Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[crazy canuck]

In fact, setting the baseline of deaths overall at a very high level is the first point raised after saying the current narrative in the media is "entirely made up".

First, we have always known that many children died in the residential schools, which were active through the 19th and 20th centuries. Child mortality was relatively high during that period to begin with; Indian mortality overall was astronomically high; and the Church-run schools for native children were systemically underfunded by the government, resulting in subpar facilities and inadequate medical care.

mortality was high because Indians were put on reservations and not fed taken care of thereafter.  Most of these people were nomads, following the bisons or reindeers, depending where they were.  Then the bisons were no more.  And they were forced to sedentary life styles in places where agriculture was extremely hard to perform. And then there are the epidemics transmitted by the whites, unwittingly that adds up.  And the experiment in maltrunition in the boarding schools, under the guise of science.  It will be hard to distinguish what was the result of neglect what was unavoidable mortality for the time.

Well at least there are some partial truths in there.  But the death of the kids at Kamloops had nothing to do with Bisons being no more.

[Zoupa]

I actually feel really bad for Barrister. He is a good guy trying to figure out how to square being a religious conservative with what modern religious conservatives have become.

He isn't willing to abandon his faith, nor is he willing to abandon his core identity as a "conservative", but keeps finding himself in company with a bunch of crazy, dangerous, immoral people. He is none of those things, but has to somehow square the reality that his political identity is tied up in modern fanaticism, and doesn't want to examine how that happened.

For the love of all that is good, what's the point of this post Berkut? You can read minds now?

How is BB supposed to feel/answer when he reads your 0.02$ coming out of left field? You gotta learn to stfu once in a while dude.

[Tamas]

I actually feel really bad for Barrister. He is a good guy trying to figure out how to square being a religious conservative with what modern religious conservatives have become.

He isn't willing to abandon his faith, nor is he willing to abandon his core identity as a "conservative", but keeps finding himself in company with a bunch of crazy, dangerous, immoral people. He is none of those things, but has to somehow square the reality that his political identity is tied up in modern fanaticism, and doesn't want to examine how that happened.

For the love of all that is good, what's the point of this post Berkut? You can read minds now?

How is BB supposed to feel/answer when he reads your 0.02$ coming out of left field? You gotta learn to stfu once in a while dude.

If we knew when to shut up this forum would have died a decade ago.

[garbon]

I actually feel really bad for Barrister. He is a good guy trying to figure out how to square being a religious conservative with what modern religious conservatives have become.

He isn't willing to abandon his faith, nor is he willing to abandon his core identity as a "conservative", but keeps finding himself in company with a bunch of crazy, dangerous, immoral people. He is none of those things, but has to somehow square the reality that his political identity is tied up in modern fanaticism, and doesn't want to examine how that happened.

For the love of all that is good, what's the point of this post Berkut? You can read minds now?

How is BB supposed to feel/answer when he reads your 0.02$ coming out of left field? You gotta learn to stfu once in a while dude.

They've been battling across a few threads now so I don't see how out of the blue.

[Maladict]

Can't believe I'm saying this but Syt, please post some of your sister's crap.

[Syt]

Can't believe I'm saying this but Syt, please post some of your sister's crap.

Best I can do right now.

[Duque de Bragança]

That will be enough for now, Syt. 

[viper37]

Well at least there are some partial truths in there.  But the death of the kids at Kamloops had nothing to do with Bisons being no more.

their tribes were mostly nomads forced into a sedentary lifestyle and then underfed in their reservations.  Only a few were semi-sedentaries, but they were displaced from the best lands as settlements increased anyway.

From there, the kids were taken and put into boarding schools, hundreds of kilometers from their homes where they would be educated in the white's way.  The originators of the idea in the early 19th century thought they were doing them good and saw it as a way to break the cycle of poverty and hardlife in the reservations.

