The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[esquire]

Here is a very 2020 news story:

Ex-Senate staffer says she felt forced out for questioning colleague's Métis identity claims

A former staffer for a Manitoba senator says she felt forced to resign over the fallout from a complaint she made alleging a co-worker was falsely claiming an Indigenous identity.

Breanne Lavallee-Heckert, a citizen of the Manitoba Métis Federation, brought her concerns to Sen. Marilou McPhedran in April in a letter explaining why her co-worker's claims of being Métis were problematic and the impact it was having on her at work.

"Being exposed to someone actively stealing my identity and culture is one of the most humiliating and belittling things I have put myself through," she wrote to the senator.
Lavallee-Heckert said she wasn't asking for her co-worker to be fired, but she did want the person to stop identifying as Métis, and she asked for "significant changes" to be made.

Instead, she said, "I was made to seem like I was mentally unwell and I was the one who was having problems."

It gets interesting, because there is some substance to her complaints:

She said red flags went up immediately when she realized that not only was the co-worker self-identifying as Métis but that she was a member of a controversial organization in Quebec.

"As a Métis person, I know that there's no Métis people from Quebec," she said.

An employment lawyer then cuts to the chase:

Howard Levitt, a Toronto employment lawyer, said he couldn't comment on the specifics of the events without having all the facts. But he said the stakes are "really quite serious, especially in a body like the Senate."

Applicants for jobs with the Senate can self-identify as Indigenous when applying, and there is no further verification process beyond self-identification.

"We are in a time where it is a tremendous advantage to be Aboriginal or Black," he said, referring to recent shifts in hiring practices.

With employers increasingly looking to hire Indigenous people, Levitt said, "that will invariably incent certain people to falsely claim that status. What is the employment law repercussion for doing that? In my view it's cause for discharge."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/senate-staffer-metis-indigenous-identity-1.5664637

Leavitt is probably right - it's hard to fake being black, but it's probably tougher to challenge a claim that someone is Metis. And thinking locally, there are probably few Franco-Manitobans who don't have at least some Indigenous ancestry somewhere along the line... where is the line drawn? Interesting question.

[lio45]

Out of curiosity, is there anyone else who was rubbed the wrong way by that story of the Latina roofer? While I'm sympathetic, I greatly dislike the idea of a non-colorblind tax code. "Technically, you'd owe $x to the government right now, but you're black, and the reason you can't pay is that your business didn't go as well as you thought it would last year, which may be partly due to subconscious generalized racism and that wouldn't be your fault, so... okay, waived."

[dleung]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Ah, yes, when it's a Black conservative, it's just a conservative who happens to be Black.

But if it's a Black liberal, it's tHe LiVeD iN eXpErIeNcE of Blacks, the holy grail that cannot be criticized.

You confuse me with someone else

Originally Posted by savevp

I should think an attempt to identify a cause of pervasive inequality amongst racialised groups would be under the purview of a thread about racism.

Certainly moreso than inventing quotes out of thin air and then presenting them as though someone has made those insinuations in the thread.

That's a Lio specialty, but I guess it's only a problem when the anti-racists do it lol. It's clear why people only get concerned about "black-on-black" stuff and "fatherless households" when there's talk of racism/police brutality.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

Here is a very 2020 news story:

Ex-Senate staffer says she felt forced out for questioning colleague's Métis identity claims



It gets interesting, because there is some substance to her complaints:



An employment lawyer then cuts to the chase:



https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/senate-staffer-metis-indigenous-identity-1.5664637

Leavitt is probably right - it's hard to fake being black, but it's probably tougher to challenge a claim that someone is Metis. And thinking locally, there are probably few Franco-Manitobans who don't have at least some Indigenous ancestry somewhere along the line... where is the line drawn? Interesting question.

Wait a minute - if nearly anyone can pass as X, then doesn't that immediately blow to smithereens the idea that people who are X are a VISIBLE minority that gets discriminated against?

- "People who have blood type A minus are greatly unprivileged! We need to introduce positive discrimination to favor them!"

- "Great idea, though the problem is that anyone will now be saying they have blood type A minus if we do this, so everyone will take advantage of those new measures."

...... and the nonsense here doesn't strike people immediately...?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by esquire

Leavitt is probably right - it's hard to fake being black, but it's probably tougher to challenge a claim that someone is Metis. And thinking locally, there are probably few Franco-Manitobans who don't have at least some Indigenous ancestry somewhere along the line... where is the line drawn? Interesting question.

For arguments about black identity, the line seems sharper (in North America, Canada and the US -- I mean see the Rachel Dolezal case).

But there are fierce debates in places like Brazil over affirmative action, which like Latin America in general, has less of a sharp line between black and non-black, but a large mixed population. It has gotten to the point where interviews even rely on physical judgements of appearance in front of the candidate (which would well, not fly in Anglo-American or Canadian places at all!).

We don't really have these debates in North America because it is seen as much more crass to argue how mixed someone is in African ancestry (though the indigenous cases are different).

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2...p-controversial-boards-to-determine-race

[Capsicum]

Brazil's case with affirmative action follows the logic of "visible minority" to a conclusion we Canadians would find crass but if you take it literally -- if you label a minority visible or non-visible then the criteria is no longer self-defined but defined by the whims and social norms of others on "how different you look".

