The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Architype]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It is also a museum for rather than of something. Isn't that odd?

Can there be a museum of the future? "For" indicates future.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The underlying issue in all racism is fear, no?

I don't think so. "White trash" doesn't fit that narrative. This NPR article makes for a fascinating read. This is from the end of the article.

During the slave era, "white trash people" were sometimes talked about as the white equivalent to black slaves. In 1853, in A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about "white trash people," whom she described as "a class of white people who are, by universal admission, more heathenish, degraded, and miserable" than slaves; "a poor white population as degraded and brutal as ever existed in any of the most crowded districts of Europe."

For black people at that time, a life of misery and degradation was considered unremarkable. For white people, it was an abomination.

Nancy Isenberg says that connection between black enslaved populations and poor white people was more than just coincidence. She says that when England first started to colonize the Americas, they needed a large labor force to get things going. That workforce came in the form of indentured servitude — thousands of poor British children — a process that Isenberg says laid the foundation for slavery.

"[America was] founded as a way for the English to expand their colonial hold, which required people, bodies, a labor system, to be exploited," Isenberg says. "And this is where the term 'white trash' comes from. They literally felt that they were dumping what they called the 'waste people' in the New World. These were people who were seen as unproductive and idle, wandering vagrants back in the Old World. They were going to unload them on the New World."

So much has changed since the first European indentured servants were sent to the United States. But from the sounds of it, the way we talk about poor white people hasn't changed much at all.

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/...-its-still-ok-to-trash-poor-white-people

[lio45]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Is this really surprising. I don't think it is right, but I'm also not surprised. And it has nothing to do with them being Asian. If the virus had come from the UK. People would of been treating them in the same way.

The underlying issue is fear.

"If the virus had come from the UK, a thick British accent (in a place like Vancouver) would have sent (some) people running for the hills" ?

Don't excite dleung with more "hypotheticals"! Poor thing is busy enough already with me! (I could almost say I have my own stalker, but I'm aware I'm sharing him with Acajack... he's not all mine)

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Is this really surprising. I don't think it is right, but I'm also not surprised. And it has nothing to do with them being Asian. If the virus had come from the UK. People would of been treating them in the same way.

The underlying issue is fear.

As per usual, the choir rationalizes away, justifies, etc.

There is no problem, no emotional alarm for problems which don’t affect you. That is what we’re really facing, a lack of empathy. Oh and also multiple requests to empathize more with those who lack empathy in the first place because all of this change is just so darn hard on them.

I get it. It is hard. Change is hard, but maybe take some time to think that you’ve had it relatively easy with regard to these issues and that you should spend more time thinking beyond your own experience.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

It makes even less sense seeing as how Asian-Canadians are possibly the least likely to be infection vectors at this point due to early adoption social distancing and widespread mask wearing.

Of course. I've been on record for months now pointing out the countries (and the places, like Vancouver) that have "East Asian discipline" have been doing markedly better. It's crystal clear when looking at the data... It's not like you're telling me anything I didn't already know.

I'll recycle this from earlier in this thread in case it helps answer you:

Originally Posted by lio45

I never said it was logical, just that it was somewhat understandable in the context of a deadly pandemic originating in China, given human nature and the fact that not everyone out there is rational.

Think of someone you consider of average intelligence, then keep in mind that there are 1.4 million people in the Lower Mainland who are dumber than that person.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another argument related to Cornwallis-type issues is that the democratic process (be it municipal, provincial or federal) is so rotten and inaccessible that voices like those of the statue's opponents can never be heard and are always ignored.

So allegedly they have no other choice but to attack the statue.

I don't actually think that's true, and if you want a statue taken down you can lobby elected officials to do just that, vote for people who want that done, or run for office yourself.

If none of that works then that means that either most people want to keep the statue, or at least don't feel that strongly about removing it.

Part of living in a democratic society is also accepting that you don't always get your way, especially if most people don't agree with you.

I can imagine you in Germany in 1933. "Well, if ze people didn't vant ze nazis, zey vould haf run against zem! Zat dey von means democracy ist vorking!"

[rousseau]

First this...

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Whiteness after all is culturally tied to emotional repression in North American culture. It’s that disconnect from reality which also allows for dehumanization of others.

And now this...

Originally Posted by vid

I can imagine you in Germany in 1933. "Well, if ze people didn't vant ze nazis, zey vould haf run against zem! Zat dey von means democracy ist vorking!"

I think the bingo card for SJW idiocy on SSP is almost full.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I don't think so. "White trash" doesn't fit that narrative. This NPR article makes for a fascinating read. This is from the end of the article.

During the slave era, "white trash people" were sometimes talked about as the white equivalent to black slaves. In 1853, in A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about "white trash people," whom she described as "a class of white people who are, by universal admission, more heathenish, degraded, and miserable" than slaves; "a poor white population as degraded and brutal as ever existed in any of the most crowded districts of Europe."

For black people at that time, a life of misery and degradation was considered unremarkable. For white people, it was an abomination.

