This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Year of the Graves
I am somehow just getting to this now and from what I'm seeing, this seems to be one of the biggest culture war clusterfucks that has flown mostly under my radar. It started when media began reporting that the graves of 251 children (later 200) had been found near the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
Now, my understanding is that the evidence for the Kamloops graves are in fact very scant. The basis for the claim that 251 unmarked graves were found at Kamloops is based on the fact that ground penetrating radar or GPR identified irregularities in the ground near the Kamloops residential school that they simply interpreted as unmarked graves. GPR, however, can really only show disruptions in soil and sediment, and no excavations of the supposed graves have been done yet. In other words, nobody knows if it even is a burial site, let alone a children's grave.
At the Kamloops site, a juvenile tooth and a rib was cited as evidence of there being an actual grave underneath. Sarah Beaulieu, the person doing the GPR work, stated in her press conference that the tooth and rib were discovered in the late 90s and early 2000s. The tooth was discovered in an excavation by Simon Fraser University, and the rib was supposedly found in the area by a tourist and brought to the museum. However, when people reached out to Simon Fraser University, they replied that the juvenile tooth was in fact verified to be not human. Further attempts to get additional information about the tooth resulted in the university saying that the Kamloops legal team advised them not to respond to any queries from the public about the unmarked graves.
To be honest, there's been a serious lack of transparency surrounding this whole thing which really makes me think that a lot of the findings are suspect. Forget excavations, I am not aware of there being any kind of detailed writeup of the evidence surrounding the GPR findings, or any release of the work on the tooth and the rib bone. Pretty much nothing exists for the public to chew on, apart from a few very rigour-less media releases from the Kamloops band and a press conference from Beaulieu. Oh, and Indigenous "knowing", of course.
I want to properly cement just how inconclusive GPR findings are. In Sarah Beaulieu's press conference, when questioned about if the 215 number was still accurate, Beaulieu states that initially the estimate was 215 graves which had later been revised down to 200 because after the survey was done she became aware of previous excavations that had been done in the area that overlapped with her survey area. So if she can't with confidence distinguish between a burial and excavation work, that seems to suggest that GPR can't really tell you much.
Furthermore, there have been other attempts to find graves with GPR. For example, there was an attempt to find unmarked graves at the former Camsell hospital, where Indigenous people with tuberculosis were treated for decades. Some believed former patients may have been buried on the grounds. As the CBC article on the topic notes: "Thirteen spots flagged by ground-penetrating radar were dug up earlier this summer. Over the past two days another 21 such anomalies were uncovered but only found debris." They eventually wrapped up the search having found nothing. In other words, things that raise alarm according to GPR can actually be any number of other things.
It is also useful to note that most of what used to be the Kamloops residential school orchard has already been excavated prior to the new GPR findings, over 30% of the site has been excavated for various construction and research purposes and no graves were discovered. Note, these excavations started after accusations of the orchard being used to hide graves begun. As this article notes, with more than 30% of the orchard already excavated, is it probable that 200 burials were just missed by previous operations that Beaulieu is just finding now?
Additionally, the survey site Beaulieu was operating in is very disturbed by human activity, casting even more doubt on the idea that what she's seeing are graves. "Several of the 200 “probable burials” overlap with a utilities trench dug in 1998, and still other “probable burials” follow the route of old roads or correlate suggestively with the pattern of previous plantings, furrows and underground sewage disposal beds". I don't know for sure if that can create the GPR findings here, but given the fact that the excavation of multiple anomalies at Camsell hospital yielded no graves, other hypotheses should be considered.
So we basically have nothing here. But the Kamloops Band made a media release on 27 May 2021 stating that there was "confirmation of the remains of 215 children who were students of the Kamloops Indian Residential School". Media reports on it in the very same way, and Canada goes crazy over this. Canadians desecrate church after church, something which even Indigenous leaders told them to stop doing.
While there are other "discoveries" of "unmarked graves" elsewhere near other residential schools which have been revealed after Kamloops, they seem to be similarly questionable. The other very publicised one is by the Cowessess First Nation, disclosing the "discovery" of 751 unmarked graves at a cemetery near the former Marieval Indian Residential School.
