Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Native inquiry an orgy of progressive guilt-mongering

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And don't be shy about weighing in on climate change too.  Conservative political parties need all the help they can get.

I'm not that concerned about Eco-Bolsheviks and their One World Government techno-utopian collectivist fantasies, that will collapse on its own under the weight of its own impotence.

It's a transitory phase, as reality imposes upon it, the masses will move on to other means.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm not that concerned about Eco-Bolsheviks and their One World Government techno-utopian collectivist fantasies, that will collapse on its own under the weight of its own impotence.

Its not my fault I was raised on Star Trek and sent to free school when I was a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Its not my fault I was raised on Star Trek and sent to free school when I was a kid.

Star Trek is a kind of Bolshevist propaganda, post scarcity utopia to the stars is what the Soviet Union was really about, but notice what happened to them?

In terms of free school, I dropped out of school when I was 17 to defend the Free World as necessary by force of arms, I don't need the teachers unions to tell me what books to read.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind, those of us with surplus capital are the only ones who are preparing for the onset of disorder incited by any sort of climate impacts.

I got solar panels on my roof, I got back up generators, I've got stockpiles of non perishables, I got food growing on my land, I live in close proximity to the low tech Mennonite farmers, I've made sure not to buy property on a flood plain, in a tornado alley, nor close to dense urban populations, and yet I have both a river and well here, and I am heavily armed and a master of arms therein, in the event of civil disorder.

I can afford to pay the virtue signalling carbon tax, whatever, inflation doesn't scare me, bring it on, with inflation comes the correction, and it is only when there is blood in the streets that you can buy low, cha-ching.

Ammo, water, rations, fuel, electricity, comms, forex, gold, medical supplies and the training to use them, etcetera,  what are you doing to prepare for the Climate Emergency?

I don't deny that shit is gonna get hairy, I simply laugh at the idea that the centrally planned government is going to save you.  They can't even tie their own shoe laces, but you think they're going to save you from a planetary epoch?  lol.

Climate Barbie is gonna come a cropper, obviously, but I'm not relying on that dingbat to protect my wife and her family.

I didn't learn anything of use from the teachers unions and college academics, I learned how to survive, and even thrive in a crisis; from the Royal Canadian Regiment Battleschool.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Canada is acknowledging a genocide that has been occurring since Confederation and it involves more than just 1200 women.  The government's incompetence and neglect surrounding the Highway of Tears is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Actually Canada is acknowledging a genocide that has been occurring since Confederation and it involves more than just 1200 women.  The government's incompetence and neglect surrounding the Highway of Tears is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

I don’t know a single Canadian who doesn’t want to see Indigenous people thrive.  If you can find solutions that Indigenous peoples will form a consensus around, great.  If it boils down to more money, voters will have to support that.  Using extreme language inaccurately, words like genocide, when most Canadians know there was never an intentional (or unintentional) mass murder or elimination of Indigenous peoples, will only cause voters to disengage from Indigenous concerns, which are already far removed from the daily lives of most Canadians.  Stick to specific measures to improve concrete problems that can actually be solved by governments, especially in an environment where non-Indigenous are constantly reminded not to make decisions for Indigenous peoples.  Inflammatory language is very unhelpful.  

Another major problem with the inquiry’s recommendations is their extreme overreach into matters that have no direct relationship to the topic, such as the demand for a basic income and multiple demands for funding to similarly peripheral matters.  I can’t believe that people actually think it’s reasonable for a government to take care of people to such an extent, right down to food, housing, and income for nothing in return.  Below are just a few examples:

2.4 Provide the resources required to preserve knowledge by digitizing interviews with Knowledge Keepers and language speakers. Support community-led Indigenous language and cultural programs through permanent, no-barrier funding and resources.  

2.5 Create a permanent fund supporting Indigenous-led initiatives for Indigenous individuals, families, and communities to access cultural knowledge.

[...]

2.7 Fund Indigenous-led initiatives to improve the representation of Indigenous Peoples in media and pop culture.

[...]

4.1 Uphold the social and economic rights of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people by ensuring that Indigenous peoples have services and infrastructure that meet their social and economic needs. All governments must immediately ensure that Indigenous peoples have access to safe housing, clean drinking water and adequate food.

[...]

4.5 Establish a guaranteed annual livable income for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, to meet all their social and economic needs.

4.6 Commence construction of new housing and the provision of repairs for existing housing to meet the housing needs of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t know a single Canadian who doesn’t want to see Indigenous people thrive.  

I've met a few in my life, I also have friends my age who were sent by the government to residential schools and raped.

Quote

If you can find solutions that Indigenous peoples will form a consensus around, great.

I think the biggest challenge is forming a consensus amongst non-indigenous peoples, especially when it comes to Canada getting off its deadbeat ass and addressing the genocide. 

