No human remains found 2 years after claims of ‘mass graves’ in Canada

[RZehr]

So all true Christians are genocidal, because they strive to eliminate false religions.

[Szdfan]

So all true Christians are genocidal, because they strive to eliminate false religions.

The difference is how you do it. If it's voluntary conversion through persuasion, then it's not genocidal. But if you round up other people's children and force them into reeducation camps or residential schools away from their parents, then it's genocide.

[Bootstrap]

Genocide doesn't require a Wannsee Conference-type meeting where the top brass coldly decide on a "Final Solution" type plot or conspiracy to eradicate another racial or ethnic group. The UN Genocide Convention defines any of the five acts below "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

These acts are:

• Killing members of the group Article II(a)
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction Article II(c)
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Article II(d)
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group Article II(e)

I'm with you so far ...

Arguably, the removal of Native children from their families and sending them to Indian Residential Schools on the other side of the country in order to assimilate them fits this definition of genocide.

You lost me here. To me, it really doesn't seem to be the same thing as genocide.

People sometimes use the term "cultural genocide" - intentionally wiping out a culture and language. I don't know how I feel about that term, but I think a lot of this happened in the process.

Perhaps it's best to avoid losing too much time in choosing the perfect term to describe this, though?

[Bootstrap]

So all true Christians are genocidal, because they strive to eliminate false religions.

The difference is how you do it. If it's voluntary conversion through persuasion, then it's not genocidal. But if you round up other people's children and force them into reeducation camps or residential schools away from their parents, then it's genocide.

I agree that this is really wrong.

https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... sh_Web.pdf

On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology to the for-
mer students of Canada’s Indian residential school system, calling it a “sad
chapter in our history.” That chapter is part of a broader story: one in which
the Canadian government gained control over Aboriginal land and peoples, disrupted
Aboriginal governments and economies, and sought to repress Aboriginal cultures and
spiritual practices. The government, often in partnership with the country’s major reli-
gious bodies, sought to ‘civilize’ and Christianize, and, ultimately, assimilate Aboriginal
people into Canadian society. The deputy minister of Indian Affairs predicted in 1920 that
in a century, thanks to the work of these schools, Aboriginal people would cease to exist as
an identifiable cultural group in Canada.

Residential schools were seen as a central element in this project.

But is this genocide? At the very least, I think using that word is confusing to some of us. Is there a better term to describe this?

I can see the attraction. After all, at least some people explicitly wanted to wipe out aboriginal people as a separate group. But I think the term "genocide" is debatable here, and there must be a less controversial term.

[Szdfan]

Genocide doesn't require a Wannsee Conference-type meeting where the top brass coldly decide on a "Final Solution" type plot or conspiracy to eradicate another racial or ethnic group. The UN Genocide Convention defines any of the five acts below "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

These acts are:

• Killing members of the group Article II(a)
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction Article II(c)
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Article II(d)
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group Article II(e)

I'm with you so far ...

Arguably, the removal of Native children from their families and sending them to Indian Residential Schools on the other side of the country in order to assimilate them fits this definition of genocide.

You lost me here. To me, it really doesn't seem to be the same thing as genocide.

People sometimes use the term "cultural genocide" - intentionally wiping out a culture and language. I don't know how I feel about that term, but I think a lot of this happened in the process.

Perhaps it's best to avoid losing too much time in choosing the perfect term to describe this, though?

What makes it genocide (by definition) is the forcible removal of native children and sending them to residential schools. If that's not genocide, what would you call it then?

The term "cultural genocide" was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 in the same book where he coined the term "genocide." While the UN did consider that language when it drafted the 1948 Genocide Convention, they chose not to include it. Even though the Convention does not include that language, forcibly removing children from their families and transferring them to another group does have a cultural dimension to it. This is why the International Court has a warrant out for Putin because of policy and activities that make it easier for Russian families to adopt Ukrainian children, even if their parents are still alive.

[Josh]

The term "genocide" has become ridiculous in its overuse. For example, transsexuals claim that if they aren't allowed to groom children, it is a "trans genocide". It should be obvious that there is no way a "genocide" can apply to people who are transsexuals as a group, yet they keep making the claim anyway.

[Bootstrap]

You lost me here. To me, it really doesn't seem to be the same thing as genocide.

People sometimes use the term "cultural genocide" - intentionally wiping out a culture and language. I don't know how I feel about that term, but I think a lot of this happened in the process.

Perhaps it's best to avoid losing too much time in choosing the perfect term to describe this, though?

What makes it genocide (by definition) is the forcible removal of native children and sending them to residential schools. If that's not genocide, what would you call it then?

OK, I went looking for definitions, here's what I found:

https://diplomacy.state.gov/encyclopedia/genocide/

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

I don't think it fits that definition. And it's the one I am most familiar with.

https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-preventi ... s-genocide

Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

There are a number of other serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide. They include crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing.

Hmmm. This definition does seem to fit.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Well, at least some people at the time saw this as an explicit goal. So I guess it fits this definition too.

In general, I think you can find different definitions. This fits some, but it does not fit others.

[Szdfan]

In general, I think you can find different definitions. This fits some, but it does not fit others.

The 2015 Summary of Findings by the TRC makes these distinctions --

https://ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-cont ... sh_Web.pdf

Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.

The question is, what were the role and intention of the residential schools? Where they intended to prevent the "transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next?"

[Szdfan]

From the TRC Summary of Findings (p153)

Residential schools were a systematic, government-sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal peoples so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples. English and, to a far lesser degree, French were the only languages permitted to be used in most schools. Students were punished—often severely—for speaking their own languages. Michael Sillett, a former student at the North West River residential school in Newfoundland and Labrador, told the Commission, “Children at the dorm were not allowed to speak their mother tongue.
I remember several times when other children were slapped or had their mouths washed out for speaking their mother tongue; whether it was Inuktitut or Innu-aimun. Residents were admonished for just being Native.”78 As late as the 1970s, students at schools in northwestern Ontario were not allowed to speak their language if they were in the presence of a staff member who could not understand that language. Conrad Burns, whose father attended the Prince Albert school, named this policy for what it was: “It was a cultural genocide. People were beaten for their language, people were
beaten because ... they followed their own ways.”

[mike]

From the TRC Summary of Findings (p153)

Residential schools were a systematic, government-sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal peoples so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples. English and, to a far lesser degree, French were the only languages permitted to be used in most schools. Students were punished—often severely—for speaking their own languages. Michael Sillett, a former student at the North West River residential school in Newfoundland and Labrador, told the Commission, “Children at the dorm were not allowed to speak their mother tongue.
I remember several times when other children were slapped or had their mouths washed out for speaking their mother tongue; whether it was Inuktitut or Innu-aimun. Residents were admonished for just being Native.”78 As late as the 1970s, students at schools in northwestern Ontario were not allowed to speak their language if they were in the presence of a staff member who could not understand that language. Conrad Burns, whose father attended the Prince Albert school, named this policy for what it was: “It was a cultural genocide. People were beaten for their language, people were
beaten because ... they followed their own ways.”

How far can you stretch terms like this? A salesman told me a few years ago that he attended a Catholic grade school where the nuns rapped his knuckles with rulers till they bled whenever he wrote with his left hand, because they believed everybody should write with their right hand. Were they genociding his lefthandedness?