Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[PepsiFree]

Cliff's main issue is the belief that everyone who holds a position different than his can be painted with the same brush. It's something many of us do, myself included, in some form or another, but it is funny to see someone so critical of identity politics and the same habitual generalizing in others constantly rely on it so heavily.

No, not every critic of Catholicism is a young, white, educated, progressive male.

No, not every person who believes we should rename a school is doing it for moral gratification or believes that will be enough.

Can we all just agree that Cliff has no intellectual standing to make these kind of claims, note his posts as ridiculous, and move on? It's been the same for years and this is a fairly stupid diversion focused on one silly person, in a topic that is relatively important and has plenty more of value that could actually be discussed.

Or continue. It's funny at least. Just I don't know how respectful or interesting it is for 20 of the last 25 posts to be us talking about each other. This one included.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm trying to get better at not just lashing out at people or attacking their characters over the substance of their arguments.

I did duck out of this thread earlier because I was definitely too emotional to be participating in it.

A lack of substance, arrogance, and bad-faith arguments are 100% still fair game though.

There's nothing really bad faith about what he's arguing, and it's a coherent viewpoint that as you say he has advanced plenty of times in plenty of contexts, you just vehemently disagree with it. That's fine, but so far that's led you to repeatedly accuse him of being a bad person, childish, parroting right-wing talking points, now apparently defending the confederate flag... those certainly read like character-based attacks. And I don't see the same sorts of things coming back the other way in your direction.

I dunno, you clearly despise this person, despite never having met him. You still seem pretty emotionally invested, as you suggested. I would seriously suggest you put him on ignore. You didn't ask for my advice, but there it is anyway.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by peter12

This idea of who owns the land is a bit redundant in my eyes. The history is too complex. All we can agree upon is that Indigenous people were here first but even that isn’t too meaningful of an observation.

Human society is in constant flux. The arrival of Europeans to the continent was perhaps inevitable, but we have to remember that colonialization took hundreds of years. There was plenty of violence - as there had always been. There was also disease, without which conquest of the Americas would not have been possible.

What really concerns me, from a Canadian perspective, is the concerted government effort to contain and assimilate Indigenous peoples - a process that is only about 180 years old and is still ongoing.

If you miss that last part, you’ve completely missed the point.

The end-game to the issues we face regarding FN people is to de-segregate the population. We've established a segregated population with good intentions (we know how well best intentions have worked re residential schools).

When you have a an ethnically diverse population, over multiple generations, it is natural for those groups to mix. I'd argue that it is also healthy and normal, but I'll leave that up to you.

Instead we've set up a system which incentivizes racial segregation (the reserve system) based on a concept of the sins-of-our-fathers. It is remarkably like the concept of Original Sin in Catholicism - born a sinner. Trying to carry a balance sheet through multiple generations into perpetuity is a harmful and likely impossible effort.

At some point in the future it is inevitable that we view colonialism and the conflict that characterized the early history of european settlement as distant history. This type of history should be maintained, but it should not necessarily inform current policy. It should definitely not be used to try to maintain segregation along racial lines, which is the current MO of our gov'ts. I think it will take a long time to unwind a belief system which insists that you are owed something (or owe something to someone) based on your genetic makeup. But that's a shame, we should start on it sooner rather than later.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's fine, but so far that's led you to repeatedly accuse him of being a bad person, childish, parroting right-wing talking points,

I don't think I accused him of being a bad person. I think his belief that wanting to change the names of things is virtue-signaling is projection-based, but I can't comment on if that projection is inherently good or bad. The other criticisms were directly related to his argument, not him as a person. His tone in this thread has been incredibly condescending for someone who keeps making logically flimsy arguments.

now apparently defending the confederate flag... those certainly read like character-based attacks.

That one is on me and the ADHD because I misread iggy's post. I thought he was talking about Confederate monuments, not the flag, so I will apologize for that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cliff's main issue is the belief that everyone who holds a position different than his can be painted with the same brush. It's something many of us do, myself included, in some form or another, but it is funny to see someone so critical of identity politics and the same habitual generalizing in others constantly rely on it so heavily.

No, not every critic of Catholicism is a young, white, educated, progressive male.

No, not every person who believes we should rename a school is doing it for moral gratification or believes that will be enough.

Can we all just agree that Cliff has no intellectual standing to make these kind of claims, note his posts as ridiculous, and move on? It's been the same for years and this is a fairly stupid diversion focused on one silly person, in a topic that is relatively important and has plenty more of value that could actually be discussed.

Or continue. It's funny at least. Just I don't know how respectful or interesting it is for 20 of the last 25 posts to be us talking about each other. This one included.

