Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

From what you presented, I thought the White Paper was your proposal. What are the better ways that you are thinking?

I think some of the ideas in the white paper had merit:

- FN should own the land rather than it being in trust
- FN people should be de-segregated

Both of those goals have substantial merit. Arguing against them is taking on a difficult position.

The White paper had a few issues that are worth learning from:

- It did not feel like it included FN as part of the process. It was dumped on the public and the FN by an arrogant Liberal Party and two First Ballot Hall of Famer a-holes: Trudeau and Chretien.
- It did not account for any additional funds to account for reparations. I'm not a big fan of reparations myself, but if they are truly a one-time payment, then okay.


The opposition to the white paper got some things wrong as well:

- desegregation is not the same as extermination/genocide.
- cultures are not maintained and saved (and nor should they be) by writ of law. Culture is not static, and should not be forcibly made to be static

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Indigenous people are allowed to live wherever they want in Canada.

While this is technically true, it’s somewhat prohibitive and logistically difficult. I grew up in a fairly isolated area in Canada and when I moved to the city, it was quicker and cheaper to actually visit my relatives in Europe than it was to visit my relatives up north in Canada. For many aboriginals, they are even more geographically isolated and it’s a huge sacrifice and commitment for them to move. The geographic isolation was designed on purpose as well.

It is a form of forced segregation, although there is an aspect of it that is self-imposed. I am all in favour of land swapping and building more urban reservations. I am not sure how they feel about it though.

[stone hands]

this segregation angle is weird


are we segregated from america? the treaties themselves symbolically represent an agreement between 2 sovereign states to share the land with provisions that they both can self govern



the ability for first nations to be separate is not segregation, it is literally the point of the treaty. i think you need to research what the treaties are, because theyre not land title deeds that the government bought

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by stone hands

this segregation angle is weird


are we segregated from america? the treaties themselves symbolically represent an agreement between 2 sovereign states to share the land with provisions that they both can self govern



the ability for first nations to be separate is not segregation, it is literally the point of the treaty. i think you need to research what the treaties are, because theyre not land title deeds that the government bought

The concept of a Treaty doesn’t necessitate a reservation system, so no, the Treaties themselves aren’t representative of segregation, but the details within are.

The definition of segregation is the act of setting people apart, so there is no doubt that it is segregation. The only thing to debate is whether it is good or bad. Throughout history there are probably examples of both. Countries for example are a form of segregation.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by fulham

I'm having a hard time finding other western culture's that have succeeded in integrating a native population. The US just killed them all for the most part, and Australia has a significantly worse relationship with their aboriginal population. I have a hard time seeing a system with two sets of rules, or two kinds of citizens ever succeeding.

New Zealand is a success story. That's because the Maori will #### you up.

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Who is we?

And who is currently stopping them from suing the Church? Not sure "we" need to "let" the FN do anything.

We is Canada. It's a country that most of us live in.


There was a settlement agreement signed in 2007. It would involve re-opening that, or at least acknowledging that the deaths that occurred were not properly covered under it.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The concept of a Treaty doesn’t necessitate a reservation system, so no, the Treaties themselves aren’t representative of segregation, but the details within are.

The definition of segregation is the act of setting people apart, so there is no doubt that it is segregation. The only thing to debate is whether it is good or bad. Throughout history there are probably examples of both. Countries for example are a form of segregation.

This is precisely my point

Self governance by aboriginal people is enshrined in the agreements our government made with them to share the land we currently reside on.

We have a moral and legal obligation to respect the terms of these agreements. bringing up segregation is really weird, we aren't talking about keeping white only restaurants. What's being discussed here is the dissolution of a soverign entity

Especially concerning(not from you, from bolevi) is the idea that culture isn't important and the implication that maybe we shouldn't try and protect it. Unlike the hysterics of members of our government who think renaming monuments and roads is trying to erase history, Residential schools were created to literally erase history - children were beaten for recounting oral histories and their language. It absolutely needs to be protected, the actions of our government and the pervasive attitude of canadians towards native people is clear evidence of this

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's absolutely what he's saying. He literally used the term "signaling" in the reply he just posted.

