America does not need another Revolution

[cassowary]

The school system was created for the purpose of removing children from the influence of their own culture and assimilating them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's more than hundred-year existence, about 30%, or roughly 150,000, of Indigenous children were placed in residential schools nationally. At least 6,000 of these students are estimated to have died while residents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... ool_system

No. The school system was created for the purpose of removing children from the abuse and neglect of parents who were slowly murdering their kids, the same reason that kids are removed from the care of families who cannot or will not properly take care of them today.

You know Apollonius, the more I read about this policy in Canada the more it looks like a similar one we had here in Australia over the same period of time. I have even read the testimony of former welfare officers who worked in our Northern Territory before WW2 and removed neglected part Aboriginal children to the care of foster homes. Had they not removed a lot of half-Aboriginal children from the blacks' camps most of them would have died from neglect. If a child had one white parent he/she was deemed to have not been born under any animal totem so therefore the tribe felt under no obligation to raise them up. (and in their traditional society children were brought up by the entire tribe rather than just by their immediate parents.)

I have no idea how much inspiration we borrowed from Canada or vice-versa for this policy. But with hindsight it looks to me now more like a broadly British Empire thingy rather than a policy position exclusive to either Dominion.

Assimilating them into the dominant Canadian culture? The trouble with institutionalised care anywhere is that it is usually coldly impersonal and none too caring. No mother's kiss and cuddle at bedtime for instance. All of the physical and educational needs may well be taken care of but the kids usually grow up immersed within a dearth of love. Kids who grow up like that often remain emotionally debilitated for their entire lives. I do not know whether you and/or other readers on this website can even begin to comprehend just how handicapped that can leave you.

They were dying of preventable diseases and living in ignorance, filth and poverty on the reservations. They still are.

Residential School was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now we can't even do them that favour.

That's why Neverfail's comment about a mother's kiss and cuddle at bedtime (very often lacking with a good beating substituted or the kid just left crying when hungry because the mother was too drunk to notice) and obvious problems with institutionalized care, the residential schools were a Very Good Thing.


And I'm sorry. I must return to my assertion that this narrative being promoted and enforced by the educational system, our media, and our politicians is nasty, stupid, and false. Again, I resent being blamed for giving children the only chance they had in life while Native leaders, their contractor friends, their lawyer friends, and bureaucrats in over two dozen federal government agencies use their lies and dissimulations to line their pockets, deflect from their gross incompetence, and call everyone who tries to object to it a racist.

The problem with Canadian Indian people, Australia’s abos, Singapore’s and Malaysia’s Malays and America’s blacks are similar. They all suffer from a cultural deficit, which is a nicer way of saying they are a bunch of bums.

For whatever reasons, their attitudes and behaviour do not lead to success in the modern (largely capitalistic) world.

Blaming it on racism is what irresponsible politicians do. They want their votes to get power and money. It won’t solve their problems. Using a good religion as what Dr Goh Keng Swee half jokingly said will help.

See the study done by Jonathan Gruber. Raising their incomes through character change will also narrow the income inequality.

[Milo]

They were dying of preventable diseases and living in ignorance, filth and poverty on the reservations. They still are.

Residential School was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now we can't even do them that favour.

Born losers?

If you make people live in the middle of nowhere and prevent them learning anything practical, the results are quite predictable.

It is all the 'settlers' fault, just not at all in the way the popular wisdom would have it.

1) were they "made" to live in the middle of nowhere or was that their choice?

2) are you suggesting that they were never taught anything practical at those residental schools?

Please clarify for me Milo. You seem to be going against what your compatriot Apollonius put forth.

1 Reservation land was set aside in the middle of nowhere and a thicket of rules made it very difficult to leave. Residential schools got many First Peoples off the reservations and on to a better life.

2 Residential schools taught practical things that also helped literally millions of First Peoples be better off.

But because civilizing influences were deemed evil by a bunch of white privileged wanna be Marxists, we put a stop to that. Now our First Peoples must only be educated in things that have no practical application whatsoever and must stay on reservation land, because it is 'sacred'. This deliberate strangling of opportunity will apparently cure their poverty.

It is very difficult to covey the facts without it sounding absurd but everything I say is true.

[Sertorio]

They were dying of preventable diseases and living in ignorance, filth and poverty on the reservations. They still are.

Residential School was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now we can't even do them that favour.

Born losers?

If you make people live in the middle of nowhere and prevent them learning anything practical, the results are quite predictable.

It is all the 'settlers' fault, just not at all in the way the popular wisdom would have it.

1) were they "made" to live in the middle of nowhere or was that their choice?

2) are you suggesting that they were never taught anything practical at those residental schools?

Please clarify for me Milo. You seem to be going against what your compatriot Apollonius put forth.

1 Reservation land was set aside in the middle of nowhere and a thicket of rules made it very difficult to leave. Residential schools got many First Peoples off the reservations and on to a better life.

2 Residential schools taught practical things that also helped literally millions of First Peoples be better off.

But because civilizing influences were deemed evil by a bunch of white privileged wanna be Marxists, we put a stop to that. Now our First Peoples must only be educated in things that have no practical application whatsoever and must stay on reservation land, because it is 'sacred'. This deliberate strangling of opportunity will apparently cure their poverty.

It is very difficult to covey the facts without it sounding absurd but everything I say is true.

Maybe Canada should try and give the First Peoples the right to decide by themselves how they want to live. But I suppose that would be seen as a betrayal of the right of superior peoples ruling over the inferior ones...

[neverfail]

Maybe Canada should try and give the First Peoples the right to decide by themselves how they want to live. But I suppose that would be seen as a betrayal of the right of superior peoples ruling over the inferior ones...

