[HN Gopher] A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves
___________________________________________________________________
A media-fueled social panic over unmarked graves
Author : dearwell
Score : 99 points
Date : 2022-07-29 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (quillette.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (quillette.com)
| pyuser583 wrote:
| It's funny because the narrative works just fine without the mass
| graves.
|
| A local paper (in the US) interviewed survivors/graduates on
| "Indian" schools. The administrators sent kids home as soon as
| they were sick.
|
| So there were no graveyards, even when lots of student were dying
| (Spanish flu).
| cm2187 wrote:
| Wait, the article is silent on the cause of death. Are you
| saying these deaths were just the result of some disease?
| Everything in the media treatment of these deaths implies
| mistreatment of the kids. If it was just a virus, particularly
| in the early days of medicine, this would be a scandal created
| out of thin air.
| pseudo0 wrote:
| Yes, the vast majority of residential school deaths were due
| to endemic diseases. The primary accusation regarding deaths
| is that the residential schools had a higher death rate than
| comparable populations, and the state should have provided
| more resources and better medical care.
| cm2187 wrote:
| It's hard to tell without knowing what disease we are
| talking about. If it was the spanish flu there isn't much
| medicine could do then.
| munk-a wrote:
| The deaths at residential schools were higher than
| similar institutions - I don't understand what's hard to
| comprehend here when we're comparing a basket of 8 apples
| to a basket of 10 apples - 10 apples is more apples.
| defen wrote:
| I'm not an epidemiologist, so file this under "baseless
| speculation by an armchair non-expert", but influenza is
| an Old World disease - is it possible that First Nations
| people are more vulnerable to it? Ten seconds of Googling
| provided this link
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22032099/
| [deleted]
| jollybean wrote:
| That's exactly the 'lie' being presented.
|
| In the late 19th century up to about 1910, there were much
| higher rates of Aboriginal kids dying than normal, and it was
| mostly due to tuberculosis. It would 'set loose' at a
| residential school and mortality rates were high.
|
| There were investigations and it was a 'big social issue'
| even 100 years ago.
|
| Since about WW2, the rates of death at res schools have been
| fairly consistent with those in the general population.
|
| The term 'genocide' may apply in the context of the
| government wishing to 'educate' Aboriginals purely in the
| Western sense and to suppress their culture, but the world
| folds all to nicely into 'killing' the children etc which is
| how the word is used in popular imagination.
|
| The 'narrative managers' in the press are keenly aware of the
| power of their words, and that they will be misinterpreted,
| to great effect.
|
| The factual reality of Residential Schools is absolutely
| worth of consideration, it's a serious issue, but it's also
| deeply misrepresented in the press.
|
| "If it was just a virus, particularly in the early days of
| medicine, this would be a scandal created out of thin air."
|
| I wouldn't entirely want to make the claim that 'because it's
| tuberculosis' fully exonerates the schools, but I'll bet $100
| that tuberculosis at other remote boarding schools (non-
| aboriginal kids) would have somewhere near the same effect in
| most places during that era, where as you hint 'medicine was
| a mess'.
|
| But either way, you're hinting at 'the distortion of
| information' begin presented by the narrative driven press,
| which is sad, because it's a serious issue.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I'm saying that a child with either Spanish flu or a severe
| concussion would be sent home on a train, and be buried far
| from the school.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| It's crazy how when a lie takes hold, it just stays forever.
|
| Another is relayed to January 6th protests. A friend today, a
| conservative DeSantis supporter, told me that he knew that on
| January 6th, the protestors killed several police officers.
|
| This is, as we know now, absolutely false. It was based on a
| rumor, and once the reporting caught up, it turned out to be
| false.
|
| Similarly I'm sure there will be Canadians who _know_ that there
| were these mass unmarked child graves at schools. But again:
| totally false.
| Comevius wrote:
| To be fair 5 officers died not long after the attack. Brian
| Sidnick was pepper sprayed twice and died a day later suffering
| two strokes. Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey Smith died by
| suicide a few days after the attack, and Kyle DeFreytag and
| Gunther Hashida died by suicide a few months later.
|
| A popular Facebook post claimed that Joe Biden said that
| several police officers died during the attack, which could be
| the source of the lie.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/19/facebook-p...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| My teenage son was _shocked_ when I told him that none of the
| three people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were black, and didn 't
| believe me at first until he googled it (and even google
| showed, on every link, that both of the people he killed and
| the one he wounded were white). He told his friends, and _they_
| didn 't believe him until they googled it.
| sethjr5rtfgh wrote:
| munk-a wrote:
| Be careful with your wording here - the suicide of Officer
| Smith, at least, has been pretty unambiguously tied directly
| back to trauma suffered on Jan 6th. So while a police officer
| wasn't directly killed through physical violence on Jan 6th the
| actions of protestors can be fairly said to have instigated the
| death of a police officer.
|
| I think the big misstatement of the media here was the
| unrelated natural causes death of an officer (from essentially
| a stroke) on January 7th - but law enforcement lives were lost
| due to January 6th.
| baryphonic wrote:
| This seems like total post-hoc reasoning like the debunked
| "violent video games cause real-life violence."
|
| Ultimately Officer Smith chose to take his own life; no one
| made that choice for him. He may have been appalled or
| traumatized or whatever, but ultimately he's the one who did
| it. Doesn't make it any less tragic, but it's extremely
| tenuous absent additional evidence to lay blame at anyone but
| he himself.
|
| If there was some evidence that he was subject to unique
| abuse and was personally targeted on that day, then maybe
| there might be some merit. But of the officers who were
| there, he experienced roughly what the other officers did,
| and he was the only one to commit suicide.
| munk-a wrote:
| Sorry, I had omitted sourcing in my original comment but
| here:
|
| > Dr. Jonathan Arden, the former Chief Medical Examiner of
| the District of Columbia was hired by Smith's widow as part
| of her lawsuit to have her husband's suicide ruled "in the
| line of duty". His report stated that the "acute,
| precipitating event that caused the death of Officer Smith
| was his occupational exposure to the traumatic events he
| suffered on January 6, 2021".[1]
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeffrey_L._Smith
| vuln wrote:
| She hired an expert to get the ruling "line of duty"
| because it changes and increases his life insurance
| payouts. It also gives her access to survivors benefits
| and a slew of other things like part of his pension.
