THE FALLACY OF GENOCIDE
Last Sunday, around the usual cup of coffee it was used the very tragic word “genocide” and due to the social composition of the environment I refrained myself , although I was tempted, to explain –within my modest intellectual capacities – the incorrectness of the usage in that particularly context. Coming from where I came from , witness and victim of social and cultural genocide, I am trying to clarify, with my best intention, why the word is, very often , wrongly used.
The English philosopher, Francis Bacon, in 17th century, used a very famous line, (and I repeated in French because we suppose to be a “bilingual” country): “Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose” ( Lie, and something of the truth will always remain.) which remained in the French culture . The leftist propaganda used the same technique ad nauseam about genocide against native people of the territory named today Canada in order to blame “the capitalism” about everything which is wrong in this world with the final aim to influence honest people like you and the humble undersigned.
That useless international organization named United Nations, very heavily influenced by the former Comintern and the present PC (politically correctness) as a result of the pre and after war tragedy, tried to define the word genocide. I will not copy the UN document, but in a nut shell, the aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough (substantial) to have an impact on the group as a whole. The substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions (numbers) and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group (emblematic).
The UN document doesn’t use the notion of “cultural genocide”.
However, the leftist propaganda, subliminally inserted the word “cultural” next to genocide, as later to make use of the idea of genocide which, in Canada, is totally without merit. Because my personal opinion in this matter is not relevant – I am not historian by profession – but I am just a simple man trying hard to find the truth, wherever it is , I will present the following column written by a very serious historian, which clarify in a very solid way that Canada’s treatment of aboriginals was – in his opinion –“sometimes shameful but it was not a genocide.” The writing is of Lard Conrad Black and printed in June 2015. It is a false presentation idea that we, today’s Canadians, have an unlimited debt towards the aboriginals.
Here is the excerpt of the mentioned text, extremely elegant written and very well, neutral, documented . It could be useful to anyone as it was to me. I took the liberty to emphasize some sentence
I yield to no one in my fervour to make amends to the native people for violations of treaty rights and other mistreatment, but the phrase “cultural genocide,” as I wrote here last week in reference to the Chief Justice of Canada’s use of it in a speech given in honour of the Aga Khan, is deliberately provocative and sensational. We might as well accuse Canada and the United States and all countries built on immigration (ultimately almost all countries) of cultural genocide, of the natives or the arrivals, though of course immigration is voluntary. All words bearing the suffix “cide” refer to physical extermination: suicide, homicide, genocide, regicide, etc.…………….The native people, or First Nations, were here first, but there were not more than a few hundred thousand of them in what is now Canada in the 17th century. They had a Stone Age culture that had not invented the wheel, and which graduated, however brusquely, to more sophisticated levels of civilization, but the culture was not exterminated. Apart from a few mid-western farming tribes and Pacific and Great Lakes inhabitants of log dwellings, the First Nations did not have permanent buildings or agriculture, metal tools, or knitted fabrics. They were nomads, clothed in hides and skins, living in tents, surviving on fish and game, and usually at war, which included the torture to gruesome death of prisoners from other tribes and nations, including women and children….. Even that eminent humanitarian Thomas Jefferson, one of history’s prototype limousine liberals, described the native people in the Declaration of Independence as ”merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.…………Once the white men were indisputably preeminent in this continent, administration of native affairs was largely unsatisfactory, frequently corrupt, and sometimes brutal. The Canadians and Americans did not simply massacre them all, as the Argentinians did (that was genocide), and there were many sincere and entirely benevolent contacts among the natives, including from most of the Christian churches ………..The policy, which was one of assimilation, acculturation, or even deracination, was misconceived, frequently unjustly administered, and the horror stories of what happened in the residential schools are the very worst of it’ But we are dealing with a policy of using high office for unctuous national moral self-flagellation; the country didn’t murder native schoolchildren and at every stage would have been just as shocked as we are now to learn of it. The whole country must do what it can to atone for the past, but a continuing orgy of recriminations will be unjust. In fairness to the Harper government, it did its best in agreeing a $2 billion education catch-up program for the native people; their leaders rejected it and forced out the First Nations’ national chief, Shawn Atleo, who negotiated it. The relationship between official Canada and the First Nations is full of sadness, mistakes and dishonour, but both sides share it, and respect for native government often results in grievous corruption and despotism by the native leaders. Despite everything, even the First Nations should be grateful that the Europeans came here. There has been quite enough shameful conduct to go round, including by some of the natives. Let us all repent past wrongdoing without demeaning histrionics and hyperbole, and be proud of whatever we are ethnically: all cultures and nationalities have their distinctions. The whole country must do what it can to atone for the past, but a continuing orgy of recriminations will be unjust in itself, produce a nasty backlash, and will aggravate grievances.
With all my due respect for Lord Black’s competence and intellectual elegance, I take the liberty to add few words. What “genocide” took place when in 1900 we had 375K aboriginal people and now we had more that 1.4 millions? The word itself was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin combining one word from Greek and one from Latin and , rightfully referred to Jewish tragedy. We also have to notice that all genocide actions or intention to do it is followed by a “diaspora”, another Greek word meaning :scattering” of involuntary nature. We have the most known examples those of Jews from Judea after Romans destroying their kingdom, Armenians as a result of Turkish massacre (1915) Irish before Ireland became a free country, Stalin’s actions against Tatars, Ukrainians and others, etc. All of those resulted in a large diaspora, word now very wrongly used . Where is any “diaspora” of Canadian aboriginals? This leftist obstinacy to create a false history doesn’t help aboriginals and, most of all, create a tendency to transform Canada in a conglomerate of ghettos and not to consolidate one totally equal nation.