Cultural Separation from Parents

[Ken]

"Forcible transfer of children to other groups" became defined as "cultural genocide" in Canada in 2009.

So compulsory school legislation for any minority tribes can now be called "cultural genocide" by the neomarxists who first pushed for the term to be included as well as for those who fall under their influence.

Here's my working theory what happened.

Neomarxists had been looking into this and describing the residential school system to the people as cultural genocide for at least a decade before 2009, writing books and putting it into community members' heads that they had been victims of "cultural genocide" for years. Then, when they get enough of them convinced and talking at group therapy sessions of some sort they tell them that as victims of "cultural genocide" they are deserving of monetary compensation by the government for their suffering, and then they begin to take down the "testimonies" of the victims and write this down as official "documentation" of complaints that were brought to them totally independently of their own influence.

After a while the fiction becomes so real to community members that they become convinced that in fact it was not just "cultural genocide" but a real genocide, and that bodies must surely have been buried beneath the school buildings. The neomarxist
brainwashers themselves believe their own delusions and start looking for "anomalies" beneath the soil to find the buried bodies and when they find any anomalies whatever they instantly announce they have found bodies of murdered children.

But, of course, there are no buried bodies.

A later, saner, society will surely view this as one of the weirdest cases of mass delusion in human history and take it as a cautionary tale.

Let’s get real here.

Compulsory education has been the policy everywhere in the US and most of the western world for well over 100 years, but every other community in the country gets free public schools in their neighborhoods where classes are taught in student’s native languages by teachers from their own culture who live in their same community, go to the same churches and stores and community events as their parents. And where parents are involved in the schools through PTA, school sports etc. No one complained about that except perhaps the Amish who sued about it and were granted an accommodation. And parents who for whatever reason didn’t like the local public school options could send their kids to private schools. Even in the segregated south, Black children attended neighborhood schools taught by people from their own community. Who shared their values, culture, religion, etc.

Contrast that to what happened for generations in Indian communities where instead of providing good free public education within those same communities where kids could walk to school and walk home again and get educated by teachers who lived in their communities, and live at home with their parents. Students instead were torn away from their families and forcibly shipped across the country where they were stripped of every aspect of their culture from their names to dress to hair styles to language to religion to customs. And parents who objected were sometimes arrested and sent to prison. For real. And it wasn’t to save money. Residential boarding schools were FAR more expensive to operate than rustic one-room rural school houses with a potbellied stove and underpaid local teacher of the sort that were common in much of rural America where generations of Americans were educated.

It wasn’t an attempt to educate children to become members of their own community as was the case everywhere else in the US. It was an attempt to erase tribal identities by turning generations of children into white people so that reservations could eventually be abolished and the lands sold off to corporations for the timber and mineral exploitation and to white settlers and land speculators.

Indian boarding schools were very much an instrument of genocide. The government was absolutely open about that fact. They just didn’t call it genocide back then as the term “genocide” was not even coined until 1944. “Kill the Indian, save the man” was the stated policy of General Richard Pratt who founded the notorious Carlisle Boarding School which became the model for Indian boarding schools around the country. That is just another way of describing genocide. Genocide is not just mass murder like the Holocaust. Any attempt to erase a culture through means like kidnapping generations of children also meets any legal definition of genocide. This isn’t something that Canada invented in 2009. The 1948 UN Convention on genocide says this exact thing. And they don’t try to water it down it by calling it something like “cultural genocide”. They just call it genocide: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

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.

[Falco Knotwise]

Let’s get real here.

Compulsory education has been the policy everywhere in the US and most of the western world for well over 100 years, but every other community in the country gets free public schools in their neighborhoods where classes are taught in student’s native languages by teachers from their own culture who live in their same community, go to the same churches and stores and community events as their parents. And where parents are involved in the schools through PTA, school sports etc. No one complained about that except perhaps the Amish who sued about it and were granted an accommodation. And parents who for whatever reason didn’t like the local public school options could send their kids to private schools.

