Thankyou for presenting the facts, Michelle. You might mention that here was a good reason that most aboriginal tribes in Ontario and Quebec allied themselves with the British in the War of 1812, to resist American expansionism. The British attitude was enlightened co-existence not domination.
Good point. I'm less conversant on things down east but you are correct - thanks for bringing it up. Yes, even after the British won the Seven Years War and conquered the French, with New France being ceded to Britain in 1763, they did not force anyone to become English.
Rescuing children from dysfunctional families, where their parents might be dead from TB or otherwise unable to care for their many children due to poverty, illness or chronic intoxication is not “kidnapping”. Many of these children were reportedly taken in by residential schools in acts of compassion, with the result their prospects for a decent life and career significantly improved.
Yes, it is sad but amusing, eh? $70 million for the TRC, I believe it was ~$10 million for Kimberly Murray's Special Interlocutor stint; Common Experience payout was $1.6 BILLION; the Independent Assessment Process payout was more than $3 BILLION. Dr. Tom Flanagan has a report on Fraser Institute that tallies up present payouts to $60 BILLION (Noble Intentions or something like that)...and of course there is MUCH MORE to come!
I think it's much, much more than that! Under Trudeau the Aboriginal file grew from 11 BILLION $ a year to... 33 BILLION $ a year, with Carney having insinuated something to the effect of extra... 20 or 25 BILLION a year for Indigenous Child Welfare... I haven't seen anything new on that... but even the TRIPLED amount is OUTRAGEOUS!!!
and let's not forget: UNDRIP.. & DRIPA in BC... etc, etc, etc....
And now well over 30 billion a year in stable funding plus ongoing sovereignty transfers and specialized program monies, a mere tripling of budget since 2015. Still - as always - never enough.
I am old enough to remember the organized hostility by indigenous activist groups and their progressive allies against Trudeau Senior when he introduced a White Paper on why we must phase out the Indian Act or face dire consequences. At the time, I argued we should exchange every single Status card with a million dollars and full Canadian citizenship. Too expensive, most people thought. It turns out now that it would have been the deal of a lifetime for the country to have a legally united citizenry and sovereignty under peace, order, and good government.
But we flushed all that away along with never-ending transfers of wealth and an inability to create any more if it involved 'the environment' or 'the land'. It's almost time to do the opposite, I think, to transfer all of Canada and all its public institutions and sovereignty and debt plus all of its diverse peoples to the sacred First Nations and see how they do taking care of the other 40 million refugees they have inherited.
Great basis for an article, Tildeb. Unfortunately, I think it would be the end of the other 40 million..we would not be made wards of the state or cared for, but rather forcibly ejected. Cowichan ruling case in point.
It's always good to hear all sides of a story. That's something that's lacking in "mainstream media" today, and the reason I prefer to get my news anywhere but the mainstream. Thanks once again Michelle, for educating us and I too am sorry no more. Actually, I never was 😉
I chat regularly with a Chilean woman thru Facebook. She told me with complete confidence those countries colonized by Spain still consider themselves to be part of Spain as the Spaniards interbred with the indigenous populations and treated them as equals. Whereas the British commonwealth countries destroyed indigenous populations, either through disease or violence.
When I pointed her to credible historical resources, she said they were written by English historians ergo biased and not worth checking.
She also claims the reason why most former Spanish colonies are impoverished is because they're Catholic who don't prize wealth like Commonwealth countries.
I'm in Panama right now - and here, independence from Spain is a national holiday. During the final FIFA game, most locals were cheering for Argentina. They may speak the language, but they certainly do not consider themselves to be Spanish.
Well are her opinions not part of reality?? In the reality I live in, opinions are real and are an important part of what shapes reality. It turns out, if you open your eyes, that reality includes everything, even wildly unhinged and groundless counterfactuals posing as history and nonetheless quite possibly significantly shaping public policy and individual lives. Reality really is complex!
Note on the Indian Act: without an Indian Act, who knows what would have happened? Not me, not Michelle. But maybe: more thorough 'interbreeding' (i.e., long-term social integration) and avoidance of the current drama of overwrought incriminations over 'cultural genocide.' But who knows?? There are no 'facts and evidence' that could possibly determine the question one way or another.
Ann must be in her glory to be given this much of your valuable time and effort. Alas, I doubt she would be swayed by any amount of primary source documentation.
If we are to engage further in historical revisionism, many questions could arise. For brevity, here below are six:
- how many Caucasians of European descent were murdered on this land like the early explorers mentioned in this essay prior to the 1400s? Prior to 1000 A.D? And so forth? It has been postulated and determined that European settlers existed in North America hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Were these settlers not genocided by the other settlers of different origins?
- was not it colonization when the Iroquois camped on and eventually took Huron land? And similar colonization when other stronger clans and tribes overpowered and decimated lesser clans and tribes throughout the history of North America (and elsewhere in the world)?