Humans social signal all the time, in everything we do. Moral outrage is a form of signalling that’s as old as religion.

http://blogs.wgbh.org/innovation-hub...ordan-outrage/

(You’ll note the interview is not from right-wing social media)

Sometimes it can be a positive by spurring changes to behaviour. But in cases where we express moral outrage about actions in the past by renaming schools, it’s hard to see any likely positive outcomes. I mean it’s not as though there are people today campaigning for the sterilization of promiscuous girls drawing encouragement from an elementary school named Nellie McClung. So in the absence of any tangible positive outcome, all we’re left with is broadcasting our moral worthiness.

[afc wimbledon]

To be clear our responsibility to the survivors of these schools and their decendents, who happen to be the whole of our native population is wholly seperate from our responsibility to native nations via treaty obligations

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Humans social signal all the time, in everything we do. Moral outrage is a form of signalling that’s as old as religion.

http://blogs.wgbh.org/innovation-hub...ordan-outrage/

(You’ll note the interview is not from right-wing social media)

Sometimes it can be a positive by spurring changes to behaviour. But in cases where we express moral outrage about actions in the past by renaming schools, it’s hard to see any likely positive outcomes. I mean it’s not as though there are people today campaigning for the sterilization of promiscuous girls drawing encouragement from an elementary school named Nellie McClung. So in the absence of any tangible positive outcome, all we’re left with is broadcasting our moral worthiness.

are there any negative outcomes to not naming schools after ######bags?, should we be putting up the Robert Pickton High school out in Poco?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Humans social signal all the time, in everything we do. Moral outrage is a form of signalling that’s as old as religion.

http://blogs.wgbh.org/innovation-hub...ordan-outrage/

(You’ll note the interview is not from right-wing social media)

Sometimes it can be a positive by spurring changes to behaviour. But in cases where we express moral outrage about actions in the past by renaming schools, it’s hard to see any likely positive outcomes. I mean it’s not as though there are people today campaigning for the sterilization of promiscuous girls drawing encouragement from an elementary school named Nellie McClung. So in the absence of any tangible positive outcome, all we’re left with is broadcasting our moral worthiness.

You think Indigenous people, including the grandchildren of residential school survivors, who advocate for renaming the Langevin school are just broadcasting their own moral worthiness?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think some of the ideas in the white paper had merit:

- FN should own the land rather than it being in trust
- FN people should be de-segregated

Both of those goals have substantial merit. Arguing against them is taking on a difficult position.

The White paper had a few issues that are worth learning from:

- It did not feel like it included FN as part of the process. It was dumped on the public and the FN by an arrogant Liberal Party and two First Ballot Hall of Famer a-holes: Trudeau and Chretien.
- It did not account for any additional funds to account for reparations. I'm not a big fan of reparations myself, but if they are truly a one-time payment, then okay.


The opposition to the white paper got some things wrong as well:

- desegregation is not the same as extermination/genocide.
- cultures are not maintained and saved (and nor should they be) by writ of law. Culture is not static, and should not be forcibly made to be static

The issue with what you are proposing is that the First Nations people are asked to adopt the Canadian way of life. What if instead Canada got rid of private land ownership and our institutions and adopted indigenous cultures and their institutions.

Your posts while well intentioned and in many years could lead to a better place is really just proposing to finish off the job of colonialism and the residential schools.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

The issue with what you are proposing is that the First Nations people are asked to adopt the Canadian way of life. What if instead Canada got rid of private land ownership and our institutions and adopted indigenous cultures and their institutions.

To complete the thought experiment, what would happen if we did?

Do you think it is a good idea?

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm fine renaming stuff if it helps improve the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. It's a small price to pay and would have zero effect on my life.

On the treaty and reservation system, I just think it's been woefully inadequate and unfair for aboriginal people. The newer treaties in BC seem to be better at facilitating growth and development compared to the older ones agreed on before the modern age. The whole idea in the first place was to isolate them from colonialists and remove them from the more valuable land. These aspects have created massive economic and infrastructure disadvantages that are hard to work around.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

To complete the thought experiment, what would happen if we did?

