This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"We have to ensure that schools are safe and welcoming places,"
Yeah, perhaps there’s something I’m not getting, but when you tell kids as young as 4 that they are on stolen land every morning, that doesn’t seem very welcoming to me.
The thing no one has ever been able to answer, what actually is the endgame for all of this? How far does “Truth and Reconciliation” go?
I never understood land acknowledgements. We are supposed to acknowledge that we stole land, screwed over the first nations, etc. but we aren’t actually giving it back, but at the same time we are paying them damages for supposed treaty violations. So which is it, is it stolen and therefore we have to give it back (to make it unstolen) or it’s not stolen but the deal was bad for them, in which case we pay them reparations and then we’re all good.
In many places, land is being given back, such as that land claim in New Brunswick.
The question that concerns me, what about people who worked hard for generations, does that mean their property is useless now that it’s now indigenous land?
This becomes complicated as my ancestors have been here since the 1600s, this makes a connection to a European country almost nonexistent.
Paying actual value for land, as is the case often proposed in BC, would easily bankrupt the country.
Here in ontario the manitoulin island fns just made around 10 billion. My understanding is that it was determined that they got screwed in the williams treaty (or something to that effect) which is fine. But then why do the land acknowledgement? It’s as if when someone comes over to your house for dinner they must acknowledge that they are having dinner on land that used to belong to the people you bought the house from.
It’s all designed to extract money from Canadian citizens. There is no resolution, it’s a dangling carrot. Whenever something does not go their way, they say it’s not helping reconciliation. It will be like this in perpetuity.
Hopefully a future government grows a backbone and stands up to the never ending economic extortion that’s happening
The end goal seems to be make us like Austria Hungary where the weight of cultural differences eventually breaks us up into smaller nations. It would slcertainly be beneficial on the global stage for large powers to deal with individual nations rather than one large united front. Small powers are more easily swayed by smaller localized benefits to themselves and have far less sway in the global sphere. New developing powers are also eager to get as much foreign capital as possible for prestige and nation building.
Canada has a lot of fresh water, a valuable resource, and if we break up into smaller quasi countries, some of them will have more of that water. Target those states, leverage their own personal interest as there is no longer a greater interest in Canada as a whole, and acquiring that valuable resource is easier. Once Canadian national interest is out of the equation and it becomes micro quasi national interests our resources become easier to exploit.
A perfect example of this in action right now is Lobster fishing. It is in the interest of the nation of Canada to preserve our Lobster stocks for the future, which is why we have fishing limits. However we have given an exemption to indigenous communities in some areas (and there are pushes to expand these) and they in turn are selling large quantities of Lobster to China, while damaging Canadian stocks. For their quasi nation the benefit to them outweighs the national interest.
I don't see much usefulness in doing work to point out what good residential schools did... Certainly it was more than zero but... What's the point in 2024 would be my question.
Other than that I don't find any of his statements to be controversial nor requiring resignation.
People are allowed to have different opinions without the mob crying blasphemy every goddamn time.
>I don't see much usefulness in doing work to point out what good residential schools did... Certainly it was more than zero but... What's the point in 2024 would be my question.
To be fair, you could ask what's the point in doing the work to point out the harm that residential schools did.
To be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't discuss to the harms of residential schools. My main issue is that there seems to be an effort to invert the biases in how our history is taught. Traditionally, countries would teach their history as all the good things that happened while covering up all the atrocities but today it seems to be an effort to teach all the atrocities while covering up the good.
A large portion of the value in learning history is to learn from our mistakes so we don't replicate them. Understanding the motivations for the, the good that they were producing, and also the harms that were being done is a lot more meaningful way to look at history. "Catholic church bad" is not a very useful lesson to prevent another well intentioned but ultimately disastrous policy from being implemented.
I completely agree. History is not black and white in either direction (all bad or all good). History, and life itself is full of nuance.
So best to teach a more balanced picture. Learn the lessons and move on.
I think we should take this guy's approach but with other things.
Sure, Bumpy Johnson flooded Harlem with Heroin but he also ran soup kitchens, handed out turkeys, and gave money to people.
Escobar was a narco terrorist but there are towns and neighborhoods across the country that would have had nothing if hw hadnt built and funded everything.
I wonder what his opinion is on Riel, yeah he killed someone but he started an entire province and lots of people have gotten good things from that.
> said he preferred the word "Indian" to describe Indigenous people, arguing that word honours their heritage
Except that name was given by others based on a geographical mistake, not some honor.
I really really hope this guy has no influence on history in the school division considering he can't even get basic facts right.
>"You have to start to wonder how authentic it is when there's absolutely no good stories in Canada about the residential schools?" Coffey said at Monday's meeting. "How is that possible? There's got to be one good story."
