occasion. Similarly these institutions should be, and to my understanding, have been, dismantled.

The point is that this is not a uniquely european phenomena. All countries go to war. All countries innovate methods of war. None of them is particularly worse as a means than any other in the context of history, and the modern notion of trying to limit the kinds of war and weaponry and targets was not present at the time and arguably is still just virtue signalling guff that nobody actually adheres to because of the nature of warfare itself.

Certainly these incidents are somber moments, but they should be viewed in the appropriate context rather than used to advance anti-white and racist theories and frameworks that, as we can see, inculcate a revanchist attitude and the reignition of intercommunity violence.

I want you to imagine a landmine lain in vietnam killed someone.

Not "We found some bodies from the war that happened back then.". But straight up killed someone in the modern day.

And then I want you to imagine a bunch of racist demagogues used this opportunity to push an ideological framework that inflamed tensions and led to the Vietnamese attacking American cultural centers.

Can you imagine such a thing happening?

And I do not understand what you mean then in this context. The "weapon" was developed and deployed in 1876 and, with modifications, is still in active service. It is called "The Indian Act".

[SD_Film Artists]

Thanks.



Yes and you seemed to be questioning the relevance of what I posted, thus I gave you the context behind it.

No, you aren't. Telling me that someone mentioned European colonialism, which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide, does not tell me the context you think is provided by the vague references to wars between Indigenous American tribes. So what if they fought amongst themselves? So what if they had weapons before Europeans ever arrived? What does that have to do with anything? And why the fuck have you been talking about boats this whole thread? Is this some kind of meme you're importing from somewhere else on the internet?

I think you've answered your own question with "which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide". Either the 'evil whhite colonialsm' is relevant to this thread or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ayytaly brought up the 'European colonialism' thing. Does that mean he's an NSG empire defender?

They brought it up, but right on cue you both popped in to apologize for 'European colonialism' and try and discredit claims of genocide as being 'just an extension of war', which is the genocidaire's favourite bit of apologia from Akkad all the way to Nuremberg.

From Akkad to Nuremberg, that was in fact the case and the nature of war. The technologies of war brought us to the point where we decided it was no longer viable to continue with that mentality, both nuclear weaponry and industrial genocide being the final innovations of war that prompted us to change and to discount war as a natural occurrence to be tolerated and accepted.

[Kubra]

Ayytaly brought up the 'European colonialism' thing. Does that mean he's an NSG empire defender?

They brought it up, but right on cue you both popped in to apologize for 'European colonialism' and try and discredit claims of genocide as being 'just an extension of war', which is the genocidaire's favourite bit of apologia from Akkad all the way to Nuremberg.

And what a war, given that it was waged largely on a population of pacified farmers and day labourer's.

[Ifreann]

No, you aren't. Telling me that someone mentioned European colonialism, which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide, does not tell me the context you think is provided by the vague references to wars between Indigenous American tribes. So what if they fought amongst themselves? So what if they had weapons before Europeans ever arrived? What does that have to do with anything? And why the fuck have you been talking about boats this whole thread? Is this some kind of meme you're importing from somewhere else on the internet?

I think you've answered your own question with "which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide". Either the 'evil whhite colonialsm' is relevant to this thread or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Total incoherent gibberish. I'd be better off talking to GMS.

[Kubra]

No, you aren't. Telling me that someone mentioned European colonialism, which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide, does not tell me the context you think is provided by the vague references to wars between Indigenous American tribes. So what if they fought amongst themselves? So what if they had weapons before Europeans ever arrived? What does that have to do with anything? And why the fuck have you been talking about boats this whole thread? Is this some kind of meme you're importing from somewhere else on the internet?

I think you've answered your own question with "which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide". Either the 'evil whhite colonialsm' is relevant to this thread or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Then by all means, *explain* the reasons for the Indian act and its subsequent ramifications.

[Nilokeras]

They brought it up, but right on cue you both popped in to apologize for 'European colonialism' and try and discredit claims of genocide as being 'just an extension of war', which is the genocidaire's favourite bit of apologia from Akkad all the way to Nuremberg.

From Akkad to Nuremberg, that was in fact the case and the nature of war. The technologies of war brought us to the point where we decided it was no longer viable to continue with that mentality, both nuclear weaponry and industrial genocide being the final innovations of war that prompted us to change and to discount war as a natural occurrence to be tolerated and accepted.

Yeah see the lesson of Nuremberg was that like you admit yourself, this bit of apologia about it being a natural extension of war stopped being an excuse to do genocide. Particularly when you're stretching the definition of 'war' to include enemies who are already in ghettos and concentration camps and are civilians.

[Ostroeuropa]

From Akkad to Nuremberg, that was in fact the case and the nature of war. The technologies of war brought us to the point where we decided it was no longer viable to continue with that mentality, both nuclear weaponry and industrial genocide being the final innovations of war that prompted us to change and to discount war as a natural occurrence to be tolerated and accepted.

Yeah see the lesson of Nuremberg was that like you admit yourself, this bit of apologia about it being a natural extension of war stopped being an excuse to do genocide. Particularly when you're stretching the definition of 'war' to include enemies who are already in ghettos and concentration camps and are civilians.

I agree it's not an excuse, but it was the standards of the time. Are you alleging that these institutions were founded post-nuremberg?

[SD_Film Artists]

Ayytaly brought up the 'European colonialism' thing. Does that mean he's an NSG empire defender?

