Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

−40

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.

19

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.

15

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.

−3

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.

1

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.

8

justlogmeon t1_iu3w5tn wrote

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

8

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.

6