"There had to be legislation to both support the people in the interim and provide a means for education and participation in the broader society over the longer term. Otherwise, things would have been Helter Skelter."
This claim is pure assertion. You can certainly offer "facts and evidence" in support of it (i.e., in order to rationalize it) -- and also against it. But note: It is essentially part of a counter-narrative. And call it "facts and evidence" if you like; but that too is, in fact(!), part of a counter-narrative. I think it's important to realize that. "Facts and evidence" do not trump "narrative," so don't assume otherwise. In fact, "narrative" always selectively filters the "facts and evidence." (Notice that this is a fact that fascinated Jordan Peterson.) Consequently, I confidently predict that Ann Diamond will be utterly unswayed by your rebuttal's appeal to "facts and evidence." (A fact that will constitute evidence for the truth of my claims about the relation between "facts and evidence" and "narrative.") And indeed there is good reason(!) to ask whether in fact she should be. (Is it simply a "fact" of the matter that she ought to be convinced by your counter-narrative and give up her narrative? If she did that, perhaps things would be Helter Skelter! Perhaps they are. Perhaps they always will be. There are certainly no "facts and evidence" that are decisive for determining the question apart from narrativally structured worldview.)
Tell me how you think the Indians would have faired without an Indian Act, wherein the government of the day formally accepted responsibility to support them, and to tax other citizens to do so? Ann doesn't have to agree with anything I write, but I obviously don't agree with what she wrote, either. I'm presenting my case. Now you tell us how you think things would have turned out without an act of some kind to manage the situation (which included the potential for Indian Wars to spill into Canada, or that the US standing army post-Civil War, of 1 million men, might be told to simply surge into the West and take it all. You have the floor.
Thank you (for the floor)! I have no idea how the Indians would have fared without an Indian Act. (What am I? God??) I'm also quite certain that you also have no idea about how to even begin to answer (and in particular: with anything approximating decisive "facts and evidence") any such hopelessly broad and broadly-posed counterfactual (indeed, "counter-historical") question. On the other hand, I could concoct endless narratives all day long about how things might have gone -- just as any intelligent person could.
Actually, a medicine chest was a requirement for every band, enshrined in the treaties (the numbered ones anyway). So, free healthcare from day one, paid for by others. But again, that points out that this was a request of the chief and it was honored. I explained that the Medicine Line was 'good' medicine in Canada (even Leah Gazan's Lakota relatives who came with Sitting Bull found asylum here and her great-grandfather John LeCaine was a residential school graduate)
Michelle, I did read your article. I was just having a little fun with Tildeb. I also appreciate your work and have much more sympathy with your narrative than with the grotesque nonsense of someone like Ann Diamond. I'm just offering some constructive (or not!) critique of your framing. Take it or leave it, but I do think the points I've raised are correct and important.
So... not a fan of Jordan Peterson, then? But Michelle is. So maybe, for her anyway, it's worth trying to think things through in a slightly more sophisticated (and true, and reasonable) way.
(No deduction without induction, Henry. Sherlocke Holmes misled a lot of people about 'deduction' -- maybe you? 'Deduction' word salads don't make you a master of common sense.)
Thankyou for presenting the facts, Michelle. You might mention that here was a good reason that most aboriginal tribes in Ontario and Quebec allied themselves with the British in the War of 1812, to resist American expansionism. The British attitude was enlightened co-existence not domination.
Good point. I'm less conversant on things down east but you are correct - thanks for bringing it up. Yes, even after the British won the Seven Years War and conquered the French, with New France being ceded to Britain in 1763, they did not force anyone to become English.
BRAVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ❤️❤️❤️
Rescuing children from dysfunctional families, where their parents might be dead from TB or otherwise unable to care for their many children due to poverty, illness or chronic intoxication is not “kidnapping”. Many of these children were reportedly taken in by residential schools in acts of compassion, with the result their prospects for a decent life and career significantly improved.
So true. https://medium.com/@UndauntedArtz2/indian-residential-schools-the-untold-story-of-a-lifeboat-for-the-least-of-society-66cb2c4d4042
I burst out laughing when I read that "Truth and Reconciliation committees are cheap". How many $billions has it been so far?
Yes, it is sad but amusing, eh? $70 million for the TRC, I believe it was ~$10 million for Kimberly Murray's Special Interlocutor stint; Common Experience payout was $1.6 BILLION; the Independent Assessment Process payout was more than $3 BILLION. Dr. Tom Flanagan has a report on Fraser Institute that tallies up present payouts to $60 BILLION (Noble Intentions or something like that)...and of course there is MUCH MORE to come!
