Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
I read the same, but there were two confounding issue with the quote that I read.
1. it was comparing to the baseline of overall (presumably non-FN) population.
2. the quote that I saw was for data from around 1940, which may not be useful when comparing to, say, the prior 70 years.
|
Man you're a piece of work.
Why does it even matter?
Let's say for the sake of argument that it was lower.
Hell let's say for the sake of argument that there was less abuse in these schools than either the general or FN populations.
If we paint the residential schools in the best possible light that they maybe weren't as bad as some other place, how does that (almost certainly 100% false assumption) change the conversation?
Does it change the fact that this was institutionalized and sanctioned abuse with an eye to eliminating an entire culture?
Can anyone make a good faith argument that it excuses even a tiny bit of the purpose and effect of residential schools?
We know who you are and they kind of things you post, and your intent couldn't be more clear.
You're the type who "Just asks questions" knowing full well that they are fully loaded, thinly veiled dog whistles.
Asking these types of questions is meant only to obfuscate what should be an obvious point, that terrible things happed at these schools and we need to do some deep looks into why they happened and what we can do to try to reconcile for that.