But these are trends.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

People have wanted a lot of these schools renamed for a long time, and if you’re going to paint everyone with a broad brush you can at least provide something more to substantiate the claim than an opinion. It’s pretty simple, changing the name of the schools most likely helps with reconciliation where as leaving them named as they are really provides no benefit to anyone.

I highly doubt cliff would argue people in the US who oppose the confederate flag are only opposing it because it’s the flavour of the month.

I'm fine with changing the school names.

[Fuzz]

Cliff's MO is to deflate, devalue and flatten any difficult conversation. Look at all his posts in this thread:


https://forum.calgarypuck.com/search...rchid=11040659


It's a distinct pattern of attempting to remove any argument you can make from the conversation, such that there is never a point worth arguing, and the conclusion is there is nothing to be done. He never offers anything in the way of improvement. He does this all the time. He downplays the deaths, Catholic involvement, need for them to apologize...I know he does it in a low key way, but when you see the pattern over the years, it's hard not to point at it. Oh look, there goes Cliff again. Guess we better just not discuss this topic.


Then you get Peter claiming Cliff is some sort of wizard, so Cliff keeps at it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Instead we've set up a system which incentivizes racial segregation (the reserve system) based on a concept of the sins-of-our-fathers. It is remarkably like the concept of Original Sin in Catholicism - born a sinner. Trying to carry a balance sheet through multiple generations into perpetuity is a harmful and likely impossible effort.

Huh? The reserve system and most everything else to do with FN under Canadian law is a result of the contracts/treaties we signed with them and relevant court decisions under the common law system. If you want to change the way those things are structured, they need to be re-negotiated in good faith.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cliff's MO is to deflate, devalue and flatten any difficult conversation. Look at all his posts in this thread:


https://forum.calgarypuck.com/search...rchid=11040659


It's a distinct pattern of attempting to remove any argument you can make from the conversation, such that there is never a point worth arguing, and the conclusion is there is nothing to be done. He never offers anything in the way of improvement. He does this all the time. He downplays the deaths, Catholic involvement, need for them to apologize...I know he does it in a low key way, but when you see the pattern over the years, it's hard not to point at it. Oh look, there goes Cliff again. Guess we better just not discuss this topic.


Then you get Peter claiming Cliff is some sort of wizard, so Cliff keeps at it.

I would prefer to read Cliff ten thousand times over the stuff you post, which is frankly either boring or an attempt to police what others say on the board.

At least Cliff is advancing an interesting argument.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would prefer to read Cliff ten thousand times over the stuff you post, which is frankly either boring or an attempt to police what others say on the board.

At least Cliff is advancing an interesting argument.

And what argument is that? Sum it up.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Huh? The reserve system and most everything else to do with FN under Canadian law is a result of the contracts/treaties we signed with them and relevant court decisions under the common law system. If you want to change the way those things are structured, they need to be re-negotiated in good faith.

Yes, we absolutely will never get to a point where the treaties can just be waived away. It seems like an easy solution, but there is no way Indigenous people would agree to it.

For however awful the treaties are, they at least represent some kind of guarantee of status and return.

[TheIronMaiden]

In my career I have done a lot of research on residential schools, and had the extreme displeasure of reading many death reports ( most of which came after 1935 when student deaths reports were standardized). Despite some of the horrific deaths of children, and that children had to watch, the most disturbing part for me has always been the Patronizing indifference of government workers and the federal system as a whole. These people were well aware that Residential Schools were death traps.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peter12

At least Cliff is advancing an interesting argument.

Highly debatable.

[fulham]

We will throw some money at this via a "study" or something else thats pointless. Just like the Truth and Reconciliation commission. Spend a billion dollars to get to the bottom of something we already know the answer too, just dont want to/cant politically do anything about.

Its essentially a un-fixable situation currently. Everyone can agree that serious reform is needed, but its political suicide to suggest anything other than blindly handing money out to bands. The status quo makes a select group of powerful native families wealthy and ensures thousands of jobs for government workers.

[TheIronMaiden]

nm

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

But these are trends.

Do you have any data to support your position or are you perhaps just making this statement based on your opinion?

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm fine with changing the school names.

I didn’t say you weren’t.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

This is total bull####.

Treaty is not the problem so much as Indian Policy has been the problem. The worst part of treaty is that it brought First Nations under "Indian Policy" and even then it didn't matter because Nations in B.C and the Arctic suffered the same abuses without the land based rights that Treaty sought to protect.

Curious why you think it's bull####. Are you saying Treaty isn't important?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by peter12

But these are trends.

Lol, BS.

[TheIronMaiden]

nm

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The Numbered Treatys might be some of the most important agreements in Canadian history.

I completely agree with you, so I'm not sure why you said my post is bull####.