In article <
m7mvvgpmtogo4b54c...@4ax.com>,
fed...@fea.st says...
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 03:36:45 -0500, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <
2uurvgptcb728qibt...@4ax.com>,
fed...@fea.st
>>says...
>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 23:08:34 -0500, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <
pfhrvg5s72stmq7n6...@4ax.com>,
fed...@fea.st
>>>>says...
>>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 17:55:19 -0500, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <
h53rvgdlf8gsrbqef...@4ax.com>,
fed...@fea.st
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 14:50:38 -0500, Love <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <stjjun$3vg$
1...@dont-email.me>,
Wil...@nowhere.net says...
>>>>>>>>>On 2/4/2022 8:16 AM, liaM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2022 2:05 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 3:37 PM, liaM wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not in dispute is that 150,000 kids were forced to attend
>>>>>>>>>>>> boarding schools in what can be rightly called a policy aimed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a cultural genocide by the Canadian government, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> was only stopped in the '90s.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From another point of view, they were lifting those kids out of
>>>>>>>>>>> generational poverty and helping their people into the 20th
>>>>>>>>>>> century.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your logic is heartless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's only a point of view. If you're unable to see it, why would you
>>>>>>>>>expect them to see yours?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I actually agree with you that it was heartless to take the kids away
>>>>>>>>>from their parents against their will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What about taking neglected kids away from parents
>>>>>>>>before they starve to death,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Probably not the case in this situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is that the truth or your guess from your news
>>>>>>universe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What was the case then?
>>>>>
>>>>>The way I hear it, indigenous culture provided for their needs. The
>>>>>effort was to extinguish that culture, in effect making them dependant
>>>>>on canadian society (providing as little as possible), and freeing
>>>>>their lands for whatever use canadians wanted to make of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Left to themselves, there is every reason to suspect that they would
>>>>>have cared for their children, as all races do.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is, if they are not torn from their homelands and shipped across
>>>>>the ocean and sold into slavery, or something. When parents start
>>>>>feeling that they have nothing to offer their children but the same
>>>>>torment they endure, things can get twisted.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is also true that every race produces a few individuals who can
>>>>>rise above it all and make a decent life for themselves regardless.
>>>>>This little town has a practicing female lawyer born on the nearby
>>>>>reserve, for instance. Most people are not capable of that kind of
>>>>>transformation.
>>>>
>>>>Indigenous culture "provided for the needs"
>>>>of all surviving indigenous peoples
>>>>everywhere, obviously. Some had terrible
>>>>disease problems, and terrible war problems,
>>>>and terrible famine problems, but they
>>>>survived so their needs must have been "met"
>>>>by definition. That's not a high bar.
>>>
>>>You'd be surprised, apparently. There was trade between eu and na
>>>in those days, greenland appears to have been sort of a hub. And then
>>>south into central america. Illinois/Indiana appears to have been an
>>>indian style urban sorta center. Once upon a distant time.
>>>
>>>Read some Joseph Boyden, then maybe sample some histories.
>
>Understood, you really don't want to know what happened.
>
>>Maybe I just say take your homework assignments
>>and put them where the sun don't shine, teacher.
>>
>>>Yes, their lives were difficult by our standards
>>>1) like many otherly cultures also appear to us
>>>2) perhaps we have become softies?
>>
>>Irrelevant. I have described the path of
>>disruption of their culture, through trade
>>with Europeans. I am not judging them
>>inferior for having that culture. In fact
>>you are making that judgement implicitly
>>but you don't see it, calling their choice
>>to buy European goods "materialistic".
>
>No, I called your description of their relative well being
>materialistic. You not them.
>
>>>>And clearly, indigenous people themselves
>>>>chose to trade for things their own culture
>>>>lacked, like metal and woven goods, and
>>>>sometimes even wheels. Perhaps our
>>>>European ancestors should have had the
>>>>wisdom to see how trading with such peoples
>>>>would disrupt their cultures irreparably,
>>>>and decided to not trade at all. Perhaps
>>>>Indigenous ancestors should have seen that
>>>>coming too, and refused to trade as well.
>>>>
>>>>Both are guilty of choosing opportunity
>>>>instead of caution.
>>>>
>>>>Imagine the power imbalances a few metal
>>>>items like axes and knives and traps would
>>>>have created for technologically stone age
>>>>peoples. Imbalances that would need to be
>>>>corrected by others also trading for such
>>>>things, or making other deals with the
>>>>foreign devils (like for territory and/or
>>>>military manpower to be deployed against
>>>>enemies, even other indigenous people).
>>>>
>>>>No, the mess is ordinary and very human, not
>>>>the consequence of bad actors (colonialists)
>>>>versus good actors (indigenous). Only the
>>>>non-discovery of the Americas by more
>>>>technologically advanced cultures could have
>>>>prevented it, but in any case, it wasn't
>>>>idyllic even left alone. It was harsh beyond
>>>>comprehension. No one in his right mind
>>>>would have turned down a few knives, axes,
>>>>guns or snowmobiles to give him a leg up in
>>>>those circumstances. And no fair person
>>>>would have turned him down and said "trust
>>>>me, you will be better off without these
>>>>goods" because he would have known the
>>>>advantages of them himself.
>>>
>>>A very materialistic outlook. Having a snowmobile is no assurance of
>>>a good life. It is like the us thinking that the world needs to
>>>emulate us style democracy, as if it were so perfect after all.
>>
>>Oh, "materialistic", how rotten of anyone to
>>be materialistic. Yet, given a chance to own
>>a knife made of steel, versus a sharpened bone
>>or a sliver of obsidian, most people will
>>ignore your moralism and take the knife made
>>of steel.
>
>How silly to think that somebody's well being depends on owning a
>snowmobile or not. As many of us continue to buy the new $1200+
>telephones. Are those that do that any happier than the ones who do
>not?
Ass. You know very well that I was extending
a history of trade from simple things like
knives and then guns into the present.
>>>>And nobody with a heart could have seen the
>>>>cultural devastation and the consequences of
>>>>it on children, and not thought there must
>>>>be a better option.
>>>
>>>As if one were wise enough to know what that might be.
>>
>>Compassionate enough to try something new.
>
>I don't hear cries from them for access to our something new. They
>have that. I hear cries for the what they lost, which feels to them
>(perhaps) as too high a cost for our something new.
Right now, clean water is a big issue, but we
are funding investigations into the hypothesised
residential school mass graves(or negotiations on
the terms that such investigations may take place
under). Can we do two things at once? Yes.
Will the government pay attention to the headline
grabbing issue and ignore the other if it can?
Yes.
>>> But the
>>>residential school uproar is about a lot more than learning things,
>>>right?
>>
>>Duh.
>
>Oh, good, you did know that.
Ass.