| munk-a wrote:
| Yes, it was a precedent breaking ruling - which tend not
| to be given out lightly. That is a strong indicator that
| during this motion all of the evidence was under even
| higher scrutiny.
| jtbayly wrote:
| I'm sorry, but seriously? If we can hire an expert to
| tell us why a dead man did something and appeal to that
| as an authoritative "source," then we can hire experts to
| tell us what thought crimes you've committed today.
| weakfish wrote:
| Er... that's quite a large jump in reasoning
| happytoexplain wrote:
| What is outrageous about investigating a person's
| motivations/psychology, and why does it become more
| outrageous if that person is deceased at the time of the
| investigation? You may disagree with the conclusion for
| some reason, but it seems like standard practice.
| hbn wrote:
| Ask around and be horrified as to how many people confidently
| think Kyle Rittenhouse shot one or more people who were
|
| 1. unarmed 2. black
|
| (edit: I see now someone made the above point a few minutes
| before i finished typing my message, but I suppose that goes to
| show how widespread this myth is)
|
| Conservatives get the brunt of blame for "conspiracy theories"
| and "disinformation" these days, and while I won't deny it
| doesn't happen (like it has for years), the left has just as
| much, if not more that I hear every day, but they never realize
| or take accountability for it because they have the popular
| narrative that runs all major corporations and the greater
| internet.
| vkou wrote:
| What's really horrifying is how many people seem unaware that
| the people he shot were under the impression that they were
| trying to stop an active shooter. You know, do that good-guy-
| with-a-gun thing, while acting on initially (but not
| eventually) incorrect information.
|
| It's quite likely that if he were the one gunned down, and
| not the other way around, the people who did so would have
| walked, too.
| hbn wrote:
| I've seen the video, there was an angry mob of like 20 guys
| chasing him down and assaulting him
| seoaeu wrote:
| That's what you're _supposed_ to do when a gunman is
| trying to kill you
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the people he shot were under the impression that they
| were trying to stop an active shooter.
|
| I'm still unaware of that. Do you have a reference?
| vkou wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Sec
| ond...
|
| At this point in time, shots had been fired, Rittenhouse
| shot and killed a man, and was identified by the crowd as
| an active shooter. Huber was trying to disarm
| Rittenhouse, when he was shot and killed. This happened
| in front of Grosskreutz, who at this point had every
| reason to believe that Rittenhouse was an active shooter
| (And was then shot and injured by Rittenhouse).
|
| Since in an active shooter situation, both the 'good guy
| with a gun' and 'the good guy without a gun' can't sit
| around and wait for eight months for a jury trial to find
| the active shooter to actually be innocent, both Huber
| and Grosskreutz reacted rather reasonably.
|
| It seems to me that legally, nobody, except maybe
| Rosenbaum (Who was dead by the time of the events of the
| second confrontation) was in the wrong in that whole
| situation. It's all 'good guys with a gun' shooting at
| eachother because sweet fuckin' Jesus, nobody ever has
| all the facts about who was justified about killing whom
| when there's a public gunfight happening.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I thought you were saying that he was initially chased
| and attacked because the (first) person he shot thought
| he was an active shooter.
|
| You're saying that after he _was_ an active shooter,
| people were chasing him because they thought he was an
| active shooter? If so, I don 't think that no one knows
| this, I think no one cares.
| tootallgavin wrote:
| Not to mention the Great Lie of brown is black
| sethjr5rtfgh wrote:
| bloaf wrote:
| Quillette is cynically using the exact same "social-panic"
| tactics they're criticizing to create exactly your conclusion.
|
| The Q article has exactly two complaints about the facts
| reported by the media:
|
| 1. The media claimed bodies were unearthed, when in fact only
| scans were taken.
|
| 2. The media claimed there were mass graves, when in fact scans
| only detected masses of individual graves.
|
| However, in "social-panic" style, conservatives are taking
| these two quibbles over terminology and turning them into an
| Alex Jones-esque conspiracy to deny the graves existence
| altogether.
|
| Note also the subtle racism in the article, where they compare
| a hypothetical instant-response to the murder of white children
| to the "very odd" response of the first nation people. The
| implication being that first nations people are incompetent,
| uncaring, or untrustworthy by not immediately doing a certain
| kind of investigation.
| AinderS wrote:
| > scans only detected masses of individual graves.
|
| _Possible_ graves. How many were unambiguously confirmed?
| And how many would we expect from normal high-at-the-time
| child mortality?
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| > The media claimed bodies were unearthed
|
| This is not a "quibble." It's a major falsehood.
| bloaf wrote:
| Unearth can be used in a literal sense, which in this case
| is false.
|
| It can also be used in a figurative sense, which in this
| case is almost certainly true.
| prvc wrote:
| What kind of journalist uses "unearthed" metaphorically
| in a story about purported graves?
| [deleted]
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| Don't get too dizzy from all that spinning around.
|
| So do you really believe everyone in Canada read that and
| thought "Oh, they're using the word in a _figurative_
| sense! Never mind. "
|
| If something is, by definition, _in the earth_ and a
| story says it was "unearthed" it's sorta reasonable to
| believe it was dug up.
| munk-a wrote:
| I actually think "unearthed" as in "discovered" is the
| more reasonable read - along with someone thinking
| they're clever in making a pun. When history is
| "unearthed" with radar, we generally assume some folks
| took a big expensive machine aimed it at the ground and
| walked away with a strong indication that something
| exists down there - when it comes to delicate items
| (like, for instance a decaying longboat that exists in
| the earth merely as concentrations of plant fiber in a
| suspicious shape) and especially when it comes to human
| remains (that people are often very reluctant to move due
| for cultural reasons) that's especially the case.
| smeej wrote:
| The implication seemed (to me at least) to be that first
| nations people were not being afforded the same respect as
| their white counterparts would have been.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper.
|
| Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story
| might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out.
|
| Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad
| as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a
| determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure
| of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?
|
| If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a
| process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils.
| You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little
| blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to
| see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally
| we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and
| ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it:
| we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred._
|
| (C.S. Lewis)
| tptacek wrote:
| hprotagonist wrote:
| personalism shot/chaser: bonhoeffer's "on folly".
