The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is something Absurdistan-esque though in not being able to even name the title of the book.

And they are working pretty hard to get her fired. I've seen the social media campaign and it's pretty vicious.

Basically they don't think she's been punished enough for her sins.

Interesting as well that all of this is going on in Montréal, Québec and the two main figures are American. The professor is from the NE US (NYC I think) and the activist leader is studying at Concordia but is from... Seattle.

The self-flagellation continues.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ryan-reynolds-blake-lively-plantation-wedding-apology/

Well if that is your standard Ryan and Blake, then you might as well move to Europe, because every square foot of the Western Hemisphere has been built on the blood and bones of indigenous peoples and African Slaves.

Bill Maher says it better than I.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/bill-ma...ing-is-racist-so-get-over-it-also-jesus/

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

The self-flagellation continues.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ryan-reynolds-blake-lively-plantation-wedding-apology/

Well if that is your standard Ryan and Blake, then you might as well move to Europe, because every square foot of the Western Hemisphere has been built on the blood and bones of indigenous peoples and African Slaves.

Bill Maher says it better than I.

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/bill-ma...ing-is-racist-so-get-over-it-also-jesus/

What an odd thing to get mad at. Plantations were not simply places that were built by slaves. They were places where for hundreds of year's people were brutalized and beaten and forced to work. In the current day they are very much romanticized and looked at fondly when people think about the antebellum south.

These are locations where hundreds of people often spent their ENTIRE LIVES forced to labour without any freedom. There is a plantation museum, the Whitney Plantation that focuses on the lives of the enslaved (the only one of it's kind in America) where guests will sometimes complain about having slavery shoved in their faces. Often times plantations will brush over slavery or indicate that the slaves at this one were definitely treated 'nice' by their masters.

The history of slavery is not well taught and there are often misconceptions about the treatment of slaves and that they often had good lives. Or the assumption that slavery is really just difficult labour, and it would be better than being a simple farmer living off the land. They don't see the violence, assault, family separation, or the constant fear.

The romanticizing of plantations as beautiful places were slaves were given a good life and well-fed contributes to the historical narrative that the antebellum south was a good place to live for a slave. It is a little different to have a wedding at some place that was constructed by slaves, versus a place where people lived their entire lives enslaved and in constant fear.

If people don't care or are ignorant about the history of plantations and have a wedding, I am not going to be angry at them. They shouldn't automatically feed bad about getting married at a plantation. However, if somebody learns more about the history of plantations and feel apologetic about being married there and wants to apologize, what is the problem? Pulling out this story and whining about it is nothing more than virtue signaling.

https://i.redd.it/acwrtevlz3751.jpg

It is not like people get married at Auschwitz.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You're deliberately downplaying a situation where the goalposts clearly moved when someone was kicking the ball.

I have never used the n-word to refer to anyone in my 50 years on this earth, but even I would probably have not given much thought to quoting someone who said it like Wendy Mesley did, or to quote the title of Pierre Vallières book, or to repeat the lyrics of the 568,786 popular songs today that seem to use it repeatedly.

The idea that it's verboten for me to utter it even in those circumstances above (simply because of the colour of my skin!) is only something that I've become aware of fairly recently. (And I am more attuned to societal evolution than most.)

And BTW, my behaviour is actually different in French. I'd probably still name a book or movie title with the French version of the n-word in it without much hesitation today.

Of course, I'd never use that word to refer to anyone. And never have.

Good for you. Society is creating a line here. If you don't want to follow it, don't. As with anything, we have free will and then there are the consequences we accept for our choices. We don't get to personally determine what all of those consequences are.

I find it absurd to think that a professor at an anglo university in Canada didn't know where that line was. Nonetheless, I think she made a mistake and should learn from that. If she is fired, maybe that goes too far or maybe that is a lesson for herself and others. I don't feel strongly either way.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is something Absurdistan-esque though in not being able to even name the title of the book.

And they are working pretty hard to get her fired. I've seen the social media campaign and it's pretty vicious.

Basically they don't think she's been punished enough for her sins.

Interesting as well that all of this is going on in Montréal, Québec and the two main figures are American. The professor is from the NE US (NYC I think) and the activist leader is studying at Concordia but is from... Seattle.

Just say "n-word'. It's not hard. It's not complicated. I know this is a beloved topic of yours, however.

In this climate there will be people who go for blood. So be careful. Groups that are losing the power to determine the position of goalposts are naturally disturbed by that but they are also just disturbed by the changes in general. I don't feel much sympathy for them because they should never had had to the right to so carelessly put their own comfort and needs ahead of others. They need to adjust to a new normal.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

What an odd thing to get mad at. Plantations were not simply places that were built by slaves. They were places where for hundreds of year's people were brutalized and beaten and forced to work. In the current day they are very much romanticized and looked at fondly when people think about the antebellum south.

These are locations where hundreds of people often spent their ENTIRE LIVES forced to labour without any freedom. There is a plantation museum, the Whitney Plantation that focuses on the lives of the enslaved (the only one of it's kind in America) where guests will sometimes complain about having slavery shoved in their faces. Often times plantations will brush over slavery or indicate that the slaves at this one were definitely treated 'nice' by their masters.