 

Quote

Using extreme language inaccurately, words like genocide, when most Canadians know there was never an intentional (or unintentional) mass murder or elimination of Indigenous peoples, will only cause voters to disengage from Indigenous concerns, which are already far removed from the daily lives of most Canadians. 

Genocide is very accurate according to the originator of the term and who's definition the Final Report cites on page 56.

 

Quote

Defining Genocide

The term “genocide” was first used by the Polish-Jewish legal scholar Raphael Lemkin at a
conference in Madrid in 1933. Lemkin later elaborated his ideas in a book, published in 1944,
dealing with German actions within the context of the buildup to the Second World War. The
term “genocide,” as coined by Lemkin, is a hybrid between the Greek root genos (“family,”
“tribe,” or “race”) and the Latin suffix -cide (“killing”).
“Genocide,” in its original construction, is defined as coordinated actions aimed at the destruction
of a group, committed against individual members belonging to that group. In Lemkin’s construction of the idea, genocide would have two phases that could contribute to establishing the political
domination of the oppressor group. The first included the destruction of the “national pattern of
the group,” and the second phase included what he called the “imposition of the national pattern
of the oppressor,” which could be imposed on the population that remained in the territory, or on
the territory itself within the context of colonization of the land by a new group.

Writing in the context of the German state’s actions in the Second World War, Lemkin defined
“genocide” as occurring across several different fields:
• political, including the attack on, and subsequent disintegration of, political institutions
• social, including the abolition of existing laws and the imposition of new justice systems
• cultural, including forbidding the use of languages in schools and in the press
• economic, including the destruction of the financial base of the group, and including
actions aimed to cripple or to reverse its development
• biological, including measures aimed at decreasing the birthrate among groups of
people
• physical, including the endangering of health, and mass killings
• religious, including the disruption of existing systems of religion and spirituality, and
the imposition of new systems
• moral, including “attempts to create an atmosphere of moral debasement within this
group”1 

Judging by the response from a lot of the usual suspects around here I'd say attempts to create an atmosphere of moral debasement has enjoyed a lot of success.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've met a few in my life, I also have friends my age who were sent by the government to residential schools and raped.

I think the biggest challenge is forming a consensus amongst non-indigenous peoples, especially when it comes to Canada getting off its deadbeat ass and addressing the genocide. 

Thank you for being a mensch.  I have to be reminded sometimes that there are human beings still who won't hear stories of suffering and decide to turn in into word quibbling.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've met a few in my life, I also have friends my age who were sent by the government to residential schools and raped.

I think the biggest challenge is forming a consensus amongst non-indigenous peoples, especially when it comes to Canada getting off its deadbeat ass and addressing the genocide. 

 

Genocide is very accurate according to the originator of the term and who's definition the Final Report cites on page 56.

 

Judging by the response from a lot of the usual suspects around here I'd say attempts to create an atmosphere of moral debasement has enjoyed a lot of success.

No, language is important here.  The root "gen" refers to a generation or people.  "Cide" means killing.  Using extreme language to inaccurately characterize real events is unethical.  A lot of things went on that should not have in most schools 30 plus years ago, especially a century ago, including verbal, physical, and sexual abuse.  Sexual abuse and injurious physical abuse was never permitted in schools by the Canadian government.  If rogue perpetrators broke laws and did these things, you can't condemn the government for that.  There is a sound argument to be made that the government condoned eliminating aspects of Indigenous culture, including language, which is of course wrong by today's standards, but back then it was considered by many voters to be an important part of education, especially since bringing "Indians" into the mainstream culture, including using one of the official languages that are used in workplaces and government, would be considered an asset to being lifted out of poverty.  If Indigenous peoples from remote and small communities want to attend an Indigenous high school, they are still going to have to move from home and attend a kind of residential school.  Students are still suffering in Indigenous-run schools where native languages are taught.

Let's follow your prevaricating, generous attitude though.  All of these problems Indigenous people have experienced (including the murders and rapes of Indigenous females, two thirds of which were "committed" by Indigenous people) were caused by a colonial system for which you are responsible.  As Canadians you are complicit in genocide.  You are thieves of land and culture.  You are perpetrators of racism and you must pay reparations.  Your property must revert to Indigenous ownership, but you can rent land at a 99 year lease.  The cost of implementing all of the recommendations of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls includes providing a guaranteed income for everyone, housing and food for all Indigenous, and a number of additional special services and programs.  This is in addition to the free land, higher education, and tax breaks Indigenous peoples receive.  The cost is in the hundreds of billions.  This will require taxation increases on your income and good and services of from 60 to 80 percent.  Put your money where your mouth is and pay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thank you for being a mensch.  I have to be reminded sometimes that there are human beings still who won't hear stories of suffering and decide to turn in into word quibbling.  

