The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Do you have the stats on this? I was wondering how many people are killed by police down there each year.

About 1,000 (total) annually.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

More related to relative technological advancement than collective character flaws IMO.

Hopefully no one here believes for a minute that any other populations would have acted much differently, given the same circumstances.

Yes, technological advances made that possible.

Would other populations have behaved the same way? Probably, possibly. To some extent, cultures do and did emphasize different values though.

We can’t go back in time and recreate the conditions that made that conquest possible. We can’t test these hypotheses but we do have to live with the consequences of what happened, how it happened, and who did what. That is life. That is how we right wrongs, learn lessons, evolve, and build a better world.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

About 1,000 (total) annually.

Thanks.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

About 1,000 (total) annually.

Not even close to all of them would be unjustifiable homicides, though.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So Tamerlane, Pol Pot, Nanking, the Huns... none of those ring a bell?

In the context of the Indian subcontinent, most objective assessments would show that the Delhi Sultanates and Mughals were worse than the British in terms of foreign rulers.

There is an unfortunate tendency though in woke postcolonial studies to underplay the cruelty of Islamic rulers and play up the omnipotent agency (always exercised cruelly) of the white man. They even want to take credit for pre-existing social frictions, like caste and religion. In a way, that is kind of racist.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by dleung

No one said discrimination and inherited disadvantages are the only factors, but those are the only factors society can fix. Pitting Asian success against other minorities, and pointing to "cultural" factors, has never been done for any other reason than to pretend that discrimination doesn't exist and to question the need for change.

Radicals might see differently, but I agree any solution must be race-neutral and focused on lifting the "floor". Republicans have been pretty good as suppressing black votes and upward mobility through race-neutral policies, so of course things can be reversed through race-neutral means. As an Asian, who on average needs to score 140 points higher than a white guy on SATs to get in an Ivy league school, obviously I'm against affirmative action lol, especially when done to negate the achievement of one race overcoming the odds too successfully.

I broadly identify as Asian and what you say hits home. I think the model minority stuff is often BS and used as a tool to browbeat other minority communities that don't have the same outcomes.

I think the inherited disadvantages can play a role because upward mobility is becoming harder in many countries, particularly the US and to some extent Canada. But I really don't think discrimination itself plays a material role. There are plenty of very successful Black communities in the US, including for example Nigerian Americans. Of course, many of them come through a selective immigration process, but even then when you compare them to other Black immigrant groups they tend to surpass them. Inter-group variation seems to be the norm, not the exception.

I just don't think the crux of it is discrimination, but of course to the extent it exists we should reduce it as much as we can.

and I agree on the admissions process, it is kind of ridiculous that we have to get higher scores than White ppl for US schools.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

One’s outrage vis-a-vis Trump is a good measure of where you fall on the political spectrum, as is one’s response to BLM.

How do one’s passions, anger, love, etc. not correlate with that? Trump is a much greater threat to some than others. That’s why they are more angry. In the same sense that if your neighbour shits on your lawn you are going to be much angrier than if he shits on someone else’s. Yes, there is still a crazy person shitting on people’s lawns in your neighbourhood but the effect on you is somewhat mitigated. Maybe a secret part of you doesn’t like that neighbour either and so you condone or enjoy that someone has 🞵🞵🞵🞵 on his lawn.

What do you mean by that?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

dleung is pretty damn close.

Read more closely:

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I think this is a strawman. No serious person argues that colonialism caused all violence, strife or injustice in the world (and I don't recall anyone in this thread arguing this).

(Though I do agree that the part in parentheses makes him borderline wrong, at minimum...)

[Chadillaccc]

Calgary approves suite of action to examine systemic racism
Action comes after weeks of anti racism protests in the city and around the world
Darren Krause | Livewire Calgary | June 15, 2020

Calgary will hold public talks on systemic racism in the city and establish an anti-racism action committee after it was approved at city council Monday.