Nancy Isenberg says that connection between black enslaved populations and poor white people was more than just coincidence. She says that when England first started to colonize the Americas, they needed a large labor force to get things going. That workforce came in the form of indentured servitude — thousands of poor British children — a process that Isenberg says laid the foundation for slavery.

"[America was] founded as a way for the English to expand their colonial hold, which required people, bodies, a labor system, to be exploited," Isenberg says. "And this is where the term 'white trash' comes from. They literally felt that they were dumping what they called the 'waste people' in the New World. These were people who were seen as unproductive and idle, wandering vagrants back in the Old World. They were going to unload them on the New World."

So much has changed since the first European indentured servants were sent to the United States. But from the sounds of it, the way we talk about poor white people hasn't changed much at all.

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/...-its-still-ok-to-trash-poor-white-people

Perfect example - fear is greatest due to competition for status at bottom of ladder.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by rousseau

First this...



And now this...



I think the bingo card for SJW idiocy on SSP is almost full.

Well I guess now if you don’t understand even mildly progressive concepts you can just label them as SJW. That does make life easier for people who prefer a life without self-examination on these issues.

[rousseau]

The idea that the broad cross-section of white people in North America are uniquely "able" to "dehumanize" others, the obvious suggestion being that white people are therefore more racist than other races, is just about the most puerile, idiotic and indeed racist thing I have seen on the SSP forum yet.

[vid]

Originally Posted by rousseau

First this...



And now this...



I think the bingo card for SJW idiocy on SSP is almost full.

I mean, I could go into detail what I actually mean there, but I shouldn't have to and I have neither the time nor patience to re-explain a concept I've explained many times to a group of people who aren't willing to understand my point of view. I get where you guys are coming from. Perhaps my ability to explain my thoughts in writing isn't sufficient for this transaction to go both ways?

The position Acajack presented in regards to the Cornwallis (and other) statue is basically the same one the silent pro-segregationists used in the civil rights era. "Segregation is clearly popular because segregationists keep winning, if blacks want to be integrated so badly why don't they run for office?!" You're the well-intentioned liberals that MLK warned us about. That ones that advocate for peace while fighting for the status quo. You're saying "all lives matter" while putting a lot of effort into protecting a system that doesn't agree with you.

I've had this exchange with you and Acajack over and over and over again and nothing changes, so as your teacher, I'm failing you both. No effort has been made to understand the materials provided, and you both appear totally unsympathetic to anyone else's feelings and very unwilling to change that. for detention, you to have to walk past a humiliating totem of your ancestor's oppressors every day for the rest of your life while the world insinuates that you're not white enough to be part of it and never well be, and don't bother changing it by any method other than the one that's most inaccessible to you because protest is wrong!

Originally Posted by rousseau

The idea that the broad cross-section of white people in North America are uniquely "able" to "dehumanize" others, the obvious suggestion being that white people are therefore more racist than other races, is just about the most puerile, idiotic and indeed racist thing I have seen on the SSP forum yet.

We're talking about the system, not the people. Do you really believe that our system, this capitalist liberal democracy we've built, is a "broad cross-section of white people"? Where are the poor ones? The disabled ones? The mentally ill ones? The female ones? The queer ones? Our social political and economic system, while built by and for the benefit of white people, does not equally apply its benefits to all white people. It doesn't represent a broad cross-section of white people at all.

You feel personally victimized by social justice. I'd ask you to explain why that is but you clearly don't know, yourself.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

I can imagine you in Germany in 1933. "Well, if ze people didn't vant ze nazis, zey vould haf run against zem! Zat dey von means democracy ist vorking!"

I think most neutral observers would agree that "democracy was working" (people voted; Hitler's party had the most seats) until the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February 1933.

So, yeah.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The idea that the broad cross-section of white people in North America are uniquely "able" to "dehumanize" others, the obvious suggestion being that white people are therefore more racist than other races, is just about the most puerile, idiotic and indeed racist thing I have seen on the SSP forum yet.

Yes, pointing out racism is the real racism. I could literally lift that from the ramblings of any Trump supporter.

It’s like your trying to speak from a void that has no connection to the history of this continent and the fact that that didn’t just disappear one day, that we are still grappling with its consequences. The dehumanization has only partially healed. There is still further to go. The wound we deal with is not black racism, or Asian racism, or any other kind. It would be laughable to attribute it as such. The sickness was white racism, and whiteness itself as created by Europe and its progeny. That is our reality. That is the rubble we must crawl out from under, brick by brick, until the work is done, and no, comfortable white people don’t get to be the judge and jury on when that has happened, even though that is their accustomed position.

[vid]

The idea that we must put into places of honour the people who did things to members of our society that we consider today to be atrocities and crimes, and that we must maintain those people in those places for fear of ... forgetting? about them, is one that I can only understand through a white supremacist context. From the perspective of social justice, from the perspective of historian, I cannot come up with an argument in favour of maintaining the statue of a man or women who committed crimes against humanity. Statues should be reserved for those who reflect our values as a society. If you want a person who instigated a genocide to be held in the place of honour in our society, I need a better reason than "because it's our history". If that's the kind of thing we're honouring, maybe we should build a statue for all the dead Miꞌkmaq peoples at his feet.

