Canada, the Church, and Aboriginal Genocide

The two hour movie called, Unrepentant, at the end of this post is well worth watching.

There are three stories here.

1. The genocide, abuse and brutal torture of Aboriginal children in Indian Residential Schools run by Canadian Churches in collaboration with and funded by the Canadian Government.

2. Medical and Psychological experimentation on Aboriginal children which in most cases amounted to torture and in many cases ended in death.

Mass graves of Aboriginal children exist all over Canada, where Indian Residential Schools were located, but two spark particular interest.

One is located on National Defense Department land where a Native Indian Hospital was situated. Survivors claim that they were subjected to abusive medical experimentation there.

The other is located behind Allan Memorial Institute, home of MKUltra and Dr. Ewan Cameron's extreme and abusive psychic driving experiments. Survivors claim that they were subjected to abusive psychological experimentation there.

3. The Malicious Persecution using Organized Stalking strategies of Kevin Annett who is struggling to get justice for the thousands of children killed in these schools and the hundreds of thousands of survivors.

Kevin Annett was a United Church of Canada Reverend who was fired, de-listed, harassed, amongst many, many other things because of his refusal to stop exposing the crimes against humanity of the Churches and Government of Canada against Aboriginal children in Indian Residential Schools.

Kevin says he continues to walk with Christ while harshly criticizing religion, the Churches and their hypocrisy.

I find it interesting that while the News Media is all over reports of child sexual and physical abuse these days, the survivors of Aboriginal genocide and child torture are being all but ignored.

Truly shameful!

Unrepentant

Hidden From History : A Canadian Holocaust

List Of Mass Graves

Hidden From History Blog

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. 

Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

--Mohandas Gandhi

Segregation In Toronto!

We all had so many hopes and expectations for the New Millennium!

Sadly we seem to be going backwards instead of forwards.

This week sealed the deal in Toronto.

A meeting of the Toronto District School Board resulted in the acceptance and creation with public funding of a Black Focus Alternative School.

Call it what you want. Use whatever PC phrasing suits you. It doesn't change reality and it doesn't change the fact that in the New Millennium, Toronto is introducing Segregation into the School System.

It is the complete and full extension and implementation of the racist policy of Multiculturalism followed by Canada.

I mean what do you expect in a country which actually advocates the ghettoization of the population and has everyone convinced that this racist policy and ghettoization of minorities is intended to eliminate racism?

How does one eliminate racism by emphasizing differences and stereotypes?

Ask any Psychologist to give you a review of the research done on Stereotypes since the 1930s. The end result of this research clearly shows that a policy like Multiculturalism is not going to do anything to eliminate racism and in fact hasn't.

See my previous blog on this topic for some background links: Racism

And this week, we've seen the beginnings of a new racism. A racism that says:

"I'm a hyphenated Canadian and therefore require special attention. I want and am entitled to maintain my own religion, schools, language and culture. I don't wish to respect the existing society and therefore will create my own little world at the expense of all the taxpayers who are required to support my petty, provincial, narrow-minded outlook because Canada is a 'Multicultural Mosaic'."

What a load of fucking shit! Excuse the language, but seriously ....

Is there a reason why the existing secular democracy that we live in is not deserving of respect from these hyphenated Canadians?

Is there a reason why integration into this existing culture is a problem?

The fact is that if you look at the Indian community in Canada, Indians from India are more Westernized and less backward culturally than Indians from Canada. Arranged marriages and other outdated practices are disappearing in the large urban centers of India, but here in Canada, the Indian community is still fully engaged in it's commitment to these draconian peasant attitudes.

The cause? Multiculturalism.

Where do we expect to go with these bizarre attitudes of ghettoization?

Why don't we just make all schools Ethnic Focus schools?

Is there a compelling reason why Black children should be treated differently than other children?

We can now start a White Ethnocentric school which teaches the children Aryan Culture.

Why would that be more wrong than having a Black Focus school which teaches Afrocentric Culture?

Since most Indians are also Aryan we could have an Indian Ethnocentric school which teaches Indian Aryan Culture as well.

Then we can have a Semite Focus school which teaches Semitic Culture. Of course we'd have to separate the Jews and the Muslims here and create two types of Semite Focus schools as we did with the Aryans.

Sino Focus schools could be next. Again there would have to be splits to accomodate things like the differences between Chinese and Japanese culture.