| tptacek wrote:
| I said downthread that it might be hard to come up with a
| more inapposite quote for a story about skepticism of
| wrongdoing, and you'd've one-upped me here. :)
| renewiltord wrote:
| I believe the quote, with context excised and transported
| here, has value without its original subject. i.e. if
| someone had written it without being C.S.Lewis talking
| about Nazis, I would have upvoted them.
|
| And there's lots of stuff like that. I suppose we have
| implied meaning to appending the original source we got
| it from: meaning transported from context of source,
| meaning transported from author, and meaning solely from
| text.
| tptacek wrote:
| If the quote hadn't been italicized and followed with
| "(C.S. Lewis)" I wouldn't have responded. And, if I'm
| misreading the intent of the quote --- that it isn't
| being used as a sort of generic "be skeptical of claims
| of wrongdoing and generous with mitigating claims", well,
| then, I'm just wrong. But if the quote was intended the
| way I think it was (see previous sentence): it's being
| used to say almost literally the opposite of what Lewis
| was saying.
|
| More generally, on any thread owing to a Quillette
| article, I think we can do much worse than to have a
| curious conversation about C.S. Lewis (and, for that
| matter, Dietrich Bonhoeffer).
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| 1. How is that quote at all relevant to what's being
| discussed?
|
| 2. What does any of that have to do with Nazis? Your comment
| seems to be a complete non-sequitur.
| tptacek wrote:
| The C.S. Lewis quote above (the one I replied to) is from
| _Mere Christianity_. As to whether the original quote is
| relevant to this Quillette story, your guess is as good as
| mine.
|
| _Later_
|
| I'm being coy, because I don't believe most people who
| deploy this quote have read _Mere Christianity_ , which is
| ungracious of me (and technically a violation of our
| guidelines). So: to put it more directly:
|
| Lewis isn't asking people to be skeptical of wrongdoing.
| The quote is from an essay on forgiveness. That chapter
| explicitly references the harm Germans inflicted on Poles
| and Jewish people. Lewis isn't skeptical of that harm (to
| say the least), and he's not exhorting people towards
| skepticism of wrongdoing in general.
|
| What he's saying is that you should be careful not to
| attribute to random people, by dint of their belonging to
| some specific group, the worst possible harms you can come
| up with. And he's saying that you shouldn't because it's an
| impediment to the Christian virtue of forgiveness; to love
| your neighbor as yourself, you need to love your imputed
| enemies as yourself, and to do that you have to find a way
| to forgive them their transgressions against you, and, more
| immediately, the transgressions of their groups.
|
| I quoted the paragraph immediately following the quote
| offered (in implicit support of skepticism, as that quote
| is almost always used). I could just as easily have quoted
| the paragraph that immediately precedes it:
|
| _Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by
| one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We
| ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about
| them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them
| in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being
| sorry that the man should have done such things, and
| hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime,
| somewhere, he can be cured and made human again._
| prvc wrote:
| Even after all that exegesis, your presumptive point
| remains obscure. The top-level comment is relevant
| because it happens to describe the malicious credulity of
| the journalism consumers who chose to believe the mass
| graves narrative.
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't think my point is obscure at all. It is, simply,
| that C.S. Lewis didn't write that quote to exhort people
| to skepticism of all wrongdoing; he was instead reminding
| people not to invent wrongdoing to impute to strangers by
| dint of them being "enemies". The quote, here, was ill
| used, as it so often is.
|
| Again: when Lewis wrote this, _he was talking about the
| Nazis_ , the authors of many of the worst crimes in
| history. Lewis was no Holocaust denier: he was acutely
| aware of --- and reminds his reader throughout _Christian
| Behavior_ of --- the wrongdoings he 's alluding to. It
| might be hard to find a more inapposite quote for this
| story.
|
| I have no idea what happened in the residential schools
| in Canada, and no opinion about this particular article.
| But I do have an opinion about the abuse of C.S. Lewis on
| message boards.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| > The quote, here, was ill used, as it so often is.
|
| You've misread me/my intent, i'm afraid.
| tptacek wrote:
| Certainly more than just possible. Could you say how?
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Reminds me of the story of the 11 year old who was raped and
| had to cross state lines for an abortion.
|
| Too many people treated it like a political point tally. Nobody
| really cares about the 11 year old girl (or the person on trial
| who gets a presumption of innocence).
| renewiltord wrote:
| Does anyone care about an arbitrary other person? Sounds
| unlikely. Even at the 99th percentile of people, I think the
| most effort I'd expend to make their life better is zero.
| And, to be honest, I think most people would spend less than
| $1k to _save_ an arbitrary life. Given that, it sounds rather
| trite.
|
| Even if they _did_ care (unlikely as that is), there is no
| way to intervene in an arbitrary 11-year-old 's healthcare.
|
| The scope of action is in the design of the society that
| permits harm as defined in one way or the other. And that's
| politics. So people are acting in the only way that makes
| sense.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Well certainly not you, you can't even remember the age. But
| all too happy to repeat the ole "don't politicize it" talking
| point. It's a political point _because it is the 100%
| predictable outcome of these abortion policies_.
| mikotodomo wrote:
| WTF..... if a politician uses that to get votes he should
| literally go to jail.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Reminds me of the story of the 11 year old who was raped
| and had to cross state lines for an abortion.
|
| Unless it happened _again_ already, it was a 9-10 year old,
| depending on whether you are referring to when she was raped
| or when she had left the state to get an abortion.
|
| > Too many people treated it like a political point tally.
|
| Side1: If your political position is enacted, Bad Thing will
| happen, hurting people.
|
| Side2: You are inventing unlikely scenarios for political
| points, you aren't really concerned about the people that you
| pretend Bad Thing will happen to.
|
| ...Side2 policy adopted...
|
| ...Bad Thing immediately happens as predicted...
|
| Side1: Look, Bad Thing _just happened_.
|
| Side2: You don't care about the person Bad Thing happened to,
| you are just scoring political points.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > Unless it happened again already
|
| Odds are it has.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| More like Side3: Bad Things will happen sooner or later. So
| the report of a Bad Thing at a politically useful time is
| helpful even if it's loosely supported. Because Bad Thing
| will happen eventually regardless.
