Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Angra Mainyu]

Fun fact: The Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches have all admitted responsibility and guilt for their actions in these types of schools. So not only can you assign guilt to an organisation, the RCC is the exception for not apologizing for its actions.

Of course, one can assign moral guilt to an organization, independently of its members. Or, for that matter, to a mosquito, a virus, a chair, or the number 19. The claims assigning moral guilt would be false. But one can make false statements. There is no impossibility.


For that matter, many members of the Anglican and Catholic churches have claimed that it is immoral not to believe in God. But their claim is false. Many have claimed that somehow Jesus's death for our sins somehow makes it just or at least compatible with the justice of God to save us from Hell (one can also derive from their beliefs that Hell is also created, even if they claim it's a state of being or a consequence of our actions). But their claim is false, and pretty much nonsensical.

 

[Bomb#20]

This issue of the definition of a native seems to be a derail for the purpose of distracting from the issue of the OP.

It's not a derail; its purpose is to rebut the OP and more particularly to rebut a specific line of argument several posts offered in support of the OP.

Once upon a time there was a widespread movement called "liberalism" that favored equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or color; but that went out of fashion decades ago and the old discredited theory that what your rights are depends on your race, creed and color became all the rage again. There's now a popular narrative according to which some ethnic groups have superior rights to others, on account of supposedly being here "first", which is supposed to make those natives somehow more native than other natives, the latter natives' immigrant ancestors having been more recent immigrants than the immigrant ancestors that the nativer natives are descended from. For example, the new narrative assigns a more native native superior rights to make unilateral land-use decisions, decisions that insufficiently native natives are supposed to give extra respect to on account of his superior firstness and superior nativeness.

Puncture the narrative and you puncture the claim of superior rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

So what is the appropriate way to respond to the discovery of the remains of young children on the church grounds of churches affiliated with these residential schools? How should living persons whose family members were sent to such schools and then seemingly disappeared react? What course of action should they take?

Well, just brainstorming here, maybe it's the crazy pills talking, I'm totally going out on a limb, I know this is a wild idea, but, maybe, file a lawsuit?

 

[Arctish]

This issue of the definition of a native seems to be a derail for the purpose of distracting from the issue of the OP.

It's not a derail; its purpose is to rebut the OP and more particularly to rebut a specific line of argument several posts offered in support of the OP.

Once upon a time there was a widespread movement called "liberalism" that favored equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or color; but that went out of fashion decades ago and the old discredited theory that what your rights are depends on your race, creed and color became all the rage again. There's now a popular narrative according to which some ethnic groups have superior rights to others, on account of supposedly being here "first", which is supposed to make those natives somehow more native than other natives, the latter natives' immigrant ancestors having been more recent immigrants than the immigrant ancestors that the nativer natives are descended from. For example, the new narrative assigns a more native native superior rights to make unilateral land-use decisions, decisions that insufficiently native natives are supposed to give extra respect to on account of his superior firstness and superior nativeness.

Puncture the narrative and you puncture the claim of superior rights.

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

 

[Jarhyn]

This issue of the definition of a native seems to be a derail for the purpose of distracting from the issue of the OP.

It's not a derail; its purpose is to rebut the OP and more particularly to rebut a specific line of argument several posts offered in support of the OP.

Once upon a time there was a widespread movement called "liberalism" that favored equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or color; but that went out of fashion decades ago and the old discredited theory that what your rights are depends on your race, creed and color became all the rage again. There's now a popular narrative according to which some ethnic groups have superior rights to others, on account of supposedly being here "first", which is supposed to make those natives somehow more native than other natives, the latter natives' immigrant ancestors having been more recent immigrants than the immigrant ancestors that the nativer natives are descended from. For example, the new narrative assigns a more native native superior rights to make unilateral land-use decisions, decisions that insufficiently native natives are supposed to give extra respect to on account of his superior firstness and superior nativeness.

Puncture the narrative and you puncture the claim of superior rights.

I don't know where you get the idea that Native rights are superior rights. Perhaps if you gave a specific example we can see if what you are describing are treaty, property, and customary use rights.

And bear in mind that a number of treaties have been explicitly broken, a clear example of "the white man" demanding special rights not offered, nor peacefully agreed on, usually at the business end of a weapon.

 

[Patooka]

Fun fact: The Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches have all admitted responsibility and guilt for their actions in these types of schools. So not only can you assign guilt to an organisation, the RCC is the exception for not apologizing for its actions.

Of course, one can assign moral guilt to an organization, independently of its members. Or, for that matter, to a mosquito, a virus, a chair, or the number 19. The claims assigning moral guilt would be false. But one can make false statements. There is no impossibility.


