The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm not sure this is a good way to look at it though. Usually the accusation is that one is behind the times and out of touch with contemporary progressive thinking. LGBT social groups lately tend to be very progressive if not on the fringe. Sometimes they are really out there.

There also tends to be more intergenerational mixing in gay communities. Basically whoever is legal bar age. It's not the most common scenario but it's not unusual for a 50 year old to talk to a 22 year old in a gay bar.

The progressive stuff is usually in the universities first. It's not the little kids formulating new ideas; teachers transmit them to kids (and education departments of universities tend to be very progressive now). Maybe there's a bit more synthesis in the 18-25 year old post-secondary environment.

You make some good points. Still (and this will sound weird coming from me), my guess is that a lot of gays over, say, 30 and also 40 and 50 aren't going to gay bars as much as people think. Though perhaps moreso than hetero people of the same age. (I think you yourself may have denounced the stereotype at one point.)

In any event, I do think we're mostly on the same page, in that people's views and observations are too often dismissed based on assumed life experiences, entourage, etc.

Though I have never dismissed his opinion due to anything, MartinMtl for example is I believe a married gay man with at least 2 kids.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Not really because anyone in the running for this position will be wealthy. It's not a move that helps anyone at a true disadvantage. The publicity of it all that a white person need not apply is exactly the fear and angst that is the basis of most racial tendencies and elects openly racist orange people like Trump after 8 years of Obama. Of course, race wasn't a huge play in Obama's candidacy. It became one once president and is proof nothing will change as long as the political spectrum continues to go their separate ways dominated by old, wealthy individuals with a lot to lose by gambling against the status quo.

The protest will die and nothing will change. I have much faith in the top percentile of young millennials. They really see the world differently. It's just not their time yet.

I admit to thinking about the highlighted a lot lately. This worries me a bit because the next time this erupts in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years or whenever, the anger will be ratcheted up even a few notches more.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I admit to thinking about the highlighted a lot lately. This worries me a bit because the next time this erupts in 6 months, 2 years, 5 years or whenever, the anger will be ratcheted up even a few notches more.

That is the exact problem, from the point of view of people who want change.

What does it take? Why wouldn't they keep taking things to the next level if there is no result from the last attempt.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Architype

This has always been the case of course, but it seems you hear more of "as a single black woman parent I believe this", or "as a gay man, I can say this". This indicates that truth now depends upon who you are, making the line drawing quite dubious and subjective. When the lines themselves become PC militarized though, the consequences of crossing them accidentally can become much more treacherous.

It’s not that complicated to me. I’m gay and yes I know I can say things about gay people that other people can’t or they would be viewed in a poor light for doing so. I also have a generally clear understanding of what I can’t say about other groups. I try to respect other people’s feelings so I’m not policing myself. I understand why those social rules exist, so I don’t feel constrained by them. I’m still capable of making mistakes, however, and sometimes the rules change. I may not understand the changes at first. I may initially be resistant but a more sensible humility takes over and I figure it out. Perhaps as a fellow minority with experience in being misunderstood and thoroughly disrespected, especially in my youth, helps me to empathize more.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think my favourite is the classic dismissal that I am just an old guy who is out of touch because I am in my 50s (only barely so, though).

And yet I live with teenagers and young adults and my house is ground zero for that demographic in my neighbourhood and my kids' circle of friends. I also talk my kids' friends and the kids of my own adult friends all the time.

Since SSP's demographic is predominantly male and childless with an average age in the 30s, and disproportionately gay, I wonder how many people here actually have as much real-life access to teens as young adults as I do. If you do have frequentation similar to mine and your family situation isn't similar to mine or you don't actually work with young people, that's probably a bit creepy.

I think one of the only people on here who'd fall in that category is MolsonExport, who I believe has teens of his own and also teaches at university - mostly to people in the first half of their 20s.

Really good point, and I agree. I've always trusted your word whenever you say teens these days do or think X or Y. I know you're an intellectually curious person who talks with them all the time - I believe you posted once about discussing politics with them over breakfast, stuff like that.