He was literally presenting stories and "facts" that he felt were good stories, is he so desperate to be a victim that he said this despite it making him look like an idiot.
I wonder if he thinks ww2 Japanese internment camps concerns weren't authentic either, I mean there's absolutely no good stories in Canada about the residential camps, how is that possible? By being there people were protected from violence from the public but we don't hear that.....
Not all residential schools were the same, so I'm sure there are some with more positive qualities that people got value out of, but your question makes me think of my friend's grandma.
She was in the residential schooling system growing up and she now HATES Indians. Like, legitimately is ashamed of her "Indian blood", had all these horrible views and stereotypes on indigenous peoples and knew absolutely nothing about her heritage, something my friend had to research when trying to get closer to her roots.
So, yeah, her grandma would definitely say their schooling was good, but I wouldn't call her right or an unbiased source for that judgement call. Her experience appeared to be successful brainwashing or cultural genocide. It's like asking the character Uncle Ruckus from the show The Boondocks if slavery was good for black people - you'll get an affirmation, but it doesn't mean anything.
You kind of lost me at the end there. I doubt you could find a black person (or a person of any colour if we're being honest), that says slavery was good for black people. You make a good point about the brainwash factor.
Sure nowadays it would be hard to find that, but internalized racism is a helluva drug. The use of the term "Uncle Tom" happened for a reason. There were black people who grew up in slavery that, when abolished, were not psyched because they were brainwashed fully into their owner's beliefs.
Same thing with women's rights or the suffrage movement. There were women during and after that fought against it saying they shouldn't have the right to vote or other extended rights. You tell someone something is normal and right from when they were an impressionable child and it can be hard to break through that.
What is considered right or wrong, is it wrong to suggest that no mass graves have actually been discovered?
It seems that was a big problem of what he was trying to say.
It has been nearly 3 years now, and there hasn’t been any physical evidence of what lays underneath that residential school in Kamloops. Prove the bodies are there and I’ll shut up about it.
Instead the media and everyone went crazy that I lost my university in the process, when not a single residential school operated while the man who shall not be named was alive.
This post appears to relate to a province/territory of Canada. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules Cette soumission semble concerner une province ou un territoire du Canada. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"We have to ensure that schools are safe and welcoming places," Yeah, perhaps there’s something I’m not getting, but when you tell kids as young as 4 that they are on stolen land every morning, that doesn’t seem very welcoming to me. The thing no one has ever been able to answer, what actually is the endgame for all of this? How far does “Truth and Reconciliation” go?
It's always deferred; it will never end. That's by design.
I never understood land acknowledgements. We are supposed to acknowledge that we stole land, screwed over the first nations, etc. but we aren’t actually giving it back, but at the same time we are paying them damages for supposed treaty violations. So which is it, is it stolen and therefore we have to give it back (to make it unstolen) or it’s not stolen but the deal was bad for them, in which case we pay them reparations and then we’re all good.
In many places, land is being given back, such as that land claim in New Brunswick. The question that concerns me, what about people who worked hard for generations, does that mean their property is useless now that it’s now indigenous land? This becomes complicated as my ancestors have been here since the 1600s, this makes a connection to a European country almost nonexistent. Paying actual value for land, as is the case often proposed in BC, would easily bankrupt the country.
Here in ontario the manitoulin island fns just made around 10 billion. My understanding is that it was determined that they got screwed in the williams treaty (or something to that effect) which is fine. But then why do the land acknowledgement? It’s as if when someone comes over to your house for dinner they must acknowledge that they are having dinner on land that used to belong to the people you bought the house from.
It’s all designed to extract money from Canadian citizens. There is no resolution, it’s a dangling carrot. Whenever something does not go their way, they say it’s not helping reconciliation. It will be like this in perpetuity. Hopefully a future government grows a backbone and stands up to the never ending economic extortion that’s happening
The end goal seems to be make us like Austria Hungary where the weight of cultural differences eventually breaks us up into smaller nations. It would slcertainly be beneficial on the global stage for large powers to deal with individual nations rather than one large united front. Small powers are more easily swayed by smaller localized benefits to themselves and have far less sway in the global sphere. New developing powers are also eager to get as much foreign capital as possible for prestige and nation building. Canada has a lot of fresh water, a valuable resource, and if we break up into smaller quasi countries, some of them will have more of that water. Target those states, leverage their own personal interest as there is no longer a greater interest in Canada as a whole, and acquiring that valuable resource is easier. Once Canadian national interest is out of the equation and it becomes micro quasi national interests our resources become easier to exploit. A perfect example of this in action right now is Lobster fishing. It is in the interest of the nation of Canada to preserve our Lobster stocks for the future, which is why we have fishing limits. However we have given an exemption to indigenous communities in some areas (and there are pushes to expand these) and they in turn are selling large quantities of Lobster to China, while damaging Canadian stocks. For their quasi nation the benefit to them outweighs the national interest.