I think it's much, much more than that! Under Trudeau the Aboriginal file grew from 11 BILLION $ a year to... 33 BILLION $ a year, with Carney having insinuated something to the effect of extra... 20 or 25 BILLION a year for Indigenous Child Welfare... I haven't seen anything new on that... but even the TRIPLED amount is OUTRAGEOUS!!!
and let's not forget: UNDRIP.. & DRIPA in BC... etc, etc, etc....
North of 100 billion. So far.
Whew! For 1.8 million people.
And now well over 30 billion a year in stable funding plus ongoing sovereignty transfers and specialized program monies, a mere tripling of budget since 2015. Still - as always - never enough.
I am old enough to remember the organized hostility by indigenous activist groups and their progressive allies against Trudeau Senior when he introduced a White Paper on why we must phase out the Indian Act or face dire consequences. At the time, I argued we should exchange every single Status card with a million dollars and full Canadian citizenship. Too expensive, most people thought. It turns out now that it would have been the deal of a lifetime for the country to have a legally united citizenry and sovereignty under peace, order, and good government.
But we flushed all that away along with never-ending transfers of wealth and an inability to create any more if it involved 'the environment' or 'the land'. It's almost time to do the opposite, I think, to transfer all of Canada and all its public institutions and sovereignty and debt plus all of its diverse peoples to the sacred First Nations and see how they do taking care of the other 40 million refugees they have inherited.
Great basis for an article, Tildeb. Unfortunately, I think it would be the end of the other 40 million..we would not be made wards of the state or cared for, but rather forcibly ejected. Cowichan ruling case in point.
The transnational crime syndicates and partners would not tolerate being so rudely evicted by such a tiny minority I suspect.
It's always good to hear all sides of a story. That's something that's lacking in "mainstream media" today, and the reason I prefer to get my news anywhere but the mainstream. Thanks once again Michelle, for educating us and I too am sorry no more. Actually, I never was 😉
Absolutely on point, masterful and full of fascinating, important new facts I never knew or thought of. Thank you, Michelle!
Thank you. There's still lots I don't know, also, but many interesting historical nuggets out there!
"For myself, I am Sorry No More." And also for the many of us who respect and value your amazing work.
The joy of our Internet world.
I chat regularly with a Chilean woman thru Facebook. She told me with complete confidence those countries colonized by Spain still consider themselves to be part of Spain as the Spaniards interbred with the indigenous populations and treated them as equals. Whereas the British commonwealth countries destroyed indigenous populations, either through disease or violence.
When I pointed her to credible historical resources, she said they were written by English historians ergo biased and not worth checking.
She also claims the reason why most former Spanish colonies are impoverished is because they're Catholic who don't prize wealth like Commonwealth countries.
I'm in Panama right now - and here, independence from Spain is a national holiday. During the final FIFA game, most locals were cheering for Argentina. They may speak the language, but they certainly do not consider themselves to be Spanish.
Glad to hear that. I figured her comments reflected her opinion rather than reality. Nice to have confirmation.
Well are her opinions not part of reality?? In the reality I live in, opinions are real and are an important part of what shapes reality. It turns out, if you open your eyes, that reality includes everything, even wildly unhinged and groundless counterfactuals posing as history and nonetheless quite possibly significantly shaping public policy and individual lives. Reality really is complex!
Note on the Indian Act: without an Indian Act, who knows what would have happened? Not me, not Michelle. But maybe: more thorough 'interbreeding' (i.e., long-term social integration) and avoidance of the current drama of overwrought incriminations over 'cultural genocide.' But who knows?? There are no 'facts and evidence' that could possibly determine the question one way or another.
Ann must be in her glory to be given this much of your valuable time and effort. Alas, I doubt she would be swayed by any amount of primary source documentation.
Well done, Michelle. I enjoy your ability to reference relevant history.
If we are to engage further in historical revisionism, many questions could arise. For brevity, here below are six:
- how many Caucasians of European descent were murdered on this land like the early explorers mentioned in this essay prior to the 1400s? Prior to 1000 A.D? And so forth? It has been postulated and determined that European settlers existed in North America hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Were these settlers not genocided by the other settlers of different origins?
- was not it colonization when the Iroquois camped on and eventually took Huron land? And similar colonization when other stronger clans and tribes overpowered and decimated lesser clans and tribes throughout the history of North America (and elsewhere in the world)?
Maybe it has been forgotten(?) the 1883 massacre at Big Bear where there was also ritual cannibalism.
Do you have a source? Google AI disagrees with that. Also not mentioned in the U Regina reference. https://esask.uregina.ca/entry/frog_lake_massacre.html
Hi Michelle. Could you please suggest some books to read to gain this historical perspective? Thank you.
Thanks for asking!
