Remains of 215 children found buried at former B.C. residential school, First Nation says

No it hasn't. And that's because burials at sea don't leave evidence behind. On the other hand burials on land, especially mass burials do leave evidence behind.

 

It got documented in the ship's log. That documentation is EVIDENCE. The Catholic church as well as the Canadian government documented what they did as well. That is most certainly evidence. This has been researched. It has been acknowledged by the culprits.

You only endlessly have pushed the goalpost in an absolute absurd and disgusting way that the only evidence that you accept is a corpse, for the sake to deny this genocide. It's like chatting to some nazi denying the genocide on the Jews.. with your "where are the bodies, ey?".

 

Correction, burials at sea don't leave physical evidence behind which is what I was referring to.

And still not a Nazi or a holocaust denier BTW, however much you so desperately want that to be true. And (why oh Lord) do I have to keep repeating this?. I have never denied the involvement of the Church or the State in the wholesale deaths of indigenous Canadians. Instead I have simply pointed out (time and time again) that the 215 deaths.burials you keep referring to have not (yet) been proven to have ever occurred. That fact simply means they should not be used as proof of the aforementioned holocaust. Do you disagree?

And be warned answering yes or not to that question also answers the other question I keep asking you which, to date you seem to scared to answer.

 

A ship's log = documentation = physical evidence.
The Germans also documented the massacre on the Jews = documentation = physical evidence.
Just like the documentation about them kids who died in that school is physical evidence.

Until you accept that documentation = physical evidence without any kind of goal posting moving restrictions.

We know how and proximately how many Jews got massacred in WWII, with hardly a grave to visit.
That's because the Germans documented it, and there are eye witnesses. With that, it's been all been proven.
We know how and proximately how many native children died due to the Catholic church and the Canadian government with hardly a grave to visit.
That's because the Catholic church and the Canadian government documented it, and there are eye witnesses. With that, it's been all been proven.


To deny you can prove a genocide like that is denying the holocaust.
Have a nice day.

 

OMG! A ships log is documentary evidence of a death you idiot., not physical evidence. Don't believe me? Ask any lawyer or physician. Physical evidence is provided by the recovery of partial or complete human remains. Just like a photo of the Eiffel Tower is documentary evidence of its existence, not physical evidence.

Again learn English or get your long suffering minders to explain it to you. Documenting and admitting the existence of the holocaust is NOT the same thing as stating a specific event never occurred. I have never denied that the genocide of Canadian indigenous people occurred, never! A fact you are apparently to dense to comprehend. Instead what I have done is point out that the specific acts referred to in your original post, as of this date do not seem to be real. Which is true, you yourself admit no bodies have been found.

If you can't comprehended the difference between those two point there' no helping you. And your still too much of a coward to answer the question I keep asking. Is it OK to to use false/unconfirmed crimes to support the legitimate claims of genocide.

Refuse to answer this time and I'm simply going to take your silence as proof that the answer is 'no' but that your just to gutless to admit it. Either way? I'm done.

 

AHA... FINALLY. You admit that it's evidence.

Your previous post where just like acting like a holocaust denier, denying the documentation is evidence.
You only flip flopped with a word lingo in post 303 pushing the goal post that you suddenly always ment "physical evidence".
As if. You never for 1 moment did you claim that.

your post 245: they are not evidence
your post 247: What I am doing is demanding evidence proving a specific set of claims about specific set of events,
your post 254: Serious claims deserve serious evidence
your post 259: All I've done is ask the question 'what evidence is there to support your claim?
your post 277: there was no evidence the deaths/burials in question had actually happened
your post 284: And since you've already admitted the fact that there is no evidence
your post 294: What I've repeatedly said (and you've apparently failed to comprehend) is that there's no evidence they occurred.


There is evidence. It's documentation. I said this ALL ALONG in post 256 for example.

There is evidence that it did happen. Not the kind you want, but it's EVIDENCE NONTHELESS.
It got accepted by the culprits. They placed the label genocide.
So you know... THE END.

 

What better way to deter your adversary who made up lies and false narratives about you during the 'cold war' era?