Are we getting the picture yet?

Multiculturalism is a racist policy, people, and it's the one leading us down this merry path of Ethnic Focus schools.

digg story

Jim Crow still lives in the American South - Digg this and free the Jena 6!

In the small highly segregated rural Louisiana town of Jena in 2006, Six black students were charged with attempted second degree murder for defending themselves against a white student who had been racially taunting them. The weapon they used, according to the prosecutor? Their shoes. The jury? All white. When will Jim Crow die in America?

read more | digg story

Jena 6 - Justice For All

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Well, the Jena 6 controversy seems to be surprising a lot of people. Why?

It certainly wasn't a surprise to me.

We've deluded ourselves into believing that discrimination no longer exists in our world.

Well, guess what people. It does. And before you Canadians out there get all self-righteous, it's not just an American problem. It exists here in Canada too and is just as malicious.

Now before anyone starts screaming about reverse discrimination, I don't agree with what the black kids did. It was clearly wrong and they shouldn't have done it. I'm just putting it in context.

The fact that it occurred to a group of white kids to establish a white tree, tells us that discrimination exists.
The fact that it occurred to a group of white kids to commit a Hate crime by hanging nooses on the tree, tells us it exists.
The fact that the community came down extremely hard on the black kids, by 1) exaggerating the victims injuries and 2) charging these kids with attempted murder tells us it exists.
The fact that the School administration just brushed both the "White" tree and the nooses, off as a prank, tells us it exists.

What are the claims that the black community are making?

If a white kid does something it's brushed off as a prank and they are given a slap on the wrist.
FACT: The administration ignored the fact that the white kids had set up a "White" tree where other kids were not allowed to go for quite a long time.
FACT: When the black kids objected to this, the white kids responded by hanging nooses from the tree. By any rational definition a Hate crime.
FACT: This was brushed off as a "prank" and the white kids were given a slap on wrist.

If a black kid does something they are charged under the fullest extent of the law.
FACT: The white victim of the beating and his parents claim that he was beaten to within an "inch" of his life.
FACT: He was released from the hospital after two hours and attended a social event immediately after.
FACT: Attempted murder charges reflect the fullest extent of the law. The charge was changed but it was still more serious and involved defining the kids' white runners as lethal weapons???

The charges could have been simple assault, or the school could have chosen to intervene anytime, and in such a way that justice was served, in an effort to prevent this reaction by the black kids.

My question is: Why didn't the school intervene immediately? Did it not occur to them that the creation of a "White" tree would provoke the black kids, particularly when it had nooses hanging from it? Just like it would provoke Jewish kids if swastikas were found hanging from the tree.

Or, Perhaps they simply didn't care ... until a white kid was injured.

The very clear message they are sending here, is that it's okay for the white kids to commit Hate crimes, but it's not okay for the black kids to have a problem with it.

The Jena 6 have the right to equal treatment under the law and in the school system. This is a legislated legal right.

In my opinion, all the kids, black and white should be properly disciplined by the school for their behavior.

However, it's the School Board and the Town who should be charged for:

1) Allowing a Hate Crime to occur and not acting on it.

2) With Assault since they were the ones who created the conditions for the assault to occur.

Racism: Canada vs US

We Canadians are a very insecure lot. We suffer our insecurities like a badge, and it's for that reason we always feel it necessary to prove, to show the world, that we are better, wiser, more democratic, more humane, more politically correct, less racist, etc. than our American neighbors and our British forbears.

Our American neighbors, on the other hand, barely know that we exist, and in most cases, don't particularly care what we think about them, or, about anything else. To them, we're like the little brother, who is regarded with affection and a pat on the head when we do something that appeals to them, other times a complete irritant, and most of the time not really acknowledged. The Snowbirds and Frostbacks conundrum.

After all, Mama Britain had to cut our apron strings, we didn't revolt like our big brother Americans and assert our Independence.

Britain just used to consider us a wayward child. Yes, Canada, you can have the BNA Act back if you really want it. I don't know why it makes any difference to you, but here it is ... now calm down, child. Of course you're free to create your own Charter of Rights and Constitution, but this one has been good enough for this long, don't really know what the problem is. And now, I doubt they consider us at all. They've pretty much let go.

