Residential School Survivors
http://residentialschoolsurvivors.webs.com/
News
The Residential School Experience: Syndrome or Historic Trauma
|
|
When viewed from this lens, the churches were attempting to re-engineer the selves of
aboriginal children, and they did so incompetently. They did not have the knowledge to take into
account the aboriginal memes already within the selves of the children, nor did they understand
how their new Euro-centric memes would interact with those already in place. Further, they
offered a caricature of a Euro-Canadian self from which these children could model. Coupled
with practices of mind-control, damage was inevitable. Ishu Ishiama (1995)"
http://www.hawkeyeassociates.ca/articles/Residential%20Paper.pdf
Categories: None
Post a Comment
Oops!
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
3 Comments
Paste this link in your browser, if it doesn't work when you click on it as is , thank you!
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Prob_belief_proof.ht
ml
Don't forget to copy and paste the whole link including the 2-letters at the end of the link
that drops down to the next line
Somehow, this website won't allow this page to be posted, or is censoring my posts
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/critical_thinking/Prob_belief_proof.ht
ml
Don't forget to copy and paste the whole link including the 2-letters at the end of the link
that drops down to the next line
Somehow, this website won't allow this page to be posted, or is censoring my posts
I have to say in response, that it is unfortunate that victims have to continue to wait for closure due to bureaucracy. This whole IAP process can be quite difficult and traumatic for survivors, just by reopening old wounds and reliving the trauma over and over again. It is a shame that there is so much bureaucracy that must be navigated in order for victims of abuse to obtain some form of justice, especially considering that the abuse of children within Canadian Residential Schools has already been proven in the Court of Law. Putting victims through this drawn out process feels like insult added to injury. After all, it is both closure and justice that is ultimately sought by victims going through this process. It is the principle that perpetrators of child abuse should not get away with, be protected, or shielded from the consequences of their crime, no matter who they are. Justice applies to all, equally, no matter what race, class, or vocational position an individual has. From my point of view, it appears that this IAP process is biased towards the abusers, in that the victims are continued to be abused through the emotional exhaustion of being forced to relive trauma over and over again, within their pursuit of justice. It leaves the impression that this is indeed the objective of the IAP process, to, in fact, emotionally exhaust victims, so that they will either give up or remain quiet, rather than suffer through this lengthy process. Therefore, it is our hope to have all these IAP cases resolved fairly and in a timely manner, thereby finding closure as well as justice for the abuse of IRS Survivors, who have suffered at the hands of Canadian Government sanctioned residential schools.
Probability, belief, and proof
"The five "standards of proof" (thresholds of belief) found in the law are shown in the lower figure below. "Preponderance of the evidence" is the lowest, at 50% probability. It is used in most civil proceedings, and requires only that the plaintiff (accuser) outprove the defendant. Probabilities of 51% vs 49% produce the same "guilty" verdict as 99% vs 1%.
The second standard of proof is "clear and convincing." It is also used in civil proceedings (equity cases), but less frequently than "preponderance of the evidence." Its threshold probability lies somewhere between 50% and 90%. For simplicity, I have set it at 75% in the figure."
"The five "standards of proof" (thresholds of belief) found in the law are shown in the lower figure below. "Preponderance of the evidence" is the lowest, at 50% probability. It is used in most civil proceedings, and requires only that the plaintiff (accuser) outprove the defendant. Probabilities of 51% vs 49% produce the same "guilty" verdict as 99% vs 1%.
The second standard of proof is "clear and convincing." It is also used in civil proceedings (equity cases), but less frequently than "preponderance of the evidence." Its threshold probability lies somewhere between 50% and 90%. For simplicity, I have set it at 75% in the figure."
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.