Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I live on stolen land, there isnt a way I get to morally wash off that original sin just because the land was stolen a while back and lots of other people were stealing things as well.

My obligation to the survivors of the people who my land was stolen from is to at least acknowledge the theft and try to enable them to enjoy the same fruits of that theft as I am enjoying

Of course it makes a difference. The only difference between North America and Europe or elsewhere is that the conflict was relatively more recent. But every square foot of Europe would have a dozen or a hundred different parties that could dispute its ownership based on centuries of conflict. Indeed, how do we know who owned the land below any particular band before them. Why should we crystalize it at the state it was when Europeans arrived. Maybe we should kick the current bands off their land and hand them over to the people who arrived over the Bering strait land bridge 10,000 years before them. How do you allocate all of that based on people who have parents of the stealers and the steal-ees?

Your idea I'm sure feels good to articulate but ultimately doesn't make sense.

[carmenshoes]

We have no idea of how these children died. Was it abuse, disease, murder etc. A through investigation should be held then blame can be placed.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Nm

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by carmenshoes

We have no idea of how these children died. Was it abuse, disease, murder etc. A through investigation should be held then blame can be placed.

Any of the above is unacceptable...they were at boarding school...these were kids.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course it makes a difference. The only difference between North America and Europe or elsewhere is that the conflict was relatively more recent. But every square foot of Europe would have a dozen or a hundred different parties that could dispute its ownership based on centuries of conflict. Indeed, how do we know who owned the land below any particular band before them. Why should we crystalize it at the state it was when Europeans arrived. Maybe we should kick the current bands off their land and hand them over to the people who arrived over the Bering strait land bridge 10,000 years before them. How do you allocate all of that based on people who have parents of the stealers and the steal-ees?

Your idea I'm sure feels good to articulate but ultimately doesn't make sense.

I'm not arguing that Canada or the US should be returned, we frankly slaughtered way to many for that to be practical, but I am arguing we need to acknowledge the theft and try to provide the few survivors of our genocide with the same life the rest of us have been enjoying on the backs of their suffering, a decent education, not living with generational dysfunction and addiction issues we caused, that's our responsibility, to make some small amends

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm not arguing that Canada or the US should be returned, we frankly slaughtered way to many for that to be practical, but I am arguing we need to acknowledge the theft and try to provide the few survivors of our genocide with the same life the rest of us have been enjoying on the backs of their suffering, a decent education, not living with generational dysfunction and addiction issues we caused, that's our responsibility, to make some small amends

I think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on how to handle the people who did not prevail in a conflict (any conflict). This is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.

I think there are three challenges that present themselves. Discussion of "stealing" and "theft" assumes that we can assign ownership to a small number of nomadic people who basically did not practice agriculture and had a vanishingly small population density. Second, it is very difficult to establish descendant-based compensation without getting into some very racist weeds on the topic considering that healthy societies see extensive inter-marriage between ethnic groups. Third, the more time that passes the more an argument can be made that compensation is punishing people for the "sins of their fathers" - something that is generally considered morally unacceptable.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by carmenshoes

We have no idea of how these children died. Was it abuse, disease, murder etc. A through investigation should be held then blame can be placed.

As has been posted before, the issue of how they died isn't the focus (if it was sexual abuse / torture / starvation that would exacerbate the issue). Part of the focus is that they died, in the care of the government/church and were left dead with no dignity, humility or even trace of existence.

The other part of the issue is that those who survived the residential schools were left with severe trauma. This has led to a great divide between immigrant Canadians and the indigenous which has in turn brought to the surface many additional issues (mental health, addictions, culture shifts and racism).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on how to handle the people who did not prevail in a conflict (any conflict). This is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.

I think there are three challenges that present themselves. Discussion of "stealing" and "theft" assumes that we can assign ownership to a small number of nomadic people who basically did not practice agriculture and had a vanishingly small population density. Second, it is very difficult to establish descendant-based compensation without getting into some very racist weeds on the topic considering that healthy societies see extensive inter-marriage between ethnic groups. Third, the more time that passes the more an argument can be made that compensation is punishing people for the "sins of their fathers" - something that is generally considered morally unacceptable.

How are those remotely related to acknowledging traditional land and ensuring Indigenous people have the full and proper access to the same standard quality of life many other enjoy (like clean drinking water)?

You didn’t even read the post. Shameful.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Canada is just all kinds of terrible. The RCC was a tool that Canada used to colonize people. It’s also worth mentioning that the Anglican Church operated dozens of sanctioned residential schools and had the same results.

Blaming religion seems like a way for non-religious people to wipe their hands clean and deny the secular element of colonialism.

Yes, and the Catholic Church is the only one who hasn't apologized for it. That's why I'm being harder on them, and their supporters.

[Sergei.Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course it makes a difference. The only difference between North America and Europe or elsewhere is that the conflict was relatively more recent. But every square foot of Europe would have a dozen or a hundred different parties that could dispute its ownership based on centuries of conflict. Indeed, how do we know who owned the land below any particular band before them. Why should we crystalize it at the state it was when Europeans arrived. Maybe we should kick the current bands off their land and hand them over to the people who arrived over the Bering strait land bridge 10,000 years before them. How do you allocate all of that based on people who have parents of the stealers and the steal-ees?

