Canada's Ugly Secret

Cultural genocide, starvation, sexual abuse ... etc.
There appears to be no depravity too low in Canada's attempt to eliminate it's aboriginal people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33099511

The article barely scratches the surface :no:

Time to get over it and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Time to get over it and move on.

---

Why? Did you read the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why? Did you read the article?

---

Not a good reason for self-flagellation over something that took place a generation ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Cultural genocide, starvation, sexual abuse ... etc.
There appears to be no depravity too low in Canada's attempt to eliminate it's aboriginal people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33099511

The article barely scratches the surface :no:

---

It's certainly ugly but it's no secret - it's the same horrible thing that was done by Colonials throughout the New World and the Canadian Residential Schools program was know as one of the worst. There was such disquiet over this in the UK that as late as the 1980's Parliament had reservations about granting Canada full legislative autonomy, lest they legislate prejudice.

Also, this all stopped over half a century ago, most of the people currently in the Canadian Government today were barely alive, then, or hadn't even been born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why? Did you read the article?

---

I did, it's sensationalist.

6000+ dead

Standard abuse theme by church run school.

It's not over yet as there are people who went through those schools and the families of those are also impacted.

Are any of those statements non factual or even sensationalist?

It isn't unkwon to me either, I thought it was commenly known

My thoughts while reading:

Quote:

---

Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has released its findings into more than a century of abuse in Indian Residential Schools. Between the 1880s and 1990s 150,000 aboriginal children were sent to institutions where they were stripped of their language and culture...

---

"Oh boy here we go, another sob story by liberal hippies giving us yet another dose of overblown white guilt for having the temerity to demand a unified language and-

Quote:

---

Many faced emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

---

"Oh. So less 'Save the culture' whining and more 'Oranges and Sunshine' Skeletons in the closet. This might actually be interesting

Reads to the end.

"Never mind. This is Exhibit A to the rule 'presentation matters'. They really couldn't have found someone less dramatic and sermonising to write this? Christ, apparantly an actual genocide isnt enough it has to be a 'Cultural Genocide' as if that somehow made it more damning."



I wish the article had mentioned exactly what these '94 recommendations, really pre-conditions to true reconciliation' were, if the Government is only willing to agree to one I cannot imagine they are as reasonable and rightous as the writer apparantly thinks they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

6000+ dead

Standard abuse theme by church run school.

It's not over yet as there are people who went through those schools and the families of those are also impacted.

Are any of those statements non factual or even sensationalist?

---

As I said, I knew about this, none of this is news to me - and in fact Greyblades is correct, the article is very low on substance and entirely on the side of the First Nations (they are aboriginal and it's incorrect to refer to them as such,).

The presentation makes it sound like this is all some big shock, but I knew all about it - it was common knowledge enough that it affected British political policy thirty years ago, and that has always been a matter of public record because the reservations were expressed by MP's in the House.

The abuse was systematic (also a matter of record) it was designed to break the children so they could be re-educated.

As to the Church part - epic meh when the BBC protected its own paedophile ring for decades.

I also already knew all this and I am from Europe, when come the financial claims?

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

---

But there was never a mass-genocide there, this article is so sensationalist. Cleverly it's called a cultural genocide, someone is trying to make money. How many foundations are into this, never underestimate cynism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

---

Eh, only the bits that buy into the sins of the father rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As I said, I knew about this, none of this is news to me - and in fact Greyblades is correct, the article is very low on substance and entirely on the side of the First Nations (they are aboriginal and it's incorrect to refer to them as such,).

The presentation makes it sound like this is all some big shock, but I knew all about it - it was common knowledge enough that it affected British political policy thirty years ago, and that has always been a matter of public record because the reservations were expressed by MP's in the House.

The abuse was systematic (also a matter of record) it was designed to break the children so they could be re-educated.

As to the Church part - epic meh when the BBC protected its own paedophile ring for decades.

---

They are referred to as aboriginal because it is a broader and includes First Nation and other groups such as Inuit.

Also I do not think that the BBC protecting paedophiles should either filter our news or give other organizations a free pass. Might as well say that because Apartheid existed in South Africa other countries can do it as well.

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

---

The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.

---

Don't know about you but I'd prefer firewater to having a salty aftertaste...

