The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

More and more - L'Oreal is joining other multnationals in eliminating "whitening" from its marketing and product labels; Mississippi is looking at removing the Confederate flag from its state flag; Dixie Brewery in New Orleans will be changing its name, and that of its Dixie beer; The Simpsons will no longer use white voice actors for characters of colour; Princeton University is removing Woodrow Wilson's name from its School of Public and International Affairs (racist).

So every President before 1861 is given a pass on their slave ownership? Will Andrew Jackson be pilloried for signing into law the Indian Removal Act? Are Willian Henry Harrison and John Tyler to be brought to answer their atrocities in the Battle of Tippecanoe?

There must be some consistency when you as a nation are to censure your past leaders, don't you think?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

So every President before 1861 is given a pass on their slave ownership? Will Andrew Jackson be pilloried for signing into law the Indian Removal Act? Are Willian Henry Harrison and John Tyler to be brought to answer their atrocities in the Battle of Tippecanoe?

There must be some consistency when you as a nation are to censure your past leaders, don't you think?

Re your last question, I don’t see why - all nations pick and choose (and revise) their preferred myth/narrative/history. I don’t know where they’ll end up with Washington and Jefferson (among others), but they’ve been grappling with it for at least a generation.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

When did I say it was "forbidden"?

Talk about whatever you want but that doesn't prevent you from looking like a jackass or having someone point out that you sound just like a Trump supporter because you are saying the exact same thing they do.

A forum about racism is filled mostly with people talking about how it doesn't exist. It's like trying to talk about climate change and having that just turn into a back and forth with people who will never, under any circumstances admit that it is a problem.

Maybe there should be two threads, one for people who don't want to keep dealing in denial and one for those who like to diminish this whole process.

Your characterization of the discussion in this thread about racism is inaccurate. Most people will acknowledge that there is racism in the sense that there are individuals who harbor prejudice against other groups of people, and one such basis is race. People may disagree as to the number of people who hold such prejudices, or the degree to which one must hold such prejudices to be deemed racist, but most people would acknowledge that such people exist in every society.

But this recently constructed ideological edifice of White fragility and systemic racism is where people have different opinions. And that's ok, don't try to shut them down by categorizing them as 'Trump supporters', calling them racists, and mischaracterizing their arguments.

Are there racists in the police force in Northern America? Yes.

Does the police force in Northern America, on account of the nature of what it does, attract certain nefarious personalities (including White nationalists)? Yes.

Is there any systematic policing policy that is racist? Not to my knowledge in most Northern American jurisdictions.

Is there something else ingrained in the system of policing in Northern America that produces racially disparate outcomes? Nothing material to my knowledge.

In my view, the root problem is poverty, a good measure of which is attributable to systematic racism and high degrees of individual racism in the past. I'm fully on board with making the descendants of slaves whole again, including through reparations and other policies. But I don't think that there is systematic or systemic racism today in Northern America, at least not to any material level.

Things have been getting better and are much better in the sense that anyone can thrive. A Nigerian American with darker skin than most African Americans will come to America and thrive. The issue is the intergenerational poverty that puts the descendants of slaves at 1st base while most others are at 2nd or 3rd base. This, when combined with the lower levels of socioeconomic mobility and higher levels of inequality, is an awful situation that should be ameliorated. But we won't solve it if we get the diagnosis wrong.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

So every President before 1861 is given a pass on their slave ownership? Will Andrew Jackson be pilloried for signing into law the Indian Removal Act? Are Willian Henry Harrison and John Tyler to be brought to answer their atrocities in the Battle of Tippecanoe?

There must be some consistency when you as a nation are to censure your past leaders, don't you think?

A lot of it is just mobs run amok. There's no rhyme or reason. If it's an old statue of a white guy, it's fair game these days. Well not just white guys. They're tryna tear down the Gandhi statue in London now.

[saffronleaf]

I think this whole White fragility ideology is just a different flavor of White exceptionalism and navel gazing. Get over yourself. You're just another human. Not some omnipotent beings who exclusively have agency.

It's condescending and patronizing to the people you ostensibly care about.

