The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Read the context for yourself.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa...09-yl4gmoau4nclvgndlldgeqlj3y-story.html

It seems like whites washing black feet for atonement to me.

Great ritual for the struggle sessions.

I agree, that's what it sure looks like. Of course they are free to wash anything they damn well please and I appreciate the message they are trying to send but you sure as hell won't see me do it.

As you stated, this seems like atonement but what exactly are they supposedly atoning for? While we can try to right the wrongs of our society, we can only be held responsible for our own actions and not for someone else's no matter when it was done. I won't be washing anyone's feet for atonement because I personally have done nothing to warrant such an "apology".

One can certainly offer emotional and spiritual help to those in need or have been the victims of bigotry. Empathy and understanding go a long way but you cannot atone for another person's actions. They maybe trying to offer genuine support for the BLM movement but such displays are often strictly for media consumption and come across as rather melodramatic and even cheezy.

[Corndogger]

Have a look at this Twitter thread. This is a new level of crazy for me. I'm happy for this guy that his boyfriend chose to stay with him over his so-called friends.

https://twitter.com/adamdavid85/status/1274817491051708421

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

You are only making this worse for yourself.

At tomorrow's struggle session at Trinity Bellwoods, we will make you atone by washing Black people's feet.

Someone could correct me, but the washing of feet is a Christian ceremony of humility, not of atonement.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Have a look at this Twitter thread. This is a new level of crazy for me. I'm happy for this guy that his boyfriend chose to stay with him over his so-called friends.

https://twitter.com/adamdavid85/status/1274817491051708421

I read the whole thing, assuming that this was some guy living in a U.S. city.

Then I looked at his profile and he lives in Montreal!

Though his new boyfriend and his circle of friends could easily be in New York or Toronto.

Of course it is also totally possible that this could entirely involve sub-groups of sub-groups of Montrealers, where I am sure the dominant thinking is like this right now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Well we live in a society built on white supremacy so race as an issue, as a shaping force of who we are, is unavoidable.

Every society in the world is built upon not-so-nice or ugly historical stuff.

Enlightened thinking, though, suggests we don't hold people responsible for stuff they themselves did not do, based on cultural background or physical characteristics.

The people I am a part of were the target of a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing by the British, and scores of my ancestors' family members and friends died as a result.

We as a people are still living under the British () crown today which is the régime that committed that ethnic cleansing and a huge number of Canadians are of the same origin as the cleansers.

But I don't go around thinking all British-origin Canadians are pieces of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 because of those facts.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by vid

Jamestown was eventually abandoned. Slavery became a pillar of the American economy for 250 years.

If not Jamestown, then why not Plymouth? Or something else? I don't have anything against commemmorating 1619 but I fail to see why it should be considered the "beginning of everything" date for the entire United States of America.

Perhaps it should be more recognized though, as the "beginning of everything" for the African-American community. And be played up more given that community's importance to the country.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've been reading on Indian history lately (fascinating subject BTW - my interest was piqued by having so many employees who are fresh from India, mostly students) and I think that YOU will need to atone for your ancestors' sins by washing some Malaysian and Indonesian feet

Indian history is quite fascinating.

And don't worry, I'm from a Brahmin family, so I have endless feet to wash. But I can also call on the Turks and Brits to wash my feet, so it all balances out. Circle of life.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Every society in the world is built upon not-so-nice or ugly historical stuff.

Enlightened thinking, though, suggests we don't hold people responsible for stuff they themselves did not do, based on cultural background or physical characteristics.

The people I am a part of were the target of a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing by the British, and scores of my ancestors' family members and friends died as a result.

We as a people are still living under the British () crown today which is the régime that committed that ethnic cleansing and a huge number of Canadians are of the same origin as the cleansers.

But I don't go around thinking all British-origin Canadians are pieces of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 because of those facts.

There is a point where the sins of the fathers should not be borne by their sons and daughters.

We're not there yet in Canada, especially in regards to certain members of our society.

That being said, the "Who is more wrong or more a victim" debate gets tiring after a bit, because it simply doesn't really work at fixing the problem.

