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

[Ken]

If you would read again what I wrote, instead of projecting all kinds of other things into what I wrote, you should be able to understand that I am in no way condoning such a thing.

Also, FWIW, "freedom of religion" as a founding principle of this country needs a ton of caveats. "Individual" freedom of religion was certainly not a founding principle.

You wrote:

Maybe you think that it would have been better for the native people to retain their spirit worship, sun dances, and all the rest of their cultural trappings, but I cannot agree.

The point I am making is that in a free society, this would have been THEIR choice and THEIR decision. Not the government's.

In any event, I'm not sure what sort of individual religious freedom you think was not a founding principle. For example, on the subject of individual religious freedom James Madison wrote:

That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of Conscience.

[NedFlanders]

How are white people suffering? Is feeling bad or guilty about the past suffering?

Over 40 billion dollars giving out by the Canadian government because of mass graves that don’t exist is 2x the amount of money it would take to feed all the starving and malnourished people in the world. This helps inflation grow here that is so high that my cost of living has doubled to the point of working two full time jobs to feed my family who then I rarely see. I’d be happy to rarely see my family if I knew it was going to build the kingdom of God but instead other “Christians” are distracted by “social injustices” and money rather than wanting to be active in actually personally helping people! We are all suffering! So we should all shut our mouths and do something. I do spend time with these people personally and frankly your not helping them out of their distress by focusing on social injustices not on personal responsibility but helping them stay their…
Time to quit spending time with the armchair quarterbacks…

The Canadian government isn't giving out $40 billion because of mass graves. That is a false canard.

The $40 billion child welfare settlement you are referring to had absolutely nothing to do with mass graves. In fact they aren't even mentioned anywhere in the settlement. $20 billion of it is compensation for historic discrimination, child removals, and illegal underfunding of child welfare spending for First Nations. The second $20 billion is for future long-term reform of the First Nations child welfare and education system. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first- ... -1.6302636 This is long-term spending that will be rolled out over many years.

And no, you couldn't remotely come close to ending hunger on the entire planet with $20 billion. You couldn't even end it here in the US for that amount. Just here in the US the SNAP (food stamp) program has an annual budget of $183 BILLION and there is still plenty of hunger here.

It’s like you are supporting me with your comments Ken. Half of all food in North America goes to waste. Money won’t fix that - wise stewardship would.
And $1000 might supply food for a family of ten in Canada for about two weeks. And the latest numbers in one third world country that CAM mentioned could feed a family that size for a year. Time to go back to school for math. Hehe

[ken_sylvania]

If you would read again what I wrote, instead of projecting all kinds of other things into what I wrote, you should be able to understand that I am in no way condoning such a thing.

Also, FWIW, "freedom of religion" as a founding principle of this country needs a ton of caveats. "Individual" freedom of religion was certainly not a founding principle.

You wrote:

Maybe you think that it would have been better for the native people to retain their spirit worship, sun dances, and all the rest of their cultural trappings, but I cannot agree.

I was not advocating the use of force to suppress such things.

The point I am making is that in a free society, this would have been THEIR choice and THEIR decision. Not the government's.

And again, I am not advocating for government intereference in in this choice.

In any event, I'm not sure what sort of individual religious freedom you think was not a founding principle. For example, on the subject of individual religious freedom James Madison wrote:

That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of Conscience.

It is almost amusing sometimes how people will take a quote by one prominent person and suggest that it represents the beliefs of a majority of poeple at the time, totally ignoring the energetic debates between the various "founding fathers" in which it is obvious that they had starkly differing ideas about most of these major issues.

As to how I know that individual religious freedom was not a founding principle - let's take a look at the 13 original states. Of these 13 states, a majority (7) not only required that persons holding civil office be Christian, they required them to be Protestant. Three more states required civil officeholders to be Christian, preventing Jews, Athiests or Moslems from holding office.

[Neto]

There are, in fact, tribes in Brazil where drunkenness has become something very close to a "cultural value". This can be brought about by well-meaning people, "enablers" who act like the minority people can do no wrong. That is also a form of paternalism, just like a parent who defends their child's behavior, no matter what it is. (A Brazilian missionary told this to me, how it felt to him, when a certain American missionary treated him and the other members of the Brazilian mission like that. It is not really flattering.) These people like to pretend that they are "fully acculturated", just like the nationals, or natives, which ever the case may be.