Once it began, as the indian culture was seen as inferior to anglo-saxon culture, the priests from Europe were tasked with killing the indian in them.  Even though these priests&nuns came from French speaking lands, including Quebec, teaching was to be made exclusively in English, no other inferior languages were permitted.

Not that the system of the time was particularly "comfy" for orphaned&abandoned childrens, but with First Nations, given that they were taken away from their family and their families often never heard of them ever again, it was much more cruel.

So, yeah, it had to do with the idea that we needed to change the indian culture *right now*, transforming nomad societies into sedentary ones over the course of a few years.  From there, the rest follows.  Once they were no longer able to take care of themselves and depended on governt good-will to survive, we decided it would be for the best if they were to be assimilated into the "superior" Anglo-Saxon culture so they would stand a chance in the "modern" world.

If the word "bison" bothers you, just replace it by whatever seasonal sustenance these nations used while moving around.  Salmon, whales, deers, moose, etc.

[Syt]

[crazy canuck]

Well at least there are some partial truths in there.  But the death of the kids at Kamloops had nothing to do with Bisons being no more.

their tribes were mostly nomads forced into a sedentary lifestyle and then underfed in their reservations.  Only a few were semi-sedentaries, but they were displaced from the best lands as settlements increased anyway.

From there, the kids were taken and put into boarding schools, hundreds of kilometers from their homes where they would be educated in the white's way.  The originators of the idea in the early 19th century thought they were doing them good and saw it as a way to break the cycle of poverty and hardlife in the reservations.

Once it began, as the indian culture was seen as inferior to anglo-saxon culture, the priests from Europe were tasked with killing the indian in them.  Even though these priests&nuns came from French speaking lands, including Quebec, teaching was to be made exclusively in English, no other inferior languages were permitted.

Not that the system of the time was particularly "comfy" for orphaned&abandoned childrens, but with First Nations, given that they were taken away from their family and their families often never heard of them ever again, it was much more cruel.

So, yeah, it had to do with the idea that we needed to change the indian culture *right now*, transforming nomad societies into sedentary ones over the course of a few years.  From there, the rest follows.  Once they were no longer able to take care of themselves and depended on governt good-will to survive, we decided it would be for the best if they were to be assimilated into the "superior" Anglo-Saxon culture so they would stand a chance in the "modern" world.

If the word "bison" bothers you, just replace it by whatever seasonal sustenance these nations used while moving around.  Salmon, whales, deers, moose, etc.

It is problematic to make those sorts of sweeping generalizations which assume that all indigenous experiences were the same.  There is no such thing as one Indigenous Culture.  There is also no such thing as all groups being nomadic.  As an example there were a number of pre-contact indigenous permanent communities in BC.  Think of the Haida, the Nisga'a, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Musqueam, etc etc etc.  I am not as familiar with the interior indigenous communities in BC but I do know that there were also a number of permanent communities there as well.  A number of those communities continued to exist despite contact with the settlers.  The Nisga'a and Haida, as examples, have always been the dominant group on their lands.  That is part of the reason the Nisga'a treaty was the first modern treaty - the lands were not in dispute and what settler populations had come to their lands had long since de facto been living within Nisga'a traditions.

It is not the word Bison that bothers me.  It is the argument that indigenous communities were no longer functional because their "nomadic" way of life was disrupted.  As I have pointed out your assertion that all communities were nomadic is just plain wrong.  But more problematic is the argument (which I want to emphasize you did not make but which does flow from the sort of inaccurate observations you have made) that the communities and homes from which the children were taken were no longer viable and so as bad as the residential schools were, the children were still better off despite all the horrors.  That is not true and was completely discredited in the TRC report.  To use the Nisga'a again as an example.  Those communities were thriving and still the children were taken away.  As you say, this was never about the welfare of the children.  This was always about assimilation.

Please keep in mind that when trying to describe what occurred with indigenous communities in BC there are significant geographical differences within BC and and with the rest of the country. Remember we are talking about a landmass larger than France and Germany combined.  There are also significant differences with the way various indigenous communities within BC interacted with the settler populations.  No one simplistic explanation that attempts to describe the hundreds of different indigenous communities across the country will be adequate to the task.   

