You literally quote an instance of your own genocide denial in your most recent post you fucking dipshit.
Genocide denial is not limited to denying that genocide occurred. It includes minimizing the scale and severity of the genocide, and all your posts about residential schools do exactly that. You are contributing to the last stages of this incidence of genocide and are too stupid to realize it.
This would be sad if it wasn’t so abhorrent.
My take is more that it was a misplaced sense of noblesse oblige, I don’t think you need to make them Christians or suppress their native language to get them to run industrial looms. The factories of the era were frequently worked by immigrants who couldn’t speak English. It’s also probably hard to generalize. The entire history of white interactions with the natives is complex with no consistent, unified white stance on them at any given time. Even as far back as the 1600s there were white men advocating we leave them be, albeit quite obviously those voices were never very influential. Meanwhile we had a lot of leaders who weren’t remotely working from a sense of misplaced noblesse oblige but who instead were fairly openly for killing em all and taking their land, and the “only good one is a dead one.”
So you’re just openly lying then? Nothing in my posts denies anything, period. Saying that the separation of natives (temporarily, for set periods of time) from their children was not the same as slave separations a point another poster brought up is not “minimizing’ anything.” If I randomly brought up the canard of “hey this wasn’t as bad as slave family separations” for no reason, there might be some meat to your claim. That is not what happened. Another poster brought up slave separations, I responded to them bringing it up, because the last I checked this board is about fighting ignorance and actually exploring the reality of a topic. When someone compares something, it is useful to put parameters on that comparison. If I was just swooping into the thread dropping arguments out of the blue, you would have some point. When I am pushing back against overly broad, incorrect, or distortionary things other people post, I am working to clarify the informational narrative.
You’re just a straight idiot looking for a fight, and your crutch with your weak pathetic brain is to just assume anyone who isn’t in lock step agreement with you has the worst possible motives. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence you can speak intelligently on this or any other topic.
I note in the other thread you started crying like a little imbecile when I simply said that “while this was definitely genocide and would be called cultural genocide, it doesn’t unambiguously meet the 1948 UN Convention definition”, I then explicitly said that said convention definition is not the only accepted definition of genocide–I also pointed out that lots of elements of Western treatment of natives unambiguously would meet the 1948 convention. But that triggered you because, again, anyone who doesn’t want to have the dumbest, simplest view of something sends you frothing. Since you yourself are only capable of holding the dumbest and simplest of views, it enrages you that other people are capable of applying critical thinking skills to various topics, including controversial ones.
You and people like you, by the way, are why we have so many Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers etc in society today. When people throw away the truth and critical analysis because they just want to froth up a lot to condemn bad people, it creates holes in your arguments, holes that bad actors can use to debunk the entire point you’re making.
Wow. You’re really doubling down on this active participation in late genocide thing. Everyone needs a hobby I guess.
What a piece of shit.
And another non-argument, obviously nothing more to see here.
That seems to invite one to overlook the fact that the existence of the system itself WAS abuse. There was no way to staff it that would have rendered the system NOT abusive.
Why do you so unquestioningly accept their own words about their intentions, when their intentions did not match the actual practices? I mean, in this same era they weren’t taking kids away from other types of “undesirables” on a large scale and sticking them into dangerous environments. This is how they sold Indian Removal. You shouldn’t just knee-jerk assume they sincerely meant every word–because if they did, they wouldn’t have stolen children and crammed them into unsafe facilities.
How many “reformed” Indians did they produce, as a % of the ones stolen?
Your genocide denial is there for all to see. Enjoy being horrible.
On reflection, I have to agree that placing this thread in the Pit was a well-considered move.
Not to agree with @Martin_Hyde or disagree with you about your general thrust, but that just sounds like nonsense.
Maybe you could read the next sentence of that post.
I did. In it you enumerate things that you found problematic about Martin’s approach/attitude. Great. I’m on board. Why those things must be “genocide denial” even if they are, as you admit, not denying that genocide occurred, is beyond me.
Now you can have a semantic pissing match about which “not denying genocide occured” things are in fact denying genocide even though they aren’t.
Knock yourself out, I guess.
Here’s the first sentence of the Wikipedia page on genocide denial…
Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an incidence of genocide.
Minimizing the severity of an incidence of genocide is possibly the most common form of genocide denial. I’m not engaging in a semantic pissing match. I’m using the commonly accepted definition of genocide denial.
In Lance’s world pointing out things that did not, factually happen = minimizing. That’s a hallmark sign of a dishonest/stupid person.
It’s like if someone said the Nazis used space lasers to kill Jews. Pointing out that did not actually happen, is not “minimizing” the Holocaust. A genocide isn’t tagged with a standard by which you cannot perform factual analysis of it, otherwise you’re asserting a standard in which any situation where a genocide has occurred, no analysis of the facts presented, by any person, at any time, anywhere, can be performed.
That in no way resembles what occurred.
The Canadian treatment of the First Nations unambiguously satisfies the UN definition of genocide. Twisting that definition by adding words (permanent, complete) to claim that technically the residential school system wasn’t genocide is a hallmark sign of a dishonest/stupid person.
Again, I never made any such statements.
That’s a pretty bad analogy, as no one is claiming things that didn’t happen.
It would be more like stating that the Nazis didn’t kill all the Jews, so it wasn’t genocide.
Factually correct that they didn’t kill all the Jews, a fact that no one would argue, but it is minimizing what they did do.
You sure did you genocide denying piece of crap.
“Sometime the genociders took Christmas off, derpa, derpa, derp,” is not as great an argument as you seem to think it is.
Or the did it out of a sincere belief that Jews were genetically inferior and they sincerely thought they presented a danger to the rest of humanity, so their intentions were good.