I wish white people would stop inflicting such suffering on all these peaceful individuals who until we got there lived in harmony with each other.

I fell guilty that I don't feel guilty about these events that occurred on a different continent decades ago.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

---

I'm Canadian (33 for another month), and I first heard about all this when I was a teen. When the first nations began seeking some form of redress for what happened in residential schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.

---

Actually you can draw a line from residential schools and high unemployment* to the substance abuse and other social problems that are endemic on first nation reserves.




*The unemployment thing can be caused as much by geography as anything, if you look at a map of where a lot of reserves are.

Well, this is part of "getting over it and moving on"
The fact is Canadians blithely ignore the position of Native cultures in our history, and in future development.
Fortunately, the history and its effect on the present is becoming much more clear.
The Commission (http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=9) is helping us come to grips with the present social realities.
The Supreme Court has upheld treaty undertakings as legally binding (no surprise) and has upheld Native claims to land the Crown wished to assert authority over.
Dealing with the past is crucial to Canada's future.

No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Actually you can draw a line from residential schools and high unemployment* to the substance abuse and other social problems that are endemic on first nation reserves.

*The unemployment thing can be caused as much by geography as anything, if you look at a map of where a lot of reserves are.

---

The world only needs so many hunters, trappers, whalers and reindeer herders. The rest will either have to adopt the ways of the palefaces or drink themselves into oblivion. Adapt or perish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The world only needs so many hunters, trappers, whalers and reindeer herders. The rest will either have to adopt the ways of the palefaces or drink themselves into oblivion. Adapt or perish.

---

So much of what you say can be said in a less crude way.

I'd take that as a good sign when all the only criticism is so superficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I'd take that as a good sign when all the only criticism is so superficial.

---

Your country voted Tory because Ed Miliband ate a sandwich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your country voted Tory because Ed Miliband ate a sandwich.

---

9-
*gasp*
11
*cheering*


My country voted tory for many reasons but mostly because Ed Milliband was a spineless twat who tried to buy votes with a pro Islamic blasphemy law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

9-
*gasp*
11
*cheering*


My country voted tory for many reasons but mostly because Ed Milliband was a spineless twat who tried to buy votes with a pro Islamic blasphemy law.

---

It was the sandwich.

Eh, religion pandering muppet or eating a sandwich, either way he was swallowing someone's bull.

Or In this case pig, but bull was funnier.

Secret? Is that some kind of joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

They are referred to as aboriginal because it is a broader and includes First Nation and other groups such as Inuit.

---

They're referred to as Aboriginal because it's a very narrow term that should only be applied to the first immigrants to a new land - the original human inhabitants.

The First Nations perpetrated cultural genocide of the American Aboriginals.

Quote:

---

Also I do not think that the BBC protecting paedophiles should either filter our news or give other organizations a free pass. Might as well say that because Apartheid existed in South Africa other countries can do it as well.

---

No, more like because everybody in the Colonies abused the natives nobody should be made to suffer for it now. Germans are not expected to feel guilty for the Holocaust now (at least not by most people) and Canadians should not be forced to feel bad about the policy of forced integration.

Quote:

---

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

---

Except these records were never hidden or sealed, and this was widely known about - if it was discussed in the British Parliament as a reason to deny Canada full self-government then it's not "hearsay" or "innuendo".

It is the height of unfairness to blame, shame or even punish someone for the actions of those over which he has no control, whether they share a race sex or nation.

Alas it's also a ubiquitous human impulse that few if any are innocent of acting upon.

Well, the last First Nation representative we had here was extremely racist and saw all white people as a big group of "Euros" as though we were all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

---

So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

---

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

You rest of you remember Megas Methusaleh, yes?

He was full of hatred for "Euro's" and he blamed the problems of his people on the white man more or less exclusively. He was a relatively enlightened and well educated example of his people, though still young.

The First Nations' collective poverty is self-inflicted. By remaining on the reservations and not fully integrating into Canadian society they limit their economic options and those of their children. What they SHOULD do is demand the reservations be legally integrated into Canada proper, then when they are audited in the next Census the Canadian government would be forced to allocate resources on the basis of need, and their extreme poverty would guarantee the lion's share of tax and welfare.