|
| Edit: I don't think the time of the reports was
| particularly helpful. The day before the story was
| verified, someone had published an op-Ed in NYTimes titles
| "Laugh at my abortion with me." Nobody's laughing about a
| preteen being raped.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| So when a child is raped (which definitely happened, by
| definition) we should avoid talking about it because it might
| hurt the case of the person accused of the crime? The justice
| system assumes innocence until proven guilty. The court of
| public opinion need hold no such lofty ideal. Nor should it.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Sorry I had the age wrong.
|
| There should be a presumption of innocence in the sense
| that the public should assume the accused is innocent until
| evidence is publicly shared that suggests their guilt.
|
| So far the only evidence shared with the public is a
| confession. Confessions are notoriously unreliability.
|
| There will be more evidence. DNA tests are being done as we
| speak.
| munk-a wrote:
| They were 10, if the other party was the suspected 27
| year old adult then...
|
| That is rape.
|
| If the other party was some other person - then that 27
| year old shouldn't be wrongly convicted, but someone
| raped that 10 year old. I, btw, haven't seen anyone
| chomping at the bit at the specific suspected other party
| - the discussion I've seen has been focused on the health
| care and trauma treatment for the 10 year old.
| stefan_ wrote:
| When the suspect is acquitted, does that mean the girl is
| no longer pregnant? This is an even more absurd point.
| kradeelav wrote:
| There's a difference between talking thoughtfully about a
| child's lived experience/trauma and "using" it shamelessly
| as political points to own [the other side].
| [deleted]
| anon291 wrote:
| Another thing I didn't realize about the residential school
| system was that the tribes actually requested this as part of
| their treaties with Canada. Many wanted their children educated
| according to European custom. Maybe the children didn't want it,
| but the tribes certainly did. This doesn't excuse the various
| atrocities attributed to the schools (like sexual abuse cover
| ups), but it does make me question the charge of Canada and the
| churches 'forcing' European ways upon the tribes. The tribal
| governments seemed to want it (read the numbered treaties signed
| between HM government and the tribes... the establishment of
| schools is in all of them). Contemporaneous oral accounts clearly
| show the notion that these schools would teach european values
| (granted, oral accounts are often wrong / corrupted).
| hinkley wrote:
| There are dangerous precedents that some groups, like
| procrastinators, learn about but other people seem to have to
| learn much more slowly.
|
| If you insist on treating every interaction as if it happens in
| a vacuum and for both parties to see the events as isolated,
| you're gonna have a bad time. If you are chronically late for
| work nobody cares if your transmission exploded on the way into
| work and that's why you were legitimately an hour late. You've
| already played that card on previous encounters and you've used
| up all of your credits.
|
| If two groups have a history of horrible interactions with each
| other, people are going to assume the latest incident is just
| true to form, even if it really was just a misunderstanding and
| a bad game of telephone. Because of course Group B pulled some
| shit again. They 'always' do. Trying to find someone's
| boundaries and living your life right on the edge of them is
| just a slower version of "fuck around and find out."
|
| I learned recently that there are actually businesses that
| cater to the demographic of boomers whose children won't speak
| to them anymore. Like entrepreneurs are making business plans
| and incorporating to take money from these people. The stories
| I know are all about how they realized that their parents
| weren't even going to meet some fairly low bar set by the kids,
| and they thought their children were bluffing. You push and
| push and you'll be making your own retirement home
| arrangements, all the while repeating some narrative about how
| it was about pronouns or people of color.
| seoaeu wrote:
| I'm going to call bullshit that the tribes knew what was going
| on at those schools and weren't at all coerced into agreeing
| anon291 wrote:
| Based on what facts? The tribes negotiated the treaties and
| negotiated fairly large changes from the governments initial
| proposals (mainly to do with more monetary funding). Yet,
| they said little about schooling.
|
| Perhaps they didn't know what was going on (and I agree that
| abuses took place), but the desire for their children to be
| more European was absolutely there. It is very clearly
| documented. This is in stark contrast to the claim that such
| things were forced upon the tribes. It seemed that a shared
| goal of the Canadian government and tribes was the
| integration of the natives with the Canadian nation. I don't
| see how this is deniable. The claim that the government
| committed 'cultural genocide' honestly falls flat for me.
| seoaeu wrote:
| " _Perhaps_ they didn 't know"?! You think the tribes knew
| about the atrocities and were ok with them?
| anon291 wrote:
| I have no idea what the tribes knew or did not know. Do
| you? I am amazed at some people's abilities to read
| other's minds.
|
| As to the tribal leaders signing the documents. I can
| understand how the monetary promises given to them by the
| Canadian government would make them overlook the
| potential for atrocities yes; such things are well
| attested to in the history of humanity. But again, I have
| no idea. You asked me to speculate, so I did.
|
| I don't understand why there is so much outrage today
| when one expresses that they do not know an unknowable
| fact.
| seoaeu wrote:
| The outrage is over the atrocities, and the people
| insinuating that those atrocities were somehow ok because
| some papers were signed beforehand
|
| Asking questions like "did they know why they were
| signing?" or "was there going to be a war if they refused
| to sign?" seem entirely reasonable to me
| jtbayly wrote:
| What atrocities, exactly? You're begging the question.
| One of the main atrocities we are talking about is
| forcing the children to adopt European culture.
|
| If you're simply saying that _some_ bad things happened
| at these boarding schools... we'll, yeah. That's a known
| reality in all boarding schools. Doesn't make it ok. But
| many many people knew about those sorts of things and
| cared and also didn't think the solution was to ban
| boarding schools. (Others, of course, as in all ages,
| didn't care.)
| seoaeu wrote:
| Stories recounting cruel physical and sexual abuse are
| only a google search away. Of thousands of children being
| disappeared. Of being woken in the middle of the night to
| dig graves.
| munk-a wrote:
| This is a dangerous path to go down without a really full
| understanding of the situation and the acknowledgement that
| your statement is covering hundreds of thousands of individual
| compacts between specific tribal leaders and specific
| administrators. _Additionally_ "tribes wanted" is a really
| dangerous statement on its own since "tribes" can be hard to
| define fairly - if you've been following the news about
| pipelines you may have heard specific tribes both assent and
| dissenting to access through their lands. A lot of tribes have
| a pretty loose organization of leadership consisting of both
| Hereditary and Elected chiefs - and, when it's convenient,
| governments will occasionally just recognize any old rando they
| can find that agrees with them as a representative of the
| tribe.
