Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Jimmy Higgins]

The children were abused and killed by some people. The buildings were used by some other people.

The first sentence is overbroad, but that aside, all true. Mr. Ibekwe and his parishioners had nothing to do with it, though, as far as one can tell.

And I can't be bothered much to care for their plight. A church is building. God is supposed to be everywhere.

Yes, burning these buildings now is inconvenient (when done late at night and ensuring no one is harmed, unlike what the Catholic Church did) and causes problems for real people. That is why it is called Civil Disobedience.

No, that is not why you call it "Civil Disobedience". I do not know why you chose to call it that. Most definitions require non-violent means.

No, that would be non-violent protest. Civil Disobedience can be violent (just not harming people).

 

[Toni]

I think it makes a lot of people of conscious, people who value the lives of children and persons of color and Indigenous people think that perhaps, this will get the attention of the Church who remains silent and apparently unrepentant over the deaths of these innocent children, whose lives, the Church taught, were oh, so valuable right up until they exited their mother's wombs.

Yeah, this is the second time you've championed your own destructive vengeance impulse as if you had the moral high ground. You also snuck in an implication that people who do not think as you do, do not value the 'lives of children and persons of color and Indigenous people'. Nice--I'm always learning from left wing authoritarian personalities such as yourself at how best to poison the well.

Here's a reality check:

• Burning down someone's property will not make them sincerely penitent for their sins
• An insincere nonpology to soothe ruffled public feathers or to avoid further property destruction is significantly worse than silence (in my humble opinion)
• Not one dead person will be resurrected, and not one traumatised person will be healed, by the violent actions of extra-judicial vigilantes.

You don't read with very much care.

I said that I thought it makes A LOT of people--not ALL people.

Of course, good people can disagree. I'd really love to hear what these good people would suggest to move the Catholic Church to penitence when the Church has been absolutely silent for literally hundreds of years on the abuse and death of millions of peoples, in the name of what? Their eternal salvation? Power for the Church? And instead, creates saints out of architects of systems that steal, abuse and murder children, including the bodies of the children who even now are being discovered.

I honestly would love to hear what you or anyone else would think might move the Catholic Church to reform itself. Surely the abuse and rape of thousands of children has not done so. Because if you or anyone else has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Certainly suing the Church has changed almost nothing, except to make them guard their massive financial assets more closely.

As for not healing traumatized people? How do you think the surviving First Nations people feel when the bodies of those children, who may have been their cousins, their aunts and uncles, who are regarded as being part of their family feel? Do you not think that they feel trauma? Do you think they do not feel profound anger? Gut churning grief? Their family members were killed and buried the same way that people bury their pets in their back yards.

 

[Emily Lake]

As a very general comment... I really don't understand the rationalization and justification for current-day, extra-judicial, violent, retaliation against current-day entities... for wrongs done to one's ancestors by that entity's ancestors.

So you see no connection between the entity (in this case the Church) & the people who committed those wrongs using the entity but you do somehow manage to see a connection between the fire and the people who started it. Interesting.

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

 

[bilby]

As a very general comment... I really don't understand the rationalization and justification for current-day, extra-judicial, violent, retaliation against current-day entities... for wrongs done to one's ancestors by that entity's ancestors.

So you see no connection between the entity (in this case the Church) & the people who committed those wrongs using the entity but you do somehow manage to see a connection between the fire and the people who started it. Interesting.

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

The last federally operated residential school, Gordon's Indian Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

 

[Emily Lake]

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

The last federally operated residential school, Gordon's Indian Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

I thought that the places the graves were found were from the late 1800s to early 1900s?

 

[Lion IRC]

You think anything good comes from burning a church for this now?

It is a rational opinion.

Normally, I would be very much against burning down buildings, especially to make a point.

But the Church's silence has been deafening with regards to the deaths of children in their care while at the same time, condemning those who are not sufficiently 'pro-life.'

I can well understand the deep anger, and frustration which perhaps motivated those who burned down these churches. Perhaps it will light a fire under the Catholic Church to actually...do something to indicate their deep shame and regret over the deaths of these children. And then, perhaps, the Church could consider also expressing their deep shame and regret over the kidnapping of thousands of children from their families in the name of making them good Christian servants, emphasis on the first and last, of course.

Normally, I would be very much against burning down buildings, especially to make a point but...

WOW. Never in a million years would I have guessed you had something in common with anti-abortionists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You think anything good comes from burning a church for this now?

It is a rational opinion.

Normally, I would be very much against burning down buildings, especially to make a point.

But the Church's silence has been deafening with regards to the deaths of children in their care while at the same time, condemning those who are not sufficiently 'pro-life.'

I can well understand the deep anger, and frustration which perhaps motivated those who burned down these churches. Perhaps it will light a fire under the Catholic Church to actually...do something to indicate their deep shame and regret over the deaths of these children. And then, perhaps, the Church could consider also expressing their deep shame and regret over the kidnapping of thousands of children from their families in the name of making them good Christian servants, emphasis on the first and last, of course.

Normally, I would be very much against burning down buildings, especially to make a point but...

WOW. Never in a million years would I have guessed you had something in common with anti-abortionists.

Technically, the anti-abortionists (the Christians running the institutions) were the ones responsible for the deaths and abuse.

 

[Arctish]

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

I thought that the places the graves were found were from the late 1800s to early 1900s?

That's when they were first built, not when they finally closed.

Even if none of the children died within the past 100 years (unlikely, because still-alive former students remember sudden, mysterious disappearances of their classmates), their deaths and secret burials are still appalling. At the very least the schools should have told their families about the tragic loss of their child and recorded where each child was buried. And taken greater care of the ones still living.