In fact, this was the point of the residential schools - as horrible as they were they were intended to integrate the First Nations people into Canadian society. The difference between then and now if that then "Canadian" society was seen as homogeneous and now it is seen as multi-cultural.

Of course, it won't happen because the elders of the First Nations are weak and over proud - they would rather condemn their people to continued suffering than acknowledge the world has changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

---

Why the assumption that you'd have to tax the poorest to pay for it?
There is of course the assumption that recipients would have to prove why they should get the money.
But on the other hand you'd make everyone pay for it instead of proving whose family got rich based on the atrocity and making these families which gained their money and power doing this pay the taxes for the compensation.
I mean if you're going to research who should receive money, you might as well research who should pay money, or at least who should pay how much if you assume that everyone profited at least a little.

We could also present the bill for sending the royal navy to forcibly end the slave trade and the wealth we gave up freeing our own slaves without a fight, plus all that infrastructure and education the locals now benefit from.
If we're going to start demanding the unagreed debts of the dead be paid by the living we might as well be fair and not only favour the non whites.
Or we could just find what perpritrators still live and let the courts decide what's to be done with them, leave the majority who had nothing to do with it alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

---

Way to willfuly misinterpret there, skippy.

Part of the problem with "just get over it" is it bites both ways.
In many cases, covering a huge amount of land, no title or claim was ever ceded to the Crown.period.
So in fact a large amount of the population of Canada exists on land that legally, they have no title to.
Granted, the majority live inside of treaty territory, but with few exceptions those are not lands that are presently part of the land claim dialogue.
It has more to do with un/underdeveloped resources outside the treaty areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I wish the article had mentioned exactly what these '94 recommendations, really pre-conditions to true reconciliation' were, if the Government is only willing to agree to one I cannot imagine they are as reasonable and rightous as the writer apparantly thinks they are.

---

Here they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

---

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which the article talked about is part of a legal settlement reached in 2006. Canada has already been forced to do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

---

You know this really isn't a very good comparison because some of the survivors of the Residential Schools are still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The First Nations' collective poverty is self-inflicted. By remaining on the reservations and not fully integrating into Canadian society they limit their economic options and those of their children. What they SHOULD do is demand the reservations be legally integrated into Canada proper, then when they are audited in the next Census the Canadian government would be forced to allocate resources on the basis of need, and their extreme poverty would guarantee the lion's share of tax and welfare.

In fact, this was the point of the residential schools - as horrible as they were they were intended to integrate the First Nations people into Canadian society. The difference between then and now if that then "Canadian" society was seen as homogeneous and now it is seen as multi-cultural.

Of course, it won't happen because the elders of the First Nations are weak and over proud - they would rather condemn their people to continued suffering than acknowledge the world has changed.

---

Historically First Nations people have been treated as wards of the state and they were not allowed to manage their own affairs. They've also been subject to racism and discrimination which persists to this day and it's not as if they've been given equal access to economic opportunity. Never mind the fact that if they hadn't been displaced and forced to live in reserves they wouldn't be dealing with these problems in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You rest of you remember Megas Methusaleh, yes?

He was full of hatred for "Euro's" and he blamed the problems of his people on the white man more or less exclusively. He was a relatively enlightened and well educated example of his people, though still young.

---

He wasn't wrong though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which the article talked about is part of a legal settlement reached in 2006. Canada has already been forced to do something.

---

"Forced"?

Chose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

Part of the problem with "just get over it" is it bites both ways.
In many cases, covering a huge amount of land, no title or claim was ever ceded to the Crown.period.
So in fact a large amount of the population of Canada exists on land that legally, they have no title to.
Granted, the majority live inside of treaty territory, but with few exceptions those are not lands that are presently part of the land claim dialogue.

---

Not true. In BC there are areas where treaties were never established (because the pre-confederation colonial government was delinquent in their duty). But that's the north coast. Vancouver (island and city) are covered by treaties. You must have seen a map of the numbered treaties? You know the ones negotiated by the early Dominion government. They cover most of Rupert's land and the north west territories. Even if later on they were breached by the Dominion Government, they still exist. And technically the residential schools were the government fulfilling treaty obligations.

Treaties cover almost 50% of Canada's land mass. The somewhat larger than 50% is a huge amount of land.
The area where Crown/Native agreements exist is now much larger than the linked map, with apparently satisfactory agreements reached with the Inuit and Dene in the North.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/138.../1380224163492

For the future, its a matter of living up to the agreements.