Kind of like an office meeting that has devolved into the blame game. OK - somebody screwed up. How do we un-screw things up is a more useful and productive conversation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The Flying Spaghetti Monster demanded that all infidels be killed.

What's the solution? (A total Muslim Travel Ban? ... what else?)


The root cause is identified, but it's not that easy to solve (while still remaining the Good Guys, that is).

The solution I suppose is to go back in a time machine and prevent the British, the French and later the Americans from meddling in certain parts of the world.

Of course, people in various parts of the world were already doing bad things to each other and already had "special" beliefs even before the Brits-French-Yanks showed up, but that's beside the point.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that for many terrorist attacks the explanation isn't really related to foreign policy decisions of foreign powers, but rather the inability of the perpetrator to "get a life" (a job, or a girlfriend, or a more open worldview, or a combination thereof). Extremist elements then capitalize on those weaknesses to "recruit".

Unfortunately vid is flirting with justifying or excusing terrorist attacks now. All I have to say to that is... zeitgeist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by vid

So, if you're going to



and



You need to give some more specific examples of where and how my ideas are ideological intolerance that will result in a more racist, segregated, and divided society than the one we currently live in.

Explain that in a way that I can understand, and I will certainly consider adjusting my position on the issue, but so far all you've given me is a bunch of assumptions that "things are good, will be bad, and that's not good!" and I can't really work with that.

Like, if you guys are trying to criticize, then criticize. I'm open to criticism. I'm not open to shrugging off because that gives me too little to work with. The questions I asked you in the previous post weren't because I was trying to play gotcha, it's because I want to better understand your insight into this but you're being vague and guarded about it and I don't understand why. You aren't in denial about the system needing reform? Great! Act like it.

I don't think it's up to me to propose alternatives to the system. As I said before, I don't think it's perfect but I don't think it should be burned down either. I am mostly opposed to the burn-it-down rhetoric and I don't see much in the way of credible alternative options out there. Even Minneapolis seems to be backing down on its talk of dismantling its police department.

If you're the ones who want this deep, profound change, it's up to you to convince me. Not the other way around.

Perhaps it's also because the black and indigenous people I am closest to don't seem to think "The System" is rotten to the core. Yes, they probably believe reforms are needed to improve it but it would be totally false to claim that they feel their lives are a living hell here as a result of either The System or simply the behaviour of people from other groups towards them.

Granted these are people who have good jobs in the federal or provincial public sector, the private sector or are successful entrepreneurs. So yeah, The System has worked for them so that can be said to influence their views on it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

There is a point where the sins of the fathers should not be borne by their sons and daughters.

We're not there yet in Canada, especially in regards to certain members of our society.
.

How that applies to the indigenous population in Canada is extremely clear to me (and should be to everyone).

It's less clear to me when it comes to other (visible) minority groups, though.

Any thoughts?

[MolsonExport]

Great job, everyone, wearing people down so there is nothing left to say. Great job. Well done. Congratulations on your filibuster-ing.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How that applies to the indigenous population in Canada is extremely clear to me (and should be to everyone).

It's less clear to me when it comes to other (visible) minority groups, though.

Any thoughts?

I was referring to the Indigenous people of this country, mostly.

With respect to other minorities:

Definitely the negative attitudes and policing problems we face in our larger cities have permeated across the Canada-US border by osmosis.

That being said, for all the talk about our shame of slavery (it did exist, yes) and the discrimination against black people in this country, it really didn't define us in the same sense it defined the United States.

It's more a modern overlay of our US-based focus, simply because that particular minority didn't really have much representation in Canada until much more recently.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

CBC viewership numbers clearly show that a lot of people don't agree with you. I can't recall ever hearing anyone state that a national broadcaster is necessary to define a country and culture. That is something that happens in dictatorships.

What correlation is there between living standards, etc. and having a national broadcaster? Isn't the answer none whatsoever? North Korea has a national broadcaster. Are you lumping Canada in with them?