First would be "Grave Error" https://a.co/d/0dAQF2AD
Note that Indigenous psychologist Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson says that Grave Error is not controversial!
https://michellestirling.com/2024/05/31/nothing-controversial-in-grave-error-my-chat-with-richard-syrett-of-sauga960am-richardsyrett-sauga960am/
The followup is "Dead Wrong" https://a.co/d/06D3rq7y
Then from ppl who lived/worked in IRS context:
"From Truth Comes Reconciliation" https://a.co/d/01369PE3
For free:
The Grey Nuns in the Far North
(1867 — 1917) by Rev. Father P. Duchaussois, OMI
https://www.chac.ca/documents/743/Grey_Nuns_In_The_Far_North_1919.pdf
I have collected some writings of mine on these topics into this pdf (Book version on Kindle)
Ambiguous Losses: Epidemics, Orphans and Unmarked Graves
https://michellestirling.com/2023/07/28/ambiguous-losses-epidemics-orphans-and-unmarked-graves/
I also dispute the claims of Sean Carleton and Reid Gerbrand that few in the media made a 'mistake' about the '215' reporting
https://michellestirling.com/2023/10/25/confronting-indian-residential-school-confabulation-and-media-irresponsibility/
"There had to be legislation to both support the people in the interim and provide a means for education and participation in the broader society over the longer term. Otherwise, things would have been Helter Skelter."
This claim is pure assertion. You can certainly offer "facts and evidence" in support of it (i.e., in order to rationalize it) -- and also against it. But note: It is essentially part of a counter-narrative. And call it "facts and evidence" if you like; but that too is, in fact(!), part of a counter-narrative. I think it's important to realize that. "Facts and evidence" do not trump "narrative," so don't assume otherwise. In fact, "narrative" always selectively filters the "facts and evidence." (Notice that this is a fact that fascinated Jordan Peterson.) Consequently, I confidently predict that Ann Diamond will be utterly unswayed by your rebuttal's appeal to "facts and evidence." (A fact that will constitute evidence for the truth of my claims about the relation between "facts and evidence" and "narrative.") And indeed there is good reason(!) to ask whether in fact she should be. (Is it simply a "fact" of the matter that she ought to be convinced by your counter-narrative and give up her narrative? If she did that, perhaps things would be Helter Skelter! Perhaps they are. Perhaps they always will be. There are certainly no "facts and evidence" that are decisive for determining the question apart from narrativally structured worldview.)
Tell me how you think the Indians would have faired without an Indian Act, wherein the government of the day formally accepted responsibility to support them, and to tax other citizens to do so? Ann doesn't have to agree with anything I write, but I obviously don't agree with what she wrote, either. I'm presenting my case. Now you tell us how you think things would have turned out without an act of some kind to manage the situation (which included the potential for Indian Wars to spill into Canada, or that the US standing army post-Civil War, of 1 million men, might be told to simply surge into the West and take it all. You have the floor.
Thank you (for the floor)! I have no idea how the Indians would have fared without an Indian Act. (What am I? God??) I'm also quite certain that you also have no idea about how to even begin to answer (and in particular: with anything approximating decisive "facts and evidence") any such hopelessly broad and broadly-posed counterfactual (indeed, "counter-historical") question. On the other hand, I could concoct endless narratives all day long about how things might have gone -- just as any intelligent person could.
You know, David, Indians called the border the 'Medicine Line' for a reason. You should try to find out why.
Tildeb, while I am a complete effing moron, even I can guess that one. It has something to do with "free" health care, right?
Actually, a medicine chest was a requirement for every band, enshrined in the treaties (the numbered ones anyway). So, free healthcare from day one, paid for by others. But again, that points out that this was a request of the chief and it was honored. I explained that the Medicine Line was 'good' medicine in Canada (even Leah Gazan's Lakota relatives who came with Sitting Bull found asylum here and her great-grandfather John LeCaine was a residential school graduate)
Michelle, I did read your article. I was just having a little fun with Tildeb. I also appreciate your work and have much more sympathy with your narrative than with the grotesque nonsense of someone like Ann Diamond. I'm just offering some constructive (or not!) critique of your framing. Take it or leave it, but I do think the points I've raised are correct and important.
Facts and evidence lead to deductive reasoning….deductive reasoning can be argued or refuted by better deductions or new evidence.
The need for relevance leads to inductive logic which requires faith in consensus…
Narrative philosophy has been separate from natural philosophy since Plato’s cave.
Partisan and fanatical beliefs will always prevent rational thought.
So... not a fan of Jordan Peterson, then? But Michelle is. So maybe, for her anyway, it's worth trying to think things through in a slightly more sophisticated (and true, and reasonable) way.
I learned how to screen ideological beliefs before attempting rational cognition, you should try it
Have you read Alasdair MacIntyre yet?
Enough to recognize narrative as philosophy…
??
(No deduction without induction, Henry. Sherlocke Holmes misled a lot of people about 'deduction' -- maybe you? 'Deduction' word salads don't make you a master of common sense.)