But back to these spoiled tribes in Brazil. They have been given everything they need, or at least everything their benefactors THINK they need. Someone earlier mentioned keeping native peoples like museum pieces. That happened big time in Brazil, with many tribes moved to the Xingu Park. No missionaries were allowed to enter there, and the people weren't allowed to leave the Parque Xingu. The government's interest in this was two-fold (at least): prevent cultural change (especially religious change) so that anthropologists could observe the cultures, and to get these tribal groups out of land areas they wanted to develop, usually for the oil industry, or for settling poor Brazilians from the slums (favelas) in the large cities. My second cousin did a NT translation for a tribe like this (not in the Parque Xingu, however), where alcohol abuse was rampant, even young mothers being alcoholics. They were given everything, so there was no reason to work, and so they lost their self-worth, and in the process, a great part of their culture, often the very best characteristics of it.

I would have to go back & re-read previous comments here in order to properly credit the correct person (or persons), but it was already mentioned that missionaries should "self-reflect" - be able to step back and see their own culture for what it is. I think this is very difficult to do w/o being heavily exposed to another, different culture. Ask questions, like what is the central cultural value of my "in-group"? When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, what motivates me? For most Westerners, I will suggest, it pretty much comes down to personal profit. In contrast, most tribal groups value relationships much more highly, and one evidence of this is what anthropologists call reciprocity. Reciprocity may look similar to the outsider, but it is not like bartering, or trading. There, the value of what I am giving and what I am getting is carefully compared. Reciprocity does involve the expectation that something will be coming back to me at some point, but there is very little thought of the "comparable value" in the minds of the people. The focus is on the building of the relationship.
This difference can even be seen in a comparison between American & Brazilian business practices. Here in the States, if you keep going back to the same business, there is a sort of expectation that as you become a long-time customer, you will get a "better deal". (Some Christians think their fellow believers should always give them a great deal, but that is another whole ball of wax, but is also an outworking of that capitalistic value system.) In Brazil, it works in the opposite direction. When you first do business with a company, you will get treated very well. Gradually a relationship is formed, one where the business owner begins to see you as "My Customer". So instead of the deals getting better, they can get worse, at least from the customer's point of view. They may be indignant if they find out that you went someplace else, because you are "their customer", because in a sense, they have invested in you during the period of time that the relationship was being formed. Which system is right? Who has the "right" to be upset when things do not go as they expected? It is a clash of cultural values. Who is right? I do not know. But it certainly helps to be aware of what is happening. (Another evidence of the Brazilian cultural value of relationship can be seen in their driving habits. Brazilian drivers are, for the most part, extremely impatient on the road. Any vehicle ahead of them is the automatic target to be passed. They drive as though they are in a terrific hurry. And they are, because they are in a rush to get someplace where relationship is possible. So Rush, Rush, Rush, then they have "all of the time in the world". It's puzzling for Americans, because we can understand the rush, but not the extreme calm or slow-down immediately upon arrival. We do not value relationships like they do. We can learn from them.)

[Ken]

If you would read again what I wrote, instead of projecting all kinds of other things into what I wrote, you should be able to understand that I am in no way condoning such a thing.

Also, FWIW, "freedom of religion" as a founding principle of this country needs a ton of caveats. "Individual" freedom of religion was certainly not a founding principle.

You wrote:

Maybe you think that it would have been better for the native people to retain their spirit worship, sun dances, and all the rest of their cultural trappings, but I cannot agree.

I was not advocating the use of force to suppress such things.

The point I am making is that in a free society, this would have been THEIR choice and THEIR decision. Not the government's.

And again, I am not advocating for government intereference in in this choice.

In any event, I'm not sure what sort of individual religious freedom you think was not a founding principle. For example, on the subject of individual religious freedom James Madison wrote:

That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of Conscience.

It is almost amusing sometimes how people will take a quote by one prominent person and suggest that it represents the beliefs of a majority of poeple at the time, totally ignoring the energetic debates between the various "founding fathers" in which it is obvious that they had starkly differing ideas about most of these major issues.

As to how I know that individual religious freedom was not a founding principle - let's take a look at the 13 original states. Of these 13 states, a majority (7) not only required that persons holding civil office be Christian, they required them to be Protestant. Three more states required civil officeholders to be Christian, preventing Jews, Athiests or Moslems from holding office.

Yes, and half the founding states had legalized slavery. That doesn't mean that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was not a founding principle of this nation.

[Szdfan]

I'm curious whether you would, if possible, use your influence to save me from my current arrogance and cause me to become more like you?

