The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[vid]

Originally Posted by lio45

Wait, it's possible for you to get exhausted? We should be so lucky...

You and Acajack alone make up 25% of the comments on this thread.

I mean... good luck!

I'm exhausted. I'm not contributing anything other than this today.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

But Indigenous Street is very remote and has low traffic and density... there are practical reasons it's not paved, it's not a question of demographics of the area.

Or maybe Indigenous Street is remote, has low traffic and density because the government has never invested the money to pave it (which might attract private investment, development, etc)?

This is a tortured analogy because we aren't really talking about institutional faure to pave streets, we're talking about failure to investigate murdered and missing women, failure to provide clean drinking water, failure to equally fund child welfare programs, failure to not deliberately destroy languages and cultures in young people (while also permitting rampant sexual and physical assault of many young people), etc. Is there any inherent characteristic about the people who were born on Indigenous Street which might reasonably justify that?

edit - and to further the analogy, if you live on remote Indigenous Street you can actually relocate downtown where everything's pavement and concrete and there's running water.

No, this doesn't really fit with the analogy.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

If Main Street is the most (or one of the most) pot-holed streets in my neighborhood, and I happen to live on Main Street, why can't I stand outside City Hall with a sign that says "Fix Main Street!"? Would you argue that I am being divisive because "all streets matter"? Of course they do but I live on Main Street and it is full of fucking potholes!

(OK, this is a pretty flawed analogy but whatever).

The analogy doesn't work because they went and counted the pot holes on all of the streets, and it turns out that Main Street doesn't actually have more than the other streets. In fact, it turns out that the real problem is with the construction firms hired to fix them who did a crappy job on all of the streets.

Originally Posted by Pavlov

...we're talking about failure to investigate murdered and missing women...

Sheesh. That you blithely say this is proof that propaganda works. The truth is that murderers of indigenous women are actually convicted at a slightly higher rate than murderers of non-indigenous victims are.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I focus on the central issue raised by BLM protesters (the continuing existence of systemic race-based discrimination in our society) and you focus on the radical, revolutionary demands made by the most strident "leaders" of some of the group's that call themselves "BLM" (or related names).

Are you not conflating a general pro-equality desire with support for BLM in this case? Because some of the radical demands you and others are turned off by aren't just the words of fringe groups or individuals, but could be interpreted as key parts of the BLM platform.

For example there is the stated goal on the BLM website to end the Western nuclear family structure. And the BLM Vancouver, with their justice system abolition demands, aren't a fringe group. BLM UK's got the stated goal of dismantling capitalism, and many BLM groups, and indeed the central organisation themselves, have waded into the Middle East debate as strongly anti-Israel. BLM Toronto were founded in part by someone who expressed a desire to kill white people (and men) and has repeatedly called white people subhuman, though to be fair Yusra Khogali doesn't appear to be active in BLM anymore.

What I mean to suggest, gently, is that it might be wilful blindness to proclaim your support for BLM but gloss over the more radical demands, when in many cases they're fairly central to the organisation.

I make this suggestion only because so many people are called racists for expressing disapproval with BLM, precisely because of opposition to radical causes within the organisation, even when they agree systemic racism is a problem. It doesn't take much to imagine a reasonable person going on the CBC, for example, and denouncing BLM whilst reiterating support for racial equality, only to end up unemployed and ostracised.

[Corndogger]

• Video Link

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The analogy doesn't work because they went and counted the pot holes on all of the streets, and it turns out that Main Street doesn't actually have more than the other streets. In fact, it turns out that the real problem is with the construction firms hired to fix them who did a crappy job on all of the streets.

??? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

In any event, please recall that I came up with this silly analogy (which I now regret doing) to try to explain why the various BLM movements might focus on one particular problem, which affects many of its members directly, and that indeed this is typical of almost every such movement. No one ever alleges that the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is a group of bullies that don't care about other diseases and are trying to unfairly prioritize breast cancer above all else.