Given the above, if I had a need in real life to know how teens think about something and needed to ask someone, you'd be the first person I'd think of with my inquiry, even though we've never met in person. (The following spots in that ranking would be occupied by my older cousins who have teens; you beat them because I am sure you know your kids' cultural teen-specific ways better than they do.)

Speaking of using SSP to gain useful information, I would like to arbiter a fight that recently escalated between two of my Punjabi employees (one "disrespected the turban" of the other) - anyone here feels up to helping a bit with this? (If not I will probably just rely on google. Should still be ok.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That is the exact problem, from the point of view of people who want change.

What does it take? Why wouldn't they keep taking things to the next level if there is no result from the last attempt.

Though there is a possibility that "next time" (depending on how distant in the future it is) the people who want change won't be quite the same people. Or at least, there will have been a bit of shift as today's kids get older and begin to have more of a stake in The System. That doesn't mean they'll become racist all of a sudden - only that raging against the machine will become less of a priority for them.

I mean, where are the "Occupy" people today? That doesn't even seem that long ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Speaking of using SSP to gain useful information, I would like to arbiter a fight that recently escalated between two of my Punjabi employees (one "disrespected the turban" of the other) - anyone here feels up to helping a bit with this? (If not I will probably just rely on google. Should still be ok.)

I had to LOL at this.

[SignalHillHiker]

Well, just to start, Punjabi isn't really a thing. It only exists in the same way "Canadian" exists - within that is basically every religion and half the ethnicities on earth. So you could be dealing with an intra or inter religious conflict. If it's intra, not your place to involve yourself. If it's inter, a brochure about religious freedom laws in Canada wouldn't go astray.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

It’s not that complicated to me. I’m gay and yes I know I can say things about gay people that other people can’t or they would be viewed in a poor light for doing so. I also have a generally clear understanding of what I can’t say about other groups. I try to respect other people’s feelings so I’m not policing myself. I understand why those social rules exist, so I don’t feel constrained by them. I’m still capable of making mistakes, however, and sometimes the rules change. I may not understand the changes at first. I may initially be resistant but a more sensible humility takes over and I figure it out. Perhaps as a fellow minority with experience in being misunderstood and thoroughly disrespected, especially in my youth, helps me to empathize more.

I know this is not what you are saying but I wanted to point out that there are limits to how much cred one should give to "I am of Group X so I know better and can represent them all".

Ultimately that person is just one individual and that's just their opinion. There are lots of sources out there like polls and voting results that give a better idea of what Groups X Y and Z think, than one random poster on SSP or some guy around the water cooler at work.

I don't think that African-Americans would appreciate us thinking that Candace Owens represents the "African-American view" on things politically.

I know that when I talk about the Québécois or francophone views on things here I try to back it up with examples or references beyond my own little persona. And often I represent that view on here even if it is not my own. For the sake of accuracy.

And on this topic of representativity of views, not long ago I had an example at work, where a person had a strong view about something that was based on them being part of "Group X", and it made a big stink with allegations of discrimination, insensitivity, etc. when I and others strongly contested it. I can't give the example because it's too much information, but it's such an obvious one that everyone on here would get it, and clearly see that it was just that person's hang-ups personally and not something widely shared by Group X at all.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

If it's intra, not your place to involve yourself.

Not really possible, since it went to the point they can't be together anymore so I have to decide which one to keep and which one to fire.

Earlier, I had a semi-similar unforeseen problem when many South Asians refused to work with our gayest employee (the only one clearly visibly gay; statistically I'm sure I have a few others). Solved by assigning gay guy to the shipping side (where there's only a few people) and all the homophobes to the production side (almost a different building). What would you have done...?

(I am assuming the correct answer to some would have been "mercilessly fire all the brown people on the sole basis of their backwards religious views", but that's not the choice I made there.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Well, just to start, Punjabi isn't really a thing. It only exists in the same way "Canadian" exists - within that is basically every religion and half the ethnicities on earth. So you could be dealing with an intra or inter religious conflict. )

Substitute something like "Sikh" for "Punjabi" and it works...

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

If it's intra, not your place to involve yourself. If it's inter, a brochure about religious freedom laws in Canada wouldn't go astray.