Contrast that to what happened for generations in Indian communities where instead of providing good free public education within those same communities where kids could walk to school and walk home again and get educated by teachers who lived in their communities, and live at home with their parents. Students instead were torn away from their families and forcibly shipped across the country where they were stripped of every aspect of their culture from their names to dress to hair styles to language to religion to customs. And parents who objected were sometimes arrested and sent to prison. For real.

It wasn’t an attempt to educate children to become members of their own community as was the case everywhere else in the US. It was an attempt to erase tribal identities by turning generations of children into white people so that reservations could eventually be abolished and the lands sold off to corporations for the timber and mineral exploitation and to white settlers and land speculators.

Indian boarding schools were very much an instrument of genocide. The government was absolutely open about that fact. They just didn’t call it genocide back then as the term “genocide” was not even coined until 1944. “Kill the Indian, save the man” was the stated policy of General Richard Pratt who founded the notorious Carlisle Boarding School which became the model for Indian boarding schools around the country. That is just another way of describing genocide. Genocide is not just mass murder like the Holocaust. Any attempt to erase a culture through means like kidnapping generations of children also meets any legal definition of genocide. This isn’t something that Canada invented in 2009. The 1948 UN Convention on genocide says this exact thing. And they don’t try to water it down it by calling it something like “cultural genocide”. They just call it genocide: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

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.

I'm thinking maybe they didn't put schools in local communities for them because of laws making reservations free of public institutions. Daily bussing them back and forth over long distances back then might have problematic.

A doesn't apply.
B doesn't apply. (Though I have no doubt you would define "mental harm" to make it fit.)

C doesn't apply. (Nobody was trying to bring about their "physical destruction".
D doesn't apply (Nobody was sterilized.)

E was the only one of the criteria to get squeezed into the Canadian document.

And that on the basis of a slippery game with the word "forcibly" -- making compulsory school laws genocidal.

So I don't believe the 1948 document was in any way an attempt to define "cultural genocide" without using the word "cultural".

"Cultural genocide" is nothing more than a neomarxist neologism without precedent though you're trying hard to give it an honorable heritage.

I think you should follow your own advice and "get real" here, Ken.

[Ken]

Let’s get real here.

Compulsory education has been the policy everywhere in the US and most of the western world for well over 100 years, but every other community in the country gets free public schools in their neighborhoods where classes are taught in student’s native languages by teachers from their own culture who live in their same community, go to the same churches and stores and community events as their parents. And where parents are involved in the schools through PTA, school sports etc. No one complained about that except perhaps the Amish who sued about it and were granted an accommodation. And parents who for whatever reason didn’t like the local public school options could send their kids to private schools.

Contrast that to what happened for generations in Indian communities where instead of providing good free public education within those same communities where kids could walk to school and walk home again and get educated by teachers who lived in their communities, and live at home with their parents. Students instead were torn away from their families and forcibly shipped across the country where they were stripped of every aspect of their culture from their names to dress to hair styles to language to religion to customs. And parents who objected were sometimes arrested and sent to prison. For real.

It wasn’t an attempt to educate children to become members of their own community as was the case everywhere else in the US. It was an attempt to erase tribal identities by turning generations of children into white people so that reservations could eventually be abolished and the lands sold off to corporations for the timber and mineral exploitation and to white settlers and land speculators.

Indian boarding schools were very much an instrument of genocide. The government was absolutely open about that fact. They just didn’t call it genocide back then as the term “genocide” was not even coined until 1944. “Kill the Indian, save the man” was the stated policy of General Richard Pratt who founded the notorious Carlisle Boarding School which became the model for Indian boarding schools around the country. That is just another way of describing genocide. Genocide is not just mass murder like the Holocaust. Any attempt to erase a culture through means like kidnapping generations of children also meets any legal definition of genocide. This isn’t something that Canada invented in 2009. The 1948 UN Convention on genocide says this exact thing. And they don’t try to water it down it by calling it something like “cultural genocide”. They just call it genocide: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

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.

A doesn't apply.
B doesn't apply. (Though I have no doubt you would define "mental harm" to make it fit.

C doesn't apply. Nobody was trying to bring about their "physical destruction".
D doesn't apply (nobody was sterilized.)

