Ongoing Residential Schools Tragedy Discussion

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by peter12

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

Maybe my reading comprehension is bad who knows, I tried to stay out of this thread for a number of reasons, and my sloppy work is probably good enough of a reason for me to stay out for good.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Highly debatable.

And that's fine. You're entitled not to be interested in it or to object to it or even to have a strong emotional reaction to it. But the vitriol the guy gets is just not in any way matched by what he's doing. He says things people a lot of people really dislike reading - well, you can ignore him, as Pepsi says. You can engage with him, as some have tried to do, though he seems pretty confident about his view of the world, so that's something to be aware of going in if you want to engage in that discussion.

But there simply is nothing bad faith about what he's saying. Even just the "moral grandstanding" piece of it is, in its absolute simplest iteration, no more or less coherent than accusing someone of holding the position they hold as a simple result of white privilege - it's ironically even the same argument structure.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cliff's MO is to deflate, devalue and flatten any difficult conversation

This doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. How do you "deflate", or "flatten", a conversation?

Anyway, cue Pepsifree to reiterate his earlier point about my focus on the way people talk about things rather than what they're talking about... I know, I know.

[BoLevi]

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.

I'm fine with negotiating an elimination of the terms of the treaties.

The treaties are ultimately an agreement to pay people to be racially segregated. Assuming we can all agree that racial segregation is not a morally acceptable position, how do you "negotiate in good faith" to exit an arrangement which is segregation by race?

What does a failure to negotiate an outcome result in? A continuation of the status quo: racial segregation with a financial annuity to make everyone feel better?

What does a successful negotiation look like? A one-time payout? A pension plan that declines over generations to a trickle and then stops? How do you manage checking in on individual genetic make-up to determine what you are owed?

This sins-of-you-fathers business is sure complicated.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I usually disagree with Cliff about most things but I value his dedication to civil conversation. He's no more or less guilty than grandstanding or thanks-whoring than any other posters on the other side of the topics.

Plus I respect anyone willing to take that kind of abuse and who keeps coming back, never gets worked up, never responds in kind no matter how low the blows get. You might be wrong but at least you're not a petty dick about it.

That goes for Sliver too but is unrelated to this topic. People constantly say call him a pathetic weirdo and it's like water off a ducks back. Good for you man.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Anyway, cue Pepsifree to reiterate his earlier point about my focus on the way people talk about things rather than what they're talking about... I know, I know.

I mean... I wasn't gonna say it but...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And that's fine. You're entitled not to be interested in it or to object to it or even to have a strong emotional reaction to it. But the vitriol the guy gets is just not in any way matched by what he's doing. He says things people a lot of people really dislike reading - well, you can ignore him, as Pepsi says. You can engage with him, as some have tried to do, though he seems pretty confident about his view of the world, so that's something to be aware of going in if you want to engage in that discussion.

But there simply is nothing bad faith about what he's saying. Even just the "moral grandstanding" piece of it is, in its absolute simplest iteration, no more or less coherent than accusing someone of holding the position they hold as a simple result of white privilege - it's ironically even the same argument structure.

This doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. How do you "deflate", or "flatten", a conversation?

Take the air out of it. Bring up a tangential point in an attempt to redirect. I was making the point that the RCC is the only responsible party that hasn't apologized, and instead of agreeing that ya, that's pretty ####ty of them, he attempted to redirect the conversation to a large percentage of indigenous being Christians, and wouldn't want that, and that it was I who's position was wrong, because it would be visiting even more harm on them, despite this being one of the main items Indigenous want. Recognition and apologies.

This is how Cliff discusses stuff. Not facing the real point, but veering into other areas that make him seem like he is the enlightninged one. Some people gobble that #### up. The reality is it's Cliff never follows up with anything of value.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm fine with negotiating an elimination of the terms of the treaties.

The treaties are ultimately an agreement to pay people to be racially segregated. Assuming we can all agree that racial segregation is not a morally acceptable position, how do you "negotiate in good faith" to exit an arrangement which is segregation by race?

What does a failure to negotiate an outcome result in? A continuation of the status quo: racial segregation with a financial annuity to make everyone feel better?

What does a successful negotiation look like? A one-time payout? A pension plan that declines over generations to a trickle and then stops? How do you manage checking in on individual genetic make-up to determine what you are owed?

This sins-of-you-fathers business is sure complicated.

The Treaties were an exchange of title between Indigenous communities and the Crown. They are very rightly seen as an obligation between nations. They are also rightly seen as an acknowledgement of title.

There will never be a successful negotiating away of the treaties. There can be an expansion over what they mean.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Pepsifree

Last edited by PepsiFree; 06-02-2021 at 12:01 PM. Reason: for some reason it put peter's name on the quote... WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Did this actually happen? Remember when I posted a quote of something and it got you and Rube mixed up? I'm still baffled by that.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Take the air out of it. Bring up a tangential point in an attempt to redirect.

This is how Cliff discusses stuff. Not facing the real point, but veering into other areas that make him seem like he is the enlightninged one. Some people gobble that #### up. The reality is it's Cliff never follows up with anything of value.

Yeah, I think this is a fundamentally bad take about conversations. It just reads as "No, stop talking about the topic like that! Talk about it the way I want to talk about it."

