The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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?

I think this has already come up but it is used against minorities too. Sometimes this type of thinking hits epic ridiculous proportions:

Peter Thiel may be attracted to men, but a prominent LGBT magazine says he’s “not a gay man” because he supports Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In a rambling article for The Advocate, Connecticut College history professor Jim Downs posits that there is more to being gay “than just having sex with someone of the same gender.”



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...-not-gay-man-supporting-donald-trump-lg/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this has already come up but it is used against minorities too. Sometimes this type of thinking hits epic ridiculous proportions:

Peter Thiel may be attracted to men, but a prominent LGBT magazine says he’s “not a gay man” because he supports Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

In a rambling article for The Advocate, Connecticut College history professor Jim Downs posits that there is more to being gay “than just having sex with someone of the same gender.”



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...-not-gay-man-supporting-donald-trump-lg/

Didn't Joe Biden himself recently say that if you vote for Trump or the Republicans (can't remember which one exactly), "you're not black"?

I don't know man. I generally know an African-American when I meet one. I don't need to know how they vote!

EDIT: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you are for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...even-if-theyd-say-same-thing-themselves/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Didn't Joe Biden himself recently say that if you vote for Trump or the Republicans (can't remember which one exactly), "you're not black"?

I don't know man. I generally know an African-American when I meet one. I don't need to know how they vote!

EDIT: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you are for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

You have a right to an opinion that can be objectively wrong, and can be genuinely mystifying to other people.

For example, a Quebecer who's against pipelines and carbon emissions in general, voting for PM Jason Kenney.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Didn't Joe Biden himself recently say that if you vote for Trump or the Republicans (can't remember which one exactly), "you're not black"?

I don't know man. I generally know an African-American when I meet one. I don't need to know how they vote!

EDIT: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you are for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...even-if-theyd-say-same-thing-themselves/

To be fair, it sounds like he meant that black people would have no problem deciding between him and Trump. Which, on the whole, is generally true.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

To be fair, it sounds like he meant that black people would have no problem deciding between him and Trump. Which, on the whole, is generally true.

Though you have to admit that in today's hyper-excited times, it wasn't the wisest thing to say.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by wave46

Sure.

We can use an alliance for a common goal to remove oppression. The more commonalities your alliance has, the wider net it casts upon a population.

When we split, our respective causes are both weaker for it. We should be hesitant to toss away allies even if we don't 100% agree on all topics.

If the poor and oppressed in the United States allied for a cause, think of how they could advance their respective agendas. When they fight among themselves, they lose badly. Critical mass is necessary for societal change.

Yes, but when one tries to deny race as a factor to focus solely on class, that is actually divisive. A broad-based, intersectional approach takes it all into account rather than saying "class trumps race and that's what we should focus on".

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by wave46

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 problem is that people resent honest appraisals of not just their own behaviour, but history, their country, their group, etc. Clear, rational explanations are treated as insults.

These issues bring up feelings of shame and pain. That is part of the process. If you can't face those things, you would prefer denial. Should you feel ashamed about being white? No, but when confronted with racial realities you might indeed feel that. How you process those feelings is up to you and how you have learned to do so.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by lio45

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?

"Each individual's redemption is specific to them" does not mean "you can deny reality and call it truth".

[saffronleaf]

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 tend to agree with this. It's worth noting that culture can't be reduced to melanin levels, either. Nigerian Americans, for example, seem to have a culture well-adapted to the circumstances; the descendants of slaves in the US, not so much. Similarly, German Americans seem to have a culture better adapted than Scots-Irish Americans.

But I also think that there are genetic factors at play for specific population groups (not the social construct of Black / White / Asian, but actual genetic population groups, like say, Ashkenazi Jews), as well as (and more importantly) at the individual level regardless of whatever group you belong to.

Assortative mating has exacerbated this phenomenon. More than ever before, IQ and education level is becoming the biggest predictive measure of who you will marry (people broadly speaking marry within the same level). And somewhat relatedly, cognitive stratification is playing a big role in income inequality.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

He has certainly strongly implied that all white people are racist, either directly, or by association, and he has certainly liberally used the term "snowflake" for those he thinks intolerant of criticism. I personally feel like I've been told that I am racist on here (at least implicitly), which I strongly resent.

