51–60 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The media claimed bodies were unearthed This is not a "quibble." It's a major falsehood.
Unearth can be used in a literal sense, which in this case is false. It can also be used in a figurative sense, which in this case is almost certainly true.
Quoted post unavailable.
This is a dangerous path to go down without a really full understanding of the situation and the acknowledgement that your statement is covering hundreds of thousands of individual compacts between specific tribal leaders and specific administrators. Additionally "tribes wanted" is a really dangerous statement on its own since "tribes" can be hard to define fairly - if you've been following the news about pipelines y…
However, it is equally dangerous to go down the path of 'Canada did this to massacre the tribes and eradicate their culture while no tribe wanted this'. This is also not the case. In certain cases, the tribes did have well defined boundaries, and leadership, and the leadership negotiated for many other concessions successfully, but didn't so much as put up a fuss about the schools.
> We absolutely have accounts of children being forceably abducted from parents and abuses happening at these schools
I believe I literally acknowledged such atrocities in my post above. Moreover, as I again stated, I understand that a tribe's leaders may not have the tribe's best interests at heart. It is actually possible, and still a regular occurrence today, for one's government to make decisions that are incredibly hurtful to individual citizens.
Other allegations against the government are also overstated. I didn't mention them above. One obvious example is the claim siblings were separated. This is actually unevidenced. The most evidence the TRC could produce was that brothers and sisters were sent to sex segregated schools or dorms. Uh... this is a good thing. If sexual abuse is what you're trying to prevent having girls in the same housing with boys, etc, is going to be extremely toxic.
I am in no way excusing Canada's actions. I am merely putting them into context. These are salient facts ignored from the debate for fear they may not make the tribes as sympathetic a target. Why? If the case is so strong for the abuses taking place (and I believe there was certainly abuse taking place that ought to be investigated), what is the point of ignoring salient information?
EDIT: Oh also I'm not referring to hundreds of thousands of compacts. I am referring to the numbered treaties, which refer to 11 treaties signed between Canada and the native tribes of various regions.
It’s funny because the narrative works just fine without the mass graves. A local paper (in the US) interviewed survivors/graduates on “Indian” schools. The administrators sent kids home as soon as they were sick. So there were no graveyards, even when lots of student were dying (Spanish flu).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The media claimed bodies were unearthed This is not a "quibble." It's a major falsehood.
Unearth can be used in a literal sense, which in this case is false. It can also be used in a figurative sense, which in this case is almost certainly true.
So do you really believe everyone in Canada read that and thought "Oh, they're using the word in a figurative sense! Never mind."
If something is, by definition, in the earth and a story says it was "unearthed" it's sorta reasonable to believe it was dug up.
So, in response to a story about alleged unmarked graves in Canada we have: A comment about January 6th A comment about Kyle Rittenhouse A comment about COVID At least COVID is somewhat relevant to Canada.
Those are all related, in that in all of them, the media gave a lot of people a false impression about something, which is exactly what this article is about.
Quoted post unavailable.
If you insist on treating every interaction as if it happens in a vacuum and for both parties to see the events as isolated, you're gonna have a bad time. If you are chronically late for work nobody cares if your transmission exploded on the way into work and that's why you were legitimately an hour late. You've already played that card on previous encounters and you've used up all of your credits.
If two groups have a history of horrible interactions with each other, people are going to assume the latest incident is just true to form, even if it really was just a misunderstanding and a bad game of telephone. Because of course Group B pulled some shit again. They 'always' do. Trying to find someone's boundaries and living your life right on the edge of them is just a slower version of "fuck around and find out."
I learned recently that there are actually businesses that cater to the demographic of boomers whose children won't speak to them anymore. Like entrepreneurs are making business plans and incorporating to take money from these people. The stories I know are all about how they realized that their parents weren't even going to meet some fairly low bar set by the kids, and they thought their children were bluffing. You push and push and you'll be making your own retirement home arrangements, all the while repeating some narrative about how it was about pronouns or people of color.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Only someone who was born with ovaries and a uterus can have a baby, menstruate, or chest feed (aka "breast feed"). This is D work (67%). EDIT: For clarity, the last of the three claims is incorrect: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779241/ https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/5/e2047/6123860 https://internationalbreastfeedingjournal.biomedcentral.com/...