You must log in or register to comment.

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu2kmhl wrote

Not exactly our proudest moment as a nation, but we can't just close our eyes and pretend it didn't happen.


[deleted] t1_iu2ptdh wrote



shpydar OP t1_iu2rqwx wrote

Perpetrated? Yes.

Instigated? No.

While it is true that the Catholic Church did start schools to teach Indigenous peoples before Canada became a country attendance at those schools were volunarty, and abuses were not conducted on the children. It was not until after Canada came into existance that the genocidal nature of Canada's residential schools truly began under the guidance of the First Canadian Government.

Let me point you to the statements made by Canada's Founding Father Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's First (and third) Prime Minister and the author of Canada’s genocide of Indigenous people.

In a letter from 1870 he wrote;

>We should take immediate steps to extinguish the Indian titles … and open it for settlement. There will otherwise be an influx of squatters who will seize upon the most eligible positions and greatly disturb the symmetry [organization] of future surveys.

Between 1880 and 1885, the population of Plains First Nations dropped from 32,000 to 20,000, according to analysis by the Cree-Saulteaux academic Blair Stonechild. Most of that was due to starvation while under the care of the Canadian government under Macdonald.

>The executions of the Indians … ought to convince the Red Man that the White Man governs,

Macdonald wrote to Edgar Dewdney.

In 1885 he wrote;

>…..we have been pampering and coaxing the Indians; that we must take a new course, we must vindicate the position of the white man, we must teach the Indians what law is; we must not pauperise them, as they say we have been doing.


>I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense,

Macdonald told the House of Commons in 1882.

In 1887 he wrote;

>The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.

The schools were run by churches yes, but they were designed and funded by the Canadian government.

Also the Canadian government performed horrific experiments on the children who attended the schools and perpetrated the Sixties Scoop which was a period (1950-1983) in which a series of policies were enacted in Canada that enabled child welfare authorities to take, or "scoop up," Indigenous children from their families and communities for placement in foster homes, from which they would be adopted by white families.

The Canadian government not only knew what was happening at the residential schools they actively took a role in perpetrating some of the abuses at those schools.


SoMToZu t1_iu34sk4 wrote

Damn, never realized that Macdonald was a raging racist, all while we plaster his name everywhere...


TXTCLA55 t1_iu44gjy wrote

Historical context: Most people were raging racists in the past.


Mizral t1_iu44tye wrote

Even among his contemporaries MacDonald was considered to be particularly vicious towards First Nations.


Happy13178 t1_iu3nzch wrote

they were all raging racists back then. Really, like all of them.


a10sucks t1_iu5omtd wrote

That's not true. There were plenty of people who saw what was happening as monstrous and wrong.


Happy13178 t1_iu5uhzm wrote

In the late 1800s, probably not as many as you'd like to think.


a10sucks t1_iu5vmqq wrote

John Brown was the most popular man in the northern states for his actions against the slave states.


Happy13178 t1_iu5vpkp wrote



a10sucks t1_iu5x2de wrote

If a man was massively popular for literally taking war to the institution of race-based slavery, what does that tell you about the popularity of the institution of slavery, of racism?

Sir John was a piece of shit even by the standards of his time.


Happy13178 t1_iu5xfws wrote

Massively popular is subjective based on time period. He could have been massively popular in a town of 300, doesn't mean much. I'm still betting many in the late 1800s didn't give a shit, certainly not anywhere near to the point they are today, and you're arguing over a guy that's been dead for over a century for....what, internet points? This is a stupid discussion and you're wasting both our time on it.


Mountain-Watch-6931 t1_iu46puc wrote

It was also more complicated in the sense he very much viewed populations west of Ontario differently, so treatment became more extreme in the west.

Amplified by the legitimate concern the Americans would steal the country west of Ontario if we didn’t get bodies (settlers) in fast, it was grim to be on the wrong side of policy.


SomeDrunkAssh0le t1_iu4fg3m wrote

A tradition still carried on in toronto.


not-ordinary t1_iu4n3c5 wrote

His old house is now the house of UofT’s school of graduate studies. Graduate defences take place there.


RobertoSantaClara t1_iu4hsfw wrote

You never realized a 19th century Victorian era politician was racist?

Man you'll be in for one nasty surprise once you start reading 18th-19th century philosophy from other famous figures like Kant, Hume, Hegel, Voltaire, etc.

Shit, even Left Wing parties in the early 20th century were often racist. The Social Democrats in Sweden funded eugenics research in the 1920s-30s, and the early Labour movement in Australia supported a ban on all non-European immigration.


TrainingObligation t1_iu4ops5 wrote

There's a reason the Harper Conservative government officially re-named the "Ottawa River Parkway" to the "Sir John A Macdonald Parkway" a decade ago, just as it was seeping into the larger public awareness that he was not worthy of being commemorated.


DirtyThi3f t1_iu4gf0j wrote

They’ve been renaming many (all?) of the schools named after him. As a former student of one, I’m very happy about this.


[deleted] t1_iu2u02k wrote



shpydar OP t1_iu2vi3z wrote

and what of the other crimes I listed that the Canadian government took a direct hand in perpetrating?

