Canadian Politics Today

So our apologist in chief has been at it again. This time he issued a formal apology to some natives out west for what the British colonial government of BC did in hanging their chiefs for the paltry crime of committing murder. Of course he had to put on his quaint buckskin jacket. This apology took a little effort to justify, and what they came up with was that the chiefs were completely exonerated because they were acting as leaders of a nation at war with another nation. Left unsaid was that there was no war when they murdered a bunch of road surveyors. Also left unsaid was that this was done before Canada was even a country and the British government has never seen any reason to apologize.

At least I haven't seen any reports of him bursting into tears this time around.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-to-apologize-to-tsilhqotin-community-members-for-1864-hanging-of-chiefs

It was a little more complicated than that.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-really-happened-in-the-chilcotin-war-the-1864-conflict-that-just-prompted-an-exoneration-from-trudeau

It was a little more complicated than that.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-really-happened-in-the-chilcotin-war-the-1864-conflict-that-just-prompted-an-exoneration-from-trudeau

Quite a bit more complicated I'd say, but now you've derailed argus' bias who simply likes to refer to these people as "some natives out west". I wonder also if he simply missed the point that Trudeau wore a buckskin jacket after it was presented to him as a gift by a chief of those damn "natives out west", or did he simply ignore that to try another low brow attempt at a cheap shot? A lot of vicious warring went on in those days, and capturing and killing the leaders from one side on their way to what was supposed to be peace talks is not a good way to proceed.

It was a little more complicated than that.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-really-happened-in-the-chilcotin-war-the-1864-conflict-that-just-prompted-an-exoneration-from-trudeau

Okay. I read it. It's not more complicated. Yes, there had been an epidemic. I get that. The murdered men didn't cause it. According to the report they were laughing and joking and sharing a campfire with the natives earlier that night. That doesn't suggest the natives said something like "You're on our land. leave!" In the middle of the night, when the men were sleeping, the natives attacked and slaughtered them. And did the same to another group later. There's no mention of natives being attacked in return. Then the natives went to town, thinking they'd be seen as a peace delegation, and were arrested and hanged. By the British.

Why should Canada apologize for that? First, I'm we're not the British. This happened before confederation. Second, it doesn't seem to me like that was particularly unjust.
This sounds much like the recent bullshit out in Nova Scotia over Cornwallis. He wanted peace and tried hard to get it, but then the natives attacked civilians without warning and slaughtered them. Yet it's Corwnwallis who is awful and we need to apologize to the ancestors of the natives.

Yeah, they were. They cheerfully made war on and exterminated their neighbours all the time, without regret, down to the smallest child. I can't recall a single instance in all of history where anyone felt any native group ought to be apologizing to anyone over that. But because our ancestors acted pretty much like the natives - only were better at it, and not nearly as cruel, we need to constantly apologize?

Yeah, apparently they were Shakespeare fans:

Author John Lutz described a mid-18th century event in which a Tsilhqot’in raiding party had attacked a Carrier village as part of an apparent attempt to seize control of a rich salmon fishery. After killing every villager in sight, they left the mutilated bodies of Carrier children stuck on pikes. A Carrier counter-raid a few years later would do the same to Tsilhqot’in children.

I love the way the author had to bring up the US Civil War as if to say, That's not so bad, really...

As much as it may be uncomfortable to say, it sounds like they may have been justified in killling the invaders who were there to take land and kill their people.  “It’s complicated” seems to mean, the white people there probably deserved to die, but it’s not comfortable to say so.

The apology is warranted. 

ETA:  “deserved to die might be too harsh...   understandably the target of the Tsilhqot’in defending their land and people might have been a better way to put it.

It certainly sounds like they were threatening worse: It was in this context that an unidentified member of the road crew almost certainly sealed the fate of his colleagues when he threatened a renewed tide of smallpox upon the Tsilhqot’in. “A white man took all our names down in a book and told us we should all die,” Klatsassin said later under questioning. Other participants in the massacres would similarly report that they believed it was necessary to prevent another existentially threatening tide of smallpox.

Perhaps if the road builders had of negotiated a deal to build the road instead of just sending crews to barge in and start building, there could have been a better outcome.

If drinking and celebrating with your intended victims before you kill them is OK, how is that different from inviting them to a meeting before arresting them?

Intent.