 

To all of the above.

There is documentary evidence that children were attending the schools. There is documentary evidence that some died and their burials are in fact recorded. There is evidence that others left the system. There is NO documentary evidence proving all these children actually died and were then buried as claimed. As I noted in my previous post the records are incomplete. The records are largely are silent on this issue die to their incompleteness.

And if you disagree with this? Fine, no problem. All you have to do (as I've requested before) is to produce the records you say prove the burials occurred when and where claimed. Because you still haven't done that either.

As far as I have been able to ascertain? All the existing records prove is an absence of information about what happened to the children while they were in care. That is NOT the same thing as proving they died when and where claimed. But importantly that same absence of information also means neither the Church or State can rule out the possibility that the children actually did die and get buried where claimed. So the only way to resolve the issue and prove the truth is to locate that bodies, assuming they are where you and others seem to believe they are. Which is also something I've also repeatedly advocated for. Are we clear now?

And no, you've still chickened out of answering that all important question. But as I said previously your silence on the subject speaks for itself.

 

You're deliberately downplaying here. It's part of the tricks a random fanatic would pull for the sake to deny the genocide their ancestors committed.
The documentation is complete enough to know a hell of a lot more children died due to abuse and experiments etc etc than elsewhere.
And this plus the 6000 eye witness accounts cause the Catholic Church and the Canadian government admit it was a genocide.

Why on earth should I do that? The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation says 50 died out of 500 kids that they know who attended that school. It says so right in the OP. The Church did it. It's their job to go find them graves, not mine. And if you want to know where they are, go look for them yourself.

Go tell the Jews the the genocide is not real since there are no bodies.

 

My part of the argument has long been over.

Two years on and no bodies.

You on the other hand are trying to change the thread topic until you finally hit something that makes you right.

 

Whose downplaying? Not me, I have repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of the indigenous genocide in Canada. (A point you refuse to acknowledge.) I just asked you to provide your evidence (documents) proving that a specific event relating to that genocide occurred. And you? You still haven't produced them. Your failure to do so and your statements above amount to nothing less than an admission that currently there is no evidence confirming the burials of 215 children at the sites in question.

And that point has been the only the only one I've been debating from the start. Evidence that 'a lot' of children died corroborates the fact that a genocide occurred. It is not evidence that a specific number of children died at a specific time and were then buried in unmarked graves at specific locations. 'A lot' of people died during World War 2. That is not evidence that a certain number of people died on Omaha Beach, Normandy on 6 June 1944. To prove that you you need records or other evidence of that specific battle. If you can't see the difference between those two statements you really do need help because that's how real history works.

And who said the history of indigenous tribes in Canada doesn't prove a genocide occurred? Again not me. It clearly does. My issue is with using unconfirmed reports of a specific event to support the argument that that a genocide occurred. And why? Because as I've already stated multiple times justice demands it and the victims deserve better. They deserve the truth, not more falsehoods because lies and falsehoods are what lead to the genocide in the first place.

I never said you had to 'find the graves' I said you had to produce the evidence you have proving they occurred. Which is an entirely different and you know it. As for why you should do it? Because your the one making the claim about the burials, not me. Again because that's how a debate works. You make the claim, you produce the evidence to substantiate it. Google it if you don't believe me.

BTW statement above is yet another admission that you don't have any evidence to produce. Hence the rather lame attempt at deflection.

You know what I said about defection? Wow, you just defected right out of the ball park!

But OK to answer. No, I wont go and ask 'the jews' where is the proof that the holocaust occurred. That's because just like the indigenous genocide in Canada there's abundant evidence it did! What I might do however is ask someone who alleges for instance that as part of that Nazi genocide a specific number of holocaust victims were killed at a specific location during a specific period of time where their evidence is? (Sound familiar?)

But I would only do so in circumstances (like this one) where to date there appears to be no evidence corroborating those specific claims. And I would do so for the exactly the same reason I've challenged your claims i.e. because the victims of the holocaust deserve nothing less than the truth.