Council responded after unprecedented social action in the city following the death of George Floyd and the support behind the Black Lives Matter movement.

Rallies were held in Calgary two weeks ago that saw thousands march on Calgary streets demanding action on systemic racism.

An urgent notice of motion was presented at Monday’s council meeting, asking for the city to take several steps toward listening, understanding and then dealing with systemic racism.

When asked why it took the recent Black Lives Matter rallies to prompt this action, Mayor Naheed Nenshi said the city’s talked a lot about this, but never got to action.

“There is nothing new about the fact that I have said we need to understand why people of racialized minorities in our organization have trouble getting promoted,” Mayor Nenshi said.

“I’ve been saying that for years, but for me, I think my failure’s been personally that I’ve been saying it, but we haven’t gotten to the action.”

The notice of motion, which was passed unanimously by council Monday, called for a public consultation with presentations from experts. It would allow for public submissions where people could tell their stories.

The city would also create an Anti-Racism Action Committee which would be appointed at the 2020 organizational meeting. That committee would develop an anti-racism strategy for the city.

It also asks the city to look internally at its own policies and practices in the organization.

They have also asked the Calgary Police Commission and the Calgary Police Service to talk about what they’ve done to address systemic racism in the police force, and what they plan to do in the future.

“From a position of privilege that I sit in, I’m ready to listen and I’m ready to learn and then I’m ready to act,” said Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra, who put forward the notice of motion.

...

Full story: https://livewirecalgary.com/2020/06/15/calgary-approves-suite-of-action-to-examine-systemic-racism/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

... and I agree on the admissions process, it is kind of ridiculous that we have to get higher scores than White ppl for US schools.

Based on a few months of direct experience with a decently large sample of employees, many of whom were born in India, I would actually sooner tend to discriminate positively in their favor compared to old-stock white Canadians, than the (stereotypical) opposite.

For the record, two of my very best ones (who both earned higher positions pretty damn quickly through undeniable competency) are neighbors to you, one is from Kerala and the other from Andhra Pradesh.

Both of them know they would get a glowing reference from me anytime should they need that.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This thread is full of stubborn resistance to progress and change, a stubborn refusal to listen. The answers to your questions are out there. There are plenty of books to be read, podcasts to listen to, and social media accounts to follow. From an argumentative stance, someone may not be able to “change your mind”. Because you won’t let that happen. It’s your mind after all and you choose what you allow in. You can either keep pouting here where you have some like-minded souls to commiserate with or you can do the work of learning some new perspectives. It’s entirely up to you whether or not you do that. The consequences of not doing so, however, will put you further and further out of sync with the evolution of culture.

A tad condescending but cheers anyway.

I struggle with some people's seemingly obsessive desire for change. I feel the need to point out that not all changes result in butterflies. Some are more Kafka-esque. And we've been served a non-stop diet of change for decades. I'm all full up.

Since we're on about race, there's ample evidence that the life of the typical Black American was measurably better prior to the 1960s, in the north at least. There are myriad examples of attempted interventions across many different domains that have had unintended consequences.

As a general rule, I prefer adjustments, not revolutions.

[kwoldtimer]

I see that the "Aunt Jemima" brand is being retired after 130 years due to its racist origins. Can "Uncle Ben" be far behind? Substance? Aunt Jemima brand will give $US25million over five years to support and engage with the black community (in the USA). The brand's current owner, Pepsi, has announced $400million to support the black community.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I see that the "Aunt Jemima" brand is being retired after 130 years due to its racist origins. Can "Uncle Ben" be far behind? Substance? Aunt Jemima brand will give $US25million over five years to support and engage with the black community (in the USA). The brand's current owner, Pepsi, has announced $400million to support the black community.

I understand the racist origins of brands like "Aunt Jemima" or "Uncle Ben", but what will actually be accomplished by removing the brands from the marketplace? Will this in itself reduce racial prejudice in the US? I strongly doubt it.