"Judge Sinclair blamed the residential school system for the dysfunction, chaos and poverty in aboriginal communities today. They face high crime, addiction and unemployment rates and poorer-than-average prospects in health and education."

And there it is. Americans are very familiar with this hustle. It will be interesting to see how the Canadians react.

2 billion was set aside a decade ago, and 1.62 billion paid out to 98% of those who qualified by 2012 (details). This is something else entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

He wasn't wrong though.

---

Yes, he absolutely was - he was completely wrong, about everything.

I was not out to get him, and neither were the VAST majority of Canadians.

Anybody who lumps me in with Spaniards, Italians and Greeks, or them with me, doesn't understand what Europe is - but then neither do most people in the US, of any colour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Anybody who lumps me in with Spaniards, Italians and Greeks, or them with me, doesn't understand what Europe is - but then neither do most people in the US, of any colour.

---

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

---

I take it you don't understand Europe either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...48/803/ba8.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

---

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

---

Point - Germany only became part of "Western Europe" when it was divided between the Soviets and the Allies, it should have been reassigned to "Central Europe" on reunification of the two halves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

---

It were the people from proper Europe who liberated the rest from roman oppression and paved the way for a network of wonderful, peaceful yet glorious nation states, the ultimate step in human development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Point - Germany only became part of "Western Europe" when it was divided between the Soviets and the Allies, it should have been reassigned to "Central Europe" on reunification of the two halves.

---

Central Europe is still Europe whereas that island is really quite special geographically and the people are very, very special unlike all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It were the people from proper Europe who liberated the rest from roman oppression and paved the way for a network of wonderful, peaceful yet glorious nation states, the ultimate step in human development.

---

There's really no way to paint the Fall of Rome as a positive step in Human development. You realise that the germanic Barbarians were the ones who overstressed the Pricipate's economy and caused it to reform into the Dominate, paving the way for centuries of feudal drudgery, right?

While it's not fair to modern Germans there is a reason why your people were painted as the monstrous "Hun"

Quote:

---

Central Europe is still Europe whereas that island is really quite special geographically and the people are very, very special unlike all the others.

---

You're just jealous because some of my ancestors had Roman Citizenship and yours didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There's really no way to paint the Fall of Rome as a positive step in Human development. You realise that the germanic Barbarians were the ones who overstressed the Pricipate's economy and caused it to reform into the Dominate, paving the way for centuries of feudal drudgery, right?

While it's not fair to modern Germans there is a reason why your people were painted as the monstrous "Hun"

---

"Barbarians" is a roman term indicative of it's own hubris that, together with an unhealthy potion of corruption and greed, ultimately led to its fall at the hands of said "barbarians". The feudal system wasn't that much worse than what the romans did if you consider all factors. Wasn't it largely the idea of absolute power given by religion that gave feudal lords an excuse to do what they want rather than the feudal idea of an exchange between security provided by the lord for work provided by his subjects? The romans could also do what they wanted with everyone who happened to be a slave and were quite bloodthirsty "barbarians" just for fun and giggles. The aqueducts and so on were nice but didn't make their behavior any more civilized no matter how much they liked to pretend it. The caesars were also not that much better than a feudal king/emperor and that after all the bad experiences they had made with kings already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're just jealous because some of my ancestors had Roman Citizenship and yours didn't.

---

I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbors and subduing them to its rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbors and subduing them to its rule.

---

You have the right to be proud of your history of fighting against the USSPQR. But shouldn't you look for another term to describe yourself, other than European? Since, after all, you fought hard and well to keep yourself out of that world, much harder than we did in England. Unlike you, we failed to resist, and so got folded into Europe like the French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You have the right to be proud of your history of fighting against the USSPQR. But shouldn't you look for another term to describe yourself, other than European? Since, after all, you fought hard and well to keep yourself out of that world, much harder than we did in England. Unlike you, we failed to resist, and so got folded into Europe like the French.