So now? I think we've reached the point where you have basically admitted you have no evidence to support the specific claims (about the 215 burials not the genocide) I think we're done. You've certainly failed to produce any evidence despite repeated requests to do so.

 

I replied to this in post 140

I'm in compliance with the topic as explained in pos 229.

 

I did in my previous post, among posts.

At that specific school it is 1 in 10, as mentioned in my previous post.
And that's part in the bigger picture that this death toll is far higher than anywhere in Canada at that time.
That too has been sourced.

I am not making a claim about the burials. An other poster claimed it was a hoax. I proved him wrong. And than you started to dispute my point.
You clearly are unable to follow the bigger picture.

At that specific school it is 1 in 10, as mentioned in my previous post.
And that's part in the bigger picture that this death toll is far higher than anywhere in Canada at that time.
That too has been sourced.

 

If true that proves one in 10 children died. It does not prove 215 children are buried at XYZ. Again note the difference. You have not proven the children died and were buried where claimed.

True, you have already admitted the bodies have not been located. And again I am not claiming the burials were a 'hoax'. A hoax implies a deliberate intent to mislead. The claims made about the 215 bodies may or may not be a deliberate lie. They could just as easily just be a simple mistake, a matter of rumor. I don't know, not does it matter. The point is that as yet there's no proof the bodies exist where claimed. Nor am I interested providing further input in the 'bigger picture'. As I've told you repeatedly I'm only interested in clarifying the issue regarding the children bodies referred to in the title of your thread, nothing else. Why, because it is proven historical fact that the genocide of Canada's indigenous people occurred. And those facts stand on their own merit. The allegations surrounding the deaths of the 215 children on the other hand? They do not.

And the only reason I'm even interested in that point is because I believe it is absolutely essential that claims of genocide, any genocide be supported only by the truth and nothing but the truth (to coin a praise). And I believe this because the victims of genocide, indeed any serious crime deserve the truth to be told about their fates, not lies.

So, do you agree with that last point or not? If you do (and you should) just say so and I think we're done.

 

There is no if in the 50 children died out of 500 children they know that attended that school. With that, you're endlessly busy denying the genocide.

They already investigated this and found that 50 died out of the 500 children who attended. This falls in the pattern of genocide, and the church and government having destroyed the documentation proving the full extend of what they did. But still it's all enough to label this a genocide. The culprits agree.

 

I said 'if' not because I was denying it happened numb nuts but only because I personally haven't seen the documents confirming those numbers. There's a difference. And since I've already acknowledged the genocide occurred, in writing, in this thread you can quit with the 'denier' BS.

Again who are you debating with? The voices n your head? I never denied it happened.

 

Your opinion is like a holocaust denier, who refuses to accept it happened until it personally sees all documentation... while everybody else doesn't need to see that and trust the researchers and the culprits admitting to it. I'm part of the everybody else.

 

No. It's like a person who doesn't have all the facts laid out in front of him so that he can instantly confirm any claim made by someone else. So he says things like 'assuming X is true'. Not because he doesn't believe it's true is but simply because he simply doesn't know if it is true. In this specific case? Once again you've made a specific claim about a ratio of children's deaths being one in ten. I'm not denying that's true. I'm simply saying I haven't seen the evidence. In fact IMO it's highly likely to be true.

But then you still haven't answered the question have repeatedly asked about the morality of using unproven or false allegations to support a claim of genocide. One suspects your simply to much of a coward to do so. Go on. Yes or no?

 

You have seen the evidence.
I've sourced the research who looked into all these kinds of schools.
And the article that is linked in the OP mentions that the same researchers looked into that school.
It is in that article where it says 50 out of 500 children they know they who were there died.

You however circle jerked right back to denying that there is any evidence, and so you deny this genocide.
This is right up there with any extremists who denies a genocide when the proof is shoved in their face.
Let is be a Serb denying the genocide on Bosnians or a nazi denying the holocaust. You're just the same.

 

Yes, I know your sourced the research. The point is I haven't read it all. To do that I'd have to go back to all the original sources and read them. I don't have that time. Hence my previous comment about assuming they were true i.e I was taking you at your word when you stated they proved your point.