Like Aboriginals in Australia my understanding is that Indians and Inuit in Canada have that right. It is just that, like their counterparts in Australia, they seem to be as a rule none too energetic in exercising that right.

[Sertorio]

Maybe Canada should try and give the First Peoples the right to decide by themselves how they want to live. But I suppose that would be seen as a betrayal of the right of superior peoples ruling over the inferior ones...

Like Aboriginals in Australia my understanding is that Indians and Inuit in Canada have that right. It is just that, like their counterparts in Australia, they seem to be as a rule none too energetic in exercising that right.

To live as they want they need to be sovereign, with their own institutions, laws and government. They cannot live as they want as a minority within a society with a very different culture. They need a country, a territory they can call theirs. And both Canada and Australia are big enough to make that possible.

[neverfail]

To live as they want they need to be sovereign, with their own institutions, laws and government.

Why?

[Sertorio]

To live as they want they need to be sovereign, with their own institutions, laws and government.

Why?

That's what freedom is all about...

[cassowary]

Maybe Canada should try and give the First Peoples the right to decide by themselves how they want to live. But I suppose that would be seen as a betrayal of the right of superior peoples ruling over the inferior ones...

Like Aboriginals in Australia my understanding is that Indians and Inuit in Canada have that right. It is just that, like their counterparts in Australia, they seem to be as a rule none too energetic in exercising that right.

To live as they want they need to be sovereign, with their own institutions, laws and government. They cannot live as they want as a minority within a society with a very different culture. They need a country, a territory they can call theirs. And both Canada and Australia are big enough to make that possible.

There are only 50,000 abos in Australia. They are already given special land rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborigi ... _Australia

[cassowary]

They were dying of preventable diseases and living in ignorance, filth and poverty on the reservations. They still are.

Residential School was the best thing that ever happened to them. Now we can't even do them that favour.

Born losers?

If you make people live in the middle of nowhere and prevent them learning anything practical, the results are quite predictable.

It is all the 'settlers' fault, just not at all in the way the popular wisdom would have it.

1) were they "made" to live in the middle of nowhere or was that their choice?

2) are you suggesting that they were never taught anything practical at those residental schools?

Please clarify for me Milo. You seem to be going against what your compatriot Apollonius put forth.

1 Reservation land was set aside in the middle of nowhere and a thicket of rules made it very difficult to leave. Residential schools got many First Peoples off the reservations and on to a better life.

2 Residential schools taught practical things that also helped literally millions of First Peoples be better off.

But because civilizing influences were deemed evil by a bunch of white privileged wanna be Marxists, we put a stop to that. Now our First Peoples must only be educated in things that have no practical application whatsoever and must stay on reservation land, because it is 'sacred'. This deliberate strangling of opportunity will apparently cure their poverty.

It is very difficult to covey the facts without it sounding absurd but everything I say is true.

Maybe Canada should try and give the First Peoples the right to decide by themselves how they want to live. But I suppose that would be seen as a betrayal of the right of superior peoples ruling over the inferior ones...

In Hawaii, the native Hawaiians are given the Island of Niihau or the forbidden Island. American Indian tribes are given reservations with their own police force. The largest reservation belongs to the Hopi tribe.

It owns 2.5 million square miles of land for a population of less than 7,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_Reservation

[neverfail]

There are only 50,000 abos in Australia. They are already given special land rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborigi ... _Australia

Thank you for mentioning that Cassowary.

I must correct your impression of the demographic size however. There are many times more "Abos" than that:

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/austral ... ustralians

In 2016, an estimated 798,365 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were in Australia, representing 3.3% of the total Australian population (ABS 2018b). The Indigenous population is projected to reach about 1.1 million people by 2031 (ABS 2019).

The vexed question seems to be "who (or what) exactly is an Aboriginal"?

50,000 or less might be a good estimate of the number of full blood Aboriginals (the ones who have no ancestry other than Austaloid forebears) : the rest are comprised of part aboriginals - the majority of whom have less (often far less) than half Australoid ancestry.

They can easily fool you. A full blood Aboriginal has a skin complexion equivalent to that of a Negro, a Dravidian or a Melanesian. But when a pale complexioned Caucasian (i.e. a white person) intermarries with a peson of another race (be that person Negro, Chinese or whatever): even if all of the offsprings/children look white one of the descendents probably a generation or two later is bound to give birth to a baby who is a genetic throwback to the non-white forebear and approximates his/her physical appeaerence. But Australian Aboriginals are unique in that, as long as the descendents of the mixed race intermarriage keep on marrying white spouses, there has never been a known recorded instance where a descendent has been born looking like the full Aboriginal ancester.

Genetically, they blend in just so beautifully with us.

I even have an old Aboriginal university chum who is convinced that it is from her race that my own originally evolved. She may even be right.

So what it means is that we have a lot of part-aboriginals who might have only one of his 8 great grandparents (or even one in 16 of his great-greast grandparents) Aboriginal who look perfectly like white people but are adament that they are Australian aboriginals (like the apprentice concreter who formed the concrete slab in our backyard, for instance).

Some have such pale skins and blond hair that they look like English aristocrats.
........................................................................................................................

P.S. They do have special land rights. These include around 55% of the entire area of the Northern Territory and similarly vast swathes of the state of South Australia. Swathes of land as big as several ave5rage sized European countries put together. If you wish to venture on to any of these lands these days (and you are not a member of any of the tribes to whom these lands have been awarded) you cannot legally do so unless you apply for and receive permission from the local (aboriginal) Land Council.

(So I hope that yuou can see by now Sertorio; you do not know what you are talking about.