It is not one or the other. It was both. Both the church staff who perpetrated beatings, sexual abuses and rapes but it was the Canadian government who purposefully starved children, sometimes to death at the schools.

From my link about the horrible experiments conducted on children at residential schools by the Canadian government.

>The First Nations nutrition experiments were a series of experiments run in Canada by Department of Pensions and National Health (now Health Canada) in the 1940s and 1950s. The experiments were conducted on at least 1,300 Indigenous people across Canada, approximately 1,000 of whom were children. The deaths connected with the experiments have been described as part of Canada's genocide of Indigenous peoples.


Koss424 t1_iu4tye4 wrote

Done under the watchful supervision of the Canadian Government.


ChairmanMeow925 t1_iu3fxbv wrote

Biggest Catholic Church in Canada at that time was from British controlled Ireland. Catholic emancipation of 1829 legalized Catholicism in Ireland, however Brits had influence over the church and handed the previously independant church, who organized risings and rebellions against them, to Rome. The Papal states were pretty well puppets of the monarchs of empire since the 1300s. Annexed by France and released by Coalition against Napolean in 1814, if I remember the year correctly of the top of my head. The Roman Catholic church in Ireland then imposed the Inquisition which had not been in Ireland up til then, and used it as a tool to stop further Rebellion. Roman Catholic Church was a effectively a puppet used to achieve their aims. Inquisition was first imposed by the French government to prevent heresy within the church in newly conquered territory. Papal States were annexed in the wake of the rise of Italian Nationalism around 1870s or something like that. The Vatican was released by Mussolini in 1929. Pope didnt even have full control of the papal states themselves, highly unlikely they were really running stuff in the colonies. Missionaries also helped teach the Natives European agricultural practices to sustain themselves in the wake of the destruction of their way of life due to colonial settlers converting their hunting grounds to farmland.

Edit: Also after the Catholic emancipation they started to actually enforce the Penal laws. They had not had much success because the Catholics in Ireland stirred stuff up if they did. Thus in my family, my Nana’s father was Irish and Protestant and her mother was a British Catholic. The men in the family were protestant and their wives were Catholic so the men could own land.


XyzzyPop t1_iu3en9n wrote

People thought differently, it was believed that bringing civilization was their duty a social responsibility, resistance to assimilation was a rejection of civil society and indicative of a "savage" nature than needed to be tamed or brought to heel. Tearing kids away from their families and putting them into regulated western schools( with religion) was considered a good way of breaking this "behavior". Eugenics, phrenology, racial based discrimination, etc. was all considered acceptable at different points in the relevant history related to these events.


SpaceMonkey1900 t1_iu4pgpp wrote

"allowed"? No, the Government facilitated it, partnered in it and enforced it. Let's be crystal clear on this. On top of that, we have enshrined it in law through the constitutional documents that are the Indian Act.

We need to fix this, correct it and stop electing dithering idiots who pay lip services over it and do nothing in actuality.

"something" would be to get rid of the indian act, get rid of the reserve system, honour the treaties that are unhonoured, return lands to the peoples who claim them and move forward as a guest.

It's heinous that there has been nothing but a pack of shiftless self centered fools in office for near 160 years on this subject.

Canada was literally bullied, stolen, cheated, negotiated in ill faith away from the true keepers of the land who were then bullied, killed off and rendered near dead as a culture in the name of the crown.


Absolutely frozen brains.


Koss424 t1_iu4tpib wrote

Awarded to the Catholic Church (Jesuits mostly) by the Government


oceanleap t1_iu6cyj6 wrote

Exactly. This was intigated, organized, ordered and funded by the Canadian government. They shouldn't be trying to push responsibility off to a different organization. Take responsibility.


slipnips t1_iu3z5sx wrote

> the Catholic religion

Or, as it is otherwise known to the rest of the world, Christianity.


joaommx t1_iu4ctyx wrote

Catholicism is just one, albeit the largest, of the Christian sects there are. So no, Catholicism and Christianity are not synonyms. And no, the rest of the world doesn’t hold the ignorant view that they are the same thing either.


slipnips t1_iu4ewkd wrote

I never said that they're synonyms, just that the Catholic religion is a somewhat unusual phrasing, which seems to distance Catholics from the umbrella of Christianity. I'll be equally puzzled if people talk about the Sunni religion instead of Islam.


joaommx t1_iu4ozb1 wrote

> just that the Catholic religion is a somewhat unusual phrasing

It's not, albeit Catholic church would be more correct. But it is entirely appropriate in this context given the overwhelming majority of residential schools were managed by it.


shpydar OP t1_iu45bjk wrote

I was raised Catholic (am non-theist now) Catholics do not see themselves as Christians. Christians are heathens who have persecuted the Catholics for centuries.

Hell, Europe fought a series of wars over this issue, even a World War between Catholicism and Christianity. Christians and other faiths may think of Catholics as Christians, but Catholics are not Christians and have never seen themselves as such.


joaommx t1_iu49mdm wrote

> Catholics do not see themselves as Christians.

What are you on? Sure they do. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians are all Christians.


shpydar OP t1_iu4biw1 wrote

If that were true then explain the troubles? If Protestants and Anglicans think themselves the same as Catholics why did they opress and murder them simply because they were Catholics? May I point out the troubles only ended in 1998.