E was the only one of the criteria to get included in the Canadian document.

And that on a slippery game with the word "forcibly."

They 1948 document was in no way an attempt do define "cultural genocide" without using the word "cultural."

That is clearly a recent neomarxist neologism with no precedent though you try to make it fit and give it an honorable heritage.

I think you should follow your own advice and "get real."

Taken as a whole, the entire US government policy towards Indians from the 19th century onwards meets EVERY SINGLE ONE of those criteria. Even though to qualify as genocide, only one of those criteria need be met.

The so-called "Indian wars" where whole towns and villages were erased from the map through mass slaughter. Deportations and herding Indians onto ever-shrinking reservations. Deliberate starvation of whole Indian populations through the slaughter of bison and other game and then the withholding of food, even the deliberate spreading of disease. Indian women were even sterilized against their will. Indian boarding schools were simply one tool in a much larger, longer, and deliberate policy of genocide.

This is what was happening to Indian parents at Wounded Knee in 1890 when Indian children were already being shipped to boarding schools. This happened 11 years after the founding of the Carlyle Indian School in 1879

[Falco Knotwise]

Taken as a whole, the entire US government policy towards Indians from the 19th century onwards meets EVERY SINGLE ONE of those criteria. The so-called "Indian wars" ...

That's another topic whether the wars could be called genocide.

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws were genocidal.

I think you're attempting to change the subject because you have no real arguments.


We were talking about how "cu.t

where whole towns and villages were erased from the map through mass slaughter. Deportations and herding Indians onto ever-shrinking reservations. Deliberate starvation of whole Indian populations through the slaughter of bison and other game and then the withholding of food, even the deliberate spreading of disease (look up smallpox blankets). Indian boarding schools were simply one tool in a much larger, longer, and deliberate policy of genocide.

This is what was happening to the parents at Wounded Knee in 1890 when some of their children were already in boarding schools. This happened 11 years after the founding of the Carlyle Indian School in 1879

[Falco Knotwise]

Taken as a whole, the entire US government policy towards Indians from the 19th century onwards meets EVERY SINGLE ONE of those criteria. The so-called "Indian wars" ...

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws could be considered acts of genocide.

That's another topic whether certain wars could be called genocidal.

Trying to make compulsory schooling laws an extension of the war is another long stretch, just to try and make the criteria fit into your Procrustean bed.

[Ken]

Taken as a whole, the entire US government policy towards Indians from the 19th century onwards meets EVERY SINGLE ONE of those criteria. The so-called "Indian wars" ...

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws could be considered acts of genocide.

That's another topic whether certain wars could be called genocidal. (They may have been terrible but it wasn't an attempt to make them extinct. Otherwise they wouldn't have set up reservations for them.)

Trying to make the schooling laws an extension of the war is long stretch.

If that were so they would really have been trying to bring about their physical destruction not giving them an education.

It seems you're really trying to make it all fit, somehow, but it isn't working.

Well yes, the US government didn't kill on the same mass industrial scale as Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge. But taken as a whole or in part, its policies towards Indians most certainly met the definition of genocide. And yes, Indian boarding schools, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were part of that whole.

In fact, the Nazis actually modeled their concentration camps and policy of Lebensraum in eastern Europe on the American policy of Indian removals in the 19th Century which they looked at admiringly. "The Volga must be our Mississippi" is what Hitler famously said.

And it did not end a century ago. Research forced sterilization of Indian women and tell us what percentage of the female Indian population was sterilized without their consent as late as the 1970s by the Indian Health Service.

And if you look at the history of Native American lands from 1850 onwards it was a remarkably successful policy

[Falco Knotwise]

Delete

[Falco Knotwise]

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws could be considered acts of genocide.


Well yes, the US government didn't kill on the same mass industrial scale as Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge. But taken as a whole or in part, its policies towards Indians most certainly met the definition of genocide. And yes, Indian boarding schools, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were part of that whole.

No they weren't. If it was intended as an extension of the war there would be real mass graves, not just imaginary ones.