Originally Posted by rousseau

Sheesh. That you blithely say this is proof that propaganda works. The truth is that murderers of indigenous women are actually convicted at a slightly higher rate than murderers of non-indigenous victims are.

Please see the following "propaganda":

Forensic Document Review Project (FDRP)
In response to the overwhelming concerns expressed by the families who gave testimonies to the National Inquiry, who believed that police investigations were "flawed" and that police services "had failed in their duty to properly investigate the crimes committed against them or their loved ones", Forensic Document Review Project (FDRP) was established to "review of police and other related institutional files".[41]:233 There were two FDRP teams, one for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada. The second team reviewed subpoenaed 28 police forces, issued 30 subpoenas, reviewed 35 reports, obtained and analyzed 174 files consisting of 136,834 Documents representing 593,921 pages.[41]:233

Significant issues
One of the most significant findings identified by the Forensic Document Review Project (FDRP) was the fact that there was no "reliable estimate of the numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA persons in Canada."[41] The second finding of significance concerned the 2014 and 2015 RCMP reports on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls" which "identif[ied] narrow and incomplete causes of homicides of Indigenous women and girls in Canada".[41] Thirdly, the FDRP said that "often-cited statistic that Indigenous men are responsible for 70% of murders of Indigenous women and girls is not factually based.[41][81] Fourth, "Virtually no information was found with respect to either the numbers or causes of missing and murdered Métis and Inuit women and girls and Indigenous 2SLGBTQQIA persons". Fifth, "Indigenous communities, particularly in remote areas, are under-prioritized and under-resourced". Sixth, "[t]here is a lack of communication to families and Indigenous communities by police services and a lack of trust of the police by Indigenous communities." Seventh, "[t]here continues to be a lack of communication with and coordination between the police and other service agencies". Eighth, [d]eaths and disappearances of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are marked by indifference. Specifically, prejudice, stereotypes, and inaccurate beliefs and attitudes about Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA persons negatively influence police investigations, and therefore death and disappearances are investigated and treated differently from other cases".[41]:234

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_and_murdered_Indigenous_women#cite_note-sask-49

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by savevp

Are you not conflating a general pro-equality desire with support for BLM in this case? Because some of the radical demands you and others are turned off by aren't just the words of fringe groups or individuals, but could be interpreted as key parts of the BLM platform.

For example there is the stated goal on the BLM website to end the Western nuclear family structure. And the BLM Vancouver, with their justice system abolition demands, aren't a fringe group. BLM UK's got the stated goal of dismantling capitalism, and many BLM groups, and indeed the central organisation themselves, have waded into the Middle East debate as strongly anti-Israel. BLM Toronto were founded in part by someone who expressed a desire to kill white people (and men) and has repeatedly called white people subhuman, though to be fair Yusra Khogali doesn't appear to be active in BLM anymore.

What I mean to suggest, gently, is that it might be wilful blindness to proclaim your support for BLM but gloss over the more radical demands, when in many cases they're fairly central to the organisation.

I make this suggestion only because so many people are called racists for expressing disapproval with BLM, precisely because of opposition to radical causes within the organisation, even when they agree systemic racism is a problem. It doesn't take much to imagine a reasonable person going on the CBC, for example, and denouncing BLM whilst reiterating support for racial equality, only to end up unemployed and ostracised.

I think this is a fair criticism (I acknowledged as much earlier in this thread as well).

I disagree with the bolded however. I don't think there is any significant risk of that happening (provided, I suppose, that the reiterations of support for racial equality are sincere and made in good faith (and not of the "all lives matter" nonsense variety).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Not when it comes to child welfare funding apparently... unless the federal government chose, for some reason, not to adduce some key, readily available evidence to rebut the high profile allegations against it. That seems... implausible.

That is why I referred to "improper allocation".

[kool maudit]

BLM is interesting. As a claim or a slogan, it is something that literally no reasonable person can contest. As an organization and a platform, it goes well beyond that anodyne bit of mere decency and into the general Fabian platform of sexual fluidity and social engineering that has been around since the late 19th century, when it was last truly avant-garde (e.g. abolishing the nuclear family etc).