This insecurity, this need to prove that we are better and different, is ingrained in our culture, in who we are. Part of our problem is that we still, after years of trying to establish a unique identity, haven't really figured it out. All we know for certain is that we want to be different from Britain and the US, so we establish policies, governing styles, culture, etc. from that point of view, and then flaunt them to the world to establish our uniqueness.

Herein lie the roots of our Multiculturalism policy, a policy which, in my opinion, is racist and divisive.

Yes, I know, Canada's Multiculturalism policy, is one of Canada's Holy Grails. People who criticize it are evil and/or racists blah blah blah.

This is another one of our shortcomings. Try to talk about certain issues, question them, criticize them, and rather than debating the issue, things just degenerate into name calling. How dare you say that our policy is racist, it's intended to eliminate racism. You must be evil, and/or a racist.

Well ... frankly ... the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Canada's Multiculturalism policy is a good example of that.

Neil Bissoondath, a well known and well respected Canadian author, whose family origins, like mine, are from India, said it best in his book, Selling Illusions, The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada:

"Multiculturalism has, over the years, acquired aspects of a holy cow for many, a cash cow for some. Both are dangerous creatures. Standing on consecrated ground, they resent being disturbed and, when challenged, are inclined to bite. But a society that wishes to remain healthy and to grow must, from time to time, stare the holy cows down; it must probe and question them, and decide on their merits and usefulness. To fail to do so is to atrophy."

"There are many ways of approaching a laudable end. It is incumbent on those who seek it - the end, in this case, being a truly pluralistic society - to define their vision with words weightier than vacuous expressions of good will. It is also vital that they not settle into the kind of self-righteous complacency that summarily rejects criticism, for to do so not only calls their vision into disrepute but also proves inimical to the fabric of the society that vision seeks to serve."

Mr. Bissoondaths' book is a good read for anyone interested in this topic: Selling Illusions, The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada.

Now, why do I object to this policy of Multiculturalism?

In the 1980s, I was going to college part-time to build credits for a university degree. The courses I took were first year introductory Psychology. One of my assignments was to set up an experiment on paper, on any issue I was interested in researching. I chose Stereotypes. Since this was an experiment on paper and not one which was actually going to be implemented, my conclusions had to be based on existing experiments which had been performed in this area and their results.

Stereotypes was an area that had been well explored in the 1930s and 1960s in North America. One conclusion which came out of these experiments consistently was that emphasizing differences contributes to stereotypical thinking and divisive attitudes whereas emphasizing similarities brought people together and built understanding, acceptance and community. This is an oversimplified and very basic explanation. I'm not going to get into quoting all kinds of references here, this isn't a research piece, just an opinion. My purpose for explaining this is to simply explain how I came to the conclusions I came to.

In the 1980s, Multiculturalism was a well established policy. It was established in the 1970s, in response to the many complaints of systemic racism which was the norm in Canada at that time. The hope and intent was to build respect for the many cultures that made up Canada by all Canadians.

However, to give those who put this policy together, the benefit of the doubt, I have to assume they weren't familiar with the available research and its results on stereotypical thinking.

The Official website of the Canadian government describes the policy as follows:

Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding, and discourages ghettoization, hatred, discrimination and violence.

Through multiculturalism, Canada recognizes the potential of all Canadians, encouraging them to integrate into their society and take an active part in its social, cultural, economic and political affairs.

Canadian Heritage - Government of Canada Web Site

The same website provides the following statistics:

• 36 percent of visible minorities feel they have experienced discrimination and unfair treatment because of ethno-cultural characteristics;
• nearly 50 percent of Blacks reported discrimination or unfair treatment. By contrast, 33 percent of South Asian and Chinese respondents reported discrimination or unfair treatment;
• when broken down by gender, there is a slight increase in reports of discrimination by Black men (53% compared to 47% for women). There is a similar increase reported by South Asian men (38% compared to 27% for women);
• according to a 2003 Ekos survey, 46 percent of Aboriginal people living off-reserve reported being a victim of racism or discrimination at least once over the previous two years;
• research by Ipsos-Reid (2002) suggested that more than six-out-of-ten Canadians (61%) think that racism separates Aboriginal peoples from the rest of society; and
• roughly the same proportion (59%) felt that Aboriginal peoples are discriminated against by other Canadians.