I feel like he's gently suggested that I have internalized racism so I am also racist.

Everyone is racist

[wave46]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, but when one tries to deny race as a factor to focus solely on class, that is actually divisive. A broad-based, intersectional approach takes it all into account rather than saying "class trumps race and that's what we should focus on".

I think both can be accommodated in 'big-tent' political goals. They're not ideologically opposed. In fact, the linkage between racism and poor economic outcome has been highlighted.

They can be both present and equal in importance. The benefit being that keeping the tent as big as possible maximizes your influence. Splintering that makes one weaker.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think both can be accommodated in 'big-tent' political goals. They're not ideologically opposed. In fact, the linkage between racism and poor economic outcome has been highlighted.

I think police reform could be a "big tent" political issue. A lot of right-wing libertertarian types don't like them either, and many average folks have had negative police interactions (all the way down to getting stupid tickets or being harassed for no reason). But these disparate political groups tend not to be aligned with groups like BLM.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think police reform could be a "big tent" political issue. A lot of right-wing libertertarian types don't like them either, and many average folks have had negative police interactions (all the way down to getting stupid tickets or being harassed for no reason). But these disparate political groups tend not to be aligned with groups like BLM.

That's true. Look at Vancouver. I think the average person respects the police and the work they do. On the other hand, they are taking up an ever-increasing piece of the City budget. Bike thefts are rampant. Drug use is ignored. Forget about any property crime being solved.

It's reasonable to ask exactly what benefits they are providing for the money.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by wave46

I think both can be accommodated in 'big-tent' political goals. They're not ideologically opposed. In fact, the linkage between racism and poor economic outcome has been highlighted.

They can be both present and equal in importance. The benefit being that keeping the tent as big as possible maximizes your influence. Splintering that makes one weaker.

Yes, it's a balancing act and at times a battle.

The feminist movement prioritized the needs and realities of white women for a long time and viewed that as the liberation of all women, when in many ways it wasn't, because it did not take into account disparities of race, sexual identity, etc. Bringing up those disparities was treated as heresy by some. In the same sense, groups can still be splintered now by those who bring up such intragroup differences. If advocating for your own rights divides the group, was the group really cohesive in the first place? If a self-described liberal wants to rationalize and deny issues of race, is that not their problem? Why should the further marginalized community within the group pay the price of its silence or muted voice? That price is often expected to be paid by that group, or else the weak liberal will threaten to side with conservative forces. There are practical realities to be considered but one of those realities is also the continued suffering of that group because of the intransigence of the weak liberal.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, it's a balancing act and at times a battle.

The feminist movement prioritized the needs and realities of white women for a long time and viewed that as the liberation of all women, when in many ways it wasn't, because it did not take into account disparities of race, sexual identity, etc. Bringing up those disparities was treated as heresy by some. In the same sense, groups can still be splintered now by those who bring up such intragroup differences. If advocating for your own rights divides the group, was the group really cohesive in the first place? If a self-described liberal wants to rationalize and deny issues of race, is that not their problem? Why should the further marginalized community within the group pay the price of its silence or muted voice? That price is often expected to be paid by that group, or else the weak liberal will threaten to side with conservative forces. There are practical realities to be considered but one of those realities is also the continued suffering of that group because of the intransigence of the weak liberal.

Ok, but does race as a cohesive ideological mechanism work? Can a group such as diverse as the multi-source immigration Canada has received over the past 40 years all get on the same page to form a cohesive set of demands?

Does an upper-class Hong Kong Chinese living in Richmond Hill have much in common with a Jamaican immigrant living at Jane and Finch? Or with a member of our Indigenous people living in Northern Manitoba?

I grew up in a blue-collar old-school company town. The guys who worked for that company definitely set aside their differences (admittedly European-derived, but still definitely the old country) on the picket line. They knew they were in this together and had a set of ideological goals that benefited them all.

Does race trump economics for an organization point? Or can we fuse them into something useful to aid everybody?