 

[Metaphor]

I said that I thought it makes A LOT of people--not ALL people.

I know what you said.

Of course, good people can disagree. I'd really love to hear what these good people would suggest to move the Catholic Church to penitence when the Church has been absolutely silent for literally hundreds of years on the abuse and death of millions of peoples, in the name of what?

I don't know what would move the Church to apologise.

I honestly would love to hear what you or anyone else would think might move the Catholic Church to reform itself. Surely the abuse and rape of thousands of children has not done so. Because if you or anyone else has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Certainly suing the Church has changed almost nothing, except to make them guard their massive financial assets more closely.

A better idea than what? Burning down property? Doing nothing is a better idea. Burning down property is liable to make the property owner far less sympathetic to the persons who burned it down.

As for not healing traumatized people? How do you think the surviving First Nations people feel when the bodies of those children, who may have been their cousins, their aunts and uncles, who are regarded as being part of their family feel? Do you not think that they feel trauma?

But that's the point--I reckon some of them do feel trauma--and none of that trauma has been healed by the extra-judicial vengeance of anonymous arsonists.

 

[Rhea]

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

I thought that the places the graves were found SO FAR were from the late 1800s to early 1900s?

Fixed that for ya.

Recall that these churches were on the reservation.
Continuing the represent the same entity that has continued to deny harm to the members of the reservation
And so the reservation removed them.


All cuurrent catholic parishioners support a church that currently hides this atrocity (among others)

I might feel there is a distance if these current catholics moved to investigate rape, murder and kidnnapping. Moved to dig up their own yards to check.

Did the oriest in your story lamenting the actions of others - did he have any actions himself to discover and uncover? Did he let his curch records be examined by the law?

No, I didn;t think so.

 

[Toni]

As a very general comment... I really don't understand the rationalization and justification for current-day, extra-judicial, violent, retaliation against current-day entities... for wrongs done to one's ancestors by that entity's ancestors.

So you see no connection between the entity (in this case the Church) & the people who committed those wrongs using the entity but you do somehow manage to see a connection between the fire and the people who started it. Interesting.

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

So, the grandchildren and great grand children of victims of the Holocaust should just….feel it’s no big deal to hear people deny the Holocaust? To make anti-semetic remarks? To see images of nazi symbols?Concentration camps? Descendants of slaves should ignore the statues of Lee and other slavers? Ignore their names on buildings and highways? Just play along at plantation theme parks?

I don’t think so.

 

[Metaphor]

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

So, the grandchildren and great grand children of victims of the Holocaust should just….feel it’s no big deal to hear people deny the Holocaust? To make anti-semetic remarks? To see images of nazi symbols?Concentration camps? Descendants of slaves should ignore the statues of Lee and other slavers? Ignore their names on buildings and highways? Just play along at plantation theme parks?

I don’t think so.

Should they burn down the homes of holocaust deniers?

 

[Toni]

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

So, the grandchildren and great grand children of victims of the Holocaust should just….feel it’s no big deal to hear people deny the Holocaust? To make anti-semetic remarks? To see images of nazi symbols?Concentration camps? Descendants of slaves should ignore the statues of Lee and other slavers? Ignore their names on buildings and highways? Just play along at plantation theme parks?

I don’t think so.

Should they burn down the homes of holocaust deniers?

As far as I know, no First Nations people have burned down the homes of any Catholics—or anybody else.

 

[Gospel]

Huh. I didn't think my comment was so opaque as to create such confusion.

Of course I see a connection between the catholic church and the catholic church. Duh.

The disconnect is in the timing. The events at the heart of this happened a hundred years ago. Neither the perpetrators nor the immediate family of the victims are alive today. Was the church of a hundred years ago in the wrong for allowing this to happen? Yes, certainly. Just as the church of 400 years ago was in the wrong for the inquisition, and the church of 800 years ago was in the wrong for the crusades. I don't think that's in dispute, is it?

But burning down the church in present day doesn't change that history. It's just retaliation. But it's not retaliation against the people who committed those crimes - it's retaliation against an entirely different set of people, people who are not responsible for those events having occurred, and who could not in any way have prevented or intervened in those events.

It's very Hatfield-McCoy to me.

So, the grandchildren and great grand children of victims of the Holocaust should just….feel it’s no big deal to hear people deny the Holocaust? To make anti-semetic remarks? To see images of nazi symbols?Concentration camps? Descendants of slaves should ignore the statues of Lee and other slavers? Ignore their names on buildings and highways? Just play along at plantation theme parks?

I don’t think so.

Should they burn down the homes of holocaust deniers?

I thought they were doing that in Gaza.

 

[Metaphor]

Should they burn down the homes of holocaust deniers?

As far as I know, no First Nations people have burned down the homes of any Catholics—or anybody else.

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

 

[Toni]

Should they burn down the homes of holocaust deniers?

As far as I know, no First Nations people have burned down the homes of any Catholics—or anybody else.

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

 

[Toni]

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

Never mind that proponents of the Holocaust are the ones who burned down homes...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, right. What's wrong with revenge? What could the courts even accomplish?

Hatfields and McCoys.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The last federally operated residential school, Gordon's Indian Residential School in Punnichy, Saskatchewan, was closed in 1996.

Wikipedia

Not quite a hundred years ago.

Doesn't mean that's when the deaths happened.

 

[Metaphor]

Not the question I asked. I asked if people with ancestors killed in the holocaust should burn down the houses of holocaust denialists?

Why would they?

You are the one justifying the burning down of the Church's property because they 'denied' (reality: didn't apologise) for past sins.