As long as it's on topic, you don't get to decide what the "real" point is, or what's tangential, or whether some other area or other angle on the discussion is valid and worth talking about (even if it legitimately IS tangential). You don't have to engage in discussion about it if you think it's not interesting or important or "of value", but someone else might and you don't have any basis for imposing your intuition about what's interesting about a particular topic on someone else. That's how we just get 10 pages of people agreeing with each other ad nauseum.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Did this actually happen? Remember when I posted a quote of something and it got you and Rube mixed up? I'm still baffled by that.

Yeah, and then I clicked quote on your post again and it pulled a random BoLevi post.

Anyways, totally off topic, but the matrix is crashing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I usually disagree with Cliff about most things but I value his dedication to civil conversation. He's no more or less guilty than grandstanding or thanks-whoring than any other posters on the other side of the topics.

Plus I respect anyone willing to take that kind of abuse and who keeps coming back, never gets worked up, never responds in kind no matter how low the blows get. You might be wrong but at least you're not a petty dick about it.

That goes for Sliver too but is unrelated to this topic. People constantly say call him a pathetic weirdo and it's like water off a ducks back. Good for you man.

wait, wut?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Treaties were an exchange of title between Indigenous communities and the Crown. They are very rightly seen as an obligation between nations. They are also rightly seen as an acknowledgement of title.

There will never be a successful negotiating away of the treaties. There can be an expansion over what they mean.

Treaties are negotiated all of the time, abandoned even.

What was once considered an exchange between nations, has now become a policy of segregation based on race.

A support of the status quo is a de facto support of racial segregation, whatever the good intentions of the original agreements might have been.

You could be quite right regarding the treaties never being abandoned as they stand, but that's more a lack of the will of the Canadian people and their FN friends to come up with a system that will allow the next generations to flourish.

[peter12]

You're talking about the Indian Act.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm fine with negotiating an elimination of the terms of the treaties.

The treaties are ultimately an agreement to pay people to be racially segregated. Assuming we can all agree that racial segregation is not a morally acceptable position, how do you "negotiate in good faith" to exit an arrangement which is segregation by race?

What does a failure to negotiate an outcome result in? A continuation of the status quo: racial segregation with a financial annuity to make everyone feel better?

What does a successful negotiation look like? A one-time payout? A pension plan that declines over generations to a trickle and then stops? How do you manage checking in on individual genetic make-up to determine what you are owed?

This sins-of-you-fathers business is sure complicated.

It’s no more complicated than you inheriting a house from your parents. If the Canadian government wanted to live up to the treaties it signed it could have done that. Or if it wanted integration it could have negotiated it. Instead the government spent 150 years trying to exterminate and undermine the treaties for the benefit of colonialists.

This is only difficult because Canadians don’t want to recognize indigenous peoples as their own nation with their own governance as was agreed to in the treaties. Your statement effectively is saying that indigenous people need to be just Canadians. That was a non-starter 150 years ago and likely is today.

At the same time you have all but 1 MP willing to recognize without debate the French people as a nation who can unilaterally amend their constitution.

[Canadianman]

First Nations across Canada are underfunded.


Catholic Church seems to have lots of cash.


Maybe we open the door to letting FN sue the Church for 215+++++ murders, abuses and other acts of cultural genocide.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s no more complicated than you inheriting a house from your parents. If the Canadian government wanted to live up to the treaties it signed it could have done that. Or if it wanted integration it could have negotiated it. Instead the government spent 150 years trying to exterminate and undermine the treaties for the benefit of colonialists.

This is only difficult because Canadians don’t want to recognize indigenous peoples as their own nation with their own governance as was agreed to in the treaties. Your statement effectively is saying that indigenous people need to be just Canadians. That was a non-starter 150 years ago and likely is today.

At the same time you have all but 1 MP willing to recognize without debate the French people as a nation who can unilaterally amend their constitution.

It's quite different than saying someone can inherit a house - that trivializes the complexity of the situation.

To put it in the context of nations, I'm suggesting a mass immigration of First Nations people into Canada.

The question is - is this type of mass immigration and an abandonment of racial segregation better for everyone down the road, or is the status quo of segregation better for everyone down the road.

The answer to this is obvious. FN leaders should recognize that in the 21st century, Canada being a single nation is better for their people and future generations. Will they have to compromise on their balance sheets today? Perhaps - I have no idea what they best way to do the accounting is.

But maintaining the current status of racial segregation has not worked for decades/centuries. It seems that many think that we can't solve the problem because of "treaties" as if they are infallible documents that can and should never be altered. It should be obvious to everyone that the current treaty system and success for FN and a system of segregation are mutually exclusive conditions. I don't think improving the system of segregation is going to solve the problem. I would prefer bold action now to bring everyone together.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

First Nations across Canada are underfunded.


Catholic Church seems to have lots of cash.


Maybe we open the door to letting FN sue the Church for 215+++++ murders, abuses and other acts of cultural genocide.

Who is we?

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

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

To put it in the context of nations, I'm suggesting a mass immigration of First Nations people into Canada.

Assimilation?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Assimilation?

let's call it de-segregation

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

let's call it de-segregation

Forced de-segregation?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Forced de-segregation?

if people want to make an argument for segregation, I guess I'll listen. I won't agree with them, but I'll listen.