Yeah, the people who have exactly the same beliefs as you. Everyone else is heartless and evil.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, language is important here.

Yes language is critically important and so are the definitions for the words used in that language.  The authors of the report clearly took the effort to ensure their definition was the same definition that the original coiner of the word intended. Whatever other points you were trying to make are mostly moot once you agree with Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide. Are you suggesting his definition of genocide is not right or up for debate?  I'm aware of the current popularity of the argument that physical extermination is a requirement for the definition for genocide but as pointed out in the report;

Quote

Lemkin’s definition of genocide included an important principle, which didn’t restrict the
definition to physical destruction of a nation or ethnic group. As he explained:
Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction
of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the
destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of
annihilating the groups themselves.2

References to Lemkin are in the footnotes.  His definition was clearly much broader than the very narrow scope you and other detractors of the term genocide are using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes language is critically important and so are the definitions for the words used in that language.  The authors of the report clearly took the effort to ensure their definition was the same definition that the original coiner of the word intended. Whatever other points you were trying to make are mostly moot once you agree with Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide. Are you suggesting his definition of genocide is not right or up for debate?  I'm aware of the current popularity of the argument that physical extermination is a requirement for the definition for genocide but as pointed out in the report;

References to Lemkin are in the footnotes.  His definition was clearly much broader than the very narrow scope you and other detractors of the term genocide are using.

“Cide” literally means kill and has that meaning in homocide, fratricide, infanticide, you get the idea.  Using that word so loosely, a word used to describe the intentional mass murder of races and peoples in the past, such as Jews or Armenians, is irresponsible.  The problem with the report of the inquiry is that it takes a very serious socio-economic, racial, gender issue with a very specific history that requires thoughtful attention and uses it as a wedge to make a set of tenuously or totally unrelated measures.  What the hell does guaranteed basic income have to do with missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls?  It also lays the personal responsibility of the people who actually committed these crimes at the foot of colonialism.  What a copout. No government in Canada has ever condoned such crimes, and the people who put together the Indian Act, residential schools, and reserve system are long gone, not that such policies should be held responsible for these murders.  They are contributing factors to poverty, cultural marginalization, and social problems that are significant and should be addressed with concrete measures.  So what is stopping this from happening?  If it’s about policy and reasonable funding it should be fixable.  

I think it’s also about other uncomfortable truths that people don’t want to talk about, such as a culture of reliance on outside support. A condition of self governance is a certain amount of self-reliance.  If it’s a matter of asking for more money without accountability to the providers of that money, that only reinforces the dependence.  Nevertheless, racism is still a problem, conditions on reserves must change, and there must be better protections for these vulnerable women.  Some of the inquiry’s recommendations are very sensible and important.  

Just don’t turn this into some kind of social safety net omnibus bill that will only be supported by a narrow segment of the left.  

Politicizing serious issues and invoking inflammatory language is off putting, yet the focus of the inquiry is an important one.  I mention taxation to you because I’ve learned that commitment to causes is more accurately measured by how much people are willing to sacrifice.  Yet I also believe that not all solutions involve increased spending.  It’s called cutting our cloth to fit and living within our means.  Reallocate existing resources with sensible policies.  Start there.  

I assure you that there are vested interests in maintaining the current dysfunctional system.  Interestingly, I don’t think non-Indigenous people are standing in the way, unless the initiatives involve demanding more of their income.  Now you’re talking about people’s priorities and money.  When I look at the costs in increased taxation of implementing all of these resolutions, I just see the public disengaging.  If taxes climbed to such a height to pay for what is essentially unconditional wraparound financial support (for housing, food, transportation infrastructure, community programs, health, and education), I would certainly take advantage of my dual citizenship and leave the country.  I’m sure many others would agree.  How much buy-in can you expect?  It’s hard enough to take care of your own family.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

“Cide” literally means kill and has that meaning in homocide, fratricide, infanticide, you get the idea.  

Genocide means what Lemkin said no matter how much you refuse to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Genocide means what Lemkin said no matter how much you refuse to get it.

I don’t care what an obscure theorist said about it when the word was first coined.  What matters is the common understanding of the word by social convention and common usage.  Here are the definitions that most people denote when they use the word:  

From Cambridge Dictionary:  genocide definition: 1. the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race, or religious group: 

From Wikipedia: The precise etymology of the word however, is a compound of the ancient Greek word γένος (birth, genus, kind) or Latin word gēns (tribe, clan) and the Latin word caedō (cut, kill). While there are various definitions of the term, almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).[3] This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide; there is also growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Genocide means what Lemkin said no matter how much you refuse to get it.