For that matter, many members of the Anglican and Catholic churches have claimed that it is immoral not to believe in God. But their claim is false. Many have claimed that somehow Jesus's death for our sins somehow makes it just or at least compatible with the justice of God to save us from Hell (one can also derive from their beliefs that Hell is also created, even if they claim it's a state of being or a consequence of our actions). But their claim is false, and pretty much nonsensical.

Nope, you're wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

BTW the designation First Nations became the term for the pre-Colombian nations of what is now called Canada because Canadians of European ancestry were pretending Europeans were the first ones to create a nation there. It's far more accurate than what children were being led to believe back in the 18th-20th centuries.

"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno."- Mark Twain​

Anybody would perceive that that pinnacle-knob at its summit is what the Eiffel tower was built for. I reckon that's far more accurate.

 

[Keith&Co.]

BTW the designation First Nations became the term for the pre-Colombian nations of what is now called Canada because Canadians of European ancestry were pretending Europeans were the first ones to create a nation there. It's far more accurate than what children were being led to believe back in the 18th-20th centuries.

"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno."- Mark Twain​

Anybody would perceive that that pinnacle-knob at its summit is what the Eiffel tower was built for. I reckon that's far more accurate.

If man's been here for 32000 out of 4.5 billion years of Earth existing...
Thats .000007th of the time.

If the ET is 1063 feet, .000007th of that height, or 'man's time on earth expressed as a portion of the Eiffel Tower's height, is 9/100th of an inch.

Anyone know how big the pinnacle knob is?

 

[Bomb#20]

You might not know this but in American culture a person often indicates the ethnic origins of their family or of groups of citizens, especially when there's some sort of festival or celebration involved. We speak of Irish Americans on St. Patrick's Day, or Portuguese Americans during the Blessing of the Fleet in Gloucester, or Asian Americans when the Chinese New Year is celebrated, or Italian Americans when we're in the North End of Boston looking for a nice bowl of Pasta Fazool. And we speak of Native Americans when the discussion turns to things that involve or primarily affect them.

YMMV but it's commonplace here.

Yes. I.e., we categorize people into groups and name those groups based on where their ancestors came to America from. Irish Americans are Americans whose ancestors came here from Ireland, and Asian Americans are Americans whose ancestors came here from Asia, and so forth. So what's a Native American? Where in the world is Native? Well, that's easy enough: "native" means "born here". When we categorize and label people that way, the implication is that Native Americans are Americans whose ancestors came here from here. It amounts to calling them American Americans, as if they were a special group of Americans who, unlike all other Americans, aren't the descendants of immigrants.

So what's the problem? Well, in the first place, it isn't true -- "Native" Americans are descendants of immigrants to America from Beringia. If we followed the logic of the rest of the naming system they'd be called Beringian Americans. In the second place, it's yet another case of people treating American history as beginning with first European contact. That's pretty Eurocentric. And in the third place, it sends people down a garden path to making bad moral judgments...

...like this cartoonist who apparently thinks "illegal immigrant" is an inherited trait.

 

[Elixir]

"Native" Americans are descendants of immigrants to America ...

So you allow no weight to the chronology of group's arrival to area?
Conquest is the sole determinant of "rights" to any and all territory, and the ultimate arbiter of good/bad "moral" decisions?

... sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[Bomb#20]

If man's been here for 32000 out of 4.5 billion years of Earth existing...
Thats .000007th of the time.

Radio-isotope dating methods may perhaps not have been quite up to modern standards when Mark Twain wrote...

Anyone know how big the pinnacle knob is?

My point was, switching from saying the first to create a nation in Canada were Europeans to saying it was whoever immediately preceded the Europeans is not "far more accurate"; it's simply mentally going back a few hundred years and then repeating the exact same error. The new Eurocentrists have apparently learned nothing from the mistakes of the old Eurocentrists.

(I expect you already got all that and were just clowning*, but, this being TFT, you never know...)

(* You are systematically one of the funniest guys here. )

 

[Elixir]

My point was, switching from saying the first to create a nation in Canada were Europeans to saying it was whoever immediately preceded the Europeans is not "far more accurate"; it's simply mentally going back a few hundred years and then repeating the exact same error.

To whose detriment? The ones who came before them? Let them stand up.
Again, if inheritance is disallowed as a "thing", then might making right is what we are left with.

(* You [Keith] are systematically one of the funniest guys here. )

You rank right up there yourself!

 

[Bomb#20]

"Native" Americans are descendants of immigrants to America ...

