your use of the term “Medicine Line” put my in mind of one of my favourite songs; the America the song is written about is the post 911 era, as it was composed shortly thereafter, but the sentiment’s the same. If you’ll permit:
2 Likes
Sweetgrass Hills! I have long dreamed of going there. You can see them from one of my favourite places on earth, Writing-on-Stone Provincial park in Southern Alberta. Both sacred Blackfoot sites.
2 Likes
Respectfully, I don’t think your single example proves me wrong. And while I’m generally willing to be proven wrong, I suggest/request you not bother this time. Why? Because I don’t think a “whose genocide is worse?” contest can achieve anything of value. It just feels… ghoulish. Disrespectful of both the dead and the living.
I commented because intentionally or not, the person I quoted seemed to be using a quintessentially Canadian rhetorical tactic of pointing to the USA as a way of absolving Canada for its sins.
See how terrible they are? We’re not that bad! This often leads straight to a “no racism here!” attitude. (Reading again, I see that @tsath is from the US, so let’s call it a rare reverse example of the phenomenon – you think you’re bad? We are so much worse.)
Ultimately, I don’t really care who’s worse. Both countries have been and largely remain extraordinarily fucking terrible in their dealings with Indigenous peoples.
2 Likes
Respectfully, I really don’t believe sweeping generalizations help anyone, ever, no matter how politically correct or well-intentioned they may be.
I could provide many more examples. Or you could do some research saving me the time. I have spent
the better part of my life studying this particular area.
That there sounds pretty rhetorical to me. And hyperbolic. I think it best to avoid generalizations of that kind myself. But I do understand it is all the rage these days. Peace.
1 Like
My previous comment was going to be a litany of atrocities. It’s extremely easy to make such a list for Canada. Some perpetrated by the state, others by churches, others by private companies and individuals. Some historical, some ongoing.
I’m sure it’s also extremely easy to make such a list for the US.
Then one could use those lists to determine which country perpetrated the more objectively awful genocide.
Completely serious question: what would be the point of that, in this context or any other? Is there any, even one, truly good reason to ask that question?
Without going through the exercise we already know that on both sides of the border, the genocide of the indigenous populations was massively devastating, and remains devastating for living indigenous communities and individuals.
Why does it matter which is objectively worse? I’ll tell you again: it doesn’t matter to me. I’m done letting Canada off the hook with this, and that’s what pointing to the US as “worse” does.
2 Likes
To be fair, that’s a joke here in the US as well.
2 Likes
In your first response to me you created a strawman, namely an assertion, subjective and unproven I may add, to which I do not necessarily agree…
Then demanded in the name of above strawman that myself and others refrain from making relevant and important historical distinctions, comparing two different nations, with very different histories, over a period of several centuries.
I gave you an excellent example, with relevant historical evidence, that disproves your claim that
If that were true, during the late 19th century native nations of the American plains would not have sought refuge from the Indian Wars in Canada. It might surprise you to learn that the history of the western ‘frontier’ in Canada and the United States were very different indeed. The N.W.M.P. were created for instance to stop American whisky traders from plying their trade with First Nations tribes north of 49.
Your argument seems to be “all viruses kill therefore we should not bother to understand the distinctions between them” or “all culpable homicide is murder therefore we should erase the distinction between manslaughter and 1st degree.” I completely reject such reasoning and I think common sense and the endeavour of historical accuracy support me.
2 Likes
Note you mentioned N.W.M.P. a couple times, you might be interested in an anecdote I have. In about 1975 I was visiting my mother in hospital in Vancouver; an old friend of hers was there with her father. This guy was just turned 100, and had just got back from a visit to Ireland. He showed me pictures: he had hooked up with an elderly Irish lady (although probably 30 years his junior) with a dog cart and they walked about exploring for quite some time. Anyway, he points to his boots, indicating they were what he wore during this road trip. They were his NWMP issue boots, which he acquired in the 1890s. Still serviceable !