If I walked into your office and dumped a large folder on your desk and said 'these documents prove we need to do X' you would quite rightly be entitled to say 'well assuming that is true, yes we do need to do X.' Your not denying the truth of the statement your assuming it's true based on what you've just been told even though you yourself haven't actually seen the evidence. That is NOT denying there's any need to do X.

Again, saying 'assuming' in this context doesn't mean your denying the evidence exists your saying you haven't seen it yourself. That's all. So stop trying to frame every statement I make as a denial of the holocaust just because you don't like the fact someone dares to disagrees with you on one particular point you've raised. And again, answer the question I have asked multiple times.

 

Oh? You previously wrote:
"What I've repeatedly said (and you've apparently failed to comprehend) is that there's no evidence they occurred."
And now it is that you just haven't had the time yet.

What a load of crap to now just flip flop flip flop.
How about you stop posting and start reading.

 

'They' are the 215 burials referred to in the title of your thread NOT all deaths and burials involved in the genocide. As I have repeated many times there is no record of these specific alleged burials. Records showing that various children were present at the homes at the time? Yes. An absence of records showing what happened to most of them after they arrived at the homes? Yes. But no records of any burials at the alleged sites in question. And following on from that all physical searches conducted to date have failed to find any evidence of the bodies. Ergo no evidence of those specific 215 burials. Hell, you've no bodies have been found.

How about you learn to read English and answer the question?

And while your at it stop desperately cherry picking words from my posts so that you can deliberately take them out of context. As for why I haven't read up on the details of the genocide? Time. But I'll do it if or when you complete studies in reasoning, debate and logic.

 

You're deliberately leaving out the most important part about them documents.
An absence record still show that various children were present at the homes at the time? Yes, and it's 500
An absence of records still show what happened to most of them after they arrived at the homes? Yes, 50 died and no records of any burials at the alleged sites in question.

You jumped into a discussion if it's a hoax or not. And it aint no hoax. The evidence is there proving differently.
You're pushing the goalpost to something else by insisting it's only and just if they are buried in the cellar.
And there is no need to go answer any question of yours.

 

Again, since your memory really is that bad. Yes I 'jumped in' (to the debate)'. No, I never claimed it was a hoax (show me any post where I did). Instead I pointed out there was no evidence (as yet) that the bodies were buried where claimed. That is not saying the story is a hoax. Whoever posted the initial claim that it was a hoax? That person is the one who has to try and prove it was. Not me. If they didn't? Well they're wrong then aren't they.

In contrast I'm saying (and I've always said) that so far the claims about the graves have not been proven. And as result appear to be mistaken or alternately false. That difference is important because it's NOT the same thing as saying they're a hoax. As I've said many times before claiming the burials are a hoax implies someone is deliberately lying about their existence and knows (or knew) the graves didn't exist. I, on the other hand am saying that claims about the burials are unproven. That does not imply someone has deliberately lied, just that they are or may be mistaken. Even you have to acknowledge that mistakes are just that, mistakes.

In this case rumors and speculation over several generations could have lead to people to believe the graves were there. I don't know because I haven't traced the origins of the story. But if that is what happened then the claims are not a 'hoax' but rather just an innocent mistake. And the only reason I joined this thread was to clear that the fact that the graves so far hadn't been found. I was not accusing anyone of anything.

I also joined in order to get you to acknowledge that as yet the graves have not been found. This you've done. Beyond that however I have tried to get you to acknowledge that the indigenous victims of the genocide deserve a better monument to their suffering than false or incorrect claims of abuse. They deserve the absolute, untarnished truth. And so, one more time. Do you disagree with this last point or not.

 

False and incorrect claims of abuse, is what you say.... while the truth is that out of the known 500 children who entered, that 50 died! The horrors are all real. Even in that school. And you're in denial of those facts after all this time, exactly how a little extremists would deny the holocaust.

You point about the graves not being found is absolutely not relevant. It's something that you can not comprehend. I will not respond to this kind of nonsense, and only reply about the deaths and the abuse that occurred.