They brought it up, but right on cue you both popped in

Ah you caught us, yes, whenever someone bad-mouths European colonialism the Victoria shaped warning light starts blinking to promt Ostroeuropa and myself to jump down a poll and drive off in the Empire Mobile, driving down a tunnel affectionally named 'Rush for Africa'.

to apologize for 'European colonialism' and try and discredit claims of genocide as being 'just an extension of war', which is the genocidaire's favourite bit of apologia from Akkad all the way to Nuremberg.

I haven't exactly been following Ostroeuropa's posts but at least from what I said let me reiterate my reiteration-

And to reiterate; I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, I'm saying that a lot of context and fair standards are lost in favour of anglophobic tropes because for some people it's often easier to just say 'boat man bad' rather than actally looking at things in historical context.

[Ostroeuropa]

My point is that these institutions are long-lasting and only recently have we had a lens by which to examine them as weapons of war which need to be removed and dismantled. Landmines lain in previous conflicts do in fact kill people decades after the fact. It's why there's now treaties against them and efforts to remove them, but it still happens on occasion. Similarly these institutions should be, and to my understanding, have been, dismantled.

The point is that this is not a uniquely european phenomena. All countries go to war. All countries innovate methods of war. None of them is particularly worse as a means than any other in the context of history, and the modern notion of trying to limit the kinds of war and weaponry and targets was not present at the time and arguably is still just virtue signalling guff that nobody actually adheres to because of the nature of warfare itself.

Certainly these incidents are somber moments, but they should be viewed in the appropriate context rather than used to advance anti-white and racist theories and frameworks that, as we can see, inculcate a revanchist attitude and the reignition of intercommunity violence.

I want you to imagine a landmine lain in vietnam killed someone.

Not "We found some bodies from the war that happened back then.". But straight up killed someone in the modern day.

And then I want you to imagine a bunch of racist demagogues used this opportunity to push an ideological framework that inflamed tensions and led to the Vietnamese attacking American cultural centers.

Can you imagine such a thing happening?

And I do not understand what you mean then in this context. The "weapon" was developed and deployed in 1876 and, with modifications, is still in active service. It is called "The Indian Act".

As I've said, it should be dismantled. You'll have no objection from me there. But the key is in noting that this is not some unique sin to Europeans. It is simply war as it has always been, albeit, waged with new technologies and tactics.

[Kubra]

And I do not understand what you mean then in this context. The "weapon" was developed and deployed in 1876 and, with modifications, is still in active service. It is called "The Indian Act".

As I've said, it should be dismantled. You'll have no objection from me there. But the key is in noting that this is not some unique sin to Europeans. It is simply war as it has always been, albeit, waged with new technologies and tactics.

By who and where, within the given period?

[Cokoland]

My heart just broke when I read this, the way they treated these children was just deplorable, It's sometimes unimaginable to think that human beings are even capable of committing crimes like this.

[Immortan Khan]

From Akkad to Nuremberg, that was in fact the case and the nature of war. The technologies of war brought us to the point where we decided it was no longer viable to continue with that mentality, both nuclear weaponry and industrial genocide being the final innovations of war that prompted us to change and to discount war as a natural occurrence to be tolerated and accepted.

Yeah see the lesson of Nuremberg was that like you admit yourself, this bit of apologia about it being a natural extension of war stopped being an excuse to do genocide. Particularly when you're stretching the definition of 'war' to include enemies who are already in ghettos and concentration camps and are civilians.

And not even actually at war with.

[SD_Film Artists]

I think you've answered your own question with "which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide". Either the 'evil whhite colonialsm' is relevant to this thread or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Total incoherent gibberish. I'd be better off talking to GMS.

It's only fair. You can't allow Ayytaly's post and then suddenly think that people can't talk about colonialism when someone comments on said post about colonialism, especially when you just said yourself that it's relevant. Otherwise you're basically saying- 'People can shitpost, but only if I agree with their agenda'.

[Kubra]

Canada sounds like a horrible place.

Aw it ain't so bad. Today's Canada ain't no picnic, but I'll be damned if it ain't better that the Canada of a few decades ago, and you can thank immigration for that.

[Immortan Khan]

"It was the standards of the times" is blatantly ignoring the ongoing attempts by the powers at the time to actually begin regulating warfare. This isn't mentioning that genocide actually wasn't the standard of war. What Caesar did in Gaul was repulsive even to many Romans, it was among the reasons the Senate ended up wanting to prosecute him for, you guessed it, war crimes.

[Nilokeras]

Yeah see the lesson of Nuremberg was that like you admit yourself, this bit of apologia about it being a natural extension of war stopped being an excuse to do genocide. Particularly when you're stretching the definition of 'war' to include enemies who are already in ghettos and concentration camps and are civilians.

I agree it's not an excuse, but it was the standards of the time. Are you alleging that these institutions were founded post-nuremberg?

These institutions did not change at all post-Nuremberg and continued running throughout the late 20th century. See the experiments on child nutrition carried out on First Nations children in residential schools that deliberately starved children without the consent or knowledge of their parents and which actively lead to the deaths of children, in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.

[SD_Film Artists]

I think you've answered your own question with "which is the motivating ideology behind this genocide". Either the 'evil whhite colonialsm' is relevant to this thread or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Then by all means, *explain* the reasons for the Indian act and its subsequent ramifications.

Couldn't that be done with a wiki article? I could post it but I'm not sure what it'll prove or what you think I'm trying to prove. I was just responding to Ostroeuropa and by extension Ayytaly and then it's all 'hurr hurr police victims'.

If you'd like to discuss the Indian Act then do please say something about it.