Posted on 08/04/2021 5:03:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s amazing how many people are trying to tear down present glories in the name of a past none of them have any interest in going back to. Bringing this to mind is the underreported story of the Canadian church burnings, acts inspired by the claim that Christian-run “residential schools” abused, brutalized and murdered Canadian Indian children.
I investigated this story recently, and it won’t surprise many readers that the Enemedia have completely misrepresented it. And while I covered it here and will have a long magazine essay on the topic go to print this week, the shorter version is this: Insofar as Indian children were forcibly taken to the schools, it was the result of Canadian government policy; many (in fact most, it appears) Indian parents of school pupils wanted their children to attend; and some ex-students describe their years at the institutions as their lives’ best.
Furthermore, the media provocatively speak of residential schools “mass child graves.” But these sites are merely quite typical church cemeteries, and it appears that, at least in some cases, people of all kinds from the local communities were buried therein. But, hey, the Enemedia can’t be bothered with the facts. What I want to address today, however, is something even the churches’/schools’ defenders don’t say.
A central charge made against the churches/schools and the government is that they aimed to stamp out Indian culture. In point of fact, John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister — and a main residential school system author — was a benefactor to the Indians and called many of them his friends. Admittedly, though, he did consider their culture doomed to extinction and thus believed they needed to be westernized to survive as individuals. Horrible, isn’t it?
Only, he was right.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even people here jumped in to the witch hunt about similar stories from
Ireland.
These churches basically surrendered their right to exist as religious institutions the moment they signed on to a government plan to "Westernize" these natives in the first place. At that point the churches are nothing more than instruments of a secular government. The most ludicrous -- the point of comical -- side of the residential school program in Canada was that the government didn't even care WHICH churches housed and educated those natives. As far as the government was concerned, there was no difference between an Anglican school and a Methodist school and a Catholic school.
“Between 1851 and 1910 in England and Wales four million died from tuberculosis, more than one third of those aged 15 to 34 and half of those aged 20 to 24 died, and tuberculosis was called the robber of youth.”
“in 2011, 8.7 million people were infected with tuberculosis with 1.4 million deaths.”
https://jmvh.org/article/history-of-tuberculosis-part-1-phthisis-consumption-and-the-white-plague/
“Emily’s three elder sisters, Maria, Elizabeth, and Charlotte, were sent to the Clergy Daughters’ School at Cowan Bridge. At the age of six, on 25 November 1824, Emily joined her sisters at school for a brief period. At school, however, the children suffered abuse and privations, and when a typhoid epidemic swept the school, Maria and Elizabeth became ill. Maria, who may actually have had tuberculosis, was sent home, where she died. Emily, Charlotte and Elizabeth were subsequently removed from the school in June 1825. Elizabeth died soon after their return home.”
“Charlotte maintained that the school’s poor conditions permanently affected her health and physical development and that it had hastened the deaths of Maria (born 1814) and Elizabeth (born 1815), who both died in 1825. After the deaths of his older daughters, Patrick removed Charlotte and Emily from the school. Charlotte would use her experiences and knowledge of the school as the basis for Lowood School in ‘Jane Eyre’.”
“The three remaining sisters and their brother Branwell were thereafter educated at home by their father and aunt Elizabeth Branwell.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Bront%C3%AB
Getting sick at school and dying from schooling was not confined to First Nations children.
Notice how it is racist to consider any of the people in Great Britian to be “indigenous” in spite of many generations of family history in the islands.
Before you can fight it you have to know what those societies had in the past. Most people are taught a fake history about people in the tribal past being egalitarian.
The current definition of “indigenous” seems to apply to a people in a particular place that manages to exterminate all others that came before it.
Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens - Dotheboys Hall in Yorkshire.
Stone age Europeans were in NA first. Now what happens?
The first humans in NA were migrants that crossed the Bering Straits from Asia into NA and eventually migrated down thru NA and SA.
But humans began in the Garden of Eden by God...and branched out from there.
I was thinking of Europeans, but also of the self-proclaimed “indigenous” peoples in various parts of Africa and the Levant. The word “indigenous” is malleable and easily politicized. What are the borders of “indigenous”? An entire continent, once entered? I’ve argued that Americans are the indigenous people of Antarctica and the Moon. Arguably, other planets as well, other than Venus. Everyone else is an Occupier.
The first part of what you said isn’t correct according to digs in 09, 11 and 14. They found remains and tools etc, all predating the Bering stuff and they were Caucasian.
Point is, it doesn’t matter, no group should get special treatments or rights compared to anyone else. All equal under the law.
In one of his videos, Dinesh D’Souza makes the point that in the not-so-distant past, “conquest ethos” (essentially, “might makes right”) was the norm all over the world. In the pre-United States era, great nations only became rich by conquering weaker nations and exploiting their resources. Not just in the more advanced nations but also in the Americas.
None of the tribes who ruled over the Americas when European settlers began arriving were the descendants of the first migrants to have crossed the Bering Straits 15,000 years ago. All of the tribal names you might be familiar with, Iroquois, Algonquin, Cherokee, Apache, Arapajo, Navajo, Dakota, Lakota, Nez Perce and all the rest, they are all Johnny-come-latelies, descendants of later waves of migration. Their ancestors seized control of the lands they held at that time from the previous occupants in acts of conquest ethos.
The biggest difference was that the next ‘tribe’ in the long succession of conquerors — the Europeans — were not from a Paleo-Indian civilization, they were from a vastly more advanced culture. And in a world where conquest ethos still was the norm, the fact of their more advanced technologies made their conquest of the relatively primitive indigenous American peoples not just predictable but inevitable.
I sometimes find my indigenicity confusing. Genetically there’s the part of me that’s Gaelic Irish that gives me my surname which is really a derivative of the viking ‘Hrothrecker’. The English part is in reality Saxon,Celt and Dane. There’s a very small spike of Italian from somewhere. Most prevalent are the Cherokee markers followed by Saxon, Celt, Dane. A truth genetic investigation gives markers ‘indicative of’. Luckily we have several hundred years of family history on each side. The were some interesting blips however.
Just goes to prove that most of us are a pretty polyglot of genetic material. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m an indigenous earthling.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m an indigenous earthling.”
For myself, that’s still a matter of active investigation.
Scott is a veterinarian with a large practice. Maggie did well with her cafe and super breakfasts
Indians in Alberta seemingly do well and have assimilated into current Alberta society not only as members but as leaders of their community
Not many would go native without their iphones.
Sorry...but I trust God’s word on the history of the world than your post which ignores God and sheer common sense.
Notice how it is racist to consider any of the people in Great Britian to be “indigenous” in spite of many generations of family history in the islands.
On my father’s side, our family tree has been tracked back to William Bradford. So, considering my family has been in America since 1620, I’d like to say I’m fairly well indigenous, also having on my mother’s side Cherokee Nation (my great-great grandmother was 100% Cherokee) bloodlines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.