[Mustang1]

Hmm...still waiting on little Donny here to address his erronous accusations of genocide.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

[Donny_Brasco]

Mustang1 wrote:

I know the definition (apparently, you don't) - and "re-education" isn't part of it. Strike one. Secondly, where does the Canadian government systematically, "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," because that (not your rewording - how typical of revisionists)? Strike two. And be careful, you need to demonstrate that the act not only occurred, BUT that it was designed or intended to DESTROY (not culturally!) a recognizable group.

Maybe you should do some research on residential schools. It’s not a secret.

Taking our children by force and leaving them in the care of the church, whose job was not only to reprogram them, but they took it upon themselves to commit other unspeakable acts.

In your version of history is it OK to do that?

And how else, besides in death, do you destroy a group if not to erase it's culture. Culture is the entire way of life and beliefs of a group.

That is what residential schools set out to do, destroy our culture.

[Donny_Brasco]

Mustang1 wrote:

Hmm...still waiting on little Donny here to address his erronous accusations of genocide.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Grow up.

[DVC185]

If you can wade through the various treaties, it's obvious the whiteman is being taken for a ride by the Indian guilt industry. Imagine if we were to stick to the treaties...we wouldn't know what to do with the surplus funds.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/index-eng.asp

And to help you out with the location of the various treaties, here's a map:

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/hts/tgu/mps/htoc-eng.pdf

[Mustang1]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

I know the definition (apparently, you don't) - and "re-education" isn't part of it. Strike one. Secondly, where does the Canadian government systematically, "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," because that (not your rewording - how typical of revisionists)? Strike two. And be careful, you need to demonstrate that the act not only occurred, BUT that it was designed or intended to DESTROY (not culturally!) a recognizable group.

Maybe you should do some research on residential schools. It’s not a secret.

Taking our children by force and leaving them in the care of the church, whose job was not only to reprogram them, but they took it upon themselves to commit other unspeakable acts.

In your version of history is it OK to do that?

And how else, besides in death, do you destroy a group if not to erase it's culture. Culture is the entire way of life and beliefs of a group.

That is what residential schools set out to do, destroy our culture.

Still no genocide, huh?

Let's quickly address Donny's inability to grasp history's finer points, shall we?

Firstly, residential schools aren't genocide. Why? They don't meet any of the criteria established in the CPPCG. Done

Secondly, taking children isn't genocide UNLESS it's deliberately part of a state's intention to DESTROY. No one is justifying or rationalizing the residential school tragedy but it was for assimilation. You'll notice that Canada has yet to be brought up on formal charges. Is it because there's no case?

Thirdly, cultural assimilation isn't a component of genocide. This isn't about creating one's own lexicon to buttress his agenda, it's about following specific terms, with specific definitions with specific criteria. The international community hasn't seen it fit to charge Canada with genocide, nations haven't seen it fit to recognize any genocide and reputable historical scholars haven't seen it fit to conclude any genocides took place as a result of the Canadian government.

Still no genocide and yet, Donny continues to push his agenda. How typically disingenuous and intellectually questionable

[Mustang1]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Hmm...still waiting on little Donny here to address his erronous accusations of genocide.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Grow up.

Smarten up.

[Gunnair]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Facts are you live on tiny reservations existing on handouts. Your lands were taken by the pen with the threat of the bayonet in the background. You've been subjugated - just like so many other cultures in history. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you don't seem to be able to see the tree through the forest here.

By the way, if ignorance is simply the act of disagreeing with a given position, then I guess you can count yourself as in the club.

Most Canadians would like to leave a better legacy and are proud to make right the past wrongs and acknowledge the debt Canada has to the Aboriginal people.

And you can be as blunt and degrading as you want, that does not change the following issues:

1) We will stand up for our rights
2) We will not ignore the Treaties
3) We will take our issues to the courts
4) We will, for the most part, win in the courts based on legal and historical FACTS.

We may have put up with a few hundred years of your scheming, kidnapping, torturing, murdering and genocide, be we are far from conquered. You can bet on that.

I s'pose it's pretty good that it took this long for the predictable genocide card to come up. You're obviously done if you resorted to that line of crap.

[Gunnair]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Brenda wrote:

So because you think you are entitled to a hand out, and so will your kids kids kids be, others who don't agree (and pay that hand out) have ignorant opinions?

Yes, when you pay for something at Wallmart do you chastise the clerk for wanting a handout?

The Treaties are a legal document outlining the roles and responsibilities of both parties. Your responsibility to us in exchange for living on this land is the same responsibility we have to share it with you.

It is a legal transaction. Calling our "payments" for this transaction "handouts" is ignorant, degrading and misleading.

If you have no intention of honouring an agreement then do not sign one.

The majority of Canadians are honourable and agree with that, and will honour agreements based on handshakes alone, nevermind written treaties.

Others, like Gunnair, have no honour and believe that the colour of his skin precludes him from honouring the promises of his forefathers which ultimately allow us to share this land. To him, contracts are a waste of paper because he will not honour one once the wind starts blowing another direction.

Do you sit with him Brenda?

And the racist card too! That's great! If nothing else, you are predictable. Is the Nazi card next?

By the way, my forefathers came after the conquest, so don't blame them.

[Brenda]

Gunnair wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Brenda wrote:

So because you think you are entitled to a hand out, and so will your kids kids kids be, others who don't agree (and pay that hand out) have ignorant opinions?

