then why does the government continually apologize for actions taken a century ago?
History of Slavery in "Canada" (split from JT Popularity thread)
- Thread starter YZT580
- Start date
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,198
- Points
- 1,040
It’s a little different for governments as it is still the same entity which committed the actions even if it isn’t the same people in government.
that is a Hadfield and McCoy form of logic. By insisting on government apologize for perceived sins more than one's lifetime in the past you are simply perpetuating the guilt trip instead of moving forward. Might just as well insist that the Danes apologize to the descendants of the Beothuk peoples for invading Newfoundland. We shouldn't be imposing our current thoughts on our history: we simply weren't there and don't know what really happened. For proof, just consider the events of the last 5 years. We are discovering that the logic behind everything from CO2 and its effect on climate, the truckers thing, COVID and our responses are being called into question. A century from now which version of those events will be in the history books?
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,198
- Points
- 1,040
A government can say the State was wrong for past actions without it being a eternal guilt trip. As a simple example do you think the government if it was historically involved in slavery shouldn’t apologize for having been involved?
A apology for wrong doing is a sign of moving forward. Acknowledging blame is part of taking responsibility. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending nothing bad ever happened due to governmental action is a childish action.
Also for the record the sins which I suspect your referencing to (most likely the land acknowledgments and residential schools) happened much sooner than one lifetime ago. So if that is what you are referring to, then by your own logic they should be apologizing for those actions.
you got that backwards. I can see the potential cathartic benefits of the Canadian government apologizing for taking 30 years to repair water treatment plants on the reserves but not for the failure of a government 100 years ago to provide proper sanitation facilities. As for the slavery thing, there isn't a nationality in the world that is innocent of that charge. It was a fact of life. Probably still would be if the British hadn't developed a conscience and set their navy out to do something about it. The worst offenders were probably the ancestor groups of the our current African Americans/Canadians.
As for moving forward, too often an apology is issued instead of moving forward.
Canada never had a slavery policy or ever had slavery. Which is why the gvt isn’t going to apologize for that. Yes slavery was a thing on the geographic area that would become Canada the country. It can certainly apologize and compensate for anything that still has impact on people’s lives though. Residential schools still existed well into the 1990s and there are plenty of survivors affected by that policy for example.
As for worst offenders? That can be debated and discussed but as you stated it goes beyond any one particular group. It is though a fascinating if not dark piece of human history.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,499
- Points
- 1,010
Complete bull. Upper and Lower Canadas and the Maritime colonies all had slaves in the rich families until it was abolished by the British Crown. Talk to all the Montreal activists who want to erase the names of McGill, McKay, Molson and Bronfman because they were slave owners.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,320
- Points
- 1,160
He's saying that the country Canada, established 1867 did not have slavery. The preceding colonies definitely had slavery but technically not Canada as an independent nation.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,499
- Points
- 1,010
My bad.
But in Quebec and Ontario, we consider the history of "Canada" to start with and include the both of us from the moment the French established the colony of Canada in North America.
But in Quebec and Ontario, we consider the history of "Canada" to start with and include the both of us from the moment the French established the colony of Canada in North America.
The geopolitical national entity known as Canada didn’t exist at that time. And slavery was abolished in the colony long before it became that.
No one is denying the historicity of slavery in the colonies. But the nation we know today didn’t exist yet. The same cannot be said about other nations that can draw continuous national existence and continued policies and economies based on slavery well into an era where that was no longer considered acceptable.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,499
- Points
- 1,010
But you see, Remius, that's where we diverge. The technicality of "Canada" being only in existence since confederation in 1867 is not the accepted view in Quebec and Ontario: we were "Canada" as a continuous country from the moment we were a French colony in 1535 and all the iteration in between. "Canada" has been a concept ever since the French settlers stopped thinking of themselves as "French" from France and as inhabitants of the new world here, which happened long before even the English conquest.
That is why, for the longest time (until some time between WWI and WWII), the term "Canadian" referred more to the French Canadians only while the English speaking inhabitants thought of themselves more as British subjects than as Canadians. The very national anthem we have, O Canada, was first written in French by Basil Routhier and Calixta Lavalle as a French Canadian nationalistic anthem. Today, it would be wrtitten as a Quebec anthem only as this was the intent.
That is why, for the longest time (until some time between WWI and WWII), the term "Canadian" referred more to the French Canadians only while the English speaking inhabitants thought of themselves more as British subjects than as Canadians. The very national anthem we have, O Canada, was first written in French by Basil Routhier and Calixta Lavalle as a French Canadian nationalistic anthem. Today, it would be wrtitten as a Quebec anthem only as this was the intent.
- Reaction score
- 4,438
- Points
- 1,260
This will come as a surprise to most First Nations, given that many of them:
1) practiced slavery;
2) slaughtered those men who defied them;
3) took the women as their own; and
4) raised captive children as their own, even forcing their own religion and behavioral norms upon them.
Mind you, so did the Catholic church.
- Reaction score
- 4,937
- Points
- 1,260
Bang on, and good reminder, but (technically) outside of government mandate & control ....
... and other church organizations, under government mandate, for sure.
Mind you, I'm reading "Canada" there in the narrowest sense of "government of Canada".
While they certainly considered themselves as separate from the French, they were still not an independant geopolitcal entity. Cultural and racial identity is not the same as a legal entity in that sense. Do you hold the current Iraqi government responsible for the sins of the Saddam Hussein regime? No. No more than we hold the Italians culpable for the legal liability one would place on the Romans. While the cultural lineage can certainly be traced, the legal imposition we place cannot.
“Canadien” to be precise. It didn’t matter how either viewed themselves prior to 1867. They were legally British subjects.
I am well aware. That is the anthem I sang growing up and can assure you that it took a while before I learned the English version.
None of which was official policy or law in Canada.
I feel that some of you are missing the point that made and expressly stated that while it existed in the geographical location of what will become Canada it has never been a policy or law or acceptable in Canada the country. Colony, pre colony etc yes, it existed.
But again it goes to my point of reparations cannot be made or asked for from an entity that did not exist at the time.
yet all the names you mentioned were British. Do french ancestry folks get a free pass because they were the defeated race>
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,499
- Points
- 1,010
No, but I am not aware of any of the French that settled French Canada to have had slaves (Though, now that I think about it, perhaps Frontenac owned some, IIRC some of the history I read).
- Reaction score
- 1,931
- Points
- 1,060
I kinda agree with OGBD a bit. In that I often dont distinguish between pre and post Confederation. My family being British-Canadian and extending back to that time. So in my mind yeah we burned the White House and still awaiting my compensation for Philadelphia
Oh they did. And they adapted a lot of the indigenous practices. While not legal to enslave, they could still, buy and sell.
- Reaction score
- 4,438
- Points
- 1,260
Indentured Servants in New France — The French-Canadian Genealogist
Was your ancestor a "engagé," or indentured servant? Learn more about these contract workers in New France and Canada.
www.tfcg.ca
My point in this and my previous point is that slavery or some version thereof seems to be a constant throughout history.
History is somethng to be learned from, not apologised for, particularly when the percieved Injustice has been committed by all peoples somewhere in their history.
Last edited:
Similar threads