Regardless, as an employer he technically has a responsibility to deal with something that could lead to a discrimination complaint. Even if it is between two Sikhs, he can't necessarily just say "sort it out amongst your own kind". What if despite appearances they aren't both of similar "kind"? Lio or I or you cannot be expected to be aware of all of the sectarian differences that might exist within religious or ethnic groups out there. What if pro-Khalistan and anti-Khalistan groups in the Sikh community hate each other? Just think of Shia and Sunni Muslims. To the uninitiated they're all just plain old Muslims right?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not really possible, since it went to the point they can't be together anymore so I have to decide which one to keep and which one to fire.

Earlier, I had a semi-similar unforeseen problem when many South Asians refused to work with our gayest employee (the only one clearly visibly gay; statistically I'm sure I have a few others). Solved by assigning gay guy to the shipping side (where there's only a few people) and all the homophobes to the production side (almost a different building). What would you have done...?

(I am assuming the correct answer to some would have been "mercilessly fire all the brown people on the sole basis of their backwards religious views", but that's not the choice I made there.)

I sincerely hope he won't hate me as he is one of my favourite posters on here, but by suggesting you stay out of it, SHH really responded to your question in a totally "Canadian multiculturalist" way!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not really possible, since it went to the point they can't be together anymore so I have to decide which one to keep and which one to fire.

Earlier, I had a semi-similar unforeseen problem when many South Asians refused to work with our gayest employee (the only one clearly visibly gay; statistically I'm sure I have a few others). Solved by assigning gay guy to the shipping side (where there's only a few people) and all the homophobes to the production side (almost a different building). What would you have done...?

(I am assuming the correct answer to some would have been "mercilessly fire all the brown people on the sole basis of their backwards religious views", but that's not the choice I made there.)

Why not just fire the ones that are refusing to do their job for stupid, irrational, pointless, barbaric reasons? Obviously easier said than done, but if someone is that mentally disabled that they can't work with someone because of their sexual preferences, what other mistakes are they going to make? Work is work, it's a good equalizer and it's expected and normal that you do the job and work with your colleagues regardless of each of your personal opinions. If you can't meet that low bar, you are a shit employee and don't deserve employment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why not just fire the ones that are refusing to do their job for stupid, irrational, pointless, barbaric reasons? Obviously easier said than done, but if someone is that mentally disabled that they can't work with someone because of their sexual preferences, what other mistakes are they going to make? Work is work, it's a good equalizer and it's expected and normal that you do the job and work with your colleagues regardless of each of your personal opinions. If you can't meet that low bar, you are a shit employee and don't deserve employment.

That makes sense to most of us on here I am sure, but it probably doesn't work that way on the ground in lio's workplace.

For starters, the homophobes seem fairly numerous. If he gets rid of them on that account and they are already trained, then that is a huge pain in the ass for him. Among other issues related to that.

Secondly, opposition to homosexuality in Canada is the focus of a delicate balancing act. The main line is that it is verboten, but it is passively tolerated when the motive for not being accepting of gays is religious or cultural. My sense is that the homophobia he is dealing with is based in religion (at least the culture that accompanies a specific religion) in some way. He could get in trouble for challenging that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why not just fire the ones that are refusing to do their job for stupid, irrational, pointless, barbaric reasons? Obviously easier said than done, but if someone is that mentally disabled that they can't work with someone because of their sexual preferences, what other mistakes are they going to make? Work is work, it's a good equalizer and it's expected and normal that you do the job and work with your colleagues regardless of each of your personal opinions. If you can't meet that low bar, you are a shit employee and don't deserve employment.

As you say though, that's easier said than done.

I had another semi-similar issue earlier in this project. On a Friday, since the week went well, I treated everyone to the best pizza in all of Van's Little Italy for lunch. One guy was watching all the others from a distance (young black guy who had been very good at his particular job so far). I said "what are you doing over there? Come, there's food!", he said "I can't: Ramadan."

Then, later, I stopped running my day shift to run an evening shift while leaving the day shift (that was then running well) to a great employee that had been promoted to day shift leader. One day while I was there during the day I noticed the young black guy who was good at his job was not doing it anymore and had been given a pointless easy "token" job. I wondered why, and the day shift manager explained that Ramadan had been taking its toll on that poor guy so he decided to make it easier for him. (I decided I was okay with this.)