Your last point makes no sense to me. What alternative is more dangerous, etc.? What is it's platform? Having a number of independent platforms is the best solution. The problem with CBC and it's supporters is that they don't want their to be other platforms. It's why they tend to be so in favor of wanting to control the Internet in Canada. That's going to end up being the next battleground. The people who think they're in the majority or going to find out that they're not. The vast silent majority is going to make it very clear that they've had enough of being dictated to and will do whatever it takes to kill off CBC and their leech supporters.

CBC has a niche market of viewers and listeners in Canada. Outside of Toronto centric CBC, and the few other more gullible markets where they believe everything CBC says as accurate, there isn't much of an appetite for funding the far-left of centre "public broadcaster" to the tune of $Billions with a B per year, especially now with double digit % unemployment in the Canada work force.

Funding for the CBC should be suspended until an impartial group can investigate CBC's broadcasting habits & biases and determine just how unfair it is to the other broadcasters that don't have their hands in the government coffers.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I read the whole thing, assuming that this was some guy living in a U.S. city.

Then I looked at his profile and he lives in Montreal!

Though his new boyfriend and his circle of friends could easily be in New York or Toronto.

Of course it is also totally possible that this could entirely involve sub-groups of sub-groups of Montrealers, where I am sure the dominant thinking is like this right now.

It was deleted. What was the gist of it.

[MolsonExport]

Outside of Toronto centric CBC, and the few other more gullible markets where they believe everything CBC says as accurate

So you are saying that anyone who views the CBC is gullible?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

It was deleted. What was the gist of it.

So this guy has a new boyfriend.

The new boyfriend's friends stalked this guy on social media (Twitter I assume) and found he had retweeted something that was skeptical of BLM. He linked to it in his trail of complaints about his BF's friends. It wasn't "BLM are SOBs" or "Floyd deserved to die" or anything like that. It was a cautionary post about the BLM protests and violence, etc.

Anyway, his new BF's circle of friends have been hating on him, harrassing him and dragging him through the mud ever since. And of course urging his BF to dump him.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

CBC has a niche market of viewers and listeners in Canada. Outside of Toronto centric CBC, and the few other more gullible markets where they believe everything CBC says as accurate, there isn't much of an appetite for funding the far-left of centre "public broadcaster" to the tune of $Billions with a B per year, especially now with double digit % unemployment in the Canada work force.

Funding for the CBC should be suspended until an impartial group can investigate CBC's broadcasting habits & biases and determine just how unfair it is to the other broadcasters that don't have their hands in the government coffers.

It is unfortunate that the CBC is currently not as impartial as it could be. I don't disagree with that last part at all. I even raise it myself sometimes.

That said, my observation is that countries with public broadcasters tend to be better off in terms of information and news to the wider population (in addition to other things) than those that don't have one.

Which is why I definitely prefer working on improving the CBC as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Because if we were to get rid of the CBC or even make it a shadow of its former self, you can sure as hell bet we won't be getting another public broadcaster anytime soon.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That said, my observation is that countries with public broadcasters tend to be better off in terms of information and news to the wider population (in addition to other things) than those that don't have one.

Doubly important for us because the alternative, in English at least, is probably not Global and CTV; it's Fox and CNN.

Better to have a commission examine bias and programming ratings. A more balanced editorial view can be promoted and some of the more extreme niche programming, mostly on Radio, might be replaced with more mainstream current affairs to be relevant to more people than half an hour on gardening or something like that.

[Acajack]

Another thing about the CBC is that it's a Siamese twin.

Most people in Anglo-Canada probably don't pay attention to or think about the French side of the operation, but if you kill one side you basically kill off the other too.

And while there isn't that much generalized love for the English services (aside from some of the radio I'd say), the French services are quite well-regarded in Quebec.

While the generalist TV network is now second in popularity to TVA, it's still a firm second and perhaps most importantly is seen as a cultural icon by most Québécois. There is so much essential Québécois stuff, cultural and societal, past and present, that is owed to SRC that sacking it would be unthinkable.

It's a federal political sacred cow as far as I can see, and as such in spite of the indifference/hostility towards the English services in much of the country, the anglophone side probably gets an easier ride politically than it would if the French services weren't so well-supported.