[kwoldtimer]

Why is it still a discussion when the PM and the RCMP have confirmed systemic racism in Canada and the police? It is simply a matter of fact. And not a new one - the Public Service of Canada have been discussing/addressing it it for a quarter century or more.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Why is it still a discussion when the PM and the RCMP have confirmed systemic racism in Canada and the police? It is simply a matter of fact. And not a new one - the Public Service of Canada have been discussing/addressing it it for a quarter century or more.

What do they mean by systemic racism? How are they measuring this? Are they just expressing platitudes to calm people? It doesn't at all surprise me that a Liberal leader would go along with this or even push for it sua sponte.

This is the kind of social phenomenon I would want to see academic and other literature examining, rather than just statements from a politician. And what I've seen so far in terms of that literature is something often divorced from reality.

Just read the White Fragility book, which is becoming the new Mao's Little Red Book. Clueless nonsense.

[savevp]

Edit: saffronleaf beat me to it, and with more eloquence.

One point to add on, was Brenda Lucki's apology (or Wendy Mesley, or Doug Ford, or, or, or) sincere or was it practical coercion, knowing if she didn't apologise her career and reputation would be toast?

[kwoldtimer]

I think many people do not understand what systemic racism is - this thread keeps confusing it it with overt racism.

A baby steps example - ever notice how diverse the people shown in government ads and websites are, for a good number of years now? That is government taking a simple, first step to address systemic sexism/racism (ie, “that could be me!”).

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

The term has its etymological roots in the Arabic word (Arabic: كافر kāfir) that is usually translated into English as "disbeliever" or "non-believer" to describe "one without religion" or by a Muslim to describe a non-Muslim.[8] The word is non-racial and applied to non-Muslims in general, and therefore in the past to non-Muslims who were encountered along the Swahili coast by Arab traders.



Shocking a racial slur created by the religion of peace?

You could ask Hindus about just how peaceful Islam is, but we are increasingly regarded as "White-adjacent" and we've lost many of the privileges of being pitied by liberals because they (smartly, given electoral realities) have sided with Muslims.

You can see this a lot more clearly in the UK, with Indian Hindus going Conservative and Muslims going Labour. Didn't work out so well for Labour, but I do think it will work out well for Democrats and Liberals etc.

Seems somewhat likely that this could happen in the US and other places, although in the US second generation Indian Hindus are just as likely to be part of the uber-woke 'I am oppressed' crowd, despite disproportionately hailing from upper middle class families and upper caste lineages.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think many people do not understand what systemic racism is - this thread keeps confusing it it with overt racism.

A baby steps example - ever notice how diverse the people shown in government ads and websites are, for a good number of years now? That is government taking a simple, first step to address systemic sexism/racism (ie, “that could be me!”).

Help me understand this more. I want to get a sense of the phenomena that comprise examples of systemic racism and the threads that bind them together to form a category of racism.

Internal policies with racist intent usually fall under 'systematic' rather than 'systemic', I think. Just throwing that out there to further help sharpen this concept.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Help me understand this more. I want to get a sense of the phenomena that comprise examples of systemic racism and the threads that bind them together to form a category of racism.

Internal policies with racist intent usually fall under 'systematic' rather than 'systemic', I think. Just throwing that out there to further help sharpen this concept.

My assumption is that it is always without conscious racist intent.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

You could ask Hindus about just how peaceful Islam is, but we are increasingly regarded as "White-adjacent" and we've lost many of the privileges of being pitied by liberals because they (smartly, given electoral realities) have sided with Muslims.

I have noticed this happening with Chinese people too. I wonder if the most standard concept of "white" in Canada (or whatever term people use to denote a concept of a racial or ethnocultural majority) is going to shift to include East Asians, or if we'll just abandon such concepts before then. In the past it shifted to include Irish Catholics and then Southern and Eastern Europeans. When Americans in 1790 wrote "white persons" they did not have Catholic Italians in mind. They were thinking of Protestants from the British Isles and maybe other Protestant Northern Europeans like Dutch.

