Religion is terrorism.
|
|
|
Church Burnings - Are these Hate Crimes?
- Thread starter Mad Mike
- Start date
Religion is terrorism.
Nothing wrong with trying to bring down the institutions that caused wrong doing.
We didn't allow Hitlerjugend to continue after the war. Why would any organization that supported cultural genocide and racial ideals that mimicked them be allowed to continue?
Terrorism usually has a goal, whether you agree with the goal or not.
Rioting, looting and burning of churches doesn't seem to have a goal other than destabilizing a society. When a target group is maltreated for hundreds of years the pressure builds up and the boiler explodes. It isn't a safe release of pressure.
The problem is that correcting the issues has been crawling along at a snails pace for generations. Come up with a plan that corrects the issues in fifty years and you are a genius.
Tell an 18 year old aboriginal or black that he'll start seeing justice when he's 68 years old and the reaction won't be good. A few will see that they have to bear the burden of slow progress for the next generation for their culture to advance but martyrs are rare these days. How many WASP 18 year olds would accept a bleak future for the greater good?
Frustrated people, especially the young, want instant gratification. The simplest gratification out there is money. It's a poor substitute for respect.
There is psychological harm in the burnings.
One could argue that a lot of the school deaths would have occurred anyways due to diseases of the times but the psychological harm of a child dying without being able to hug their parent and vice versa is mental cruelty.
If the institutions have reformed and are now working to resolve the problems I don't see the value in destroying them.
However if the individuals or institutions are stonewalling justice they should lose any protective status they now have and their proceeds of crime seized as a wake up call.
John A MacDonald said it best in 1879 as to the purpose of the schools.
It was pure and simple cultural genocide.
Doesn't matter how the kids died. Arguing the reasons of why they died is just a poor attempt at whitewashing history, and ignoring the situation around the deaths.
You strip them from their homes to take the savage out of them, you could at least send them home when they died, or give them proper burials. But the reality is, these savage kids were deemed not worth the same consideration as a white kid would have gotten.
So having their classmates dig the graves with a simple cross was more then the savage kids deserved as far as the school administrators felt. That is the problem, not the why they died but the how it was handled.
We'd never let Hitlerjugend reform, or many other genocidal organizations. This is no different.
Giving the institutions the ability to reform is simply an attempt to whitewash history and not let them suffer the consequences.
The church has been playing 3 Diocese Monte with pedophile priests for years with nothing but stonewalling as far as any reforms to that, no indication of it ever changing, and people are shocked about a few revenge burnings. I'm shocked there's not more.
Roadghost
Well-known member
You're going back 140 years to a far different time. To the rulers back then, the understanding of these people with leaders such as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, was that they were brutal and warlike, which in fact they were. Some tribes would tie their captured enemies to a pole and break one bone per day until they died, and that was considered and honorable death with them. You have to remember that around this time, in 1876 the infamous slaughter at Little Bighorn happened, where close to 300 U.S. Cavalrymen were slaughtered. They were marauding and killing settlers in the American west in the most horrible ways imaginable; hence they were seen as savages who had to be civilised.
While it's clear today that the method was unsound, they were in new territory historically and thought they had the correct solution. What better way to teach them civility that to leave it up to God? That's the way they thought, and the road to Hell was paved with good intentions. We know better now, but it is true that the Catholic Church, like the Anglican, United and Presbyterian Churches, must apoligise and offer some kind of compensation for their mistakes. Burning churches won't make that happen.
People like saying that, to whitewash history like it's some distant past, when that genocidal thinking that established residential schools didn't end until the late 1990s.
You have to remember what militarized the natives in the US.
Trail of Tears - Wikipedia
The US decided the best solution to the "Indian question" was to displace them forcefully. Their deaths were welcomed.
These Calvary units idealized in American history were nothing different then the SS troops who loaded the trains to displace people because of race, religion and/or creed a century later.
But no one cares about non-whites, no matter how"inclusive" of a culture we claim to be, so they still have statues up for these "brave" Calvary units.
Roadghost
Well-known member
People like saying that, to whitewash history like it's some distant past, when that genocidal thinking that established residential schools didn't end until the late 1990s.
You have to remember what militarized the natives in the US.
Trail of Tears - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The US decided the best solution to the "Indian question" was to displace them forcefully. Their deaths were welcomed.
