He also attacked people for misrepresenting what he was saying; while seriously misrepresenting what they were saying, and refusing to address it when that was pointed out to him.
I don’t think it was an unfair characterization, though backing up the accuracy of that pattern would involve quoting a whole lot of posts, any one of which taken individually might have been innocuous.
And what I was also seeing was Martin Hyde clearly saying, in more than one post, that while he thought the specific techniques used in the particular schools were awful he thought the underlying aim of cultural genocide was just fine.
which could by itself be taken to mean he thought those things could be grafted on to the First Nations cultures without harming them, which if done in an entirely different fashion and voluntarily might have been a point (if one ignores the implication that those cultures had no education of their own), but then there’s this exchange (sorry for the length of quote, but I think the context’s necessary to make the point):
Your solution to community destruction is to finish breaking up the communities?
– to which I got crickets.
Now it’s possible Martin_Hyde just doesn’t understand that getting as many tribe members as possible to leave tribal lands (which, as was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, in many cases are ancestral lands; and in at least some of the other cases have been held as communities for multiple generations) and instead scatter as individuals into the country as a whole would be an act of cultural destruction. But that is most definitely what he’s recommending. He just wants the culture to be destroyed by financial means, instead of by kidnapping and torture.
And then, when people objected to this, he claimed they were calling him a Nazi.