It becomes unsavory but interviewers in Brazil being used to judge others' appearance to find if someone "passes" as a race for affirmative action or discrimination cases, is more consistent with the concept of visible minority (it then becomes about physical features because you can't get someone's ancestry directly from a glance) than anything Canadians use, because we Canadians still respect self-identity to a larger extent.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But there are fierce debates in places like Brazil over affirmative action, which like Latin America, has less of a sharp line between black and non-black, but a large mixed population. It has gotten to the point where interviews even rely on physical judgements of appearance in front of the candidate (which would well, not fly in Anglo-American places at all!).

I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere (niwell would be able to tell you more about it, no doubt) that South Africa, which obviously also had for a while the "problem" of accurately determining where to draw the line between officially black and officially white, used the method of sticking a pencil in one's hair, and if your hair was thick and curly enough that the pencil can stay in place, you were officially "black".

Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...

(Also, what do you do in the case of a bald black man? )

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere (niwell would be able to tell you more about it, no doubt) that South Africa, which obviously also had for a while the "problem" of accurately determining where to draw the line between officially black and officially white, used the method of sticking a pencil in one's hair, and if your hair was thick and curly enough that the pencil can stay in place, you were officially "black".

Not sure if that's an urban legend or not...
)

It was unfortunately very real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(South_Africa)


Another interesting thing that is harder to verify, were many stories of small rural towns where someone would decide to "get back" at someone who wronged them by claiming they had a trace of black blood. Guess what - virtually every single Afrikaner does. It was a dirty secret that was very much understood at the highest levels of government (almost entirely Afrikaner due to language laws) and apparently got many a person banished to a Coloured Township, which was definitely a step above a Black Township but pretty grim nonetheless.

Somewhat ironically almost all of the only actual "white" people in SA were the somewhat tolerated English South Africans!

[savevp]

Originally Posted by dleung

It's clear why people only get concerned about "black-on-black" stuff and "fatherless households" when there's talk of racism/police brutality.

This racism discussion thread was started in response to an incident of police brutality. So, yes, anything posited in this thread is done amidst talk of racism/police brutality.

If you're insinuating that certain posters, myself included, aren't concerned about problems within black communities until we can use them as a red herring (ostensibly to divert scrutiny from police), that's a pretty baseless charge, given the short history of this thread. One can acknowledge the shortcomings of policing and also acknowledge societal issues within certain communities. Of course, ascribing all blame to police is the only acceptable route now, and extrospection of black communities is suddenly racist, but those characterisations are another issue.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

It was unfortunately very real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(South_Africa)

Seems crazy to think that Canada in 2020 is now moving towards stuff like this - needing "tests" to be able to "officially" determine who is Métis and who isn't, because it has now started to matter to employers like RBC (which, previously, were colorblind).

Looking at the past century and a half, it feels like the movie has now started playing in reverse.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

It becomes unsavory but interviewers in Brazil being used to judge others' appearance to find if someone "passes" as a race for affirmative action or discrimination cases, is more consistent with the concept of visible minority (it then becomes about physical features because you can't get someone's ancestry directly from a glance) than anything Canadians use, because we Canadians still respect self-identity to a larger extent.

That's partly what makes the CBC story I posted so interesting... normally these types of assertions are accepted at face value. If someone says they are part (fill in the blank with whatever ethnicity), it isn't something that people typically challenge.

So someone with a supposedly stronger claim to the identity, and therefore presumably some level of standing to act as a gatekeeper, has stepped up and pointed a finger which is something that a white boss probably couldn't do without some kind of solid evidence, like maybe 23 and Me printouts left by the office printer?

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What makes things complicated, though, is that as far as the top-level, more powerful entity Quebec is a part of, there is basically no bar for being "Canadian".

It literally is not an exaggeration to say that many will consider you (and the culture and customs you bring with you) as "Canadian" the very instant your toes touch the tarmac at Pearson airport.

Well if it's a Republican American the vilification and demonization would be immediate and intense. Anglo-Canadians can accept all culture except red America.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by niwell

It was unfortunately very real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(South_Africa)


Another interesting thing that is harder to verify, were many stories of small rural towns where someone would decide to "get back" at someone who wronged them by claiming they had a trace of black blood. Guess what - virtually every single Afrikaner does. It was a dirty secret that was very much understood at the highest levels of government (almost entirely Afrikaner due to language laws) and apparently got many a person banished to a Coloured Township, which was definitely a step above a Black Township but pretty grim nonetheless.

Somewhat ironically almost all of the only actual "white" people in SA were the somewhat tolerated English South Africans!

It is not all that uncommon to see “white” Afrikaners in SAfrica who have obvious black African ancestry.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

But there are parallels that go the other way in the analogy. Look at which group was there for the last few centuries, making the place its own, versus the other group, which has an older (and somewhat valid) claim to the place, but didn't have much influence on what the place was in the modern era (<1948); rather, this was mostly the work of the former group.