This one, however, is even more questionable than the Kamloops one. What makes this especially incredible is that this was indeed a graveyard, but it was not an unmarked grave. The discovery was made at a community cemetery where basically everyone was buried, apparently including non-First Nations people. And the reason why they found "751 unmarked graves" was because many of the graveyard's crosses and headstones were simply taken down, not because they were clandestinely buried. According to the register of baptisms, marriages and burials from 1885 to 1933, there are graves of adults as well as preschool-age children as well as those who died at birth. It is at the moment unclear how many of the graves are actually from the residential school. Given that this was a community cemetery, there are almost certainly some, but the inflated numbers being quoted now are almost certainly wrong. "Some people died at a school and were buried at a community graveyard" isn't nearly as dramatic as "hundreds of unmarked graves" is.
The article notes that there are some survey flags dotting areas outside the cemetery, however this again runs into the very same problem that the site has not been excavated and has simply been assumed through GPR sensing disturbances in the soil.
Probably the most interesting one so far is the Star Blanket Cree's discovery of 2,000 anomalies near the Lebret Indian Residential School, and their accompanying find of a jawbone. Again, these were found using GPR, which carries all the previous caveats. Sheldon Poitras, the ground search lead for the investigation, scoped the findings appropriately, stating "Does that mean there’s 2,000 unmarked graves? We don’t think so. GPR can’t definitively say that’s something. It could be a stone under the ground, it could be a clump of clay, it could be a piece of wood or it could be something. We don’t know yet." So the people doing the work here are telling people not to jump to conclusions based on GPR alone.
As to the jawbone finding, we know almost nothing at all about it. Supposedly it was found near a gopher hole. However, as this article states "the provenance of ex situ bones – objects found away from their original site and the valuable context this provides – should always be treated with caution. A bone fragment could have been dug up where it was found or it could have been carried there from elsewhere, such as the community’s cemetery, by a gopher or other animal, or even deposited by a mischievous person". And even if this is a gravesite, one can't simply assume that it is a residential school gravesite. They could be older Indigenous gravesites unrelated to the residential school, for example, and only excavation can tell you what it is.
I'm not going to make predictions at this point, but the reaction of people has been disproportionate considering the at best inconclusive evidence thus far, and anyone who actually cares about accuracy runs into this problem: If you question the findings on the basis of the weakness of the evidence, you're basically tantamount to a Holocaust denier. If you ask for excavation and confirmation, you're just asking for Indigenous people to be retraumatised. The only non-racist thing to do is to nod your head and demonstrate a sufficient amount of piety.
Also, I have no stake in this. I'm not Canadian, and as a result I have no impetus to avoid accounting for any Canadian history. And if Canadians want to destroy their country in paroxysms of guilt and shame, I certainly won't stop them. But this seems insane.
It's fair to compare questioning the basis of the Kamloops mass grave to Holocaust deniers, because Holocaust deniers make the exact same arguments you make here. People like you saying "the story around alleged mass graves seem to be motivated by a propaganda campaign and culture-war hysteria- GPR results are not conclusive so excavations should be done to get to the truth of the matter" actually are making Holocaust denier arguments.
And your opposition: the people saying that excavations should not happen because it would violate the religious practices of the victims in order to satisfy the perversion of evil deniers, are also making the same arguments as the orthodox Holocaust believers on the question of excavating alleged mass graves.
This entire affair is an astonishingly similar discourse to the Holocaust deniers and anti-deniers on the question of alleged mass graves in a known location.
Can you give an example?
Researchers who believe the orthodox Holocaust story seem to be looking very hard for mass graves, in some cases successfully, in other cases explaining their absence by mass cremation.
Holocaust historiography claims that up to a million Jews were murdered in a gas chamber disguised as a bath house and buried in a small camp near Treblinka. Holocaust deniers don't believe that story. But despite the alleged graves containing this enormous amount of human remains existing in a precisely known location, no mass grave has ever been excavated from the site and it is in fact forbidden to do so because it would allegedly violate Jewish burial law.