5 Likes
That Canada’s unincorporated territories were a relatively safe haven in the 19th century – for the most part before the Canadian state and its genocidal policies even existed – in no way diminishes the horrors perpetrated from 1867 to the present, and in no way proves that Canada was not just as terrible in its own way. It proves the US had a head start.
Strawman? It’s well known that the Canadian public largely considers itself non-racist and has massive historical blindspots. And that we have a tendency to hold up the US as the example that proves we’re saintly.
For the record, I’m not accusing you personally of holding that view. I’m sure your perspective as a professional historian or anthropologist is far more nuanced. But do you really reject my characterization of the general public?
The Beaverton gets it:
No, my argument is that it’s not a contest. The results are very similar on either side of the border. Thus there’s no point in a comparative study of objective awfulness, at least not in this particular context.
This discussion also makes me wonder why we even conceive of this history and present reality as two separate genocides. Perhaps it would make more sense to think of them as one, perpetrated by neighbouring states as well as private interests and racist individuals within those states. Or perhaps it would make more sense to conceive of them as a series of many genocides.
Maybe we should ask the Beothuk.
4 Likes
One of my favourite N.W.M.P. stories is Superintendent James Walsh and his men, riding into Sitting Bull’s camp of 5000 Sioux, fresh off the Battle of Little Big Horn, and asking them politely to take off their war paint and obey the Queen’s law while they were in Canada. Man those guys must have had puckered butts doing that. Walsh and Sitting Bull remained friends throughout his stay in Canada and Sitting Bull gifted him a ceremonial headdress before returning to the U.S.
2 Likes
Your argument is a logical fallacy. I have never claimed it is a contest.
Surely you can understand that, not unlike a criminologist studying the multi-faceted problem of violent crime, or an epidemiologist investigating the origins and complexities of viral contagion, to truly understand and combat the pathologies of racism, colonialism, genocide and other forms of human oppression, one must make evidence-based observations and distinctions in kind, frequency and virulence. Just as we can statistically observe, and rightly infer, that the long history of gun culture in the U.S. is related to the epidemic of gun violence there today. Quite different than in Canada as I am sure you would agree. History informs the present. Have a good day.
1 Like
I have no objection to studying history, in as much detail as you please, and learning from the mistakes of the past.
What I do object to is thinking it’s somehow relevant that the United States is or was objectively “worse” than Canada in this particular respect. I don’t see how it’s illuminating at all. OK, so it’s worse. What now? How does that conclusion inform the path forward in either country?
And btw, upthread you claimed I “demanded” that you not go through the exercise. I did no such thing. I “suggested/requested”. You’re under no obligation to honour that.
If you really think it’s important to prove me wrong on my claim that fundamentally, Canada has been just as awful for indigenous peoples as the US, then have at it. I will definitely read it should you choose to do that. May or may not reply.
1 Like
I’ll add one more thing then bugger off for at least a few hours:
The specific reason I asked that we not look to prove who’s objectively worse is intimately related to the specific issue. We’re talking about the utter devastation and sometimes 100% destruction of dozens, perhaps hundreds of societies. Each of those episodes, atrocities, policies etc. is the story of the profound suffering of real people.
Each of those atrocities is of course worth studying, understanding, publicizing. I’ve never claimed that shouldn’t be done.
But what, exactly, would be the point in keeping score to dub Canada or the US “worse”? That is a banal, pointless exercise that would trivialize horror, quite unlike
with which I have no disagreement at all.
1 Like
In Canada.
In the States, it’s been all of that, PLUS the same again for millions from western Africa as well.
2 Likes
There was only one female Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell. I didn’t live in Canada while she was a politician. I only follow her on twitter. Very funny and smart (even though she’s a conservative).