In fact, the Nazis actually modeled their concentration camps and policy of Lebensraum in eastern Europe on the American policy of Indian removals in the 19th Century which they looked at admiringly. "The Volga must be our Mississippi" is what Hitler famously said.

First of all, Lebensraum would be connected to the idea of land-grabbing, not genocide. The genocidal part of his plans were most likely modeled on the Medz Yeghern — the Armenian genocide of WWI — not the American-Indian wars.

He didn't have plans to set up protected reservations for Jews to live on after the war, either.

Research forced sterilization of Indian women and tell us what percentage of the female Indian population was sterilized without their consent as late as the 1970s by the Indian Health Service.

What I did research was easy to dismiss. A "study" found that conditions on the reservations were such as to cause tuberculosis, which then caused infected women to become sterile. She did talk about "federal policies" that supposedly had some kind of link to sterilization of women but provided no specific details whatsoever.

It's mostly a very loose interpretation of history with a neomarxist spin on it, imo.

I have not yet looked at the Indian Health Service you mentioned.

[Ken]

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws could be considered acts of genocide.


Well yes, the US government didn't kill on the same mass industrial scale as Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge. But taken as a whole or in part, its policies towards Indians most certainly met the definition of genocide. And yes, Indian boarding schools, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were part of that whole.

No they weren't. If it was intended as an extension of the war there would be real mass graves, not just imaginary ones.

In fact, the Nazis actually modeled their concentration camps and policy of Lebensraum in eastern Europe on the American policy of Indian removals in the 19th Century which they looked at admiringly. "The Volga must be our Mississippi" is what Hitler famously said.

First of all, Lebensraum would be connected to the idea of land-grabbing, not genocide. The genocidal part of his plans were most likely modeled on the Medz Yeghern — the Armenian genocide of WWI — not the American-Indian wars.

He didn't have plans to set up protected reservations for Jews to live on after the war, either.

Research forced sterilization of Indian women and tell us what percentage of the female Indian population was sterilized without their consent as late as the 1970s by the Indian Health Service.

What I did research was easy to dismiss. A "study" found that conditions on the reservations were such as to cause tuberculosis, which then caused infected women to become sterile. She did talk about "federal policies" that supposedly had some kind of link to sterilization of women but provided no specific details whatsoever.

It's mostly a very loose interpretation of history with a neomarxist spin on it, imo.

I have not yet looked at the Indian Health Service you mentioned.

Sometimes history is just history. There isn't always a Marxist lurking every time you peek under the cover.

[Falco Knotwise]

We were talking about whether compulsory schooling laws could be considered acts of genocide.


Well yes, the US government didn't kill on the same mass industrial scale as Nazi Germany or the Khmer Rouge. But taken as a whole or in part, its policies towards Indians most certainly met the definition of genocide. And yes, Indian boarding schools, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were part of that whole.

No they weren't. If it was intended as an extension of the war there would be real mass graves, not just imaginary ones.

In fact, the Nazis actually modeled their concentration camps and policy of Lebensraum in eastern Europe on the American policy of Indian removals in the 19th Century which they looked at admiringly. "The Volga must be our Mississippi" is what Hitler famously said.

First of all, Lebensraum would be connected to the idea of land-grabbing, not genocide. The genocidal part of his plans were most likely modeled on the Medz Yeghern — the Armenian genocide of WWI — not the American-Indian wars.

He didn't have plans to set up protected reservations for Jews to live on after the war, either.

Research forced sterilization of Indian women and tell us what percentage of the female Indian population was sterilized without their consent as late as the 1970s by the Indian Health Service.

What I did research was easy to dismiss. A "study" found that conditions on the reservations were such as to cause tuberculosis, which then caused infected women to become sterile. She did talk about "federal policies" that supposedly had some kind of link to sterilization of women but provided no specific details whatsoever.

It's mostly a very loose interpretation of history with a neomarxist spin on it, imo.

I have not yet looked at the Indian Health Service you mentioned.

Sometimes history is just history. There isn't always a Marxist lurking every time you peek under the cover.

In my opinion a history trying to establish a government program of sterilization should have some real facts to back up such claims and not just a pretty narrative story that conveniently affirms neomarxist theories. That's what I meant.