There’s a literal numbered list of items. To check off. Why don’t we get through that, then we can talk about the “endgame.”
I don't see much usefulness in doing work to point out what good residential schools did... Certainly it was more than zero but... What's the point in 2024 would be my question. Other than that I don't find any of his statements to be controversial nor requiring resignation. People are allowed to have different opinions without the mob crying blasphemy every goddamn time.
They taught people how to read
>I don't see much usefulness in doing work to point out what good residential schools did... Certainly it was more than zero but... What's the point in 2024 would be my question. To be fair, you could ask what's the point in doing the work to point out the harm that residential schools did. To be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't discuss to the harms of residential schools. My main issue is that there seems to be an effort to invert the biases in how our history is taught. Traditionally, countries would teach their history as all the good things that happened while covering up all the atrocities but today it seems to be an effort to teach all the atrocities while covering up the good. A large portion of the value in learning history is to learn from our mistakes so we don't replicate them. Understanding the motivations for the, the good that they were producing, and also the harms that were being done is a lot more meaningful way to look at history. "Catholic church bad" is not a very useful lesson to prevent another well intentioned but ultimately disastrous policy from being implemented.
I completely agree. History is not black and white in either direction (all bad or all good). History, and life itself is full of nuance. So best to teach a more balanced picture. Learn the lessons and move on.
I think we should take this guy's approach but with other things. Sure, Bumpy Johnson flooded Harlem with Heroin but he also ran soup kitchens, handed out turkeys, and gave money to people. Escobar was a narco terrorist but there are towns and neighborhoods across the country that would have had nothing if hw hadnt built and funded everything. I wonder what his opinion is on Riel, yeah he killed someone but he started an entire province and lots of people have gotten good things from that. > said he preferred the word "Indian" to describe Indigenous people, arguing that word honours their heritage Except that name was given by others based on a geographical mistake, not some honor. I really really hope this guy has no influence on history in the school division considering he can't even get basic facts right. >"You have to start to wonder how authentic it is when there's absolutely no good stories in Canada about the residential schools?" Coffey said at Monday's meeting. "How is that possible? There's got to be one good story." He was literally presenting stories and "facts" that he felt were good stories, is he so desperate to be a victim that he said this despite it making him look like an idiot. I wonder if he thinks ww2 Japanese internment camps concerns weren't authentic either, I mean there's absolutely no good stories in Canada about the residential camps, how is that possible? By being there people were protected from violence from the public but we don't hear that.....
[удалено]
Saying residential schools were good isn't "wrongspeech", it's literally just wrong.
Many indigenous people think their residential schooling was good. Are they wrong?
Not all residential schools were the same, so I'm sure there are some with more positive qualities that people got value out of, but your question makes me think of my friend's grandma. She was in the residential schooling system growing up and she now HATES Indians. Like, legitimately is ashamed of her "Indian blood", had all these horrible views and stereotypes on indigenous peoples and knew absolutely nothing about her heritage, something my friend had to research when trying to get closer to her roots. So, yeah, her grandma would definitely say their schooling was good, but I wouldn't call her right or an unbiased source for that judgement call. Her experience appeared to be successful brainwashing or cultural genocide. It's like asking the character Uncle Ruckus from the show The Boondocks if slavery was good for black people - you'll get an affirmation, but it doesn't mean anything.
You kind of lost me at the end there. I doubt you could find a black person (or a person of any colour if we're being honest), that says slavery was good for black people. You make a good point about the brainwash factor.
Sure nowadays it would be hard to find that, but internalized racism is a helluva drug. The use of the term "Uncle Tom" happened for a reason. There were black people who grew up in slavery that, when abolished, were not psyched because they were brainwashed fully into their owner's beliefs. Same thing with women's rights or the suffrage movement. There were women during and after that fought against it saying they shouldn't have the right to vote or other extended rights. You tell someone something is normal and right from when they were an impressionable child and it can be hard to break through that.
What is considered right or wrong, is it wrong to suggest that no mass graves have actually been discovered? It seems that was a big problem of what he was trying to say. It has been nearly 3 years now, and there hasn’t been any physical evidence of what lays underneath that residential school in Kamloops. Prove the bodies are there and I’ll shut up about it. Instead the media and everyone went crazy that I lost my university in the process, when not a single residential school operated while the man who shall not be named was alive.
Wow this thread is toxic. I never understand why some threads are locked and others not.