|
| This is a really hairy topic to begin with and it gets a lot
| more hairy when you also take into consideration that tribes
| were frequently being lied to. Canada doesn't have a great
| record of being either upfront nor fidelitous when it comes to
| compacts with native americans and if we only have primary
| contemporary accounts from the "winning side" you need to be
| highly skeptical of how biased those accounts are.
|
| We absolutely have accounts of children being forceably
| abducted from parents and abuses happening at these schools -
| whether tribes were initially lied to and sold a rosy picture
| or whether that force was used initially is an interesting
| topic, but it's one that we will probably only have clarity on
| for a handful of tribes and it might take quite a while to
| settle on a narrative of that topic that can be well supported
| by evidence.
|
| It's really complicated.
| anon291 wrote:
| First, we need to dispense with rhetoric like 'this is a
| dangerous path'. I fully understand that tribes are different
| and people disagree and in particular, that 'tribes' are
| ruled by people who may not actually be in charge, may not
| reflect their tribe's real viewpoint, or may have ulterior
| motives.
|
| However, it is equally dangerous to go down the path of
| 'Canada did this to massacre the tribes and eradicate their
| culture while no tribe wanted this'. This is also not the
| case. In certain cases, the tribes did have well defined
| boundaries, and leadership, and the leadership negotiated for
| many other concessions successfully, but didn't so much as
| put up a fuss about the schools.
|
| > We absolutely have accounts of children being forceably
| abducted from parents and abuses happening at these schools
|
| I believe I literally acknowledged such atrocities in my post
| above. Moreover, as I again stated, I understand that a
| tribe's leaders may not have the tribe's best interests at
| heart. It is actually possible, and still a regular
| occurrence today, for one's government to make decisions that
| are incredibly hurtful to individual citizens.
|
| Other allegations against the government are also overstated.
| I didn't mention them above. One obvious example is the claim
| siblings were separated. This is actually unevidenced. The
| most evidence the TRC could produce was that brothers and
| sisters were sent to sex segregated schools or dorms. Uh...
| this is a good thing. If sexual abuse is what you're trying
| to prevent having girls in the same housing with boys, etc,
| is going to be extremely toxic.
|
| I am in no way excusing Canada's actions. I am merely putting
| them into context. These are salient facts ignored from the
| debate for fear they may not make the tribes as sympathetic a
| target. Why? If the case is so strong for the abuses taking
| place (and I believe there was certainly abuse taking place
| that ought to be investigated), what is the point of ignoring
| salient information?
|
| EDIT: Oh also I'm not referring to hundreds of thousands of
| compacts. I am referring to the numbered treaties, which
| refer to 11 treaties signed between Canada and the native
| tribes of various regions.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| The herd mentality and evidence-free nature of this "scandal" is
| a microcosm of 90% of the beliefs of US citizens and corporate
| "news" in general.
| munk-a wrote:
| This is a story about Canada - please familiarize yourself with
| the topic before repeating your talking point.
| Jonovono wrote:
| Balajis new book "Network State" has an entire chapter on stuff
| like this: https://thenetworkstate.com/if-the-news-is-fake-
| imagine-hist...
|
| List of stuff he points out: https://thenetworkstate.com/if-the-
| news-is-fake-imagine-hist...
| beached_whale wrote:
| scarmig wrote:
| Funnily enough, the "media bias fact checker" lists the NY
| Times as "High Credibility"[0] despite its
| sensationalized/false reporting about a "Mass Grave of
| Indigenous Children Reported in Canada."[1]
|
| [0] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-
| mas...
| muglug wrote:
| There's not a huge gap between a mass grave and a mass of
| unmarked graves. Both show a disregard for human life.
|
| Quillette writers love to get on a high-horse about such
| discrepancies, while ignoring everything wrong with the
| right-wing media in America.
| int_19h wrote:
| I'd say that there's a fairly huge gap between a mass
| grave, and a bunch of distortions in the soil that are
| detected by the radar that _may_ (or may not) actually be
| graves.
| scarmig wrote:
| As far as this particular story goes, a population that
| read this Quillette article would have a better recall of
| verifiable, agreed upon facts than a paired population
| exposed just to the NYT article talking about mass graves
| being unearthed.
|
| Disbelieving the NYT doesn't mean taking everything
| Quillette says at face value; it only means noting that the
| NYT has a history of fabrication and bias, and that
| anything sensationalistic reported in it should not be
| given the presumption of truth.
| dinkblam wrote:
| same as with covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than
| many other preventable causes of death that are completely
| ignored instead of hyped as the end-of-the-world.
|
| we are truly in an age of perpetual unfounded social panic.
| thanks twitter.
|
| as with most other problems, more educated people, especially
| regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help
| prevent these foolishnesses.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > dangerous but not anymore so
|
| We can all tell you weren't actually listening to the experts
| you so detest because that wasn't their stated rationale. The
| rationale was "flatten the curve" -- some hospitals were two
| doubling periods away from having parking lots full of people
| slowly dying for want of ventilators. That's what the lockdowns
| were about. Making sure we never overwhelmed the medical
| infrastructure.
|
| Subsequent R-control measures were about making sure it stayed
| that way. As better options for keeping the hospitals safely
| under-capacity appeared -- first vaccines, and then simply the
| fact that subsequent variants sent a smaller fraction of the
| infected to ventilators -- the measures were relaxed. As was
| appropriate.
|
| What's amazing are the number people who continue to stick to
| Trump's initial February 2020 "ignore it and it will go away
| like magic" alternate reality, even though the man himself
| abandoned it in March 2020.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Then why were doctors offices and hospitals _closed_ if the
| goal was to keep them open and operating?
| adamrezich wrote:
| I ignored it and it went away. I worked as a cashier at
| Walmart during most of the pandemic lockdown times and came
| down with multiple bacterial illnesses as a direct result of
| having a piece of cloth over my face for eight hours a day,
| yet somehow never caught covid, despite remaining
| unvaccinated while working at a Walmart in a tourist town
| during tourist season. my local civic center set up an
| emergency clinic that remained 100% unused for the entire
| time it was active. the Sturgis Rally being nearby was
| supposed to make us (Rapid City, SD) a superspreader disease
| nexus, and that never happened either--more people died from
| traffic accidents (which were down from previous years!) than
| covid.
|
| and now it's gone! look at that.