It is a good strategic use of the motte-and-bailey technique. Opposition is handled from the bailey while funding is collected in the motte.

Opponents risk giving up their perceived decency ("just send in the troops goddamnit") while adherents have strategic space to rhetorically join the less-broadly supported platform elements to the widely approved one over time.

BLM is a local subcomponent of something that has been in motion for a long time. Tailored to the US circumstance (history of chattel slavery), it ultimately opens space for entropic forces to work against the visual and organizational norms of the ancien regime while containing effective antibodies against classical liberalism, its only mainstream challenger.

The new world is one of total human fungibility under a massive technocratic/corporate/surveillance superstructure. Race and sexual prejudices have no place in it, but neither do privacy, sovereignty or certain civil liberties. This will be the synthesis of US capitalism and early-Soviet communism; the 20th century was a battleground of beta-testing.

It will be a very "freedom from" kind of thing. Many people alive now will like it a lot. Its roots go back through the Renaissance. It has more to do with Christianity than the current conversation implies.

It is very patient.

[dleung]

I've never heard of the term but motte/bailey describes it well. It's also not that interesting to me since it's employed in almost every argument, the reverse of BLM being "I shouldn't have to apologize for being white/all lives DO matter" as the foundation for "systemic racism doesn't exist, no police reform needed".

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

BLM is interesting. As a claim or a slogan, it is something that literally no reasonable person can contest.

It's as if the slogan for the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler in the 1930s had been "Prussian lives matter" - who could argue with that???

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by dleung

I've never heard of the term but motte/bailey describes it well. It's also not that interesting to me since it's employed in almost every argument, the reverse of BLM being "I shouldn't have to apologize for being white/all lives DO matter" as the foundation for "systemic racism doesn't exist, no police reform needed".

That's the thing, though. BLM doesn't really have a "reverse". As you note, the retreat to the classically liberal bailey of "all lives matter" has already become synonymous with "don't bother me with this, there's no problem".

That's why it's working. Classical liberalism ("all lives matter") doesn't want to take BLM on directly because its own idea-structure is also hostile to the race-prejudice defined by BLM's bailey. So it all winds up sounding qualified or even disingenuous. BLM proposes a complete near-cosmology that explains history post-the European era of exploration/colonization while classical liberalism quibbles on technique or emphasis.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It's as if the slogan for the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler had been "Prussian lives matter" - who could argue with that???

The Nazis had the success they did because in an era characterized by street-battles with the Bolshevism described above, they hit back with their own complete cosmology of Aryanism, Nordicism, Thule, anti-semitism and all the rest. Bad cosmologies succeed too!

They couldn't have used a "...lives matter" formulation. That was the territory of the Weimar social democrats and to a degree the Communist agitators of the '30s.

The natural opponent of fluidity is hyper-crystallization, not proceduralism or hesitancy. So the Nazis went against the left with a sort of fascist hero-story.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The Nazis had the success they did because in an era characterized by street-battles with the Bolshevism described above, they hit back with their own complete cosmology of Aryanism, Nordicism, Thule, anti-semitism and all the rest. Bad cosmologies succeed too!

They couldn't have used a "...lives matter" formulation. That was the territory of the Weimar social democrats and to a degree the Communist agitators of the '30s.

The natural opponent of fluidity is hyper-crystallization, not proceduralism or hesitancy. So the Nazis went against the left with a sort of fascist hero-story.

I fully realize my analogy was imperfect, but merely wanted to point out that a catchy slogan that no one can disagree with can hide an organization with much deeper, more nefarious and destructive intentions. It would appear that some people hiding behind BLM have as their goal nothing less than the complete destruction of western civilization.

[kool maudit]

One could almost imagine, in a Balkanized US, some sort of "New Jerusalem" faction operating under a colonist-style Christianity and consisting of armed citizens loosely coalesced around former US military facilities turned rebel.

