Jamie Sarkonak: New York Times fails again to get the ‘unmarked graves’ story right – Paper scrutinizes ‘unmarked grave’ skeptics, but not the people who refuse to dig
Jamie Sarkonak: New York Times fails again to get the ‘unmarked graves’ story right – Paper scrutinizes ‘unmarked grave’ skeptics, but not the people who refuse to dig
Careful Jamie, you’d be breaking that proposed new NDP law… You know, the Anomaly Denial law…
shmoove_cwiminal on
The truth is out there. People may not like what they discover though.
86throwthrowthrow1 on
ESH
There is literally zero reason to be an *unmarked graves* skeptic (not “mass graves” – unmarked graves? That zero children are buried at any of these schools?), except for ignorance or ideology. Thousands of deaths are documented, burial at schools of these types was not uncommon at the time, there is simply no reason to suggest *unmarked graves* don’t exist unless you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re a ghoul who needs to see dead child skeletons before you’ll believe that children died at these schools.
The Poast, of course, is very willing to give airtime to people with zero leg to stand on for their views. There are “differing opinions”, and there is ignorance, and there is malice.
Also, NYT’s coverage of Canadian issues is often poorly researched and disappointing. They were one of the ones initially misreporting “mass graves”, and they’ve gotten plenty of other things wrong in other articles.
squirrel9000 on
This is such a gross perspective. A bunch of kids did die at these schools, and they were buried on sight. And the Residential School system was objectively a terrible idea whose echos continue to resonate in a deeply troubled group of Canadians even today. Arguing whether they’re marked or not, or quibbling the number, doesn’t really change the underlying issue.
What exactly are they trying to achieve by making this argument? That we need to go dig up a bunch of dead children to prove that … what, exactly?
4 Comments
Careful Jamie, you’d be breaking that proposed new NDP law… You know, the Anomaly Denial law…
The truth is out there. People may not like what they discover though.
ESH
There is literally zero reason to be an *unmarked graves* skeptic (not “mass graves” – unmarked graves? That zero children are buried at any of these schools?), except for ignorance or ideology. Thousands of deaths are documented, burial at schools of these types was not uncommon at the time, there is simply no reason to suggest *unmarked graves* don’t exist unless you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re a ghoul who needs to see dead child skeletons before you’ll believe that children died at these schools.
The Poast, of course, is very willing to give airtime to people with zero leg to stand on for their views. There are “differing opinions”, and there is ignorance, and there is malice.
Also, NYT’s coverage of Canadian issues is often poorly researched and disappointing. They were one of the ones initially misreporting “mass graves”, and they’ve gotten plenty of other things wrong in other articles.
This is such a gross perspective. A bunch of kids did die at these schools, and they were buried on sight. And the Residential School system was objectively a terrible idea whose echos continue to resonate in a deeply troubled group of Canadians even today. Arguing whether they’re marked or not, or quibbling the number, doesn’t really change the underlying issue.
What exactly are they trying to achieve by making this argument? That we need to go dig up a bunch of dead children to prove that … what, exactly?