3 Likes
That’s right. When I was in University, Kim Campbell was married to Nathan Divinski, a Math professor at UBC (I took linear algebra from him) . She had been one of his students, I guess that would have been a big deal now. For me, my ace up my sleeve when playing “five degrees of Kevin Bacon” . As you say, smart and funny, and not so conservative as to be problematic 
3 Likes
Trump already threatened that, and 3M themselves pointed out that the wood pulp to make their N95 masks (the PPE in question at the time) came from Canada, and the whole supply web between the two countries was too complex for a dumbass tit-for-tat move like that to work. It hasn’t come up since, but I suspect it’s true of a lot of things as well as the masks.
But yeah, it’s still probably best to avoid headaches with President Poopy-diaper (probably already enough of a pain under the best circumstances) regardless.
1 Like
That is true and I stand corrected. Understand however that when you make such a “request”, regarding a sensitive topic in a public forum, it mutates into a form of censorship, as in “if you continue to present facts counter to my argument you are doing wrong”, thus reframing the debate from one of facts and ideas to a contest of perceived personal virtue. This form of rhetorical shaming is an all too common attitude these days, disrespectful not only of free speech but of the open pursuit of ideas and knowledge generally. With respect to the most controversial and sensitive topics, such openness must be expanded, not restricted, if we truly wish to evolve and make progress as a society.
I could give you dozens of examples of the differences between British colonial, Canadian and American formal and informal policy towards indigenous peoples but you seem to have made up your mind. I encourage you to research your own country’s history in this regard.
Look I understand that you have good intentions, but I have to reiterate that your entire premise is built upon a logical fallacy. You are critical of the “rhetoric” of others yet you have failed to examine your own rhetorical conceits.
Without a solid understanding of the facts, you have created a moral standard a priori, then proceed to wield it as a virtue cudgel that is both dismissive of evidence that counters your conclusion and at the same time cedes you the moral high ground. How perfect! And you don’t even have to do any of the heavy lifting! Such an attitude is anathema to professional scholarship and the open exchange of ideas in general. Have a good weekend.
I acknowledge and apologize for my error here.
You’re still not really addressing what I’m actually arguing.
I’m all for serious historical study, including cross-border comparative study. Comparative studies of the reserve and reservation systems? Of residential schooling in both countries? Absolutely, and many more, and I hope good scholars have done and are going that. I suppose you could have reasonably inferred early in the discussion that I oppose those things, in which case I apologize for leaving that possibility open.
However, I’ve also denied such beliefs repeatedly and you’ve persisted in ascribing them to me regardless, so score a strawman for you.
What I’ve actually been opposing is making a value judgment of who’s the “worse” perpetrator of atrocities in the context of a non-scholarly discussion. I saw no point in it, still see no point in it, and have yet to read anything that explains what the point could possibly be. And frankly, while serious comparative study has obvious value, I wonder how many scholars would conclude their work with such a value judgment.
What I do know is that when we make that kind of value judgment in non-scholarly settings, some (not all) Canadians seize on it as an excuse to pat themselves on the back for not being so bad after all. Just this week, two Canadian premiers (Ford and Legault) did exactly that with respect to racism.
And since you seem fond of pointing out logical fallacies, how about appeal to authority? You’ve claimed unspecified expertise on this subject, and your only application of it was to cite a single example of one group of indigenous people seeing the (then) largely European/settler-free Canadian prairie as a safe haven from a horrific ordeal.
One example, no matter how good, does not a refutation make. To extrapolate from that is every bit as much a generalization as my original generalization (in response to a generalization FWIW).
I’m pretty sure you’ve committed several other logical fallacies, but I’m not going to reread your posts in search of them.
You have a good weekend too.
To be clear, I was referring (in both the quoted post and all other related ones) to Indigenous peoples on either side of the border.
You’re quite right about the millions abducted from West Africa and their descendants, and I would never make the preposterous claim that Canadian atrocities against Africans and their descendants have been anywhere near as extensive or brutal as those perpetrated in the US.
Nonetheless, it’s still important to acknowledge and fight anti-Black racism and atrocities in Canada, but sadly there’s massive collective denial. As witness the explicit denial, this week, of the existence of systemic racism by two provincial premiers representing more than half the country’s population.