In the Bay Area, a lot of Indians are very successful in the tech industry. Many prominent CEOs are Indian, e.g. Satya Nadella of Microsoft born in Hyderabad.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have noticed this happening with Chinese people too. I wonder if the most standard concept of "white" in Canada (or whatever term people use to denote a concept of a racial or ethnocultural majority) is going to shift to include East Asians, or if we'll just abandon such concepts before then. In the past it shifted to include Irish Catholics and then Southern and Eastern Europeans. When Americans in 1790 wrote "white persons" they did not have Catholic Italians in mind. They were thinking of Protestants from the British Isles and maybe other Protestant Northern Europeans like Dutch.

In the Bay Area, a lot of Indians are very successful in the tech industry. Many prominent CEOs are Indian, e.g. Satya Nadella of Microsoft born in Hyderabad.

Indeed. With white people of European ancestry soon to be a minority in North America, the definition of "whiteness" may soon include non Muslim south Asians and east Asians. These "minorities" are generally easy to assimilate into the broader North American culture and are considered model immigrants. Muslims and blacks (especially blacks descended from former slaves), as well as aboriginals are much more problematic, resistant to integration or assimilation, and will be lumped together as the "new underclass", since to the more obedient broader North American majority, they are considered troublemakers.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have noticed this happening with Chinese people too. I wonder if the most standard concept of "white" in Canada (or whatever term people use to denote a concept of a racial or ethnocultural majority) is going to shift to include East Asians, or if we'll just abandon such concepts before then. In the past it shifted to include Irish Catholics and then Southern and Eastern Europeans. When Americans in 1790 wrote "white persons" they did not have Catholic Italians in mind. They were thinking of Protestants from the British Isles and maybe other Protestant Northern Europeans like Dutch.

In the Bay Area, a lot of Indians are very successful in the tech industry. Many prominent CEOs are Indian, e.g. Satya Nadella of Microsoft born in Hyderabad.

I think Hindu Indians, East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), and Jews are all increasingly labeled "white-adjacent". Jews also are sometimes just referred to as White depending on the context.

The thing is though that Indians and East Asians aren't "white passing" so there will always be that difference. But because Indians and East Asians are socioeconomically successful and go against the prevailing leftist narrative of struggling minorities, they are now simply labeled "white-adjacent" which allows them to discard the facts that go against their theory.

This is more prevalent in the US and UK.

The consequence is that these minority groups are more likely to swing right wing depending on the situation. In Canada, the 905 region seems to be very important in deciding elections, and the people of this region (significantly Non-Muslim South Asian and East Asian) do swing Liberal and Conservative. In the UK, Non-Muslim South Asians are huge in the Conservative Party (think Priti Patel).

In the US... the Republicans I think aren't doing a good enough job right now. But a more classic Republican like W or Romney or McCain would be pretty attractive to these groups, imo.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I think this whole White fragility ideology is just a different flavor of White exceptionalism and navel gazing. Get over yourself. You're just another human. Not some omnipotent beings who exclusively have agency.

It's condescending and patronizing to the people you ostensibly care about.

I've long thought this. It's narcissism of the highest order, and plaintively decrying our modern society, the way things are now, for preventing people of colour from advancing is positively insulting.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed. With white people of European ancestry soon to be a minority in North America, the definition of "whiteness" may soon include non Muslim south Asians and east Asians. These "minorities" are generally easy to assimilate into the broader North American culture and are considered model immigrants. Muslims and blacks (especially blacks descended from former slaves), as well as aboriginals are much more problematic, resistant to integration or assimilation, and will be lumped together as the "new underclass", since to the more obedient broader North American majority, they are considered troublemakers.

Ouch. Cruisin' for a bruisin'.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I think Hindu Indians, East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), and Jews are all increasingly labeled "white-adjacent". Jews also are sometimes just referred to as White depending on the context.
.

I would say Jews in North America are considered just plain white almost all the time at this point.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The current SJW moment encapsulated in a confrontation:

• Video Link

Is that screaming lady white? Seems like it but not 100% sure.

In any event she is certainly not black but she is screaming at a black man telling him how he should feel and think, just because he is black, and I suppose in her mind all black people are supposed to think and feel a certain way.

This is "progress", right?

[urbandreamer]

White people are the minority on Earth period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people If 10% of white people are wealthy that's about 100 million people that cause 99% of the problems.