[viper37]

Well at least there are some partial truths in there.  But the death of the kids at Kamloops had nothing to do with Bisons being no more.

their tribes were mostly nomads forced into a sedentary lifestyle and then underfed in their reservations.  Only a few were semi-sedentaries, but they were displaced from the best lands as settlements increased anyway.

From there, the kids were taken and put into boarding schools, hundreds of kilometers from their homes where they would be educated in the white's way.  The originators of the idea in the early 19th century thought they were doing them good and saw it as a way to break the cycle of poverty and hardlife in the reservations.

Once it began, as the indian culture was seen as inferior to anglo-saxon culture, the priests from Europe were tasked with killing the indian in them.  Even though these priests&nuns came from French speaking lands, including Quebec, teaching was to be made exclusively in English, no other inferior languages were permitted.

Not that the system of the time was particularly "comfy" for orphaned&abandoned childrens, but with First Nations, given that they were taken away from their family and their families often never heard of them ever again, it was much more cruel.

So, yeah, it had to do with the idea that we needed to change the indian culture *right now*, transforming nomad societies into sedentary ones over the course of a few years.  From there, the rest follows.  Once they were no longer able to take care of themselves and depended on governt good-will to survive, we decided it would be for the best if they were to be assimilated into the "superior" Anglo-Saxon culture so they would stand a chance in the "modern" world.

If the word "bison" bothers you, just replace it by whatever seasonal sustenance these nations used while moving around.  Salmon, whales, deers, moose, etc.

It is problematic to make those sorts of sweeping generalizations which assume that all indigenous experiences were the same.  There is no such thing as one Indigenous Culture.  There is also no such thing as all groups being nomadic.  As an example there were a number of pre-contact indigenous permanent communities in BC.  Think of the Haida, the Nisga'a, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Musqueam, etc etc etc.  I am not as familiar with the interior indigenous communities in BC but I do know that there were also a number of permanent communities there as well.  A number of those communities continued to exist despite contact with the settlers.  The Nisga'a and Haida, as examples, have always been the dominant group on their lands.  That is part of the reason the Nisga'a treaty was the first modern treaty - the lands were not in dispute and what settler populations had come to their lands had long since de facto been living within Nisga'a traditions.

It is not the word Bison that bothers me.  It is the argument that indigenous communities were no longer functional because their "nomadic" way of life was disrupted.  As I have pointed out your assertion that all communities were nomadic is just plain wrong.  But more problematic is the argument (which I want to emphasize you did not make but which does flow from the sort of inaccurate observations you have made) that the communities and homes from which the children were taken were no longer viable and so as bad as the residential schools were, the children were still better off despite all the horrors.  That is not true and was completely discredited in the TRC report.  To use the Nisga'a again as an example.  Those communities were thriving and still the children were taken away.  As you say, this was never about the welfare of the children.  This was always about assimilation.

Please keep in mind that when trying to describe what occurred with indigenous communities in BC there are significant geographical differences within BC and and with the rest of the country. Remember we are talking about a landmass larger than France and Germany combined.  There are also significant differences with the way various indigenous communities within BC interacted with the settler populations.  No one simplistic explanation that attempts to describe the hundreds of different indigenous communities across the country will be adequate to the task.   

I did not use a single explanation, nor did I say they were all nomads.  But to my knowledge, there were no permanent indigenous cities by the time of European colonization in North America.  Nothing like the Aztecs.  I think there were some cities with stone buildings when the Spanish begun exploring the Southern US regions though, but these were gone by the time the French & British settled there.

[crazy canuck]

Well at least there are some partial truths in there.  But the death of the kids at Kamloops had nothing to do with Bisons being no more.

their tribes were mostly nomads forced into a sedentary lifestyle and then underfed in their reservations.  Only a few were semi-sedentaries, but they were displaced from the best lands as settlements increased anyway.

