Mandatory checkpoints between parts of the city.
Arbitrary arrests, arbitrary permission-restrictions.
How many natives went through that? How many ended up with children that are more or less fully assimilated into mainstream Canadian culture?
If you did make an effort and did indeed find positive effects of residential schools, I'd be more willing to discuss the merits you found.
In other news: Y Combinator announced two months ago that it's launching a startup incubator in China: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/14/y-combinator-china-qi-lu/
I doubt it. I've noticed that China stories similar to this one are pretty consistently down-weighted once they hit the front page. They'll get knocked to the very bottom of the first page, or more usually the second page, regardless of how many votes they get.
It's a very subtle form of censorship. The post still exists, just with drastically reduced visibility.
I don't think that explains it either. On most of the stories I'm talking about (including this one), there are little to no comments before the story is down-weighted. There's no flamewar for an algorithm to spot.
It really feels like topic-based censorship, and likely manual since it seems reactive to popularity.
I was surprised to see what's happening with the Uighurs doesn't put China on their watchlist despite criterias being fulfilled:
Contact email taken from:
The second point talks about how we have to redefine Chinese history to talk about colonisation as something that they did on purpose, not by accident. This is also part of the white supremacist conspiracy theory that Columbus-did-nothing-wrong. The biggest part of white supremacism is that whites are being blamed unfairly. White people (whatever that means, whoever that group may be) are not guilty and are not to be blamed. They are victims of circumstance, unfairly maligned by shrill SJWs/leftists/liberals.
Third bullet point goes on about how someone is to benefit by blaming the now-white, now-colonisers Chinese. Once you identify these oppressors that will benefit from blaming the Chinese (implicitly, unfairly), you can proceed to follow the points of the anti-white conspiracy theory.
Fourth bullet point goes on about war chest funding. A big part of the alt right conspiracy theory is that there's a lot of money coming (mostly from "The Jews!") and that all the opposition you're seeing is paid protesters or crisis actors, cashing cheques from George Soros or similar.
Step 5a has genocide in scare quotes. Because, of course, genocides aren't real. This is from holocaust denialism.
The post is all a play-by-play of some ridiculous but fashionable nonsense.
Your second rebuttal sidesteps the objective fact that suppressed minorities do not commit genocide when it comes to "the record" (Indigenous populations of North America are a great example, but their are many more). You are projecting upon me the guilt you feel for a history you choose to interpret. It is morally questionable and academically dishonest to blame color groups en masse for any action. Whites are not responsible for Hitler just as blacks are not responsible for the Rwanda genocide. Only people shoehorning history into a political narrative find utility in racinated guilt complexes.
Your third paragraph exposes just how little of my OP you comprehended before both making sweeping judgements as well as making the effort to explain what I am to a third party. If you are marshalling forces, economic or strategic, it always pays to know who stands with or against your enemy/foe. This is such a simple concept that to break it down further would be insulting to both of us.
The fourth paragraph is titillating. I get the feeling you are suggesting there is anything like parity between the funding on the Left and the Right in the US which is preposterous. There are many examples, but the Arizona Senate race is a good one(Sinema vs. McSally). To your scare quotes, I love this kind of bait: as if somehow pointing out that the US's most politically active, wealthiest subgroup with the highest IQ is engaged, wealthy and smart is antisemitism. More to the point, both sides (all sides) engage in political theater in a democracy; when your side does it is necessary and when your foe does it isn't. Our democracy is pay to play (all democracies are, really) and I do not begrudge the Left's playing, though it is comical just how wealthy the "party of the people" is.
Fifth statement: as a historian, this is the worst. Look up the etymology of the term holocaust. The idea that the Jewish genocide was the first (or worst) is incredibly disrespectful as well as dishonest. Genocide does occur, has occurred, and will continue to ocur.
The post was a very dark satire about how futile it is in this era (or any, really) to think we can respect sovereignty and fulfill R2P. Each Step was pulled from a real world incident, and the only one referencing the Jews/Israelis specifically was the one about deluging the UN with motions, which has been done to them by the real Holocaust deniers. I can go point by point, but I'm out of space here. Lmk booboo.
I don't think the parent post is shrill tenor, but it is a bit too ex-cathedra instead of a careful analysis and show-and-explain inference.
> I get the feeling you are suggesting there is anything like parity between the funding on the Left and the Right in the US which is preposterous.
In effect we can say that its cheaper to fool some groups than others. And its cheaper to disseminate certain kinds of messages than others. And similarly it's cheap to continue to push the same bullshit to a voter base that it already loves. (Confirmation bias makes it easy.)
> The post was a very dark satire about how futile it is in this era
Yeah, I got that impression that it is a list of hints to already happened events, yet it was rather out of context and without any surrounding explanation.
Each of those steps is pulled from actual efforts and initiatives to forestall genocide, non of which has worked. When a world power decides to liquidate a percentage of its population, all that can be done is reactionary in nature; to get involved prior to is to initiate the violence and thereby vindicate the genocidaires.
I know you aren't going to argue in good faith. I know responding to your charge is futile. But your petty name calling triggered me, I guess.