Given that the political system in this country is not friendly to niche parties (a separate topic) and definitely favours big-tent parties, how do we best articulate our common interests to achieve a better outcome?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's true. Look at Vancouver. I think the average person respects the police and the work they do. On the other hand, they are taking up an ever-increasing piece of the City budget. Bike thefts are rampant. Drug use is ignored. Forget about any property crime being solved.

It's reasonable to ask exactly what benefits they are providing for the money.

I don”t know Vancouver very well, but those sound like political decisions. If the cops started rounding up addicts the media would lose their shit.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, it's a balancing act and at times a battle.

The feminist movement prioritized the needs and realities of white women for a long time and viewed that as the liberation of all women, when in many ways it wasn't, because it did not take into account disparities of race, sexual identity, etc. Bringing up those disparities was treated as heresy by some. In the same sense, groups can still be splintered now by those who bring up such intragroup differences. If advocating for your own rights divides the group, was the group really cohesive in the first place? If a self-described liberal wants to rationalize and deny issues of race, is that not their problem? Why should the further marginalized community within the group pay the price of its silence or muted voice? That price is often expected to be paid by that group, or else the weak liberal will threaten to side with conservative forces. There are practical realities to be considered but one of those realities is also the continued suffering of that group because of the intransigence of the weak liberal.

Doesn’t race as an issue have the same problem? For all the talk about oppression from affluent woke white people, the vast majority of non-white Canadians live comfortable middle class lives. Many of them have problems with racism, but they also have no interest in undermining the system in a significant way.

[lio45]

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).

My observation is close to the opposite, at least in my home neck of the woods - the laws are generally designed to be on the side of the authorities, to the point that they'd be almost oppressive if always applied as written, and it's the cops who are expected to use discretion in the real world application of those powers... however, whenever there's a "problem", as a citizen, you legally don't have a leg to stand on.

"They stopped me without (what I think is) a good reason! Then they kept me for a while! And they weren't friendly at all."

Yep, they can do that.

"But they don't automatically do that to everyone else!"

They don't have to.

... I have to say, I understand the logic; it's easier to operate under rules that are as permissive as possible for your side, even if in practice you don't use them to that extent (because you want to be fair to the other side). And the government is the one making those rules. The analogy would be me being in charge of designing tenant/landlord rules, for example. In practice, you wouldn't observe as much change as you'd think - good tenants would still get treated well and be happy.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by lio45

My observation is close to the opposite, at least in my home neck of the woods - the laws are generally designed to be on the side of the authorities, to the point that they'd be almost oppressive if always applied as written, and it's the cops who are expected to use discretion in the real world application of those powers... however, whenever there's a "problem", as a citizen, you legally don't have a leg to stand on.

"They stopped me without (what I think is) a good reason! Then they kept me for a while! And they weren't friendly at all."

Yep, they can do that.

"But they don't automatically do that to everyone else!"

They don't have to.

Yes and no. Under discrimination law as developed in the U.S. the state cannot selectively enforce the law against certain social groups. That stopped the tactic of old-time Southern sheriffs who would follow black motorists around until they observed some sort of contravention that they could stop them for, as a tactic for intimidating them and discouraging them from entering the jurisdiction. Even though the contraventions were real, this tactic was found to be unconstitutional. The same principle would be upheld in Canada if it hasn't been already.

[lio45]

That's pretty much exactly what they're doing. One very clear example is jaywalking tickets. If you're "an individual known to them", you'll get zero mercy - arrested and fined the second you're caught. Meanwhile you can jaywalk in front of a cop all day long if you're a normal citizen, no problem. Extremely selective enforcement.

On paper, they could give jaywalking tickets to absolutely everyone, all the time. In practice, they don't. Wouldn't want to needlessly piss off the generally-law-abiding-though-occasionally-jaywalking citizenry. But they use that as a tool/weapon against some targeted groups.

Race isn't part of this picture, but it's the exact same concept as a town that would have very strict anti-jaywalking laws, and any black caught doing anything that may look like jaywalking immediately receives the maximum fine available, while whites can do whatever they want and the police doesn't bother them.

That's the Sherbrooke of 2020.