I also have linked to the holy wars between Catholics and Christians that were fought for over 200 years into the late 1800's.

The historic abuses against Catholics by other Christian sects is why Catholics do not see themselves as Christians, even if those sects think they are all one united Christian theocracy.

Also Eastern Orthodox Catholics do not consider themselves Christians as well.


joaommx t1_iu4c7kz wrote

Catholics and Protestants being of the opinion they are different from eachother has nothing to do with claiming Catholics don’t see themselves as Christians:

> Catholics do not see themselves as Christians

They do see themselves as Christians, like they see all the other Christian sects as Christians.

In fact it’s kind of the other way around from what you wrote. Some extremist nutcase Protestant sects are the ones who don’t see Catholics as Christians.


Grig134 t1_iu4otwp wrote

> Catholics do not see themselves as Christians.

Lol, what?


Oscarboy3333 t1_iu3wvuk wrote

It did fucking happen sadly. At least we are admitting it, this shit will never happen in the US.


RobertoSantaClara t1_iu4l6ac wrote

> this shit will never happen in the US.

The USA already apologized and paid reparations to Japanese internment victims under fucking Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. What makes you think something like this "will never happen" in the US?


TrainingObligation t1_iu4rjaq wrote

Reparations for internment of Japanese Americans is nowhere near the same level as admitting treatment of indigenous peoples as genocide. The latter is what the US will never admit to, is the OP's point.

Also, since you think reparations are such a simple gesture that absolves the sins of previous governments... when will descendants of African American slaves see their reparations? All I ever see in response to that are dismissive excuses like "it happened over a century ago, not to you / I'm not personally responsible for it / too complex", etc. The US will fully convert to metric before they ever pay out appropriate reparations to the Black community.


RobertoSantaClara t1_iu4tl0t wrote

>Reparations for internment of Japanese Americans is nowhere near the same level as admitting treatment of indigenous peoples as genocide.

It's the government acknowledging a wrong doing, under a very conservative executive mind you, and taking action to try and right past wrongs. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but nothing in this world ever will be, not unless you invent a time machine.

>The latter is what the US will never admit to, is the OP's point.

"Never" is a very strong word mate. Do people think culture and values are static? The USA today is virtually unrecognizable from what it was 60 years ago.

> Also, since you think reparations are such a simple gesture that absolves the sins of previous governments... when will descendants of African American slaves see their reparations?

Paying reparations to Japanese internees is a hell of a lot easier given that:

A) They were still alive in the 1980s

B) accurate records of who was imprisoned in them and the property they lost are available

C) defining who the victims are is easy; if you were imprisoned, you were a victim.

Paying reparations to "the black community" in today's world becomes a lot messier because then you have to find a way to define who is considered "Black" and who is "not Black". What about recent Nigerian immigrants whose ancestors were not enslaved? What about Jamaican immigrants whose ancestors were slaves in British Jamaica, but not in the USA? How about places like Louisiana, where you have descendants of slave owners who were the mixed-sons of enslaved mothers and slaver fathers? Would somebody like Obama be entitled to these reparations to the Black American community, if his father was a Kenyan whose ancestors were never enslaved in America and his mother was a white American? Is a white guy whose distant ancestor was a slave entitled to reparations too?


Oscarboy3333 t1_iu4q0f2 wrote

What a fuckign stupid comparison. Wake me up when when they declare it as a genocide on what happened to the natives and black Americans. What US did to the Japanese was geopolitics. And wake me up when the American Right wing nutjobs are okay with it instead of throwing a tantrum.


RobertoSantaClara t1_iu4um2q wrote

> What a fuckign stupid comparison.

Why? It's an example of Government acknowledgement of their responsibility for past actions, that's exactly what this thread is about.

>Wake me up when when they declare it as a genocide on what happened to the natives and black Americans

Sure, you claimed it will "never" happen. Never is a big word, lets wait and see. Do you happen to have a crystal ball that can see all the way into the future end of the universe?

>What US did to the Japanese was geopolitics.

Oh, and this isn't? Canada isn't going to truly "decolonize" itself anytime soon, saying sorry for past atrocities is also geopolitical PR because ultimately it won't change anything. You can't un-murder someone and you can't decolonize a country founded by colonizing. Canada, as a state, is here to stay and it won't cede its ultimate sovereignty over the landmass it controls to any Amerindian movement seeking to re-establish true independence and sovereignty over the land.


Antique_Ad3370 t1_iu418va wrote

Admit what? That we killed a bunch of natives?


Oscarboy3333 t1_iu45vzi wrote

Taking responsibility as a Genocide. Same goes with treatment of Black people prior to abolition of Slavery.


Shooter2970 t1_iu4jyt8 wrote

The Natives were killing each other before Europeans got here. The natives helped Europeans attack neighboring tribes as well.

African tribes attacked and sold their neighbors into slavery.

Don't forget about these things when talking about the treatment of Natives and Africans.