Your idea I'm sure feels good to articulate but ultimately doesn't make sense.

The land which now constitutes the "Dominion of Canada" was not ceded to the Crown through victory in conflict. It was, for the most part, ceded through bilateral treaties. There are no doubt many reasons for this. However, the Crown-First Nation relationship is fundamentally different than the historic conquestor-conquested relationship.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Sure it's bad. More than bad.

I'm still trying to find out to what degree it was bad. Having more information and being specific and accurate is never a bad thing.

Those quotes should be the end of your line of question on death rated shouldn’t it? Someone in 1907 stating it was borderline manslaughter...the actual percentage doesn’t seem that important does it?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by V

Religious or not, I think we can all agree that the Roman Catholic Church is just all kinds of terrible.

I’m not a religion is the root of all evil person nor do I think the Catholic or any other church is irredeemably evil. No question though that as an organization and as individuals the church has done all kinds of terrible things. In this particular case I believe the church(es) should make full and unqualified apologies and reparations to those affected. If the church goes bankrupt, so be it. If their congregations stay on or leave, so be it. That’s the only position that squares with their religious teachings IMO.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Sergei.Makarov

The land which now constitutes the "Dominion of Canada" was not ceded to the Crown through victory in conflict. It was, for the most part, ceded through bilateral treaties. There are no doubt many reasons for this. However, the Crown-First Nation relationship is fundamentally different than the historic conquestor-conquested relationship.

If it was agreed to in a treaty, then it by definition was not theft, then?

[djsFlames]

All I could think is how there have been people associated with that residential school whether they're around still or not that harbored knowledge of what happened there, for many years, and kept that under wraps.

Absolutely floors me.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by edslunch

If the church goes bankrupt, so be it.

The Catholic Church may be the richest organization in the world. The economist once calculated its operating costs at 170B. You'll get a ton of ranges since the church protects its finances so much but its safe to say this billion dollar organization would not go bankrupt for paying reasonable reparations to the victims of the residential school system.

They would, however, go bankrupt quickly if they decided to payout everyone they wronged so that's why they would never do it.

[MarchHare]

Jason Kenney went on a lengthy tirade against "cancel culture" at a press conference today after hearing that the Calgary Board of Education changed the name of a high school that was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, one of the architects of the residential school program.

"If we want to get into cancelling every figure in our history who took positions on issues at the time, that we now judge harshly and rightly in historical retrospective, but if that’s the new standard, then I think almost the entire founding leadership of our country gets cancelled."

Jason comes soooo close to hitting the mark with that comment.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If it was agreed to in a treaty, then it by definition was not theft, then?

pointing a gun to some ones head and getting them to sign over their stuff to you is still theft

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Sergei.Makarov

The land which now constitutes the "Dominion of Canada" was not ceded to the Crown through victory in conflict. It was, for the most part, ceded through bilateral treaties. There are no doubt many reasons for this. However, the Crown-First Nation relationship is fundamentally different than the historic conquestor-conquested relationship.

Ask your self why they signed the treaties, it wasnt like we gave them anything in return, sign here and we get to keep 99% of your stuff, you get to live on a tiny patch of what used to be your land and we will drop off some flour once a month to make up for the food you used to be able to freely obtain from the land we are taking.

hell of a 'treaty'

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Jason Kenney went on a lengthy tirade against "cancel culture" at a press conference today after hearing that the Calgary Board of Education changed the name of a high school that was named after Hector-Louis Langevin, one of the architects of the residential school program.

"If we want to get into cancelling every figure in our history who took positions on issues at the time, that we now judge harshly and rightly in historical retrospective, but if that’s the new standard, then I think almost the entire founding leadership of our country gets cancelled."

Jason comes soooo close to hitting the mark with that comment.

What does canceling even mean in this context? The person was once deemed worthy of commemoration via a statue or bridge or school. Now, whether in hindsight or due to shifting norms they are no longer worthy of that honour. They are not erased from the history books, they are not exhumed and reburied in an unmarked massed grave, they are just removed from an exalted position that most of us never reached in the first place.

Do their sins overshadow their accomplishments? Maybe, maybe not. (I’m talking generally without knowing the degree of culpability or complicity of any specific person in the residential school program). But does honouring them have a stronger positive or negative impact of current members of society? I’d argue it has no real positive impact - my heart didn’t swell in pride every time I crossed the Langevin bridge - but I can imagine a residential school survivor might not want to be reminded of an architect of the program every day (again I don’t know his specific connection).

I say by all means honour someone in their lifetime if deserving but it doesn’t have to last forever if things change.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

pointing a gun to some ones head and getting them to sign over their stuff to you is still theft

So they lost a war?

Which is it?

Also, land isn't the same as someone's "stuff". The population of north america before the europeans arrived was a few million people. The highest estimate for ALL of the Americas that I could find was 60 million people. The lowest was 8 million people. That's a population density of .2 to 1.4 people per square kilometer. The US nowadays is something like 35. Canada was even more sparsely populated than that.

So we've got relatively nomadic people wandering around a huge swath of land, with an ultra-low population density. That does not make a strong case for "ownership" of that land, nor does it make a strong case that a nation exists as we would understand them today, or historically.

So I don't agree with your premise regarding theft.

The strongest possible word you should use is "displaced"...but that's also a bit of stretch also given the scarcity of the population.