These Calvary units idealized in American history were nothing different then the SS troops who loaded the trains to displace people because of race, religion and/or creed a century later.
But no one cares about non-whites, no matter how"inclusive" of a culture we claim to be, so they still have statues up for these "brave" Calvary units.
Ridiculous. There was a war. They lost. We won. As in any war, the losers who continued fighting got slaughtered, humiliated and told to submit to our authority or die. Few conquests throughout history were any different, and fewer if any were allowed to keep their land.
We had no war in Canada. We did the opposite here, we invited the Six Nations after they fought for the British in the American North East during the revolution.
The US also had no conflict with their Natives until they decided to push them west and let anyone who'd die to die. Young or old, women or children. Which caused leaders like Crazyhorse to say enough is enough.
Your replies tell me that you don't understand history and you're fascinated this idealized notion of the white savior conquering the "Redman". You have to lay off American westerns and learn some history.
Roadghost
Well-known member
On the contrary, I know my history better than you apparently. They wouldn't have signed any treaties with us had it not been for what they saw the Americans doing. Am I and every Canadian supposed to apologise because stone age natives weren't smart enough broker better deals? Because my ancestors were smarter and more advanced than they were? I think not. It's true the Americans signed treaties then broke them, then slaughtered the natives when they rebelled. The REALITY is, any way you look at it they were conquered both in the U.S. and Canada. When that happens you'd best lay down your sword and join the conquering tribe.
So you're saying the Canadian indigenous signed treaties under the threat of death....
BUT they were stupid when they didn't get a good deal... when they cut the deal at the business end of a gun.
We call that armed robbery. Then as now. Only THEN we were stealing from "savages" (your words) so it was OK.
Right?
The conquering white man landed in the Americas looking for land, because they're killing each other back 'ome over religious differences... oh and they've found it QUITE profitable to subjugate peoples and steal their resources... but NO "we're killing all these brown people to bring these pagans RELIGION" was the line at the time (sound familiar???)
They found a civilization of tribes of people that had lived in relative peace for thousands of years.
A civilized people that almost unanimously had NO CONCEPT of "ownership" of ANYTHING. If you NEED something, you take it. If your neighbour NEEDS something you have, you give it to them, because it's not YOURS, it is the creators.
There wasn't a lot of RICH, in white man's vocabulary, indians. That would be a foreign concept. The "creator" gave them what they needed, and there was no reason to take more than you need.
More importantly in this context, to most indigenous worldwide, us peoples don't OWN land. The earth is "OWNED" by the creator, we are but caretakers.
On the other side of the table was the white man, that built his wealth and civilization on the backs of serfs and slaves, that would kill off 10% of it's own population (well not ACTUALLY their own, they would send the serfs and slaves to go off and die in their conquests) every year in conquest and religious wars and was known for cultural and religious genocide, that by your admission was basically holding the indigenous captive at the end of a gun.
Tell us again,who were the savages?
When you have written contracts with a government and the government fails to live up to it's obligations of said contract, YOU'D JUST ROLL OVER AND TAKE IT?
That's NOT the ways of the white man.
The rainbows and unicorns version.
Their wars were few and far between until they became capitalist with the fur trade.
Don't forget the story of "thanksgiving" the Americans love to idealized.
So you're discounting the constant wars, slavery, and ritualistic killing of prisoners a few miles south?
Ritualistic "wars" among bands that amounted to extended family units barely count as warfare. Especially when they peacefully would taunt each other over the night before, start their battle at dawn for religious purposes and had defined a end of battle which limited casualties on both sides but allowed a victor to be declared.
Piracy was common, but again you are talking relatively small scale situations.
To see "war" you need to go further south to central America where the Aztecs who had functioning states that could engage in warfare.
It's like the internal wars of ancient Greece. Up until Sparta's siege of Athens, battles numbered in small numbers, at dawn, and never involved the commitment of an entire city state's manpower.
So you don't want to take into account the indigenous people in North America that are a little to far south to fit your narrative. Ok.
Then again, your claims don't quite align with the reality of what was going on with the more local tribes, either.
Warfare In Pre-Columbian North America - Canada.ca
The history of indigenous military activity, prior to the arrival of Europeans.
|
|
|
|
|