For most people, these products are familiar and trusted brands, and the presence of the well known trademark images on the packaging constitute nothing more than "noise"; ie the images help you identify the product on the store shelf, but don't remind you of slavery or black oppression when you see them.

Nothing will be accomplished by removing these products.

BTW, I don't use either product, so I have no vested interest here. I just view this as another example of political correctness run amok.........

[esquire]

^ To me it seems like a pretty easy win. Why would anyone want to be reminded of the bad old days when they're in the pancake mix aisle at the supermarket? Even when I was a kid the whole Aunt Jemima brand seemed off and wrong to me. Call it "Morning Delight" or whatever and no one will give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵, they'll still buy their pancake syrup.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I understand the racist origins of brands like "Aunt Jemima" or "Uncle Ben", but what will actually be accomplished by removing the brands from the marketplace? Will this in itself reduce racial prejudice in the US? I strongly doubt it.

For most people, these products are familiar and trusted brands, and the presence of the well known trademark images on the packaging constitute nothing more than "noise"; ie the images help you identify the product on the store shelf, but don't remind you of slavery or black oppression when you see them.

Nothing will be accomplished by removing these products.

BTW, I don't use either product, so I have no vested interest here. I just view this as another example of political correctness run amok.........

I don't know. Apart from the fact that symbols can be important, it strikes me that the "low-hanging fruit" that this sort of thing represents can only build momentum for the more substantive change that needs to come ("Woke" capitalism?). I have no problem with the idea that a racist trademark is a commercial manifestation of systemic racism. Like you, I don't use either product.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Read more closely:



(Though I do agree that the part in parentheses makes him borderline wrong, at minimum...)

dleung is only very rarely denounced on here, so I don't have any choice but to conclude that he is considered at least somewhat serious.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ To me it seems like a pretty easy win. Why would anyone want to be reminded of the bad old days when they're in the pancake mix aisle at the supermarket? Even when I was a kid the whole Aunt Jemima brand seemed off and wrong to me. Call it "Morning Delight" or whatever and no one will give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵, they'll still buy their pancake syrup.

My main issue with those two brands is that the symbols being used are dated and less meaningful than they used to be. I agree that a refresh was likely necessary. The reason however should have been to update the brand and make it more relevant to modern consumers, rather than to eliminate the brand, while at the same time issuing a press release crowing about how "woke" your corporate culture is. The way this is being carried our smacks of corporate opportunism and hypocrisy.

[esquire]

^ They have been modified for sure, but there is no denying their origins. If the Washington Redskins replaced their logo with an indigenous man in a business suit it wouldn't change the underlying offensiveness of the brand.

And unlike with the Redskins, there is probably little popular attachment to the Aunt Jemima brand. Pancake syrup and mix is practically a fungible commodity like printer paper, I doubt many people would stop buying the stuff if they could no longer get Aunt Jemima specifically. Which is why this is a good example, as kwoldtimer pointed out, of low hanging fruit.

I'm sure that the manufacturer was probably counting on scoring a few 'woke' points too, but if there's a good reason for the underlying actions then I'd say they earned those points.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

My main issue with those two brands is that the symbols being used are dated and less meaningful than they used to be. I agree that a refresh was likely necessary. The reason however should have been to update the brand and make it more relevant to modern consumers, rather than to eliminate the brand, while at the same time issuing a press release crowing about how "woke" your corporate culture is. The way this is being carried our smacks of corporate opportunism and hypocrisy.

Isn't that the way things work in our society? Surely you've noticed all the LGBT and mixed race couples appearing in print and TV advertising in recent years. Capitalism doesn't initiate the change, but it has a pretty certain sense of when society is ready for change to be exploited to make money.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Isn't that the way things work in our society? Surely you've noticed all the LGBT and mixed race couples appearing in print and TV advertising in recent years. Capitalism doesn't initiate the change, but it has a pretty certain sense of when society is ready for change to be exploited to make money.

Sadly true...........