Personally, I quite like the imagery of all the statues stained in red paint. It satisfies everyone: the statue stays up to please the racists and well-intentioned liberals, the statue is defaced to placate the social justice advocates, and the context of the actions of the man being honoured is complete to the satisfaction of history. You might have to walk past someone who upended your world and murdered your ancestors in cold blood, but at least other people are now able to see why you seethe when walk past.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

If you want a person who instigated a genocide to be held in the place of honour in our society, I need a better reason than "because it's our history".

This conversation can't be had unless both parties first agree on the definition of genocide.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

The idea that we must put into places of honour the people who did things to members of our society that we consider today to be atrocities and crimes, and that we must maintain those people in those places for fear of ... forgetting? about them, is one that I can only understand through a white supremacist context.

Not at all - the evidence flies in the face of your statement here. For example, Metro-One reported that 99% of statues in Japan are of Japanese men - and most of them had absolutely atrocious views by 2020 standards: flat-earthers, illiterate, grossly sexist, incredibly homophobic, thoroughly barbaric, etc. and yet they STILL have statues.

It's like that in most cultures, not only white ones.

But then I remember that in the Geographic Extremes thread I was surprised to learn you had barely left Ontario in your life, so I don't expect you to be very familiar with other cultures.....

[vid]

It's hard to get over something when you're constantly reminded of it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

It's hard to get over something when you're constantly reminded of it.

The English Language reminds me every single day of the horrors my Acadien ancestors suffered at the hands of the horrible British. I think it should be banned in the public realm in this country. (How else can I hope to ever get over it?)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not at all - the evidence flies in the face of your statement here. For example, Metro-One reported that 99% of statues in Japan are of Japanese men - and most of them had absolutely atrocious views by 2020 standards: flat-earthers, illiterate, grossly sexist, incredibly homophobic, thoroughly barbaric, etc. and yet they STILL have statues.

Statues are a part of the historical record. They may or may not be about honouring those personalities today but they are a window into the culture of the times they were created in. They are works of art and show us past artistic styles and technologies. They cannot be replaced by written descriptions and digital records without a loss of information.

One of Rembrandt's most famous paintings, The Night Watch, depicts a bunch of armed soldiers. It is from the golden age of Dutch painting. If we find out that one of them was a war criminal, or married a 12 year old, does that really change anything about the painting? No. Most people could not tell you the names of the people in the painting, people who died 300 years ago or longer.

It will be a shame if the random destruction of art from 1750-1950 becomes more common.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by vid

...who aren't willing to understand my point of view. I get where you guys are coming from.

And I get where you're coming from perfectly. I disagree with your ideas and your characterization of the issues.

Originally Posted by vid

The position Acajack presented in regards to the Cornwallis (and other) statue is basically the same one the silent pro-segregationists used in the civil rights era.

To wit: modern-day Canadian society is not the same as that of the pro-segregationists in the 1960s. Or the Nazi era, fer crisssakes.

Originally Posted by vid

...totally unsympathetic to anyone else's feelings and very unwilling to change that. for detention, you to have to walk past a humiliating totem of your ancestor's oppressors every day for the rest of your life while the world insinuates that you're not white enough to be part of it and never well be, and don't bother changing it by any method other than the one that's most inaccessible to you because protest is wrong!

I'm all for tearing down Confederate statues in the US south. They were put up in the early 20th century to commemorate the struggle to preserve the system of slavery, and were clearly little more than a provocation to black people.

Cornwallis's legacy is not the same at all.

Originally Posted by vid

We're talking about the system, not the people. Do you really believe that our system, this capitalist liberal democracy we've built, is a "broad cross-section of white people"? Where are the poor ones? The disabled ones? The mentally ill ones? The female ones? The queer ones? Our social political and economic system, while built by and for the benefit of white people, does not equally apply its benefits to all white people. It doesn't represent a broad cross-section of white people at all.

The idiotic statement by the dreaming brother was that white people were uniquely able to "dehumanize" other people. This is demonstrable false, and indeed, farcical. And racist. The word system didn't enter into it.

Never in the history of the world has a society been more equitable to more of its people than what we have now generally in the West, and particularly in Canada. Certainly there is room for improvement in many areas.

Specifically, in response to your plaintive questioning: The poor ones are currently getting $2,000 a month. The disabled ones are riding their wheelchairs up the curb cuts onto the sidewalks leading to therapy centres to get massages and physiotherapy paid for by the taxes collected from their relatives, friends and neighbours. The mentally ill ones are getting therapy via OHIP. The female ones are attending university in larger proportions than the male ones. The queer ones are holding hands while they walk down my street, and are marching in parades with the mayors of cities.

Still room for improvement though, I agree.

Originally Posted by vid

You feel personally victimized by social justice. I'd ask you to explain why that is but you clearly don't know, yourself.

And you wonder why SJWism is derided for being a victim cult. No, I do not feel victimized. I strongly disagree with SJW ideology. I see it as corrosive and irrational.