From here:
ACC shares reconciliation experience at international Anglican gathering
The Anglican Church of Canada continues the journey of healing and reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples. This path away from the legacy of colonialism and racism including the Indian residential school system reflects the unfortunate universal experiences of human conflict and resilience against egregious acts.
In spite of all the fanfare about reconciliation, the Anglican Church of Canada has yet to offer any gesture of reconciliation to the ANiC congregations whose buildings it seized and bank accounts it froze. That is because, rather than confess one’s own sins, it is easier to confess those of one’s predecessors.
Still, if it were not for the posturing and hypocrisy, fewer people might be leaving the ACoC, so it’s not a total loss.
“Colonialism” and “racism” were but the cultural context of “the egregious acts” committed in the residential schools:
the same “egregious acts” now elevated by an anti-Scriptural and apostate hierarchy
to the false and “damnable”(+ II Peter 2:1, v. 6 “Sodom and Gomorrah”…… ff.) doctrine of “inclusion” and “diversity” which is the very spirit of Babylon/Belial.
Hereby is this hierarchy preventing, soul by misled soul, the only act of Reconciliation that counts at the end of the day; for the which, upon whose mitered heads, Divine Judgment is assured to fall + Ezekiel ch.3:15-21:
+ “…GOD was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them…for He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin…what concord hath Christ with Belial…wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith The LORD, and touch not the unclean thing…” + II Corinthians 5,6, 7.
aMEN.
I’m still waiting for all the people and organizations whining about how aboriginals were here first, how we stole their land and the legacy of colonialism and racism, to sell their houses and buildings and give the land back to its, “rightful owners.” Anything less is hypocrisy.
I hope the aboriginal people are not expecting the new immigrants who are changing the social and political demographic of Canada to be at all sympathetic to them or their claims.
I was just reading something of the history of Vancouver Island, where I live. It seems that in 1853 or thereabouts, a raiding party descended upon the Nanooa and killed almost all of them. The attack was without warning, at night, and was almost certainly attempted genocide. This was not an isolated incident. Tell me again about the ‘noble savages’ and how civilization was so deleterious.
You must remember sin arrived with the white man ,they lived in a utopian society…..
Oh really…I dont think so.
From my history classes, it was taught that the Iroquois and Algonquin tribes often fought wars against each other (as well as other tribes).
Doesnt sound like utopia to me.
“The attack was without warning, at night, and was almost certainly attempted genocide.”
We know genocide to never have happened among Christians, after all …
More specifically, it certainly happened among Europeans. That fact does not make your point relevant however.
It does. If we’re saying genocide and vicious war in one civilization means almost anything can be done to it, what does this imply about other civilizations with the same sad features?
More to the point, what does it show is needed by such civilizations?
Would you say 17th century Europe would have deserved conquest by its contemporaries?
I would say you are missing the point. Let go of the Eurocentric, geopgraphic mindset and think of where you are.
As a former Chief Justice stated in a famous decision, their lives were short, nasty and brutish. Then he was accused of making up “his own anthropology”. There are lots of historical accounts of how savage many of the aboriginal tribes (and I am talking about tribes, not bands) were. Read about the horrific fate of captives, or the deplorable living conditions of aboriginal groups before they had much contact with settlers.
Also, imagine the sort of accusations and lawsuits that would be ongoing now if the “newcomers” had left the aboriginal people in their original condition, without expecting much of them or assisting them to adapt to modern society. That is, provided any significant number had survived to now as any sort of significant, identifiable group.
“As a former Chief Justice stated in a famous decision, their lives were short, nasty and brutish. Then he was accused of making up “his own anthropology”.”
He was. To the extent that there were sustained population declines and poor health outcomes among indigenous peoples in the centuries after 1492, these were the consequences of Old World epidemic diseases to which indigenous peoples had no defense. This, in turn, often started downward spirals. How can a band of people who are almost all deathly sick manage to acquire food, for instance?
He was not talking about something resulting from “downward spirals” caused by sustained population declines and poor health. As is evident from my post, neither was I.
It was not clear. The judge in question was talking about conditions for indigenous peoples being bad, not only by our standards but by the standards of their contemporaries in Europe and its colonies. There is no evidence of this.
There appears to be a lot of evidence of the conditions of indigenous peoples by any standards. Some peoples were better in this regard than others, but that was relative. Regardless of the manner in which some indigenous peoples were treated by the newcomers (and the treatment of some of those peoples by many of the Spanish was particularly horrible at times), the situation of some was quite impressive to Anglo-European settlers at first contact. The situation of others was absolutely appalling for reasons that had nothing to do with the post-1492 influx.
Having worked for a short time in one of the residential schools I must say there was no sexual abuse of any kind in that school and having spoken with some who were in the school at the time they advised they were advised by lawyers to claim abuse solely to get money. This shows that lawyers in general are NOT interested in the truth but only to collect fees. As officers of the court they are supposed to stand for truth and decency but clearly collection of fees has become more important. This was also clearly proven by the stand of lawyers when the ACoC legally STOLE properties from orthodox Christians solely because they would not accept or honour the apostate bishops. The disease within the ACoC goes right to the top and includes the so-called primate.
No, it does not show that lawyers in general are not interested in the truth but only to collect fees. It may show that a few of the lawyers involved in the residential schools cases may have had that inclination. However, from what I know of them, and of the claims, I do not think so. It may also show that the “some” you were talking to may not have been giving you the whole story, or that they may have grossly misinterpreted what the lawyers’ instructions were, or that they were not telling the truth to their own lawyers (that happens fairly often). Besides, much of the residential schools cases were not about sexual abuse anyway.
I also don’t see words in the barristers’ and solicitors’ oath I looked up that refer to “decency” or a “stand” for truth. They are not to pervert the law or promote frivolous lawsuits. The residential schools claims, regardless of what we may think of there merit, were neither frivolous nor a perversion of the law.
In any event, with respect to the ACoC, by your logic, the contrary must also be “clearly proven” by the number of lawyers who did not agree with the actions of the ACoC and, more to the point, by the lawyers who acted for the parties the ACoC was suing.
I would like to have more sympathy for the conservative Anglicans but it ends when I read posts like this and the unkind comments. There are many Indigenous Anglicans. I’m sure some residential schools were good and some were bad–but at the end of the day, would you like to be forced to send your child to school? I’m sure there are many Anglicans on here who are against SOGI, for example. How can you be against SOGI and be defensive about Anglican involvement in Residential School? It never ends well when the state takes control of children and pretends to know better than families. My own family were Native Anglicans and Native Catholics, in spite of it all. Yet, they knew rez school was a hell-hole, so much that they removed my elder from that school and told her to never, ever mention being Native because to the white man the only “good Indian is a dead Indian.” Reconciliation is the most Christian of messages, and yet, your testimony and witness all falls apart in this post–along with the nasty comments. There are many Indigenous Anglicans in your conservative Anglican congregations–how do you think they feel when they read a post like this and the horrible comments? So unChristlike and so unloving! Perhaps the entire Anglican Church, both liberal and conservative, should just call it a day, pack up, and go home already. I want to have sympathy for you conservatives, but how can you be so mean? The racism and discrimination Natives receive is real–why don’t you tell us where we should go to Church already? Shocking and nasty comments above.