Strange Coincidence? I Think Not
Canada Votes Alone for Israel
Canada's rights record blasted during UN review
..but what do I know.
That second one is really funny. Talk about fueling the Indian Industry. One of the funniest parts of it is in the comments. There's this little gem:
First, there's this business of the buffalo. The mass slaughter of the buffalo herds took place in the USA, not in Canada. It was their sudden decline to the point of near extinction that left Indians on the northern plains on the verge of famine, which in turn, made them overly reliant on Ottawa's largess, such as it was during the Victorian era, which prompted the federal government to introduce some very stringent policies and restrictions via the vehicle of the Indian Act, among other means, such as compulsory attendance at industrial/residential schools in order to teach trades and prepare them for economic integration into Canada's society, blah, blah, blah. We all know it didn't work, but that's another story. Best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. Suffice it to say, darling, Canada is not guilty of annihilating the buffalo. Correction number one.
Number two: Chronically underfund? I don't think so. Massive amounts of money from all levels of government in Canada are spent on First Nations issues and self-governance and there are some tremendously wealthy bands. There are also many who squander their wealth and who, despite their wealth and years of self-government, continue to have chronic, intractable social problems. In fact, throwing money at the problem is the problem.
Three: Infect their populations with small pox?? 'fraid not, sweetie. Although that likely did happen - once, it wasn't in Canada. There is strong evidence that during the American Revolutionary War a British General, Jeffrey Amherst, ordered small pox infested blankets to be distributed, not just among the Indians who were fighting along side the American rebels, but among the rebels themselves who would, as a result of their long standing isolation from the old world, have had very little natural immunity to it. Moreover, there are instances later in the history of the United States where heroic efforts were undertaken to inoculate Indians so as to prevent epidemics of deadly communicable diseases. But sorry. Once again, we're not talking about the Brits and the Americans here. Throughout the fur trade era and on into the treaty era, doctoring and medicines have been provided to Indians in Canada. And besides, we're talking about the United Nation's phony indictment of Canada's record on human rights today - 2008/9, so try something else. The perpetual grievance industry should have a statute of limitations.
But what else does our indignant Toronto Star commenter have to say? Oh yes. Four: Confine their children? Well, okay, you have a point there, but that was for a relatively short period of time. The compulsory attendance at residential schools, which I presume is what the commenter is referring to, started in the 1890s and ended in 1951, and hadn't really been enforced for several years prior to that. Compulsory attendance at school is another matter, but school attendance has been compulsory for all children for a very, very long time. Truant officers were a standard feature throughout Canada in my day, and probably still are in one form or another. No group is being singled out in that regard. And besides, education, in the right form, is a good thing and there is a reason it is compulsory.
Five: Denying them the right to vote? True enough. They became eligible to vote without undergoing the long standing policy of enfranchisement (relinquishing their status under the Indian Act) only in 1960, but since then, voter turnout has been very poor. Not saying they shouldn't have the right to vote. Just saying, that our indignant friend may not actually have a bead on what the Indians themselves really wanted back then.
Six: Eradicate their culture? Maybe there's a point there, too, but really, it can hardly be said the Canadian state was entirely successful in that, now can it.
Wanna bet this commenter also worships the United Nations?
Canada's rights record blasted during UN review
..but what do I know.
That second one is really funny. Talk about fueling the Indian Industry. One of the funniest parts of it is in the comments. There's this little gem:
"You can't shoot your neighbour's dog one day, and then tell them to 'get over it' and move on the day after. Neither can you destroy their buffalo, confine their children, deny them the right to vote, attempt to eradicate their culture, infect their populations with small pox, and chronically underfund their communities and then expect equitable outcomes or a "well done Canada". Canada need to wake up and smell the apartheid."Shooting your neighbour's dog, huh. This poor puppy has swallowed a whole bunch of misinformation and distortion.
First, there's this business of the buffalo. The mass slaughter of the buffalo herds took place in the USA, not in Canada. It was their sudden decline to the point of near extinction that left Indians on the northern plains on the verge of famine, which in turn, made them overly reliant on Ottawa's largess, such as it was during the Victorian era, which prompted the federal government to introduce some very stringent policies and restrictions via the vehicle of the Indian Act, among other means, such as compulsory attendance at industrial/residential schools in order to teach trades and prepare them for economic integration into Canada's society, blah, blah, blah. We all know it didn't work, but that's another story. Best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. Suffice it to say, darling, Canada is not guilty of annihilating the buffalo. Correction number one.
Number two: Chronically underfund? I don't think so. Massive amounts of money from all levels of government in Canada are spent on First Nations issues and self-governance and there are some tremendously wealthy bands. There are also many who squander their wealth and who, despite their wealth and years of self-government, continue to have chronic, intractable social problems. In fact, throwing money at the problem is the problem.
Three: Infect their populations with small pox?? 'fraid not, sweetie. Although that likely did happen - once, it wasn't in Canada. There is strong evidence that during the American Revolutionary War a British General, Jeffrey Amherst, ordered small pox infested blankets to be distributed, not just among the Indians who were fighting along side the American rebels, but among the rebels themselves who would, as a result of their long standing isolation from the old world, have had very little natural immunity to it. Moreover, there are instances later in the history of the United States where heroic efforts were undertaken to inoculate Indians so as to prevent epidemics of deadly communicable diseases. But sorry. Once again, we're not talking about the Brits and the Americans here. Throughout the fur trade era and on into the treaty era, doctoring and medicines have been provided to Indians in Canada. And besides, we're talking about the United Nation's phony indictment of Canada's record on human rights today - 2008/9, so try something else. The perpetual grievance industry should have a statute of limitations.
But what else does our indignant Toronto Star commenter have to say? Oh yes. Four: Confine their children? Well, okay, you have a point there, but that was for a relatively short period of time. The compulsory attendance at residential schools, which I presume is what the commenter is referring to, started in the 1890s and ended in 1951, and hadn't really been enforced for several years prior to that. Compulsory attendance at school is another matter, but school attendance has been compulsory for all children for a very, very long time. Truant officers were a standard feature throughout Canada in my day, and probably still are in one form or another. No group is being singled out in that regard. And besides, education, in the right form, is a good thing and there is a reason it is compulsory.
Five: Denying them the right to vote? True enough. They became eligible to vote without undergoing the long standing policy of enfranchisement (relinquishing their status under the Indian Act) only in 1960, but since then, voter turnout has been very poor. Not saying they shouldn't have the right to vote. Just saying, that our indignant friend may not actually have a bead on what the Indians themselves really wanted back then.
Six: Eradicate their culture? Maybe there's a point there, too, but really, it can hardly be said the Canadian state was entirely successful in that, now can it.
Wanna bet this commenter also worships the United Nations?
posted by Louise at 7:26 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home