[station]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Invasion and subjugation is hardly a behaviour peculiar to Europeans. In the same period the British and French were colonizing Canada, the Hmong were subjugated by the Chinese and the Bantu by the Zulu. The Aztecs brutally subjugated all their neighbours, which was why it was so easy for Cortez to find allies against them. There's evidence that the indigenous people in North America at contact with Europe had previously wiped out or absorbed earlier arrivals to the continent.

You moved the goal posts. I didn’t say it was exclusive, just that it was deliberate.

The reach and scope of Euro colonization was unprecedented in human history. I agree there has been warring and occupation and subjugation since forever. The unique element here is that Christian pseudo-monarchies colonized indigenous peoples worldwide, then grew into secular, multi-cultural liberal democracies that recognize broad human rights. But there is still this weird limbo where indigenous people survive, but are culturally clinging to life and mostly physically segregated. Should they assimilate into Canadian culture or should traditional cultures be maintained and restored? Should Canada create opportunities to improve indigenous outcomes that are wildly inconsistent and in some places downright 3rd world, or should we just ignore it? There are a thousand questions like this that deserve attention.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Declaring neighbours who have stuff you want to be inhuman and not protected by the laws that govern your people is the default stance of humans, only recognized recently (and by those same Europeans) as something to be ashamed of.

Yes. Isn’t this a good development?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Can you name some countries with a non-Christian heritage where we see collective expressions of guilt and atonement over historical depredations? You might want to compare the post-war public attitudes in Japan, for instance, with those in Germany.

I still don’t get your point. Christian moral authority largely led to the policies that created cultural genocide(s) in the first place. Modern Christians are likely to be on the conversative side of this issue. But then Christian atonement is leading us toward reconciliation?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

My argument is we shouldn't be deflected by sentiment and emotionally-satisfying narratives, and instead focus in the difficult, tangible work at hand.

Great. Which is why people freaking out over a statue is silly and distracting. No one said removal of statues and monuments are the end game. So where do we go from here?