The_Secret_Pickle t1_iu4se6r wrote

Irrelevant. Nobody anywhere has made the claim that indigenous folks haven't fought wars


Shooter2970 t1_iu5keri wrote

I agree asking America to say they are sorry for this is irrelevant. Which is what he was complaining about.


axonxorz t1_iu4o54e wrote

Two wrongs don't make right, we can criticize both


dissentrix t1_iu8ijvq wrote

So, since Americans kill each other off every single year, I guess it's okay if a foreign power comes along, commits egregious acts of genocide in the country, and then never takes responsibility for it or provides reparations?

-> end result of your logic, right there


MonkeysJumpingBeds t1_iu4wwfn wrote

Huge move, even though it's extremely dark embracing the facts and the history will make Canada stronger in the long run.


New_Pen3861 t1_iu3rnvw wrote

Categorizing what happened at the schools with events like the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide is right thought.


TrainingObligation t1_iu4sbxp wrote

Genocide is not a binary condition, there's a scale and while it's not as obvious or inhumanely atrocious as the two you mention, what happened at the schools is definitely further along that scale than you think.


amardas t1_iu2x46b wrote

What do you mean by “moment”?


VanillaDue4576 t1_iu30msn wrote

Handled it a lot better than how we currently handle our native population.


shpydar OP t1_iu2ga78 wrote

Canada's House of Common's voted to recognize the Residential School System as Genocide today.

The Residential School System was an abusive system designed to destroy the Indigenous peoples of Canada's culture and idendity and to 'Europeanize' them. The schools were run by the the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches with the overwhelming majority run by the Catholic Church. Indigenous children were forced to attend these schools with most taken from their families by force and at the schools those children endured physical and psycological abuse as well as rape, torture, sexual assault, and murder at the hands of the schools staff. The children were also subjected to horrific experiments conducted by the Government of Canada.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) maintains a memorial register for students who died at residential schools and that number is now at 4,120 children.

In 1969, after over a century of reports of abuse and rape the Government of Canada took over the running of the Residential Schools and began to close them or turn them over to Indigenous nations to run. In 1996 the last Residential School was closed.

In 2007 Canada negotiated the Residential School Settlement which has seen over $3 billion paid in restitution to the survivors and their families of the Residential School System.

From 2007 to 2015 Canada Held the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission (TRC) to bring healing to the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and to educate the Canadian population who overwhelmingly did not know about the Residential School System as to the horrors perpetrated on the Indigenous peoples by their government. The final report issued in 2015 by the TRC gave a finding of cultural genocide and the government of Canada did not accept that finding.

After bodies have been found in unmarked graves at former Residential Schools in 2021 the Canadian government has pledged $320 million to exhume and repatriate the remains to their nations per their nations wishes.

Finally 7 years later Canada has not only accepted the TRC's finding of cultural genocide but have gone further and declared the Residential School System was genocide as defined by the 1948 Geneva Convention that was adopted by the U.N.

Currently Canada is still negotiating the Day Schoolers settlement which will pay restitution to the survivors of the Residential School System who only attended during the day and did not live at the Residential Schools.

If you are a former residential school survivor in distress, or have been affected by the residential school system and need help, you can contact the 24-hour Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line: 1-866-925-4419

Additional mental-health support and resources for Indigenous people are available here.


TheThirdOutlier t1_iu361ky wrote

Right on - owning and admitting your mistakes is the right way to move forward. Hopefully this helps heal the wounds that were left by this disastrous policy 🙏🏻


KelbyGInsall t1_iu2g1r5 wrote

Calling things what they are? Maybe Canada is better than the US. MAYBE.


shpydar OP t1_iu2ip8i wrote

One of the outcomes of the Residential School Settlement, the Truth and Reconcilliation, and the paying to exhume the bodies of the children who died at the Schools is that the U.S. has begun their own investigation into their Indian Boarding School System which has been accused of similar horrors inflicted on the Indigenous peoples of the U.S.

So the U.S. has a chance to face their past and make amends as well. We will see where that investigation leads.


GunNut345 t1_iu3tl9k wrote

The US did worse then residential schools, they had more overt violent genocide. Like have the US military murder everyone in a village genocide. Concentration camp genocide.


TripleJumpToTheMoon t1_iu2kr4s wrote

As a Canadian, it’s not about being better than the US (I mean that was never a challenge), but it’s about being honest!

Jk tho it’s really not about being better tbh I’m just glad they didn’t waste time arguing over this


shpydar OP t1_iu2ngxy wrote

>I’m just glad they didn’t waste time arguing over this

The TRC's 2015 final report citing Cultural genocide was originally rejected by the Canadian Government and it has taken us 7 years to finally acknowledge the residential school system was genocide.

I wished we hadn't wasted so much time arguing over this.


TripleJumpToTheMoon t1_iu2plm5 wrote

True, I was just considering this time in particular. Although it took so long, I’m glad they’re done arguing about it


Happy13178 t1_iu3o2fp wrote

It is about being better, just not in some weird competition. It's being better for ourselves because it's the right thing to do and helps us move forward collectively with a lesser burden of sins from the past.


SomeDrunkAssh0le t1_iu4glbh wrote

We're always telling ourselves that we're better than the americans.


TripleJumpToTheMoon t1_iu5w7yr wrote

At the same time, I know Americans who think Canada is better, Americans who think america is better, Canadians who think america is better, and then of course Canadians in majority think Canada is better.