But that would be to misunderstand what the US is, what its tanks are for, and what its rulers believe in. It would take a real cataclysm to unfasten them from their dream of a global market served by giant corporation-states headquartered in the American towers celebrated here. BLM can not even dream of the amount of quota-systems or bureaucratic layers these people would be willing to permit so long as they could get that.

The 'New Jerusalem' will be nothing but a collection of Koresh-camps burned to the ground and reported in terms of what slurs their leaders used.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It would appear that some people hiding behind BLM have as their goal nothing less than the complete destruction of western civilization.

Well, yes. And I think that would be admitted with pride internally. It's not going to be the slogan for obvious reasons of insufficient contemporary sympathy, but every group with that sort of platform has wanted that.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It's as if the slogan for the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler in the 1930s had been "Prussian lives matter" - who could argue with that???

If you actually think BLM is similar to Nazis I truly don't have any words for you.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It would appear that some people hiding behind BLM have as their goal nothing less than the complete destruction of western civilization.

Complete destruction? No.
Restructuring of the cultural habits that western society is based upon? Yes.

Between references to Nazis and Jordan Peterson videos i'm pretty safe in saying that this thread has jumped the shark in its relevancy.

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

I think Trump will win a second term: the stock market is rising.

He won't. In June 2016 he was six points down on Clinton with 20% undecided. He's currently nine points down on Biden with 8% undecided. Biden is potentially trending towards the largest Democratic win in 60 years. Of course, that's to assume there won't be massive voter suppression and voter fraud in November, which there almost certainly will be.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If you actually think BLM is similar to Nazis I truly don't have any words for you.

My analogy is imperfect, I acknowledge that. I am in no way conflating the Nazi Party with BLM. The point I was making is that you need to look beyond catchy slogans, and look more closely at the motives of the people hiding behind the marketing. Sometimes you won't like what you find........

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

My analogy is imperfect, I acknowledge that. I am in no way conflating the Nazi Party with BLM. The point I was making is that you need to look beyond catchy slogans, and look more closely at the motives of the people hiding behind the marketing. Sometimes you won't like what you find........

Oh no! Disrupting white supremacy in our system and culture and trying to improve the lives of others and uplift them to the point where they're not discriminated against on a daily basis? How awful!

I think you're conflating hooliganism, antifa, and BLM all into one.

[Acajack]

In spite of the views of many on here about the CBC, not everyone agrees that it's a paradise for minorities and SJW types:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/yukon-morning-christine-genier-1.5613114

Her subsequent statement on Facebook was also pretty interesting. Especially this part where she discusses how she felt invaded in her own home by a non-indigenous work colleague who showed up at her house presumably to express support and sympathy:

On Wednesday night, I received an unannounced and uninvited visit from a non-aboriginal CBC employee. They had flowers with them that a listener had dropped off at the building for me. I was sitting on my deck with my dear friend, my confidant and one of my closest advisors. She saw that I had a visitor approaching, and stepped inside to give us some privacy, as that is the respect with which she walks in this world.
After handing the flowers to me, my colleague stood on my deck. We looked at each other for awhile, and I asked, “what’s up?”
With tears in their eyes, they told me it had been a hard week. They started telling me about all the Indigenous hires in the newsroom where they worked before, to where they felt they no longer had a place there.
At this point, I realized what was happening. I became paralyzed. My voice stuck in my throat. I was hyper-aware that my reaction needed to be calm. ‘No yelling. Do not appear aggressive.’ I tried to shake my voice loose, to call for my friend, to call for my husband as I heard their voices laughing and chatting inside, maybe 10 feet away from all of this.
Finally, I was able squeeze out “Please…this is my home.”
This person replied, “I know, but I need to say this.”
So comfortable and confident in their right to speak, in their right to voice, that they came to my home, where I go to be safe and feel loved, and would not leave until I told them that they are a good person and they could go home.



https://www.facebook.com/notes/christine...-this-is-my-statement/10158558310418912/