The word genocide has important implications because of its conventional and common usage to describe the intentional murder or elimination of a people.  The closest Canada has come to an attempt at physical removal would be in sterilizations, but again these weren’t part of a systematic national program.

Where substance abuse, neglectful parenting, and unprotected sex led to unwanted pregnancies and continued reckless behaviour, sometimes this seemed like a reasonable solution, harsh as it may sound.  

Anyway I’m not here to be an apologist for misguided practices, just to bring a dose of reality to the shrill misleading rhetoric that gets in the way of addressing real problems with fact-based solutions.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 11:40 AM, eyeball said:

And don't be shy about weighing in on climate change too.  Conservative political parties need all the help they can get.

Climate change is real. The planet doesn't have a static environment. However what the leftists actually mean is AGW and l'm not buying it.  Do our activities contribute in any way? Most likely, we affect every other part of the environment. Are we the primary driver? THAT is the question that is still debatable. There is no consensus about it either, the 97% consensus is a myth. 97% is a result of fun with numbers. But this ain't the thread to get into that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 11:40 AM, eyeball said:

And don't be shy about weighing in on climate change too.  Conservative political parties need all the help they can get.

Climate change is real. The planet doesn't have a static environment. However what the leftists actually mean is AGW and l'm not buying it.  Do our activities contribute in any way? Most likely, we affect every other part of the environment. Are we the primary driver? THAT is the question that is still debatable. There is no consensus about it either, the 97% consensus is a myth. 97% is a result of fun with numbers. But this ain't the thread to get into that. :D

 

On 6/6/2019 at 11:25 AM, Dougie93 said:

Good post.  You nailed it. 

Welcome to the forum. Stick around, we need more members who will speak out against the absurd Orwellian contradictions of these totalitarian "Progressive" Bolshevists.

Ugh. Nothing more annoying than a bunch of emotional and moral relativists. There's just no talking to them. It's like trying to convince religious idiots that their religion is just a bunch of made up bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've met a few in my life, I also have friends my age who were sent by the government to residential schools and raped.

I have friends who were sent by the government to Catholic orphanages and were raped.

So, according to your logic, we need to give tens of thousands of $$$ to each and every Catholic in Canada.  Every year, into perpetuity.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I don’t care what an obscure theorist said about it when the word was first coined.  

You didn't even read the article you provided a link for did you?

Quote

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.[1] It defines genocide in legal terms, and is the culmination of years of campaigning by lawyer Raphael Lemkin.[2] All participating countries are advised to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime. As of May 2019, 150 states have ratified or acceded to the treaty, most recently Turkmenistan on 26 December 2018.[3] One state, the Dominican Republic, has signed but not ratified the treaty.

 

Quote

What matters is the common understanding of the word by social convention and common usage.

No this simply does not matter one bit. 

What matters are the legal terms of the Genocide Convention a convention that clearly includes the definition the obscure theorist you're dismissing articulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannuck said:

I have friends who were sent by the government to Catholic orphanages and were raped.

So, according to your logic, we need to give tens of thousands of $$$ to each and every Catholic in Canada.  Every year, into perpetuity.

No, this is only according to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, this is only according to you.

Explain to me then why we are expected to do this for Indians?

Canada is supposed to be a land of equals.  The current extreme of the polically correct seem to think aboriginals are entitled to be more than equal.

Let me give you another example:  there are aboriginal "olympics+ that every virtue signalling politician and left wing loonie celebrates with pride.  How do you think it would fly if we held a "White Male Only Olympic" meet?"

Speaking of which:  Canada has a bunch of Gay Pride parades.  I can already hear you and the liberal media bitch and moan when I announce my "Straight Guys and Gals Only" parade.

Edited by cannuck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Explain to me then why we are expected to do this for Indians?

It's patently clear no explanation will ever suffice so you'll just have to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Armchairprophet said:

Ugh. Nothing more annoying than a bunch of emotional and moral relativists. There's just no talking to them. It's like trying to convince religious idiots that their religion is just a bunch of made up bullshit.

Don't try to prove a negative; fool's errand, all you can do it present your position then cross examine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 4:45 PM, ironstone said:

No doubt natives have suffered at the hands of others in the past but will there ever be a time when anyone in their ranks will stand up and say it's about time to stop continually blaming others for all their ills and start taking responsibility for their own lives.

Why not make an effort to stop the cycle of dependency on tax dollars.

 

As above ^^

Is there ever a time when someone refuses to be a victim, refuses to view themselves as a victim, refuses to play the part of a victim . . . 

Generations of natives with no direction, no concept of how to look after themselves, no work ethic, no skills, no need to do anything . . . there is no amount of money that will 'fix' this.

With a little bit of initiative and enthusiasm, most anyone can make their life better . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...