Personally I would love to try living in the US for a year or so just to see how it’s different than Canada (other than the obvs like health care making you broke in US, too much religion in the US, different climates, etc.)


internetisnotreality t1_iu4s9pv wrote

Pretty low bar to be fair.

There’s still A LOT of racism against indigenous peoples in Canada, and lots of destitute reservations without access to clean drinking water.

I appreciate the sentiment from the House of Commons, but it’s only being done after those that could be held responsible have aged out and moved on.

And without action it’s the bare minimum.


KelbyGInsall t1_iu5okes wrote

I see what you mean, and I agree with you completely.


StrangeHaole t1_iu2hq5f wrote

You read headlines good.


KelbyGInsall t1_iu2i7xy wrote

Doesn’t help that the US is still utilizing their benefit from genocide to keep their boot on Indigenous peoples neck. And with all the semantics going around, am I wrong to be impressed when a legal body defines something that happens using the word that describes it? I don’t think so.


StrangeHaole t1_iu2ihjl wrote

I think you need to read a bit more into it.


KelbyGInsall t1_iu2ipoy wrote

You’re more obnoxious than you think you are. Easy block.


SuperDuperRotoPooper t1_iu2i7ga wrote

>Maybe Canada is better than the US. MAYBE.

We like to say so. But really, we are not.

Edit: Aww, looks like I hurt some feelies. I got some bad news for you knobs: Canada is not a fucking utopia, and we're undeservedly arrogant. Look at how we treat our indigenous population, and then look down our noses at our neighbours to the south.


lurklurklurkPOST t1_iu2kto0 wrote

First country in the world to own up to what they did to the natives is a big step forward IMO.

In america its taught in schools that our forefathers did horrible things to native americans and took their land and forced them onto reservations, then the subject is sort of dropped. No talk of restitution, reparation, plans to make it better, just on to the mexican american war or the louisiana purchase.


SuperDuperRotoPooper t1_iu2lfpq wrote

>First country in the world to own up to what they did to the natives is a big step forward IMO.

It is. Just wish it had been done sooner. I mean the last residential school closed in 1997.

But I guess better late than never (and to be clear, I'm not being sarcastic - I know how easy this can come across that way).


internetisnotreality t1_iu5rhu8 wrote

I agree. Patriotism is for the willingly blind. The amount of downvotes that pro-indigenous comments are getting in this thread is proof enough that Canada has a long way to go.


SuperDuperRotoPooper t1_iu5tcy9 wrote

Yeah, it's pretty telling and disappointing. But I'm glad there are others like yourself who get it.


ImpressiveGrass3206 t1_iu3k6i0 wrote

As someone that works with mental health and addictions near and around First Nation reserve I can tell you I’ve met first hand many people that have been to these schools think life is worthless and are abusing drugs and alcohol to numb their pain and it’s sad to hear stories of what they’ve gone through.


AmbiguityEngine t1_iu3ae2a wrote

Wish the U.S. would take a hint.

To my knowledge the U.S. government has not honored a single treaty with any of the tribes it's displaced or nearly driven to extinction.


Inquisitor-Korde t1_iu3e7xy wrote

>To my knowledge the U.S. government has not honored a single treaty with any of the tribes it's displaced or nearly driven to extinction.

We don't either, don't get the government wrong this will not help the First Nations of Canada.


monkey_sage t1_iu4o365 wrote

r/Canada is going to hate this

Good move on the House of Commons. This is part of Truth and Reconciliation needs to be.


Aquos18 t1_iu6bc9f wrote

Why are they gonna hate it?


monkey_sage t1_iu6hckw wrote

In general, the sub tends to skew to the right and whenever there's an article about minorities, the comments are all too often a bit ... unforgiving. They were already "joking" about the government apologizing "too much" for, you know, genocide.


lakeghost t1_iu6w4x9 wrote

It remains strange to me. Mind you, my adoptive German-speaking granddad was constantly explaining why Nazis were evil. So many WW2 documentaries. He knew he wasn’t to blame for what happened before he was even born, but he knew it was important to teach kids that genocide of any kind was morally wrong. He didn’t want us to repeat the mistakes of the past.


monkey_sage t1_iu94wbx wrote

He was a responsible human being who understood his role in helping us to not repeat history. I wish more of my fellow Canadians were like that.


Aquos18 t1_iu6hhwp wrote

Ouch and I thought my country's subredfit would get bad.


mydogisanassholeama t1_iu3sgqq wrote

Glad that Canada has done this. This is an important step towards reconciliation. That said, a lot of you guys who are acting smug about this might want to look into your own countries histories and the acts of cultural genocide that have been committed. Just because you ignore and deny history, doesn't make you morally superior.


TrainingObligation t1_iu4y9fe wrote

China is especially quick to trot out our treatment of indigenous people, past and current, whenever their treatment of Uyghurs is brought up.

As if that whataboutism excuses their own actions. And at least our government is honest enough to publicly admit to the world we were and still are in the wrong. As Canadians we may not be as good as we once thought we were, but acknowledging our wrongs (which a patriot is capable of) is still loads better than denying an issue even exists (which is what a nationalist does).


yetzt t1_iu3onab wrote

this headline does not work for anyone who doesn't know the backstory.


