I definetly think Charla Huber's article in the Victoria Times Colonist should carry a content warning such to advise readers that the content may elicit strong potentially harmful emotional responses from reading. Perhaps something like the following may be appropriate:
WARNING
The following article is based on a true story. Only the facts have been changed. The fictional content may be offensive or disturbing to some readers. Reader discretion is advised. Should any readers experience intense physiological or psychological trauma or symptoms you are advised to contact the Denialist trauma hot line at: 613-995-6403. Marc Miller is standing by to take your calls.
This is an extremely informative article. Indigenous people must be listened to, of course, but I agree with Michelle Stirling that evidence must exist, too - and she raises some interesting points.
This is the result of the legitimization of oral evidence by the BCSC and SCC. Now we appear to have moved beyond the acceptance of oral history into a scenario where everything any elder says has to be believed, and to question any level of belief is to force a colonial framework on the indigenous system. I mean, let's face it, indigenous people are just people like the rest of us. History without the academic framework of proof of any form is not really history, it's a fabrication, and it can be changed, manipulated, et cetera, to suit. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that any person, no matter their age or status, is without all of the normal human conditions we all labour under. "There is no difference," as Peter Best says. So why are we allowing some kind of ethereal difference to be ascribed? If this interview or whatever had occurred 150 years ago when oral history truly was the only form of some kind of remembrance I might buy it. But in the intervening 150 years, with the advent of journals, writings by explorers and colonizers (an apt term that should not have the negative context it has acquired today), priests, government agents, the attempt to create a written language and to commit remembrances to writing, personally, I'm pretty reluctant to believe in any "knowings" these days.
I, too, am dubious about oral history and "rememberings". The Jewish sages of old turned our "oral history" into the written Talmud where every rabbi's argument was noted (much like written arguments in the Supreme Court). The point was that memory cannot be relied upon. Moreover every significant culture in the world - from the Romans to the Chinese had a written language and history. I say "significant" not to demean indigenous nations but setting things in writing is part of the process of human progress. Every discovery, including the scientific method relied upon recording things in writing. Is this the progress that woke "culture cancellers" want to erase? Everything that turned humans from cave dwellers to creators of artificial intelligence depended on a written language. Would we have penicillin without it, or anything else of practical value without it?
Well, of course what's been defined as "western," i.e., "colonial" processes and discoveries are not considered acceptable, and we are asked to instead consider oral history and 'rememberings' and 'knowings' as being a more reliable arbiter of the truth. And anyone who says otherwise is a racist. That's all fine and good, but when the payment of billions and billions of dollars and the reallocation of vast tracts of land is based on these ephemeral 'knowings," now called "oral history" to give them some credence, even though said credence has been enshrined in the jurisprudence, most unfortunately and to the detriment of Canada, Canadians and taxpayers for the foreseeable future, then we have a big problem. ANYTHING can be said to be the truth. Assigning some kind of moral superiority to elders is ridiculous and we are dupes for allowing it to happen.
Agreed. The Woke Canada Watch should perhaps circulate a petition for us to sign on specific issues. In this case, we should cite the problems mentioned in this article, perhaps emphasizing the problem of relying on oral evidence alone as proof of mass murders. Remember that after the WW2 Holocaust there was not only plenty of survivors who acted as witnesses, there were clear, graphic photographs taken by members of Allied troops who liberated the camps and also some paper records the Nazis failed to destroy. Solid objective evidence. Moreover, the reparations Germany paid were restricted to actual survivors of the camps; not to their descendants. I am personally offended when indigenous nations refer to themselves as having suffered "genocide" (a term coined after the WW2 Holocaust). European Jews experienced genocide, Armenians experienced genocide by the Turks. Genocide exists in some African countries today, which the world continues to ignore. Although the practices in residential schools were wrong by today's standards, I don't believe the people who ran them deliberately wanted to eradicate indigenous people. Tough discipline was considered normal in ALL schools back in the day. (My own father hated it and quit school to go to work after grade 6 because of it). In any case, I think we need to make our voices heard as Canadian taxpayers.
Michelle Stirling is masterful and on top of the journalistic craft. This passage from her article is fascinating for me, for I had thought I knew the topic well but hadn't considered these two points: "It is an unfortunate leap of logic to suggest that GPR markings are graves of children who were ‘murdered.’ I don’t believe that. I also do not believe that children were buried in a fetal position in a shallow grave. First of all, Christians believe in the resurrection, and to this end, the human body must be treated with dignity despite its soul having left its mortal coil. The death registries for residential schools are detailed and many are also signed by the parents of the deceased child. Secondly, in the time that children were allegedly buried in shallow graves, there would have been a large number of wildlife roaming around. Coyotes and other scavengers would quickly dig up a shallow grave. This is why graves are typically dug six feet deep."