|
| at some point, even if only years after the fact, one must
| reconcile the reality of the situation with the narrative
| they were sold on, and ask themselves if the two line up at
| all. how many Republican-voting Americans today still believe
| the Iraq invasion was ever really truly about weapons of mass
| destruction, or that the entire incursion was righteous in
| any way? how many Republican-voting Americans have any love
| left for the 43rd President at all, despite their fervor at
| the time?
| prvc wrote:
| >as with most other problems, more educated people, especially
| regarding science, math and specifically statistics could help
| prevent these foolishnesses.
|
| "Could" is doing a lot of work there. I think, empirically, you
| will find the opposite relationship.
| anon291 wrote:
| I used to believe that more education would help, but today it
| seems that the most educated are most likely to spread these
| dangerous kinds of misinformation, whereas uneducated people
| are most likely to question it. The educated seem to be more
| dangerous if for no other reason than they control the media.
| Jonovono wrote:
| Something I have noticed too, and it seems to be a common
| trend many are noticing. What do you think causes it? Anyone
| know any studied terms to explain this?
|
| My thinking was that "smart" people are busier and outsource
| their thinking in other aspects to media they can trust. If
| that media lies to them, they are smart, so they don't want
| to admit they were wrong. They are too smart to be fooled!
| But I don't know if that explanation holds up.
| jl6 wrote:
| D&D explained it well: intelligence is a separate stat to
| wisdom.
| anon291 wrote:
| Honestly, I have no idea. Being somewhat educated and by
| all other metrics part of the 'elite' I am flummoxed by
| people demographically like myself [1].
|
| [1] By other metrics I mean, I live in a West Coast coastal
| city, in a rich neighborhood, work in tech, educated, etc.
| By all measurements I should be like others, but I'm not.
| dinkblam wrote:
| > the most educated are most likely to spread these dangerous
| kinds
|
| good observation and i completely see your point, but are
| those people really educated in a scientific sense (and know
| their confidence intervals) or did they just finish their
| liberal arts degree and learn some french words?
| Jonovono wrote:
| The amount of lies during COVID is worthy of an entire book.
|
| This decently sums it up:
| https://www.piratewires.com/p/neurotic?s=r
| jjoonathan wrote:
| > It never really made sense. Does the virus stop working
| while I'm drinking on a plane?
|
| Two sentences in and he has already proven that he doesn't
| understand the simplest concepts in pandemic management.
| Nice.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| > covid, which is dangerous but not anymore so than many other
| preventable causes of death
|
| ... if you're vaccinated.
| [deleted]
| dinkblam wrote:
| reilly3000 wrote:
| Ya this is Quillette being Quillette; heavy on indignation, light
| on context. This has been a known issue since the 1970's and over
| 150 bodies have been dug up the old fashioned way. I can't speak
| to the credibility of ground penetrating radar, but it's not okay
| to dismiss the entire atrocity as mass hysteria when there were
| in fact mass graves.
|
| Edit: Wikipedia has plenty of specifics and sources, including
| confirmation of burial grounds with traditional excavation and
| radar controversies:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Yeah, the final clause of this sentence reveals he knows what
| he's doing:
|
| > No one, to my knowledge, has found any human remains--i.e.,
| body parts or tissue from decaying corpses--either at Kamloops
| or any of the other former Residential Schools, through the use
| of GPR.
|
| Very holocaust denial-like. Reminded me of the people who point
| out that the "lampshade made of human skin" stories, haven't
| been proved:
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-lampshad...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Thank you for posting this. It's good to be reminded that even
| people who think they are smart fall into the exact herd behavior
| built-in to human psychology.
| jagger27 wrote:
| Except it's wrong and you fell for it.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-residential-schools-...
| int_19h wrote:
| The article you've linked to claims:
|
| "some journalists -- in Canada and abroad -- mistakenly
| called the unmarked graves being located "mass graves,"
| inadvertently invoking the horrors of the Holocaust. But the
| vast majority, following the lead of Indigenous spokespeople,
| got it right"
|
| The problem with this is that it's impossible to verify - who
| are "some journalists", and who is the "vast majority"? But
| anyway, if you google for "215 children bodies found", you'll
| find that claim plastered all over the Net. First-page search
| results include CBC itself, BBC, NPR, CNN etc. So this is, at
| best, misleading.
|
| The other statement that made me go hmph is:
|
| "Denialists, to be clear, do not deny the existence of
| residential schools or even some of the harms of the IRS
| system. Rather, they seek to downplay or distort basic IRS
| facts and question the validity of ongoing research to shake
| public confidence and undermine truth and reconciliation
| efforts. "
|
| It is unclear which "basic facts" they claim to be distorted.
| The article admits that it's not the existence of schools or
| the abuse that happened in them in general. I've read some of
| the denialist articles, and the only claims regarding facts
| of the matter can find there are that no bodies - indeed, no
| graves! - have actually been verified in this one particular
| case. That claim is easy to verify.
|
| The article seems to be claiming, in essence, that any
| skepticism in this regard is _inherently_ wrong, regardless
| of facts or lack thereof.
| scarmig wrote:
| > The article seems to be claiming, in essence, that any
| skepticism in this regard is inherently wrong, regardless
| of facts or lack thereof.
|
| Even if it's false, it's true in spirit, and anyone who
| tries to undermine its metaphysical truth by pointing out
| its actual falsehood is likely a neo-Nazi who wants to
| murder indigenous children.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Why are you skeptical of graves existing?
|
| We know for a fact that graves existed. We just don't know
| where some of them are, because they were abandoned.
|
| So, what is being added to the story by saying "this
| particular discovery of a potential grave location hasn't
| yet dug up a dead child"?
|
| There's other grave sites where actual bodies were
| discovered after floods or roadworks, where they've
| identified what they think are other graves via the same
| tech.
|
| Those haven't been dug up either, because just randomly
| digging up graves on an arbitrary schedule to prove to some
| kook's satisfaction that you have the right to talk about
| something is absurd.
|
| "I think my grandfather died in France during world war I
| and is buried somewhere in this field but the records are
| patchy so even after looking for decades we're still not
| certain" is something you respond to with empathy, not
| skepticism and demands for certain proof.
| AinderS wrote:
| It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I am skeptical,
| you are mistrustful, he is a denialist.
| prvc wrote:
| What are you claiming to be wrong?
| jagger27 wrote:
| I refuse to engage with the "let's hear them out" approach
| of extreme far right rags.
|
| I guess HN is happy to entertain them though.
| trasz wrote:
| Quick look at sources from Wikipedia confirms that the articles'
| basic assumptions have a rather loose association with facts. And
| the site itself is known for propagating hoaxes and promoting
| alt-right (Noah Carl).