So you allow no weight to the chronology of group's arrival to area?

Correct.

Conquest is the sole determinant of "rights" to any and all territory, and the ultimate arbiter of good/bad "moral" decisions?

Incorrect. Non sequitur.

... sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

When you endorse the theory that rights to territory derive from how long ago one's ancestors arrived, you are giving aid and comfort to the right-wing idiots who think an illegal immigrant's "anchor baby" is also an illegal immigrant and think our Constitution that guarantees he's an American citizen should be treated as wastepaper.

 

[Elixir]

Correct.

Conquest is the sole determinant of "rights" to any and all territory, and the ultimate arbiter of good/bad "moral" decisions?

Incorrect. Non sequitur.

... sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

When you endorse the theory that rights to territory derive from how long ago one's ancestors arrived*, you are giving aid and comfort to the right-wing idiots who think an illegal immigrant's "anchor baby" is also an illegal immigrant and think our Constitution that guarantees he's an American citizen should be treated as wastepaper.

Okay, then from WHAT do such "rights" derive in your opinion?
* FWIW, I am not pretending to have an answer to that question - at least not a one-size-fits-all answer. But I would not 100% disallow inherited rights in cases where the progeny of former "rights holders" still exist as a group within that territory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If man's been here for 32000 out of 4.5 billion years of Earth existing...
Thats .000007th of the time.

Radio-isotope dating methods may perhaps not have been quite up to modern standards when Mark Twain wrote...

But even using his number, we only get four inches, which isn't even the knob on the flagpole at the post office.

 

[Bomb#20]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

There's a law, perhaps we should call it "Goodwin's Law":

As an online discussion of an ethical issue continues, the probability of someone abruptly switching from ethics to meta-ethics for the sake of an illusory rhetorical gotcha approaches unity.​

 

[Jarhyn]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

There's a law, perhaps we should call it "Goodwin's Law":

As an online discussion of an ethical issue continues, the probability of someone abruptly switching from ethics to meta-ethics for the sake of an illusory rhetorical gotcha approaches unity.​

No. We made the switch from morality to ethics, you whined about it.

We could actually discuss "what ought one party do when a second party and the government collude to harm them and then further cover up evidence?"

But you and Emily and AM want to play fuck-fuck games.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. We made the switch from morality to ethics, you whined about it.

That is not a possible switch. A behavior is unethical if and only if it is immoral. You earlier said

No, that's AM's claim. I pose there are two things which you here conflate: an unstable morality that vacillates between a primitive darwinian paradigm and a more advanced neo-Lamarckian paradigm; the relativity exists in where one lands in applying Lamarckian strategy over Darwinian, and a stable Ethics which can be used to describe and prescribe how and when and why to apply paradigms such as these.

Ethics is more the discussion of, which paradigm gives better benefits to who and why. "

But no; words have meaning. We were discussing immoral behaviors, in other words unethical behaviors.


The switch from ethics to metaethics in the context of this particular exchange was started by Patooka in a reply to me. I replied to him, and then you raised a different metaethical objection.

But you and Emily and AM want to play fuck-fuck games.

No, I want to argue the points I believe to be true. Among other points, I want to argue against collective blaming, which puts the blame on the innocent, and B20 and Emily also agree on that point. They also make other points, which are not fuck-fuck games, but you would realize that if you were to read the posts.


Going back a bit:

I also don't belief that it lacks a mind. It's a very anthropocentric concept of mind and agency to reject such. The Catholic church has rules and procedures, systems of decision making. The operation of it's mind is plodding, slow, and alien.

That is not the same as having a mind. It's not as though there is a subjective experience above that of its members. Additionally, there is no good reason to believe alien minds have morality or are moral agents - unless they have minds that are sufficiently human-like. But that aside, again think about your own thought processes when you demand an apology and/or blame 'the church'. Are you not, in fact, blaming some of its members? Do you get angry with the alien mind you might believe in, or with humans for their immoral behavior?

 

[laughing dog]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

 

[Jarhyn]

The argument that collective blame puts blame on the innocent shows a disconnect from the real world that makes rational discussion difficult if not impossible.

And is also incompatible with the same relative moralities they bang on about. If ethics is wishy-washy and tribal or wishy-washy and personal, or wishy-washy and just-so established then collective punishment, blame, or responsibility cannot be proclaimed to be absolutely wrong.

I don't believe that, though.

I do believe collective punishment is wrong, with a caveat: when one consents to participating knowing of ongoing actions, and given the reality that participating in a group brings culpability for ongoing group action which has been revealed in the open.