I definetly think Charla Huber's article in the Victoria Times Colonist should carry a content warning such to advise readers that the content may elicit strong potentially harmful emotional responses from reading. Perhaps something like the following may be appropriate:
WARNING
The following article is based on a true story. Only the facts have been changed. The fictional content may be offensive or disturbing to some readers. Reader discretion is advised. Should any readers experience intense physiological or psychological trauma or symptoms you are advised to contact the Denialist trauma hot line at: 613-995-6403. Marc Miller is standing by to take your calls.
This is an extremely informative article. Indigenous people must be listened to, of course, but I agree with Michelle Stirling that evidence must exist, too - and she raises some interesting points.
This is the result of the legitimization of oral evidence by the BCSC and SCC. Now we appear to have moved beyond the acceptance of oral history into a scenario where everything any elder says has to be believed, and to question any level of belief is to force a colonial framework on the indigenous system. I mean, let's face it, indigenous people are just people like the rest of us. History without the academic framework of proof of any form is not really history, it's a fabrication, and it can be changed, manipulated, et cetera, to suit. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that any person, no matter their age or status, is without all of the normal human conditions we all labour under. "There is no difference," as Peter Best says. So why are we allowing some kind of ethereal difference to be ascribed? If this interview or whatever had occurred 150 years ago when oral history truly was the only form of some kind of remembrance I might buy it. But in the intervening 150 years, with the advent of journals, writings by explorers and colonizers (an apt term that should not have the negative context it has acquired today), priests, government agents, the attempt to create a written language and to commit remembrances to writing, personally, I'm pretty reluctant to believe in any "knowings" these days.
I, too, am dubious about oral history and "rememberings". The Jewish sages of old turned our "oral history" into the written Talmud where every rabbi's argument was noted (much like written arguments in the Supreme Court). The point was that memory cannot be relied upon. Moreover every significant culture in the world - from the Romans to the Chinese had a written language and history. I say "significant" not to demean indigenous nations but setting things in writing is part of the process of human progress. Every discovery, including the scientific method relied upon recording things in writing. Is this the progress that woke "culture cancellers" want to erase? Everything that turned humans from cave dwellers to creators of artificial intelligence depended on a written language. Would we have penicillin without it, or anything else of practical value without it?
Well, of course what's been defined as "western," i.e., "colonial" processes and discoveries are not considered acceptable, and we are asked to instead consider oral history and 'rememberings' and 'knowings' as being a more reliable arbiter of the truth. And anyone who says otherwise is a racist. That's all fine and good, but when the payment of billions and billions of dollars and the reallocation of vast tracts of land is based on these ephemeral 'knowings," now called "oral history" to give them some credence, even though said credence has been enshrined in the jurisprudence, most unfortunately and to the detriment of Canada, Canadians and taxpayers for the foreseeable future, then we have a big problem. ANYTHING can be said to be the truth. Assigning some kind of moral superiority to elders is ridiculous and we are dupes for allowing it to happen.
Agreed. The Woke Canada Watch should perhaps circulate a petition for us to sign on specific issues. In this case, we should cite the problems mentioned in this article, perhaps emphasizing the problem of relying on oral evidence alone as proof of mass murders. Remember that after the WW2 Holocaust there was not only plenty of survivors who acted as witnesses, there were clear, graphic photographs taken by members of Allied troops who liberated the camps and also some paper records the Nazis failed to destroy. Solid objective evidence. Moreover, the reparations Germany paid were restricted to actual survivors of the camps; not to their descendants. I am personally offended when indigenous nations refer to themselves as having suffered "genocide" (a term coined after the WW2 Holocaust). European Jews experienced genocide, Armenians experienced genocide by the Turks. Genocide exists in some African countries today, which the world continues to ignore. Although the practices in residential schools were wrong by today's standards, I don't believe the people who ran them deliberately wanted to eradicate indigenous people. Tough discipline was considered normal in ALL schools back in the day. (My own father hated it and quit school to go to work after grade 6 because of it). In any case, I think we need to make our voices heard as Canadian taxpayers.
Michelle Stirling is masterful and on top of the journalistic craft. This passage from her article is fascinating for me, for I had thought I knew the topic well but hadn't considered these two points: "It is an unfortunate leap of logic to suggest that GPR markings are graves of children who were ‘murdered.’ I don’t believe that. I also do not believe that children were buried in a fetal position in a shallow grave. First of all, Christians believe in the resurrection, and to this end, the human body must be treated with dignity despite its soul having left its mortal coil. The death registries for residential schools are detailed and many are also signed by the parents of the deceased child. Secondly, in the time that children were allegedly buried in shallow graves, there would have been a large number of wildlife roaming around. Coyotes and other scavengers would quickly dig up a shallow grave. This is why graves are typically dug six feet deep."
Criminalization of dissent may be coming soon. If this happens, the author of the above article could be arrested for committing a hate crime. https://vancouversun.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/canada-must-combat-residential-school-denialism-special-interlocutors-report-says/wcm/cd379a9d-4b13-4b4b-8166-0b573eae685e