Bob_Juan_Santos t1_iu4f65o wrote

if you're Canadian, then you'd know. Every school kid was taught this.


btmvideos37 t1_iu4hsvo wrote

Only if you’re 30 and younger. My dad is pretty young, 44. I’m 20. He was never taught this in school. He was taught that they existed but he wasn’t taught that they were still around while he was in school or how bad they were. The history he was taught made it seem like it was far in the past. my dad was nearly finished high school when the last school closed


svanegmond t1_iu4khrw wrote

Can confirm. I am 50 and knew nothing about this until the first government inquiry into it. The education I got about indigenous peoples was pathetic.


btmvideos37 t1_iu4medg wrote

Even as a 20 year old, the things kids now learn at the age of 8 I didn’t learn until 14-15. Before 8th grade I was taught that the colonizers peacefully came over here and built log cabins and traded with the natives. I assumed as a kid that have the country was Indigenous. In grade 7-8 we learned more of residential schools and how the colonizers weren’t great people. But it wasn’t until grade 10 that we truly learned about the atrocities.

My sister who’s 6 will go through school learning way more than I ever did


TrainingObligation t1_iu4td2r wrote

I'm mid-40s. I don't remember being taught it in school, but did watch a dramatization on CBC as a teen in the 90s, which ended with text saying the last residential school was only closed a few years before (even that may have been wrong, IIRC the text said the last one closed in the late 80s, but the year we're now given is in the 90s).

That said, awareness does not equal comprehension, and it's only in the last decade that I began to comprehend the true generational trauma and heartbreak that indigenous peoples suffered.


lemonylol t1_iu4g743 wrote

Canadian news outlet targeted at Canadians. Canadians are taught about residential schools as early as elementary school. It's a big deal here.


OddCucumber6755 t1_iu4xfa8 wrote

Good. Maybe "truth and reconciliation" day won't seem like a complete joke of a fucking holiday.


TruSm0ke t1_iu41ama wrote

A headline that’ll really take you for a ride. That escalated quickly.


Competitive-Strain-7 t1_iu6jjqu wrote

I think that its is time to separate religion from the school system.


Ivanthegorilla t1_iu5czp8 wrote

2 years ago the Canadian government also wanted to train PLA aka CCP soldiers in winter combat and there are actively commiting genocide n slavery... its only okay when they get bribed


Mintoregano t1_iu5pq5k wrote

It was genocide. Glad the courts are saying


frequenttimetraveler t1_iu38opc wrote

about time for the genocidal nation of canada to face its past


shpydar OP t1_iu4fotw wrote

Every nation in the America's has conducted some form of genocide against the indigenous peoples within their borders. None are immune from their past.

And the genocide began with America's European Colonizers; Britian, Spain, France, Portugal, the Netherland's, Russia, Norway, and Italy.

Canada is the only nation to aknowledge their role, provide restitution, and chart a path forward towards healing and reconcilliation.

It is about time the rest of the America's and the European colonizers to face their past like Canada has.


Shooter2970 t1_iu4ktvj wrote

The Aztecs were enslaving anyone they warred with. Not to mention the human sacrifices. Native Americans were also warring with each other over land well before any European got here. Don't forget to face these facts as well.


axonxorz t1_iu4oc7n wrote

Man, you're just whataboutism in a nutshell, eh?


Shooter2970 t1_iu5mduh wrote

The post above was using whataboutism to describe the rest of the Americas and how European Colonizers started mass genocide. I bring up two more and you say whataboutism. You just hate Europeans in a nutshell right?


axonxorz t1_iu5mvu4 wrote

Dunno how calling you out twice about whataboutism means I hate Europeans, but you continue on the springboard I guess.

You've framed your argument above as if acknowledging that Canada did bad means we are inherently ignoring other times the same bad has been done by someone else. Your coming in to point out that "handy fact" is why it's whataboutism, nobody in this thread said "and everybody else was a saint", as you are implying.


Shooter2970 t1_iu5ntce wrote

Why mention all those others and when I bring up two more you call foul. And I never said anything about anyone being a saint. I brought up past problems with Natives and how they are very similar. Don't just talk about one part of history is the point here. Don't forget the bullshit they were doing to their own people either. Canada is doing the right thing. But can you name me a tribe that will say they are sorry for taking a neighbors land in war? I don't know of any personally.


PubliusDeLaMancha t1_iu7erdi wrote

Name an Italian colony in the new world.


shpydar OP t1_iu7gd5t wrote

Italy didn’t successfully establish a colony but they have colonizer status because they attempted to create a colony in what is now French Guiana in 1609.

>Duke Ferdinand I de Medici made the only Italian attempt to create colonies in America. For this purpose the Grand Duke organized in 1608 an expedition to the north of Brazil, under the command of the English captain Robert Thornton. > >Unfortunately Thornton, on his return from the preparatory trip in 1609 (he had been to the Amazon), found Ferdinand I dead and all projects were canceled by his successor Cosimo II.