No. Arguments with people who are like me are boring.

[Ken]

Over 40 billion dollars giving out by the Canadian government because of mass graves that don’t exist is 2x the amount of money it would take to feed all the starving and malnourished people in the world. This helps inflation grow here that is so high that my cost of living has doubled to the point of working two full time jobs to feed my family who then I rarely see. I’d be happy to rarely see my family if I knew it was going to build the kingdom of God but instead other “Christians” are distracted by “social injustices” and money rather than wanting to be active in actually personally helping people! We are all suffering! So we should all shut our mouths and do something. I do spend time with these people personally and frankly your not helping them out of their distress by focusing on social injustices not on personal responsibility but helping them stay their…
Time to quit spending time with the armchair quarterbacks…

The Canadian government isn't giving out $40 billion because of mass graves. That is a false canard.

The $40 billion child welfare settlement you are referring to had absolutely nothing to do with mass graves. In fact they aren't even mentioned anywhere in the settlement. $20 billion of it is compensation for historic discrimination, child removals, and illegal underfunding of child welfare spending for First Nations. The second $20 billion is for future long-term reform of the First Nations child welfare and education system. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first- ... -1.6302636 This is long-term spending that will be rolled out over many years.

And no, you couldn't remotely come close to ending hunger on the entire planet with $20 billion. You couldn't even end it here in the US for that amount. Just here in the US the SNAP (food stamp) program has an annual budget of $183 BILLION and there is still plenty of hunger here.

It’s like you are supporting me with your comments Ken. Half of all food in North America goes to waste. Money won’t fix that - wise stewardship would.
And $1000 might supply food for a family of ten in Canada for about two weeks. And the latest numbers in one third world country that CAM mentioned could feed a family that size for a year. Time to go back to school for math. Hehe

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that there were 828 million hungry people in the world in 2022. And the causes of that hunger are immensely complex from war and famine and climate disasters to economic inequality. You are going to eliminate hunger worldwide with a budget of $20 billion? Right.

[ken_sylvania]

I'm curious whether you would, if possible, use your influence to save me from my current arrogance and cause me to become more like you?

No. Arguments with people who are like me are boring.

Really. So this is just an amusement to you? OK.

[ken_sylvania]

You wrote:

I was not advocating the use of force to suppress such things.

The point I am making is that in a free society, this would have been THEIR choice and THEIR decision. Not the government's.

And again, I am not advocating for government intereference in in this choice.

In any event, I'm not sure what sort of individual religious freedom you think was not a founding principle. For example, on the subject of individual religious freedom James Madison wrote:

It is almost amusing sometimes how people will take a quote by one prominent person and suggest that it represents the beliefs of a majority of poeple at the time, totally ignoring the energetic debates between the various "founding fathers" in which it is obvious that they had starkly differing ideas about most of these major issues.

As to how I know that individual religious freedom was not a founding principle - let's take a look at the 13 original states. Of these 13 states, a majority (7) not only required that persons holding civil office be Christian, they required them to be Protestant. Three more states required civil officeholders to be Christian, preventing Jews, Athiests or Moslems from holding office.

Yes, and half the founding states had legalized slavery. That doesn't mean that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." was not a founding principle of this nation.

That principle was only held to the extent that Blacks were not considered "men."

[Neto]

If you would read again what I wrote, instead of projecting all kinds of other things into what I wrote, you should be able to understand that I am in no way condoning such a thing.

Also, FWIW, "freedom of religion" as a founding principle of this country needs a ton of caveats. "Individual" freedom of religion was certainly not a founding principle.

You wrote:

Maybe you think that it would have been better for the native people to retain their spirit worship, sun dances, and all the rest of their cultural trappings, but I cannot agree.

The point I am making is that in a free society, this would have been THEIR choice and THEIR decision. Not the government's.

In any event, I'm not sure what sort of individual religious freedom you think was not a founding principle. For example, on the subject of individual religious freedom James Madison wrote:

That Religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it according to the dictates of Conscience.

This "religious freedom" was not intended to be extended to religions outside of the Judeo-Christian realm, a sort of "nominal Christianity". It is my understanding that the original founders did not really think outside of that "box". (And I'm not really sure about the Jewish part of that.) Your James Madison quote exemplifies that, in it's reference to "our Creator". Not that I want to have the larger culture taken over by people who have no belief in any creator, but that's what real "religious freedom" would entail.