From there, the kids were taken and put into boarding schools, hundreds of kilometers from their homes where they would be educated in the white's way.  The originators of the idea in the early 19th century thought they were doing them good and saw it as a way to break the cycle of poverty and hardlife in the reservations.

Once it began, as the indian culture was seen as inferior to anglo-saxon culture, the priests from Europe were tasked with killing the indian in them.  Even though these priests&nuns came from French speaking lands, including Quebec, teaching was to be made exclusively in English, no other inferior languages were permitted.

Not that the system of the time was particularly "comfy" for orphaned&abandoned childrens, but with First Nations, given that they were taken away from their family and their families often never heard of them ever again, it was much more cruel.

So, yeah, it had to do with the idea that we needed to change the indian culture *right now*, transforming nomad societies into sedentary ones over the course of a few years.  From there, the rest follows.  Once they were no longer able to take care of themselves and depended on governt good-will to survive, we decided it would be for the best if they were to be assimilated into the "superior" Anglo-Saxon culture so they would stand a chance in the "modern" world.

If the word "bison" bothers you, just replace it by whatever seasonal sustenance these nations used while moving around.  Salmon, whales, deers, moose, etc.

It is problematic to make those sorts of sweeping generalizations which assume that all indigenous experiences were the same.  There is no such thing as one Indigenous Culture.  There is also no such thing as all groups being nomadic.  As an example there were a number of pre-contact indigenous permanent communities in BC.  Think of the Haida, the Nisga'a, the Tsleil-Waututh, the Musqueam, etc etc etc.  I am not as familiar with the interior indigenous communities in BC but I do know that there were also a number of permanent communities there as well.  A number of those communities continued to exist despite contact with the settlers.  The Nisga'a and Haida, as examples, have always been the dominant group on their lands.  That is part of the reason the Nisga'a treaty was the first modern treaty - the lands were not in dispute and what settler populations had come to their lands had long since de facto been living within Nisga'a traditions.

It is not the word Bison that bothers me.  It is the argument that indigenous communities were no longer functional because their "nomadic" way of life was disrupted.  As I have pointed out your assertion that all communities were nomadic is just plain wrong.  But more problematic is the argument (which I want to emphasize you did not make but which does flow from the sort of inaccurate observations you have made) that the communities and homes from which the children were taken were no longer viable and so as bad as the residential schools were, the children were still better off despite all the horrors.  That is not true and was completely discredited in the TRC report.  To use the Nisga'a again as an example.  Those communities were thriving and still the children were taken away.  As you say, this was never about the welfare of the children.  This was always about assimilation.

Please keep in mind that when trying to describe what occurred with indigenous communities in BC there are significant geographical differences within BC and and with the rest of the country. Remember we are talking about a landmass larger than France and Germany combined.  There are also significant differences with the way various indigenous communities within BC interacted with the settler populations.  No one simplistic explanation that attempts to describe the hundreds of different indigenous communities across the country will be adequate to the task.   

I did not use a single explanation, nor did I say they were all nomads.  But to my knowledge, there were no permanent indigenous cities by the time of European colonization in North America.  Nothing like the Aztecs.  I think there were some cities with stone buildings when the Spanish begun exploring the Southern US regions though, but these were gone by the time the French & British settled there.

Ah so now an indigenous community needs to be a city.  Are your arms sore from moving those goal posts.

Rather than trying to defend an explanation that has no universal application, it might be better to read up on the topic a bit more.  You might even find the history of the indigenous peoples who are in BC interesting. 

[viper37]

You keep reading what I never wrote.  Well.  Let's keep it at that.

[crazy canuck]

You keep reading what I never wrote.  Well.  Let's keep it at that.

Please explain what you meant when referring to the Aztecs then.

[Jacob]

You keep reading what I never wrote.  Well.  Let's keep it at that.

I feel like that should be the tagline for languish all up.