>The Thornton expedition was a 1608 Tuscan expedition under Captain Robert Thornton, an Englishman, sent by Ferdinando I of Tuscany to explore northern Brazil and the Amazon River and prepare for the establishment of a settlement in northern coastal South America, which would serve as a base to export Brazilian wood to Renaissance Italy. The area that Thornton considered as a possible site of a Tuscan colony now lies in modern French Guiana, near Cayenne, which would be colonised by France in 1630. The expedition was the only attempt by an Italian state to colonise the Americas.


PubliusDeLaMancha t1_iu7wuor wrote

Italy wasn't a country in 1609


shpydar OP t1_iu8im98 wrote

Sure, neither was Canada however we acknowledge that the history of the French and English colonies are still the history of Canada. Similarity as Tuscany is now part of Italy, Italy’s history includes the history of Tuscany.


PubliusDeLaMancha t1_iu94cmp wrote

That's because Canada was part of the British Empire.. the largest colonial empire

Italy was not a colonial power in any traditional sense (aside from a brief period in the 20th century)

I don't see how a failed expedition puts them in the same category as England or Spain..

Would you similarly say Scotland was a colonial power?


shpydar OP t1_iu95r9u wrote

>Would you similarly say Scotland was a colonial power?

Actually yes.

Besides the fact that Scotland and England became the United Kingdom in 1707 making all colonizing actions by the U.K. from 1707 on being done equally by Scotland as they were by England,

>The Darien scheme was an unsuccessful attempt, backed largely by investors of the Kingdom of Scotland, to gain wealth and influence by establishing New Caledonia, a colony on the Isthmus of Panama, in the late 1690s. > >The failure of the Darien colonisation project has been cited as one of the motivations for the 1707 Acts of Union.

However back to your initial point just because Tuscany was absorbed into Italy does not erase its history. Italy absorbed Tuscany’s history when they laid claim to it.


WikiSummarizerBot t1_iu95sqn wrote

Darien scheme

>The Darien scheme was an unsuccessful attempt, backed largely by investors of the Kingdom of Scotland, to gain wealth and influence by establishing New Caledonia, a colony on the Isthmus of Panama, in the late 1690s. The plan was for the colony, located on the Gulf of Darién, to establish and manage an overland route to connect the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The backers knew that the first sighting of the Pacific Ocean by Balboa was after crossing the isthmus through Darién. The attempt at settling the area did not go well; more than 80% of participants died within a year, and the settlement was abandoned twice.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


PubliusDeLaMancha t1_iu9jqru wrote

How long do you want to do this? Just admit you shouldn't have listed Italy among colonial powers

Sure, the Italian nation-state inherited Italy's history of never colonizing the Americas..


shpydar OP t1_iu9kcnt wrote

Why would I admit to something that would be a lie? Especially when I have countered all your questions with cited sources backing everything I’ve said.

You seem to be unwilling, or unable to give me the same courtesy I’ve given you and backed any of your opinionated statements up.

Italy is listed as a European colonization nation as I have shown with sources due to their incorporating Tuscany and its history.

Scotland is also considered a colonizing European nation due to its attempt to colonize in the Americas and its partnership in the U.K.

Perhaps it may be time to educate yourself on European colonization instead of needing me to educate you?


PubliusDeLaMancha t1_iu9nt5q wrote

It is a lie, or rather a falsehood, to say Italy colonized the Americas. That is simply a matter of fact. This one expedition you desperately searched the internet to find rather than concede that point predates Italy by 250 years..

Scotland bankrupted itself so badly in its attempt that it was forcibly joined the UK. Nobody lists either nation among colonizers of the new world. Sure, Scotland may bear some responsibility as part of the British Empire but that's besides the point


shpydar OP t1_iuai7t5 wrote

You ask for my opinion and not only do I give it, I back my statements with credible sources showing how my opinions are based on fact.

You just spew your opinions but your complete lack of anything backing a single thing you have said shows your opinions are not based on anything but your emotions.

I have shown you, with cited sources that Italy and Scotland are both listed as colonizing countries, and I have given you cited sources for the reasons why.

I don’t care that you disagree with the facts, your emotional opinion doesn’t magically make them disappear. I have given you ample space to counter my arguments with credible facts and you have failed to do so.

You have become insulting and demanding that I lie. You are clearly not interested in having a genuine conversation so I see no reason to continue attempting to have one with you.

I wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Good luck to you.


Solid-Cut5503 t1_iu35yab wrote

One thing that could and should be done is to give Native Americans the right to travel, live and work throughout the entire American Continent, this IS THEIR LAND after all. It’s the very least that we can do to remedy the injustices suffered by Native Americans at the hands of our European ancestors.


tarnok t1_iu3ksf0 wrote

There were over 60 different nations all over north america with boundaries and different cultures. Your heart is in the right place but what you said was nonsensical


Solid-Cut5503 t1_iud3w7d wrote

No not nonsensical at all. Just as Europeans have the right to travel, live and work throughout their Continent, Native Americans should have the same rights on their Continent.


tarnok t1_iudp42o wrote

That entire paragraph is the literal definition of nonsense. People have wasted too many crayons trying to explain to you why and you just won't listen.


shpydar OP t1_iu4gmjf wrote

60 different nations all over north america?

There are more than 630 First Nation communities in Canada, which represent more than 50 Nations and 50 Indigenous languages alone. And that does not include the Métis or the Innuit who have different legal status in Canada seperate from the First Nations.

