The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Racism and racist beliefs are not irredeemable things. We are all redeemable. As with anything, awareness, ownership, making amends, changing, etc., are the varied ways to redeem ourselves. Each individual's redemption is specific to them, their thoughts and beliefs, their prior actions.

I recall rousseau pointing out very clearly that no "prior actions" of his required any "redemption"; can we expect you to give him a break based on the idea that "each individual's redemption is specific to them" (in his case: none needed), or you'll change your mind about this in the next half-hour and go back to the notion that his Original Sin of Whiteness demands atonement?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

People react poorly to being unfairly labeled. If I want to build a movement, I'd build it to include the majority of the population.

Are people prejudiced? Absolutely.

Do I believe that people can overcome prejudices and expand their worldview? Absolutely.

They won't achieve that if they're insulted, because people generally react poorly to being insulted. My observation is that insulting people and narrowing a cause to the sufficiently pure, yet tiny base is entirely self-defeating.

The ethos that we're supposed to adopt in this case is to cast those who react this way as "deplorables" or even sub-human.

I guess in an ideal world we'd all rise above that and take the high road, but human nature (these guys just hate that term I know!) simply doesn't work that way.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

People are screaming about BLM because people are dying and this has gone on for far too long. You don't share their urgency or rage because their plight is not your own and you don't empathize very strongly. This forum is filled with unaffected people. Some of us empathize more than others. Some think this is all a theoretical game and don't really care at all.

Why do you think I'm "unaffected"? I already had cops pointing loaded guns at me, they threw me on the hood of their cruiser and handcuffed me (while several of my tenants were looking at the scene from the balconies of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors; they had a great view).

Google Tony Timpa. White guy. Could have been me. It happened in Texas. I go there for business regularly. Lived there for a few months, even. In a duplex that I bought given I was going to stay there a while (and hate the idea of paying rent to someone else).

(MolsonExport loves it when I mention my Texas duplex. )

I'm not immune to asshole cops, despite what you think. WLM, I guess...? You're on board?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

My point was you through an insult in there as you literally said that.

A) If you call people racist they'll go into the hands of

B) Racists

C) Trump suporters.

> They own the word. The worst outcome. You've now created something worse - someone who doesn't care about being labeled a racist. They say "whatever" and shrug their shoulders. In extreme cases, you've driven them into the arms of the people who actively oppose your cause. You've another hardcore Trump supporter.

This is your literal words. If you think this is just nitpicking you're missing the point.

My intention was not to insult as much as to point out that someone who might be wishy-washy on the whole affair might just vote for Donald Trump come November. Some people commit whole-hog when joining a cause, especially if they feel they've been unfairly attacked.

Which is not a good outcome in my opinion.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wave46

People react poorly to being unfairly labeled. If I want to build a movement, I'd build it to include the majority of the population.

Are people prejudiced? Absolutely.

Do I believe that people can overcome prejudices and expand their worldview? Absolutely.

They won't achieve that if they're insulted, because people generally react poorly to being insulted. My observation is that insulting people and narrowing a cause to the sufficiently pure, yet tiny base is entirely self-defeating.

French and English have almost the same saying (the literal translation would be "You won't catch flies if using vinegar".)

For the record, I'm 95% sure I used the English saying already in this thread; it's not the first time the point you're making has been made in those 150 pages.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure if it's a strawman but what's really hard to believe is that you and others don't actually think deep down that a bunch of posters on here truly are racist.

LOL what?!

Originally Posted by Acajack

People may disagree (quite strongly sometimes) on the means of attaining that goal, but basically 100% of posters on here want minorities to do well/better and see their lot in life improve.

Sure I can believe that, but at the same time you don't see anything wrong with the current system. It's like you're pointing to the Constitution as saying everybody is equal while ignoring the reality on the ground that everybody is not, in terms of the way they are treated.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Yes, this is clear. Like you said, I don't think it is always a good strategy. I don't even think it is generally a good strategy.

Agreed.

The business equivalent is to begin with a totally laughable offer.

I can confirm it usually won't get you very far. You're always better off respecting the other party, and starting with something that may not be acceptable as is (too advantageous to you / not enough to them), but at least isn't just insulting.

Starting with an absolutely ridiculous offer outs you as not serious / stupid / crazy / totally disconnected from reality.

Pretty similar to what we're actually discussing, in fact.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure I can believe that, but at the same time you don't see anything wrong with the current system. It's like you're pointing to the Constitution as saying everybody is equal while ignoring the reality on the ground that everybody is not, in terms of the way they are treated.

Isn't this a strawman? I don't think anybody on here has asserted that Canada is perfect. You can point out flaws in, say, BLM without being 100% against them or 100% happy with our political or economic system.