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > Wikipedia ... propagating hoaxes
|
| Wikipedia itself is awfully untrustworthy, though - look what
| they're doing with the "recession" page today.
| AinderS wrote:
| > the articles' basic assumptions have a rather loose
| association with facts
|
| Could you be more specific?
| AinderS wrote:
| compycom wrote:
| Genuinely shocked to see something like this on the front page of
| HN. Framing your misinformation in the form of a debunking
| doesn't mean it's true.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Folks, this is an obvious troll article from a well-known source
| of quite extreme propaganda. Read it with a skeptical eye - they
| are lying to you.
| jagger27 wrote:
| It's incredibly sad to me to see HNers ignoring the source of
| this piece. Downvotes throughout on all those who disagree.
| tomohawk wrote:
| Do you have something actually useful to add to this
| discussion?
|
| Perhaps some facts?
|
| Or just accusations with no evidence?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Mate, all I've done is warn you to be skeptical, because you
| may not be aware that Quillete is a quite badly biased source
| of reporting.
|
| You're welcome to ignore me, but I'd consider it pretty
| useful to warn people about the provenance of this -
| especially because the whole shtick of this outlet is a
| veneer of respectability that makes it somewhat less obvious
| what agenda it's pushing when compared to e.g. Breitbart.
| jollybean wrote:
| Just the opposite, it's a high quality piece from a high
| quality site.
|
| This comment, which offers no argument for illustrating why the
| piece is misleading or unfactual, only hurts your credibility.
|
| I myself was deeply moved about the 'grave discovery'
| revelations in Canada, and after just a bit of investigation I
| was 'shocked' to discover that the narratives were
| misrepresentations to the point of lying.
|
| A short compendium about some of the ruthless misrepresentation
| can be found here [1], where they highlight some issues in the
| press that, were these revelations to be made in any other
| field, would be existentially damaging to those involved.
|
| The press clearly misrepresented the views of even many of the
| aboriginal leaders responsible for these investigations, and
| much worse.
|
| It's damaging to the integrity of the CBC and some others.
|
| [1] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-
| how-...
| munk-a wrote:
| Please be aware, the entirety of the linked article and my
| statements below are both true.
|
| There was a radar scan that revealed regular human-shaped
| anomalies in the soil.
|
| Follow up investigations have reaffirmed that these anomalies
| were not equipment dysfunction.
|
| In all of the digging that has taken place at this site no
| bodies have been uncovered.
|
| No digging has taken place at this site.
|
| To the best of my knowledge, no living person has ever seen a
| body located in one of these graves.
|
| To the best of my knowledge, no one who would have been on
| hand to bury one of these bodies is still alive (or at least
| - none have come forward).
|
| It is simultaneously true that no bodies were unearthed
| (specifically - removed from the earth) and that what is
| *strongly* believe to be a grave site was unearthed
| (specifically - discovered).
|
| There appears to be a concerted campaign to spread "correct"
| information that strongly implies a state of the world that
| does not match the actual state of the world.
| YourFriend87 wrote:
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Only someone who was born with ovaries and a uterus can have
| a baby, menstruate, or chest feed (aka "breast feed").
|
| This is D work (67%).
|
| EDIT: For clarity, the last of the three claims is incorrect:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779241/
|
| https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/5/e2047/6123860
|
| https://internationalbreastfeedingjournal.biomedcentral.com/...
| YourFriend87 wrote:
| But the first two are correct? Is that what you're saying?
| idiotsecant wrote:
| But my shoes are in fact not brown, but black? Is that what
| you're saying??
| YourFriend87 wrote:
| I don't even understand your point. I cite three facts,
| he says the last one is wrong, so I say what about the
| first two? How does your post even relate?
| happytoexplain wrote:
| It's hard to believe that, given he only said one was
| wrong, you think he might have meant the others were
| wrong as well. You should try to rephrase your question
| to get at your eventual point, rather than try to lead
| people.
| [deleted]
| aaomidi wrote:
| Why did you feel the need to comment this on something entirely
| unrelated?
| YourFriend87 wrote:
| Because the topic is, broadly stated, "statements that are
| taboo regardless of their truth."
| happytoexplain wrote:
| I think it's misleading to say that "men can't have babies"
| is taboo. What you're actually referring to is a semantic
| argument about gender identity, and the one-sentence
| version just omits that context so it can "look"
| objectively true.
| YourFriend87 wrote:
| No, it really isn't a semantic argument. We can accept
| that a biological woman who identifies as a man is a man,
| so there is no semantic argument.
|
| We can still say that such a person _can_ have a baby,
| but no biological men. The assertion is that it 's taboo
| to say this. You can just admit that, and then you've
| proved me wrong (or committed a taboo act, but that's for
| you to deal with).
| happytoexplain wrote:
| If I admit that it's taboo, I've proved you wrong? Or if
| I admit that a biological man can't have a baby? Which,
| yes, I do admit (barring sci-fi-ish implant science I'm
| not informed on). Your point is confusing - if you're
| referring to people who literally think that biological
| men can have babies, it's hard to believe that you think
| they are _so_ prevalent that they pervade all of public
| space. Unless you just mean that the unqualified act of
| declaring they can 't in public will provoke a negative
| reaction, which seems reasonable - without context, that
| declaration is most often used as an implication that we
| should hate or mistreat certain people, whereas I, for
| example, am saying it in an honest/relevant (in my
| opinion) context.
| jollybean wrote:
| I do not like to be 'one of those people' that laments the MSM,
| but this story in particular is a glowing example of the lies
| (and I mean 'lies', because the distortion is purposeful) to
| support narratives.
|
| There was an extensive piece by the National Post documents some
| of the examples, it's bad. [1]
|
| Ironically, even many of the aboriginal leaders themselves were
| purposefully misrepresented. In some cases, these were just
| regular graves that lost their headstones and relevant
| documentation, there was not discovery etc..
|
| Consider this: when the population at large derives a completely
| false intuition for a set of events - the media is lying.