---

No, why? I see European largely as a geographic term and the roman empire was part of Europe but not the be all end all of what makes Europe. There's no need to make up new terms if there already is one that everyone understands. To call only the roman areas Europe seems a bit weird nowadays, even if the Romans did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

"Barbarians" is a roman term indicative of it's own hubris that, together with an unhealthy potion of corruption and greed, ultimately led to its fall at the hands of said "barbarians".

---

Hundreds of years of constant attacks and barbarian incursions progressively eroded Rome Civil society, resulting in militarisation and the loss of collective Civil Right.

Quote:

---

The feudal system wasn't that much worse than what the romans did if you consider all factors. Wasn't it largely the idea of absolute power given by religion that gave feudal lords an excuse to do what they want rather than the feudal idea of an exchange between security provided by the lord for work provided by his subjects? The romans could also do what they wanted with everyone who happened to be a slave and were quite bloodthirsty "barbarians" just for fun and giggles.

---

Religion largely tried to restrain Feudal Lords, their caprice came from the lack of Civil Law (as provided by SPQR) and the social upheavals of the Renaissance is largely a rediscovery of Roman Law and its application to contemporary society.

Quote:

---

The aqueducts and so on were nice but didn't make their behavior any more civilized no matter how much they liked to pretend it. The caesars were also not that much better than a feudal king/emperor and that after all the bad experiences they had made with kings already.

---

At least in Rome you couldn't be executed for being a homosexual - that was largely a capital offence in barbarian cultures.

Quote:

---

I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbours and subduing them to its rule.

---

Far enough to know some of my ancestors were Welsh cattle drovers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

To call only the roman areas Europe seems a bit weird nowadays, even if the Romans did that.

---

If we do, then Turkey, Syria, Israel, the Lebannon, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Marocco are Europe as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

If we do, then Turkey, Syria, Israel, the Lebannon, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Marocco are Europe as well.

---

I meant only the areas of Europe that were roman, not all roman territory.
Although now that I looked it up for 10 secs, it would indeed get a bit odd if we were to use roman names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(Roman_province)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I meant only the areas of Europe that were roman, not all roman territory.
Although now that I looked it up for 10 secs, it would indeed get a bit odd if we were to use roman names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(Roman_province)

---

Whether or not we use the classical geography of Europe to define inclusion, surely we can use it to define exclusion, ie. that Germans are not Europeans. After all, that's your game at the start of this discussion, wasn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Whether or not we use the classical geography of Europe to define inclusion, surely we can use it to define exclusion, ie. that Germans are not Europeans. After all, that's your game at the start of this discussion, wasn't it?

---

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.

---

In Ukrainian there are two different notions: part of the world (chastyna svitu) and continent/mainland (materyk). Sometimes they coincide (Australia, Antarctica, Africa), sometimes they don't - America as a part of the world contains two continents (North America and South America), Euroasia as a continent contains two parts of the world (Europe and Asia).
So, Great Britain, Ireland, Sicily, Corsica and other islands are not parts of the continent (of Europe), but they belong to Europe as a part of the world.
Suits everyone?

Alberta (where I live) has made a public apology.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle25065978/

This will likely not result in any concrete action/policy; the present sentiment appears to be calls for more studies and commissions.
I appreciate The Alberta governments apology; I hope this administration has the courage and imagination to propose concrete measures toward reconciliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.

---

Actually, it's not a geographical fact unless you also accept that parts of Denmak and the Netherlands are also not part of Europe. the British Isles are part of the European landmass and occupy the same tectonic plate, it's just that the last ice age wiped out the land bridge.


Nothing in common with Greeks and Italians?

No - just that I can't be lumped in with them. Also, you clearly missed out all the countries I didn't mention - France, the Netherlands (English have a lot in common with the Dutch), Belgium, Scandinavia...

GERMANY.

So you allowed your prejudice to dictate how you read my post - because you think I'm Greyblades even though I'm regularly seen to slap Greyblades about.

As to SPQR membership not being a way to define a common culture...

I don't even know what to say, except, dafuq?

SPQR IS the definition of European culture, all our institutions are modelled on Roman ones, this is even true in the UK where Roman authority and society largely collapsed after the legions left. Even so, we here value concepts like Republicanism and due process of law, (Roman) letters and our universities were developed from the original Roman concept of a "liberal" eduction.

Even our version of Christianity was Roman.

Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

I protest! The slapping is a more occasional event, there's nothing regular about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Nothing in common with Greeks and Italians?