I won't speak for others but I'm open to all kinds of changes, particularly when it comes to policing (e.g. I'm happy some cities are cancelling funding for quasi-military hardware like armoured vehicles for police forces), and I think that Canada as a society should be open to making amends with indigenous groups, granting new title to lands, and potentially changing that whole system (largely based on what indigenous people themselves ask for democratically, although it needs support from Canadians at large too).

One red flag for me is that I've still been pigeonholed as a deplorable (for example you suggested a while back I got my info from Fox News!) even though I'm pretty far from that stereotypical group (I tend to have mildly left wing techno-utopian type views, although I favour free markets and personal choice in a lot of settings). And there doesn't seem to be much concrete discussion of issues; a few posters keep pulling it back to ad hominem. I feel like you do make good points and I value your perspective but I think you are too quick to discount other people's perspectives sometimes. I think that left-leaning discussion in general tends to fall into the trap of being too doctrinaire.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by lio45

Agreed.

The business equivalent is to begin with a totally laughable offer.

I can confirm it usually won't get you very far. You're always better off respecting the other party, and starting with something that may not be acceptable as is (too advantageous to you / not enough to them), but at least isn't just insulting.

Starting with an absolutely ridiculous offer outs you as not serious / stupid / crazy / totally disconnected from reality.

Pretty similar to what we're actually discussing, in fact.

Had this happen on a house sale recently. The guy (who was known to us as an opportunist) would come in with an extremely low offer and hope to find somebody desperate. Considering his lack of success, you'd think he'd try a different strategy, but nope.

Maybe one day he'll find that desperate person. Out of spite I won't accept any offers from him.

Human nature is kind of a thing sometimes.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL what?!
Sure I can believe that, but at the same time you don't see anything wrong with the current system. It's like you're pointing to the Constitution as saying everybody is equal while ignoring the reality on the ground that everybody is not, in terms of the way they are treated.

Which goes back to the implicit vs explicit bias debate on this thread a few weeks ago.

If some police officers in Toronto have an implicit bias against black people (or Indian, Arab, whatever) how do you change that at a national level? The only way is legislative via equality laws. The current laws are just that, equal. If an individual or group of individuals don't uphold that they are held accountable by the rule of law. That is how society works.

So how do you legislate implicit bias then?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

Agreed.

The business equivalent is to begin with a totally laughable offer.

I can confirm it usually won't get you very far. You're always better off respecting the other party, and starting with something that may not be acceptable as is (too advantageous to you / not enough to them), but at least isn't just insulting.

Starting with an absolutely ridiculous offer outs you as not serious / stupid / crazy / totally disconnected from reality.

Pretty similar to what we're actually discussing, in fact.

I honestly think it's sort of the opposite. This mechanism obviously works for some, but it has the opposite affect for others. Where within the realms of polite society they are perpetually giving ground just to have a seat at the bargaining table.

This is pretty much my experience Monday to Friday give ground give ground give ground. Obviously on the race issue there is some wiggle room, but its just passing the buck down the line.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

Human nature is kind of a thing sometimes.

I wonder how much of it comes down to experience. The BLM Vancouver group seems to be largely university-based and a lot of activists are undergrads. I am not sure if there is leadership above that is tied in to any kind of practical government role or has experience building a business, etc.

A while ago I listened to the mayor of Iqaluit, at the time Madeleine Redfern I think, talk about the challenges there. It was all very grounded and reasonable, based on their demographics, social issues, and explaining what is different about Iqaluit compared to where most Canadians live. She didn't call anybody an idiot, and I bet most Canadians would call her funding requests totally reasonable and would be willing to fund them over and above the normal funding levels for southern towns.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

I absolutelly hate the term "community", it implies you have some values in common.

Alternative wording suggestions welcome. I don't see "community" as having to do with values (although I could imagine a community based on values). Doesn't it simply mean a group that shares something in common?

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Pretty much, for about 40 years now. Certainly for Jews of European ancestry. Although anti-Semitism has hardly disappeared.

Though there's a growing movement among younger Ashkenazi Jews in North America to self identity as "Middle Eastern" and "non-white".

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Which goes back to the implicit vs explicit bias debate on this thread a few weeks ago.

If some police officers in Toronto have an implicit bias against black people (or Indian, Arab, whatever) how do you change that at a national level? The only way is legislative via equality laws. The current laws are just that, equal. If an individual or group of individuals don't uphold that they are held accountable by the rule of law. That is how society works.

So how do you legislate implicit bias then?

Canada has quite robust laws prohibiting discrimination (the Charter and provincial human rights codes). However, practically speaking, many of the marginalized people who such laws are intended to protect lack the resources or capacity to enforce them through litigation (which, even at the human rights tribunals level, is lengthy and complex).