Yes, when you pay for something at Wallmart do you chastise the clerk for wanting a handout?

The Treaties are a legal document outlining the roles and responsibilities of both parties. Your responsibility to us in exchange for living on this land is the same responsibility we have to share it with you.

It is a legal transaction. Calling our "payments" for this transaction "handouts" is ignorant, degrading and misleading.

If you have no intention of honouring an agreement then do not sign one.

The majority of Canadians are honourable and agree with that, and will honour agreements based on handshakes alone, nevermind written treaties.

Others, like Gunnair, have no honour and believe that the colour of his skin precludes him from honouring the promises of his forefathers which ultimately allow us to share this land. To him, contracts are a waste of paper because he will not honour one once the wind starts blowing another direction.

Do you sit with him Brenda?

And the racist card too! That's great! If nothing else, you are predictable. Is the Nazi card next?

By the way, my forefathers came after the conquest, so don't blame them.

I am the forefather of the next generations. Blame me, I am fine with it, as long as my kids kids kids don't have to pay.

Donny, sweetcheecks, the Walmart clerk is not asking for a hand-out. (S)he is actually WORKING for her money selling stuff... You might try it sometimes! Feels WAY better to earn your own money than to sit and wait for someone to bring it to you while you have accomplished NOTHING.

[Gunnair]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

I know the definition (apparently, you don't) - and "re-education" isn't part of it. Strike one. Secondly, where does the Canadian government systematically, "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," because that (not your rewording - how typical of revisionists)? Strike two. And be careful, you need to demonstrate that the act not only occurred, BUT that it was designed or intended to DESTROY (not culturally!) a recognizable group.

Maybe you should do some research on residential schools. It’s not a secret.

Taking our children by force and leaving them in the care of the church, whose job was not only to reprogram them, but they took it upon themselves to commit other unspeakable acts.

In your version of history is it OK to do that?

And how else, besides in death, do you destroy a group if not to erase it's culture. Culture is the entire way of life and beliefs of a group.

That is what residential schools set out to do, destroy our culture.

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Your comprehension continues to suck.

Quit whining you big baby.

[Zipperfish]

The worst thing about using the term genocide with reference to North American "Indians" as that it cheapens actual genocide such as peridocially experienced throughout the world, most catastrophically by the Nazis, but frequently in other times and places also.

[Donny_Brasco]

Quote:

Genocide scholars such Gregory Stanton have postulated that conditions and acts that often occur before, during, and after genocide— such as dehumanization of victim groups, strong organization of genocidal groups, and denial of genocide by its perpetrators— can be identified and actions taken to stop genocides before they happen.

[Donny_Brasco]

Gunnair wrote:

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So what part of that does not apply to First Nations of Canada?

[Zipperfish]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So what part of that does not apply to First Nations of Canada?

That would be the evidence of a systematic extermination.

[Donny_Brasco]

Mustang1 wrote:

Firstly, residential schools aren't genocide. Why? They don't meet any of the criteria established in the CPPCG. Done

Please explain your version of the criteria.

Mustang1 wrote:

Secondly, taking children isn't genocide UNLESS it's deliberately part of a state's intention to DESTROY.

Quote:

In 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA), reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908 mortality rates at residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 35% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 35% to 60% of students had died). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates were frequently deliberate, with healthy children being exposed to children with tuberculosis.


Dr. F. A. Corbett was commissioned to visit the schools in the west of the country, and found similar results to Bryce. At the Ermineskin school in Hobbema, Alberta, he found 50% of the children had tuberculosis.[5] At Sarcee Boarding School near Calgary, all 33 students were "much below even a passable standard of health" and "[a]ll but four were infected with tuberculosis." When he entered a classroom there, he found sixteen of the children, many of them near death, were still being made to sit through lessons.[5]

Quote:

Keeping in mind that United Nations Genocide Convention--to which Canada became a signatory on November 28, 1949--defines "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" as constituting a form of genocide, there can be no doubt that Canadian residential schools fall into this category. Canadian leaders like Duncan Scott spoke openly about the "Indian problem" in terms similar to Hitler's "Jewish problem":



"I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. That is my whole point. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question..."

Mustang1 wrote:

No one is justifying or rationalizing the residential school tragedy but it was for assimilation. You'll notice that Canada has yet to be brought up on formal charges. Is it because there's no case?

Well, like I said, you can work with us to come to common solutions or you can work against us - and we will concentrate our resources on making sure we are recognized. Are you prepared to deal with either of the outcomes of a true international analysis of the systematic mistreatment and abuse of Aboriginal people in this country?

Mustang1 wrote:

Thirdly, cultural assimilation isn't a component of genocide. This isn't about creating one's own lexicon to buttress his agenda, it's about following specific terms, with specific definitions with specific criteria. The international community hasn't seen it fit to charge Canada with genocide, nations haven't seen it fit to recognize any genocide and reputable historical scholars haven't seen it fit to conclude any genocides took place as a result of the Canadian government.

Still no genocide and yet, Donny continues to push his agenda. How typically disingenuous and intellectually questionable

We will make them aware, and dealing with the likes of you makes us more determined to shame you, your behaviour and the behaviour of your forefathers internationally.

There are many, many good Canadians out there, but there are still too many like you who invite us to join you to work toward your goals, but have no interest in helping us achieve ours.

I am not giving up and I am not going away, if you haven’t noticed yet.