Do you think it is a good idea?

we'd be Anabaptists, one of the few branches of christianity I have some respect for, so all in all not the end of the world

[CliffFletcher]

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.

This derail started - once again - with someone taking a shot at me. Then a bunch of other people joined in. If you find it distasteful that people aren’t talking about the subject at hand (and I agree it is) then take it up with the people who made it about me.

Why can’t posters like you and Rubecube engage in issues without making them personal? Why do you find it so hard to play the ball, and not the man? And if the way I engage with topics on this forum infuriates you so much, why don’t you just put me in ignore?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This derail started - once again - with someone taking a shot at me. Then a bunch of other people joined in. If you find it distasteful that people aren’t talking about the subject at hand (and I agree it is) then take it up with the people who made it about me.

Why can’t posters like you and Rubecube engage in issues without making them personal? Why do you find it so hard to play the ball, and not the man? And if the way I engage with topics on this forum infuriates you so much, why don’t you just put me in ignore?

Why do you conveniently find it so hard to play the ball when others are doing exactly that?:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You think Indigenous people, including the grandchildren of residential school survivors, who advocate for renaming the Langevin school are just broadcasting their own moral worthiness?

Which is not the first time in this thread, or any thread, where you deflect or vanish to avoid answering simple questions:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But you didn't respond to it.

My question didn't contain any question about, implication relating to, some sort of fantasy-world where criticism of religion is substitutional criticism of old white men. I suspect you'll agree, having read my posts, that I couldn't possibly care less about engaging in that sort of thing. It was about why it would be problematic to apply criticisms of religion across the board, regardless of what ethnicity the religious people in question are. You can't steer your response towards claims obviously I wasn't making, or biases I obviously don't possess, in an attempt to avoid actually answering the question I actually asked.

Play the ball. Not the man, or an entirely different ball that you want to play with because you don't like the one that's going around. Play the ball.

Then play the victim, if you're still getting responses you don't like. But save it until then.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

As the example in that post, I don't think what you're suggesting there makes sense. He didn't "play the man" in his response to me, he just responded to something other than what my post said. Essentially, it was a straw man, whereas what he's complaining about when he says "play the ball" is ad hominem.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure your question is also a straw man - he was suggesting that people in this thread were broadcasting their moral worthiness, not the grandchildren of residential school survivors (unless this thread is full of them, I guess).

... And further irony, if that is what he was suggesting, it's an ad hominem, because that would be imputing motive to undermine peoples' positions.

So, I guess... you're right for precisely the wrong reasons?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As the example in that post, I don't think what you're suggesting there makes sense. He didn't "play the man" in his response to me, he just responded to something other than what my post said. Essentially, it was a straw man, whereas what he's complaining about when he says "play the ball" is ad hominem.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure your question is also a straw man - he was suggesting that people in this thread were broadcasting their moral worthiness, not the grandchildren of residential school survivors (unless this thread is full of them, I guess).

... And further irony, if that is what he was suggesting, it's an ad hominem, because that would be imputing motive to undermine peoples' positions.

So, I guess... you're right for precisely the wrong reasons?

Your case would fall into "playing an entirely different ball."

As far as whether Cliff was talking about just the people in this thread, or people in general, multiple posts suggest the latter. But if in case it is the former, that does not in any way disable him from answering the question.

I don't even see how a question can be a strawman. I'm asking him if that's what he thinks. Should I have not left out the word "do"?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

The issue with what you are proposing is that the First Nations people are asked to adopt the Canadian way of life. What if instead Canada got rid of private land ownership and our institutions and adopted indigenous cultures and their institutions.

Your posts while well intentioned and in many years could lead to a better place is really just proposing to finish off the job of colonialism and the residential schools.

I think the nature of the tax benefits may effectively trap people on reserves when that may not be there first choice to live. I think it would be reasonable to extend similar income tax benefits to status Indians who live and work off-reserve. In 2021 you can be a member of a different nation without physically living on that land, imo.

Or maybe just expand the tax deals some nations have with Ottawa, where income taxes collected from their members go to the bands.