Canadian Heritage - Government of Canada - Statistics Web Site

Now, one would think that, based on these statistics, they might clue in to the fact, that Multiculturalism isn't working. I would also go as far as to say that discrimination is under-reported in the South Asian population because I know from personal experience with this community, that new immigrants in particular, often do not recognize (or acknowledge) certain acts as racist, acts which North American blacks will correctly identify as racist.

My attempt to find the equivalent statistics for the US failed since they tend to break their stats down to specific categories such as housing, employment, etc. and in the documents I found, made general statements instead of giving specific percentages. However the impression I'm left with is that their situation is pretty much the same as ours except that the discrimination against South Asians has increased and is much higher since 9/11. However, since there was far less discrimination against South Asians before 9/11, my guess is that rates are likely the same or similar now. If anyone out there has the stats feel free to pass them on and I'll add them. Not having these stats makes it a little more difficult to argue my point, so I can't really get into whether the American melting pot concept is better or not. When I get that information I'll update this section.

However, the reality is that the concept of Multiculturalism hasn't eliminated racism, far from it.

The requirements for a society which claims to have eliminated racism is inclusion. Inclusion comes by emphasizing similarities, commonalities, and making differences incidental.

Multiculturalism has ghettoized Canadian society. Minorities stay within their own groups and interact with society from that base. Politicians from those groups represent the special interests of those groups and not necessarily their constituencies. We even have situations where lobby groups are created to represent the special interests of the foreign country from where these groups originate or are tied. The loyalties of these lobby groups is to the foreign interests they represent and not to Canada. Multiculturalism encourages this.

Inclusion results in all parties respecting each other and opens doors for full participation in each others lives and in the society at large. People are free to make their choices regarding their belief and value systems but the belief and value systems of others are no longer a deterrent to building a relationship based on other common interests. Instead of encouraging isolation of people in the communities which represent their origins, people are encouraged to break out of those bounds and get involved with people outside of their communities. They become Canadians.

Ask most Canadian minorities (including many who are born here) what their nationality is? You'll get a hypenated response. Indo-Canadian, African-Canadian, etc. This, in my opinion, indicates a ghettoized psychology. Why not just Canadian?

When people ask me, I say I'm Canadian. The ghettoized psychology of Multiculturalism usually prompts the question, where are you originally from? My response? Canada. Where were your parents from? Canada. Where does your family originate from? India. Finally the hear what they expect to hear. I'm not criticizing those individuals, like I said, it's the psychology of Multiculturalism that encourages this and people respond accordingly.

My grandfather came to Canada in 1908. My father grew up here and raised my siblings and I as Canadian. He believed in integration. His logic was that our family had been in Canada so long that what was the point hanging on to the past. So, while we understood our roots, and respected the culture, values and belief system of our homeland, we also moved into the future and integrated fully into Canadian life.

The stereotypes encouraged by Canadian Multicultural policy only serve to prevent, block this process of integration and inclusion.

My family, the Hundals, are completely integrated into both the Canadian and American fabric. A fact of which I'm proud. We also have a proud heritage in my homeland on both my mothers and fathers side of the family. Another fact of which I'm proud.

My grandfather settled in Vancouver in 1908, his brother, my grand uncle settled in San Francisco at the same time. Our legacy is integration, inclusion, represented by intermarriage in both countries. The youngest generation of my family is almost entirely represented by children who are mixed. We have almost every race and religion represented. Narrow minded bigotries and stereotypes have been stamped out. Everyone is included and accepted.

When I was growing up, I would ask my friends what their national origins were, and was always greeted with responses like: Well I'm part Irish, French, Scottish, or I'm part Italian, English, Norwegian, etc. You will get a similar response from the kids in my family. I'm part Jewish, Indian, Scottish, or, I'm part Indian, Mormon, Spanish, etc.

This is what North America is. We're all part something, or we might be one whole something, but we are first and foremost Canadian or American (or sometimes both ;).

The Internet has, by its very nature, created an inclusionary virtual world. No one knows what anyone looks like, what their nationality, religion, etc. is, or whether they are disabled, unless they choose to share. People don't discriminate because they don't know what to discriminate against until they get to know you. And if they have taken the time to get to know you, the things they might have held against you no longer matter. That's not to say that the Internet doesn't also have it's virtual microcosms of hate, it does. It also has it's communities based on nationality, religion, etc. The difference is that no-one restricts themselves to those communities.

On the Internet, people are free to explore and get to know other people without the bars that normally exist ... and they do.