No - just that I can't be lumped in with them. Also, you clearly missed out all the countries I didn't mention - France, the Netherlands (English have a lot in common with the Dutch), Belgium, Scandinavia...

GERMANY.

So you allowed your prejudice to dictate how you read my post - because you think I'm Greyblades even though I'm regularly seen to slap Greyblades about.

---

There are only few British people such as Beskar about whom I do not have the prejudice that they believe in British exceptionalism.
And I will keep and nurture that prejudice until you can be lumped in with the greeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As to SPQR membership not being a way to define a common culture...

I don't even know what to say, except, dafuq?

---

I never said that, so yeah, dafuq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

SPQR IS the definition of European culture, all our institutions are modelled on Roman ones, this is even true in the UK where Roman authority and society largely collapsed after the legions left. Even so, we here value concepts like Republicanism and due process of law, (Roman) letters and our universities were developed from the original Roman concept of a "liberal" eduction.

Even our version of Christianity was Roman.

---

It certainly had a great influence but so did germanic and other (e.g. celtic) tribal cultures which were simply mixed with the SPQR culture in most places. And yes, we kept quite a few ideas of the romans around for too long even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

---

Hardly. our modern republicanism is often more like a hidden oligarchy, the romans had a monarch instead of a proper republic most of the time, their science and teaching stuff was mostly stolen from the greeks anyway (the ones you don't want to be lumped in with) and is super outdated by now but was obviously flawed enough to stop itself from modernizing. Science and inventions didn't really stop after the collapse of the roman empire either and the Byzantines as the heirs of rome didn't make it to the moon, they couldn't even manage to defend their heavily fortified capital just like Rome didn't even manage to withstand some rabble. The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.
As a great inventor once said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Jobs

[...] Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There are only few British people such as Beskar about whom I do not have the prejudice that they believe in British exceptionalism.
And I will keep and nurture that prejudice until you can be lumped in with the greeks.

---

Ah, but Beskar doesn't believe in identity - he doesn't believe in being British and therefore you can't use him as an example of anything the British believe.

Your underlying belief in German exceptionalism might be interesting to discuss, though, or Kad's belief in Swedish exceptionalism, or Brenus' belief in French exceptionalism.

Quote:

---

I never said that, so yeah, dafuq?

---

Oh yes you did - you said that Rome was not a good yardstick for Europe but "Europe" today is the area where Roman Christianity, East and West, survived. We consider North Africa to be separate from our "European" identity because it went Islamic and became "un Roman".

Quote:

---

It certainly had a great influence but so did germanic and other (e.g. celtic) tribal cultures which were simply mixed with the SPQR culture in most places. And yes, we kept quite a few ideas of the romans around for too long even.

---

I challenge you to find germanic influences in modern Italy or Celtic influences in modern Greece - you won't. What you will find are Roman influences in modern Belgium and France, and also in Wales and Brittany.

Rome is the common thread - that's why it's the "Treaty of Rome" and not the "Treaty of Paris".

What, you thought it was an accident that the modern EU was signed into being, embryonically, in the Eternal City?

Quote:

---

Hardly. our modern republicanism is often more like a hidden oligarchy, the romans had a monarch instead of a proper republic most of the time, their science and teaching stuff was mostly stolen from the greeks anyway (the ones you don't want to be lumped in with) and is super outdated by now but was obviously flawed enough to stop itself from modernizing. Science and inventions didn't really stop after the collapse of the roman empire either and the Byzantines as the heirs of rome didn't make it to the moon, they couldn't even manage to defend their heavily fortified capital just like Rome didn't even manage to withstand some rabble. The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.

---

Roman Republicanism was a form of hidden oligarchy in just the same way, Hence the Res Publica was SPQR and nor PR. Britain has also had a monarch for most of its history, yet has also historically tended towards what was an oligarchic form of Republicanism - punctuated by period of autocracy.

Britain is, of course, the other great influence on modern democratic thought aside from Rome.

As to applying the theory of evolution governments and nations, isn't that a cornerstone of Nazi ideology? I'm pairly sure it is, the argument that the best government is the one best able to overcome its enemies. Clearly, Germany needs to change its education system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Crusade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I protest! The slapping is a more occasional event, there's nothing regular about it.