|
| Some media 'misrepresents' the 2020 election by just repeating
| Trump's lies without questioning them, and though this might be
| hard for some to swallow, much of the real data behind police
| aggression etc. is hidden and misrepresented in light of
| emotional charges and BLM protests.
|
| It's a really sad state of affairs but the MSM ('all sides')
| narratives are so strong, that almost every issue is quite
| strongly misrepresented due to 'sidedness' and/or attempt to
| create false impressions.
|
| Double paradox is that most of the MSM is actually 'fairl
| factual' and if you go off the beaten path into YouTube and alt
| sources, there are some good voices, but most of it is 10x worse.
| Most 'independent thinkers' are not getting at the truth, just
| being led even further astray. It's sad.
|
| It's really hard to consume information these days.
|
| Edit: for a good exercise, pay attention to news about Ukraine
| right now. While I absolutely support their effort basically in
| every way and am repulsed by Putin's 'useful idiots' all over the
| web - we are engaging in a bit of misrepresentation ourselves
| (pro-Ukrainian propaganda), which is what happens during wartime.
| Ukraine is a bit of a mess of a country, a lot of corruption -
| but that will be suppressed at least for now, where we 'need' the
| public to be engaged in a way that's a bit more easy to swallow.
| This soft-propaganda is of a different nature than the
| ideological narratives in much of the press. 2 years after
| Ukraine/Russian war is over (hopefully soon, and Russia is kicked
| out of Ukraine) you'll see a lot more press about the conflicts
| of interest etc. within the Ukrainian government etc..
|
| [1] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-year-of-the-graves-
| how-...
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| I don't really see anything in what I read as a wonderful
| genocide denial piece of the likes you see on catholic news sites
| right now, about how the decision to exhume or not exhume is
| being taken with a lot of care and the decisions lie with the
| tribes on how to do this. It sounds like at the Kamloops site,
| they're working on an archaeological dig. [1] These things take
| time for reasons of doing what may involve the respectful and
| dignified exhumation of potential corpses. If it's just some
| anomaly then the people writing shit like this have a LOT of
| words to eat. It's pretty much their word over elderly indigenous
| survivors who have pretty much pointed to where they remembered
| dead kids going in where to do some initial evidence gathering.
|
| In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide
| as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
| or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as
| such." These five acts were: killing members of the group,
| causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living
| conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and
| forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are
| targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a
| group, not randomly. This happened in Canada regardless of
| whether or not there's graves in these sites, but "oh yeah
| where's the dead kids bodies already" is in my opinion kind of a
| horrible point of view given light of the necessarily slow paced
| process that's happening to uncover the truth.
|
| [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tk-
| eml%C3%BA...
| jollybean wrote:
| People die at schools esp. boarding schools of all kinds, all
| the time, of normal causes. There aren't really allegations
| that somehow these schools 'killed people' in the 1960's (i.e.
| in living memory as you suggest) - or even in the past (when
| people died at much higher rates than normal population of
| illness etc.) and your choice of words very clearly
| misrepresents the situation, which is actually the issue
| presented in the article: how people lie about serious and
| inflammatory issues.
|
| There were major revelations about a century ago that
| Aboriginal children were dying at higher rates than otherwise,
| mostly due to tuberculosis, which spread rapidly at the shcools
| over a century ago - it was a 'huge controversy' even in 1922 -
| when the government commissioned an investigation into the
| situation. [1]
|
| Also, note (same reference) that deaths from aboriginal kids
| since WW2/1945 is basically the same as death of kids from the
| general population overall, which abnegates some idea of even
| accidental physical genocidal acts due to systematic
| oppression. These facts, which adds nuance to the situation,
| create a more realistic dynamic to the historical situation
| than your choice of words (similar to those in the press) would
| imply. Hence - misrepresentation and hyperbole.
|
| Residential School history matters, factually.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...
| rizoma_dev wrote:
| littlestymaar wrote:
| My reaction exactly. What's next, Breitbart News?
| adamrezich wrote:
| what issues have you found with the text of the article that
| makes it unsuitable to be posted here? I've never heard of this
| publication, but found the article to be an excellent read. I
| only had vaguely heard about the "mass graves" situation months
| and months ago and was completely unaware that no bodies have
| actually been found. this article does a great job of
| presenting this information, contrasting it with the blatantly
| false NYT reporting on the subject, and tying the whole thing
| together with warnings about media-fueled moral panic mass
| hysteria, which is a pretty important topic to learn more about
| these days.
|
| I found the article well-reasoned and level-headed, completely
| free of political extremism of any sort.
|
| what is the reason for why I'm supposed to hate this
| publication, so I know better next time to go into reading an
| article from it with the Consensus-Approved Morally-Correct Set
| of Preconceived Biases?
| munk-a wrote:
| If you are coming at this from a neutral angle - please be
| aware that no bodies have been physically found but also that
| no bodies have not been physically found. There is radar
| evidence of bodies buried near the school that remains un-
| refuted, there was a decision not to exhume the graves out of
| respect.
|
| By the same line of reasoning used in this article my
| grandmother might still be alive - sure we all went to a
| funeral but it was closed casket and very few attendees saw
| the body... but I can take you to the grave stone and
| probably dig up a few pictures of the service.
|
| These techniques are not 100% reliable but they are very
| strong indicators - especially when seen en-masse as they
| were observed at this site - it is extremely unlikely the
| ground soil composition is due to any sort of a natural
| cause, but it is possible that something else is buried in
| the ground... in human shaped holes, at regular intervals.
| bena wrote:
| So, in response to a story about alleged unmarked graves in
| Canada we have:
|
| A comment about January 6th
|
| A comment about Kyle Rittenhouse
|
| A comment about COVID
|
| At least COVID is somewhat relevant to Canada.
| [deleted]
| josephcsible wrote:
| Those are all related, in that in all of them, the media gave a
| lot of people a false impression about something, which is
| exactly what this article is about.
| anon291 wrote:
| This story is about a New York Times portrayal of a Canadian
| event. It's actually not really about Canada in particular
| (although it certainly touches on it).
| jl6 wrote:
| Perhaps someone could make Wikipedia's article on this clearer:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...
|
| The words "suspected" and "potential" are doing a lot of work
| there.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-29 23:01 UTC)