I think (much) better funding for community legal clinics (or even extending legal aid certificates to human rights codes applications) would be very helpful in bringing about change (although it would take a lot of time for the effects to be felt on a broader scale). And it would be very expensive (not to mention swimming against the budget-slashing current of the day.)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Though there's a growing movement among younger Ashkenazi Jews in North America to self identity as "Middle Eastern" and "non-white".

That's up to them. It won't have any impact on their integration into the mainstream.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Canada has quite robust laws prohibiting discrimination (the Charter and provincial human rights codes). However, practically speaking, many of the marginalized people who such laws are intended to protect lack the resources or capacity to enforce them through litigation (which, even at the human rights tribunals level, is lengthy and complex).

I think (much) better funding for community legal clinics (or even extending legal aid certificates to human rights codes applications) would be very helpful in bringing about change (although it would take a lot of time for the effects to be felt on a broader scale). And it would be very expensive (not to mention swimming against the budget-slashing current of the day.)

Thanks for this reply, very constructive and from the legal-financial situation I guess I didn't consider that. Gained a new perspective

[ssiguy]

These conversations inevitably start as race and end with cultural difference and they are NOT, in anyway, shape, or form the same thing.

One cannot choose the race they are born into just as they can't with their gender or sexual orientation.........it's the cards you are dealt. This is very much unlike culture where {as an adult} you can choose the culture that you wish to belong to. Culture, like religion, is a choice as it is based upon one's values, beliefs, priorities, and lifestyle.

I am a "culturalist" and have absolutely no problem saying it because I think certain cultures are superior to others. I find cultures that inherently {and sometimes even encourage] discrimination against people due to their race, colour, age, place of origin, gender, or orientations patently offensive. I would warmly welcome a black neighbour who agrees with equality far more than I ever would with a white neighbour who doesn't.

I have absolutely no desire to associate with people who embrace a value system that supports discrimination. Enjoying parts of unique cultures of a group is one thing but embracing their discriminatory values they MAY have is quite another. This is in no way racism despite what some intellectual midgets might espouse. If some find my beliefs in this regard as discriminatory, then I am guilty as charged and damn proud of it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't this a strawman? I don't think anybody on here has asserted that Canada is perfect. You can point out flaws in, say, BLM without being 100% against them or 100% happy with our political or economic system.

I won't speak for others but I'm open to all kinds of changes, particularly when it comes to policing (e.g. I'm happy some cities are cancelling funding for quasi-military hardware like armoured vehicles for police forces), and I think that Canada as a society should be open to making amends with indigenous groups, granting new title to lands, and potentially changing that whole system (largely based on what indigenous people themselves ask for democratically, although it needs support from Canadians at large too).

One red flag for me is that I've still been pigeonholed as a deplorable (for example you suggested a while back I got my info from Fox News!) even though I'm pretty far from that stereotypical group (I tend to have mildly left wing techno-utopian type views, although I favour free markets and personal choice in a lot of settings). And there doesn't seem to be much concrete discussion of issues; a few posters keep pulling it back to ad hominem. I feel like you do make good points and I value your perspective but I think you are too quick to discount other people's perspectives sometimes. I think that left-leaning discussion in general tends to fall into the trap of being too doctrinaire.

Think about how many comments on here get dismissed with a "says the white guy" or "what a white male perspective that is!".

Can you imagine someone dismissing an opinion with a "that's a very indigenous thing to say" with the implication that somehow that fact makes it inherently wrong?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

These conversations inevitably start as race and end with cultural difference and they are NOT, in anyway, shape, or form the same thing.

One cannot choose the race they are born into just as they can't with their gender or sexual orientation.........it's the cards you are dealt. This is very much unlike culture where {as an adult} you can choose the culture that you wish to belong to. Culture, like religion, is a choice as it is based upon one's values, beliefs, priorities, and lifestyle.

I am a "culturalist" and have absolutely no problem saying it because I think certain cultures are superior to others. I find cultures that inherently {and sometimes even encourage] discrimination against people due to their race, colour, age, place of origin, gender, or orientations patently offensive. I would warmly welcome a black neighbour who agrees with equality far more than I ever would with a white neighbour who doesn't.

I have absolutely no desire to associate with people who embrace a value system that supports discrimination. Enjoying parts of unique cultures of a group is one thing but embracing their discriminatory values they MAY have is quite another. This is in no way racism despite what some intellectual midgets might espouse. If some find my beliefs in this regard as discriminatory, then I am guilty as charged and damn proud of it.

I think the entire point of this thread is precisely that you (and I and all of us) are part of a system that is fundamentally discriminatory, and that we all benefit from it even.