In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. Just sayin'

Overview of Palestine's demographics from the 1st century to the Mandate Era
Year Jews Christians Muslims Total
Early 1st c. Majority – – ~2,500
Early 4th c. Majority Minority – >1st c.[1][2]
5th c. Minority Majority – >1st c.
6th c. Minority Majority –
7th c. Minority Majority –
8th c. Minority Majority Minority
9th c. Minority Majority Minority
10th c. Minority Majority Minority
11th c. Minority Majority Minority
End 12th c. Minority Minority Majority >225
14th c. Minority Minority Majority 150
1533–1539 5 6 145 157
1690–1691 2 11 219 232
1800 7 22 246 275
1890 43 57 432 532
1914 94 70 525 689
1922 84 71 589 752
1931 175 89 760 1,033
1947 630 143 1,181 1,970

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. Just sayin'

Overview of Palestine's demographics from the 1st century to the Mandate Era
Year Jews Christians Muslims Total
Early 1st c. Majority – – ~2,500
Early 4th c. Majority Minority – >1st c.[1][2]
5th c. Minority Majority – >1st c.
6th c. Minority Majority –
7th c. Minority Majority –
8th c. Minority Majority Minority
9th c. Minority Majority Minority
10th c. Minority Majority Minority
11th c. Minority Majority Minority
End 12th c. Minority Minority Majority >225
14th c. Minority Minority Majority 150
1533–1539 5 6 145 157
1690–1691 2 11 219 232
1800 7 22 246 275
1890 43 57 432 532
1914 94 70 525 689
1922 84 71 589 752
1931 175 89 760 1,033
1947 630 143 1,181 1,970

If, as is common for those on the "Palestinian side," this is used to suggest that the Palestinians have a greater claim to Israel than the Jews do, can this logic be extended to suggest that Europeans have a greater claim on North America than the indigenous peoples do?

Because the analogy is striking.

(South America doesn't fit so neatly into the analogy due to the majority mestizo population)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews. Just sayin'

Don't your numbers totally support my version of the analogy (the ones where the Québécois are the Palestinians)?

For the past few centuries, there's been at all times a lot more French Canadians in Quebec (currently, millions of them) than there has been First Nations people (currently a handful), even though everyone agrees and admits that it used to be the exclusive homeland of the latter, eons ago.

Original Situation:
Jews/FNs - 100.00%
Muslim Palestinians/Québécois - [didn't exist there at the time]

Early 20th Century (as well as previous several centuries too):
Jews/FNs - 2-3%
Palestinians/Québécois - 90%+

If you weren't agreeing with me with that post... I don't really see what your point was then...?

(Looks like I'm not alone with this view, rousseau seems to share it, based on what he posted.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

For arguments about black identity, the line seems sharper (in North America, Canada and the US -- I mean see the Rachel Dolezal case).

Rachel Dolezal is not a good example. She was a blue-eyed and blonde child born to German/Czech/Swiss parents according to Wikipedia. She is not an example of somebody in the murky middle identifying as black and being rejected for not being black enough. She is somebody with ~0% African American ancestry testing out the idea of African American identity as something that can be adopted purely based on personal choice.

Lots of people have one black and one white parent, or one black grandparent, or one black grandparent. The same goes for just about any racial or ethnic makeup. And many people do not and cannot really know what their complete ancestry is going back even a few generations due to adoptions or other factors.

Many Canadians have mixed indigenous and non-indigenous ancestry. That is likely much more common than somebody who has 100% pre-Columbian New World ancestry, although such people exist (mostly in more remote areas where regular contact with Europeans only goes back 3-4 generations).

The notion that the world is a bunch of distinct racial groups with no overlap or that the overlap is some kind of weird corner case we should just ignore is absurd in 2020 Canada. Overlap and mixing is the norm in this country and has been common for hundreds of years, all the way back to the pioneer days when there mixed indigenous and European families.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

Don't your numbers totally support my version of the analogy (the ones where the Québécois are the Palestinians)?

For the past few centuries, there's been at all times a lot more French Canadians in Quebec (currently, millions of them) than there has been First Nations people (currently a handful), even though everyone agrees and admits that it used to be the exclusive homeland of the latter, eons ago.

Original Situation:
Jews/FNs - 100.00%
Muslim Palestinians/Québécois - [didn't exist there at the time]

Early 20th Century (as well as previous several centuries too):
Jews/FNs - 2-3%
Palestinians/Québécois - 90%+

If you weren't agreeing with me with that post... I don't really see what your point was then...?

(Looks like I'm not alone with this view, rousseau seems to share it, based on what he posted.)

I guess where we disagree is the original insinuation. Whereas Palestinians have been marginalized on their own territory (rather like our Natives), the Quebecois have a geographically coherent, viable entity where they are the overwhelming majority.


But I can see that people would rather split hairs and argue semantics, which is pointless.

[giallo]

Sigh....

• Video Link

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I guess where we disagree is the original insinuation. Whereas Palestinians have been marginalized on their own territory (rather like our Natives), the Quebecois have a geographically coherent, viable entity where they are the overwhelming majority.


But I can see that people would rather split hairs and argue semantics, which is pointless.

Oh but not pointless to them. They love muddying the water.