Using your (very pure) logic, that Ramadan-weakened idiot (unable to do his job for a completely irrational reason) should have been shown the door, correct?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That makes sense to most of us on here I am sure, but it probably doesn't work that way on the ground in lio's workplace.

For starters, the homophobes seem fairly numerous. If he gets rid of them on that account and they are already trained, then that is a huge pain in the ass for him. Among other issues related to that.

Secondly, opposition to homosexuality in Canada is the focus of a delicate balancing act. The main line is that it is verboten, but it is passively tolerated when the motive for not being accepting of gays is religious or cultural. My sense is that the homophobia he is dealing with is based in religion (at least the culture that accompanies a specific religion) in some way. He could get in trouble for challenging that.

I agree with all of that.

Preaching to the choir I am sure, but becoming a truly progressive society should truly mean that the only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance. It's not hard to just go to work and do your job.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree with all of that.

Preaching to the choir I am sure, but becoming a truly progressive society should truly mean that the only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance. It's not hard to just go to work and do your job.

You're a sensible guy so I know you knew all of that already. I am just enjoying thinking about this and putting my ideas down.

That said, Canada and many other western countries are struggling a bit with whether tolerance and intolerance bump into each other, in that how far should we go with tolerating the intolerant?

I.e. do we tolerate belief systems that intolerant traits within them? I'd say a lot of Canadians think we should, not because they necessarily agree with the homophobia, sexism, etc., but because it's easy for them to sweep that under the carpet as they think it does not affect them.

SHH's response which was "don't get involved and let them deal with it amongst themselves" was consistent with that mindset.

It actually might be a holdover of the British Raj and other colonial practices whereby letting the "natives" do their own thing while the Brits stayed isolated from it all, was the preferred approach. Anglo-Canada still seems to have some remnants of the mindset.

[lio45]

There's really a significant cliff between the theoretical lio45 on SSP (who is definitely not known for being a fan of turbans and Ramadan) and the lio45 whose first priority by far is to have this plant running as well as possible (given really tight schedules and other challenges).

I usually have the same views as milomilo, and I wonder to what degree the reverse would be true here (i.e. he'd act the same way as me right now if I were in my shoes).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

As you say though, that's easier said than done.

I had another semi-similar issue earlier in this project. On a Friday, since the week went well, I treated everyone to the best pizza in all of Van's Little Italy for lunch. One guy was watching all the others from a distance (young black guy who had been very good at his particular job so far). I said "what are you doing over there? Come, there's food!", he said "I can't: Ramadan."

Then, later, I stopped running my day shift to run an evening shift while leaving the day shift (that was then running well) to a great employee that had been promoted to day shift leader. One day while I was there during the day I noticed the young black guy who was good at his job was not doing it anymore and had been given a pointless easy "token" job. I wondered why, and the day shift manager explained that Ramadan had been taking its toll on that poor guy so he decided to make it easier for him. (I decided I was okay with this.)

Using your (very pure) logic, that Ramadan-weakened idiot (unable to do his job for a completely irrational reason) should have been shown the door, correct?

Yes, I fully accept my pure logic is not so easy in the real world. To be fair, everyone has strengths and weaknesses that can be accounted for and forgiven on balance. You might forgive someone who had a bad hand from driving screws all day if they otherwise could work well, just as you might forgive this man so mentally incapacitated to turn down free food, as he otherwise works well.

I think maybe, or hope at least, we are in a mushy middle of progressivism where we haven't truly figured it out yet. In the land of milk and honey I envisage in the future, making stupid decisions based on the decree of the FSM would be seen as quaint, irrelevant and invalid, and definitely not cause for one to discriminate against others. But that's probably optimistic.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

There's really a significant cliff between the theoretical lio45 on SSP (who is definitely not a fan of turbans and Ramadan) and the lio45 whose first priority by far is to have this plant running as well as possible (given really tight schedules and other challenges).

Same with me - I have high minded ideals about how the world should be, but I am fully aware (even though I don't express it) that if I was in the situations described I would likely make the same decisions.