The most extensive archaeological investigation of the area was only done very recently with non-invasive methods: most prominently consisting of (you guessed it) GPR results where various disruptions in the soil are speculated to be "probable mass graves" in her research, with no subsequent excavation. Holocaust deniers do not believe her assignment of various GPR results to mass graves are accurate as they do not reflect the size, shape, or location of the alleged graves, and only excavations can ascertain the truth of the matter. Holocaust believers claim that a convergence of evidence already proves that these GPR results are mass graves, and a call for excavations would only serve to placate deniers.
Of course the exact same line of argument is presented in the Kamloops story. There are long-standing rumors, cultural memory, hearsay, and eyewitness testimony to atrocities and burials of children in the area. There are now GPR results showing soil disruption in the area surrounding these atrocity rumors. To tie it all up, there is essentially a confession and apology from the Canadian government and Catholic Church. The Canadian government wouldn't confess to a crime it didn't commit, would it? It wouldn't admit the existence of mass graves the aren't real, right? There's a convergence of evidence, so at this point if you are demanding these graves be excavated you are just a racist denier.
Kamloops deniers make the exact same line of argument as Holocaust deniers: there is no "convergence of evidence", there is substantial evidence of atrocity rumors and "cultural memory" formulating a campaign of mass propaganda, and GPR results are not a substitute for excavations to scientifically study the truth of the controversy.
To give a more concrete example, you can compare this article denouncing Deniers for demanding excavations of the Kamloops graves:
Genocide deniers ask: Where are the bodies of the residential schoolchildren?
This can be compared to a recent conversation here where someone denounced the call for excavations of the alleged Holocaust graves for essentially the same reason:
So Treblinka does seem to be an example where some people have made the argument you note, though this did not stop excavations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/archaeologists-delicately-dig-nazi-death-camp-secrets-treblinka-n66241
https://www.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html
Of course, whether that is evidence against "Holocaust denial" depends on what you mean by that term, since it covers many different possible positions. Not all "Holocaust deniers" actually deny that there were mass killings of Jews by the Nazis.
I linked the documentary portraying her research where Poland's Chief Rabbi (with a New York accent) told her she has to stop excavating if she comes across a mass grave.
However, I am certain that she did dig trenches in search of mass graves, so she could have at least found one and stopped per the orders of the rabbi and that would have by far been the most important discovery of her research. But none of her trenches discovered any mass graves. She can say after the fact that she wasn't looking for them per orders, but I think she did dig trenches to try to find them and has a built-in plausible deniability for why she didn't find any.
But in any case, officially the excavations were not looking for mass graves and indeed she did not find any. The GPR results are what have been used to identify the alleged mass graves- not excavations. Any sane person who was actually dedicated to the scientific truth of the matter would of course follow up the GPR analysis with excavations, and in both cases when the parties refuse to do it that should be regarded as highly suspicious.
Holocaust deniers emphasize the sheer quantity that human remains that would have to exist in this small area at the scale alleged, for example:
Her excavations didn't find any graves containing these huge quantities of remains, but she did find fossilized shark teeth from when Poland was covered by an ocean millions of years ago. The narrator concludes, "it appears here that the Nazi coverup was effective." So it goes.
Thank you for clarifying that you're talking about weak Holocaust denial (it happened, but not on the orthodox scale) rather than denying that there were mass killings of Jews, on a greater scale than, say, David Irving would argue.
Her excavations weren't on on a scale to find such quantities as you describe, so that's not an interesting result. However, insofar as they looked, they apparently found lots of remains:
The part of the Holocaust denial debates that you are describing doesn't seem parallel to the current state of the dialectic with respect to the Residential Schools mass graves, where the question is their existence rather than scale.
I feel like there's also a substantial clouding with the fact that life on the Canadian frontier was genuinely tough with high youth mortality, and there's reasons why a residential school might have earnest reasons to have a mass grave nearby due to Tuberculosis outbreaks et al. People seem to reflexively frame this as though the region at that point in history was operating on 2020 healthcare norms.
True, although it's also the case that a lot of people were dying in Europe during WWII, though not on a scale that would explain all the missing Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link