I think you will find there are significantly more than 60 different indigenous nations across all of North America and then even more when you include all indigenous nations from across all the America's.


Funkativity t1_iu4ntnf wrote

> 60 different nations all over north america?

"There were over 60 different nations all over north america"


shpydar OP t1_iu5bof7 wrote

>There are 574 federally recognized Indian Nations (variously called tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities and native villages) in the United States. Approximately 229 of these ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse nations are located in Alaska; the other federally recognized tribes are located in 35 other states. Additionally, there are state recognized tribes located throughout the United States recognized by their respective state governments.

>Mexico is home to 68 Indigenous Peoples, each speaking their own native language and together accounting for 364 variants.

So that is 50 nations in Canada, 574 nations in the U.S. and 68 nations in Mexico for a total of 692 nations in North America.

My point, backed by credible sources, is that 60 is a woefully low underestimation of the number of Indigenous nations in North America.


Funkativity t1_iu5clao wrote

..which is why the person said there were more than 60


shpydar OP t1_iu5h09a wrote

Which is why I said that was a “woefully low underestimation”.

It’s like saying there are more than 35 million U.S. citizens. That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number to make the estimation completely useless.

Shall we go around in circles again?


Funkativity t1_iu5ikgh wrote

> That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number

but in this case the low number was more than sufficient to make the poster's point.

if someone is responding to a claim that there is one person living in america, replying with "no, there's more than 35 million" is perfectly fine.


tarnok t1_iu5px2a wrote

>That statement may be technically true but is useless because it is so much smaller than the actual number to make the estimation completely useless.

That is only your personal opinion and will reflect your bias. You're in attack mode and attacking the wrong people. You need a break


tarnok t1_iu5piwo wrote

I knew there was more, I just didn't remember the number and was making a quick comment that was still accurate.

Thanks for the info


GunNut345 t1_iu3tre3 wrote

Indigenous people can travel between Canada and the US with less restrictions then others, they have their own entry points.


Solid-Cut5503 t1_iud74t8 wrote

And they can too between the U.S. and Mexico but only one tribe that lives right there in that very specific area. It really needs to be that ALL Native Americans should be able to do so without restrictions. Imagine if Native Americans had colonized Europe and up to today still dictated where Native Europeans could migrate to or restricted their back and forth movement. That is what is STILL happening throughout the American Continent and that’s not right, that’s not okay.


Thanato26 t1_iu546lg wrote

Status First Nations, from at least Cananada, can travel and work in thr United States without passport... through a land border.


Heres_your_sign t1_iu2o45r wrote

But does it deserve the same designation as the Holocaust? Or Rwanda? Really?

Without question, it was cultural genocide. There was a deliberate effort to "civilize" the first nations. It's not the same thing.


shpydar OP t1_iu2py24 wrote

>Article I
>The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
>Article II
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Is the Geneva Convention's definition of genocide that was adopted by the U.N. Canada's Residential School system meets every point of that definition.

Trying to compare this genocide to others is just a way to water down what happened and to try and deligetimize it.

What I will say is that Canada has aknowledged it's commiting of genoicde and did not need an outside international court to do so and as I mentioned has already paid over $3 billion in restitution for our crime and shown we are working towards repairing our relationship with the Indigenous peoples of Canada.


Pons__Aelius t1_iu35fxo wrote

> There was a deliberate effort to "civilize" the first nations. It's not the same thing.

Both groups were trying to get rid of what they thought of as a problem population.

They are not the same in magnitude but the intent was.


SomeDrunkAssh0le t1_iu4grbq wrote

They attacked culture, they weren't hacking people up with machetes. There is a difference, and descriptions could be more accurate.


TrainingObligation t1_iu503al wrote

Here's a word: "crime". Stealing and murder are both crimes. One is magnitudes worse. Doesn't change the fact that stealing is by definition a crime.

The term "genocide" is actually less than 100 years old, but the agreed-to UN conventions since 1951 includes the following under Article II which are not directly-inflicted physical harm:

> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > > (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > > (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Despite what you think, describing as genocide the treatment of our indigenous peoples is exceedingly accurate.


econ101user t1_iu2u2u4 wrote

It wasn't as violent or vicious but the intent was the same: to erase a people's.

Just because it's not as bad as the worst example doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the title. Like when the Boston Marathon bombing happened and 3 people were killed and the news calls it terrorism did you split hairs and say "does it really deserve the same designation as 9/11? Really. It's only 3 people compared to thousands and no iconic buildings were destroyed. It's not the same thing".

You probably didn't. Most people probably didn't.

Because it doesn't make them uncomfortable to admit someone they don't identify with sucks. But when it's someone like you it's natural to be defensive and not want unflattering comparisons. Gotta suck it up and admit Canada were dicks yo.


justlogmeon t1_iu3w5tn wrote

Your reasoning and inability to comprehend the situation is exactly the reason we're still dealing this travesty.


nukacola12 t1_iu35hsv wrote

There are family members and ancestors I never got the chance to meet directly because of residential schools. Comparing it to the Holocaust or Rwanda as a way to diminish the impact they had is not ok.