---

Oh it's more then just occasional... It's latex, PVC and fifty shades of Greyblades

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

---

As a Total war gamer you should be ashamed of yourself!

While the Germanic tribes hammered the last nail into WRE's coffin, Rome had been in decline for over a century and had almost torn itself apart several times - they were doomed mostly due to their own politics and if the Germanic Tribes had not raided Rome someone else would have.

I would also argue while the SPQR had a big effect on our culture, Christianity had a much bigger effect and it is a shared religion that ties us culturally together with the Germans and the rest of "Europe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.

---

Eh, while I agree with the gist of your sentiment, the Theory of evolution is a biological process and has no place describing political situations - Romes fall had nothing to do with evolution - instead it was a series of political mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

As a Total war gamer you should be ashamed of yourself!

While the Germanic tribes hammered the last nail into WRE's coffin, Rome had been in decline for over a century and had almost torn itself apart several times - they were doomed mostly due to their own politics and if the Germanic Tribes had not raided Rome someone else would have.

---

I suppose it depends on your perspective, you can look at Rome as perpetually falling, or you can see it as virtually indestructible - what with the formation of the Empire, the year of the Five Emperors, the Crisis of the Third Century, the fall of the ERE, the Sassanids Wars, the Rise of Islam, the Turks, the Fourth Crusade...

This society survived for two thousand years, even though the centre eventually migrated from Rome to Constantinople that's still extraordinary. Then, on top of that, when the political structure collapsed then the West the society didn't. Despite waves of invasions and immigration the only province of the WRE where people do not speak Vulgar Latin today are Britannia where society actually DID collapse and Illyria.

Quote:

---

I would also argue while the SPQR had a big effect on our culture, Christianity had a much bigger effect and it is a shared religion that ties us culturally together with the Germans and the rest of "Europe".

---

Well, the form of Christianity that survived was the form officially sponsored by the Emperor, and that Christianity was a vehicle for Roman ideas and even Roman technology, so I'm not sure they can be separated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Despite waves of invasions and immigration the only province of the WRE where people do not speak Vulgar Latin today are Britannia where society actually DID collapse and Illyria.

---

Attachment 15677
What about Pannonia, Transalpine Gaul and African coast provinces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Your underlying belief in German exceptionalism might be interesting to discuss, though, or Kad's belief in Swedish exceptionalism, or Brenus' belief in French exceptionalism.

---

DUDE!!

I generally think well of you, but that was just sad..

Whenever have I been a Swedish exceptionalist?

I mean, I have lived most of my adult life in Austria, I have dual citizenship... I think Austria is on the right track and I think Sweden is on the wrong track.

I have never, like ever, said a word about Swedes being superior.

BETTER at some issues, sure. But generally saying I believe in Swedish exceptionalism? Puh-Leeze... :dizzy2:

What's wrong with ya mate? Bad day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Attachment 15677
What about Pannonia, Transalpine Gaul and African coast provinces?

---

I forgot to qualify with "not conquered by Muslims" which is why they speak Arabic rather than Vandal Latin in Africa now, and I said Illyria, by which I meant the greater region including Pannonia.

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I forgot to qualify with "not conquered by Muslims" which is why they speak Arabic rather than Vandal Latin in Africa now, and I said Illyria, by which I meant the greater region including Pannonia.

Sorry.

---

And Transalpine Gaul a part of which is now more or less Switzerland?

A contentious proposal from one First Nation leader:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/29/new-a...venue-sharing/

He might even be right...but really, is any provincial gov't going to sign over a portion of resource revenue as the Native Cut? Might be a place to start a dialogue in any case.

Some movement by the province:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/29/new-a...venue-sharing/

Not resource revenue sharing, but an aid to reserve based business out of general revenue.
No admission of any requirement, treaty or otherwise, to extend such funding; safer from a political perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And Transalpine Gaul a part of which is now more or less Switzerland?

---

Yeah, but it's French and Italian speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yeah, but it's French and Italian speaking.

---

There is also Rhaetian, but most of it is German speaking.

It's official, even if barely reported within Canada; the gov't apparently did engage in "cultural genocide" according to the Supreme Court:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/05/29/canad...enous-peoples/

Well that's a big stack of no shit sherlock. What do you think assimilation actually means?