The history of slavery is not well taught and there are often misconceptions about the treatment of slaves and that they often had good lives. Or the assumption that slavery is really just difficult labour, and it would be better than being a simple farmer living off the land. They don't see the violence, assault, family separation, or the constant fear.

The romanticizing of plantations as beautiful places were slaves were given a good life and well-fed contributes to the historical narrative that the antebellum south was a good place to live for a slave. It is a little different to have a wedding at some place that was constructed by slaves, versus a place where people lived their entire lives enslaved and in constant fear.

If people don't care or are ignorant about the history of plantations and have a wedding, I am not going to be angry at them. They shouldn't automatically feed bad about getting married at a plantation. However, if somebody learns more about the history of plantations and feel apologetic about being married there and wants to apologize, what is the problem? Pulling out this story and whining about it is nothing more than virtue signaling.

https://i.redd.it/acwrtevlz3751.jpg

It is not like people get married at Auschwitz.

Eye rolling was my response to the unhappy couple.

Always knew that slave plantations were terrible places and the farther south you went the worse it got.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Just say "n-word'. It's not hard. It's not complicated. I know this is a beloved topic of yours, however.

In this climate there will be people who go for blood. So be careful. Groups that are losing the power to determine the position of goalposts are naturally disturbed by that but they are also just disturbed by the changes in general. I don't feel much sympathy for them because they should never had had to the right to so carelessly put their own comfort and needs ahead of others. They need to adjust to a new normal.

I guess someone needs to explain to me why the climate at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec, Canada is such that some people are, as you say, going for blood.

That seems akin to the police in Quebec City and St. John's saying they need heavy artillery and armoured personnel carriers because of the spike in crime in Chicago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Good for you. Society is creating a line here. If you don't want to follow it, don't. As with anything, we have free will and then there are the consequences we accept for our choices. We don't get to personally determine what all of those consequences are.

I find it absurd to think that a professor at an anglo university in Canada didn't know where that line was. Nonetheless, I think she made a mistake and should learn from that. If she is fired, maybe that goes too far or maybe that is a lesson for herself and others. I don't feel strongly either way.

It's totally believable that a professor at an Anglo-Canadian university almost one year ago would have thought it was OK to cite the title of a book that had the n-word in it.

Even if that person, like me, would never use the n-word to refer to someone.

It's not that hard to see through all of this. People think that this professor and Wendy Mesley get their jollies using the n-word and that quoting someone or something gives them an opportunity to follow through on this impulse.

Speaking of absurdities...

[savevp]

To distill it down; does intent matter in language?

The resounding answer from the current climate is 'no, a bad word is a bad word.' Even when it's not actually the word, as with the SFU Clan.

So the new standard is 'a bad word, or a not-bad word that might remind someone of an unrelated bad word, is a bad word.'

Hard not to see why there are misgivings about this trend.

[MonctonRad]

I wonder how long it will be before using the euphemism "the N-word" as a substitute for the N-word becomes as bad as uttering the actual N-word itself.

It is when the apologists start attacking the use of euphemisms and word substitutes that we will know that western civilization has finally jumped the shark...…..

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess someone needs to explain to me why the climate at Concordia University in Montréal, Québec, Canada is such that some people are, as you say, going for blood.

That seems akin to the police in Quebec City and St. John's saying they need heavy artillery and armoured personnel carriers because of the spike in crime in Chicago.

Oh yeah, your hypothesis that everything is ok and not a problem in Quebec because that’s how you personally feel.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's totally believable that a professor at an Anglo-Canadian university almost one year ago would have thought it was OK to cite the title of a book that had the n-word in it.

Even if that person, like me, would never use the n-word to refer to someone.

It's not that hard to see through all of this. People think that this professor and Wendy Mesley get their jollies using the n-word and that quoting someone or something gives them an opportunity to follow through on this impulse.

Speaking of absurdities...

That is your perspective. I am genuinely shocked that she wouldn’t have been aware of that.

That being said, yes, all uses of a word have context. She is not a monster, nor is Ms, Mesley. I would still classify them both as somewhat clueless though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Oh yeah, your hypothesis that everything is ok and not a problem in Quebec because that’s how you personally feel.

It's not a problem because pretty much everyone who's sane agrees that it's not a problem, even black Québécois (at least, all the ones I know, including my Haitian relatives-through-marriage, and many tenants; as well as the completely independent ones that Acajack knows, it seems).

You don't get to tell us how things are in our homeland

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have never used the n-word to refer to anyone in my 50 years on this earth [...]

Of course, I'd never use that word to refer to anyone. And never have.

For the record, same here, though to be honest, I have no qualms with expressions whenever appropriate. The big difference is that no one is on the receiving end of those.

Not long ago, I do recall thinking (entering a pitch black storage area of our leased Vancouver factory and not remembering where the light switch was) that "damn, it's as black as inside [...] in here"

Speaking of such, I wonder if that kind of expression will survive in the longer term. (I'm not sure how I feel about more taboos and a more sanitized language being a good thing all things considered, but on the other hand, it's not a big issue either way.)

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I wonder how long it will be before using the euphemism "the N-word" as a substitute for the N-word becomes as bad as uttering the actual N-word itself.

It is when the apologists start attacking the use of euphemisms and word substitutes that we will know that western civilization has finally jumped the shark...…..

Thankfully the African American community hasn't chosen the path of the "leaders" of the LGBT community.

Queer was traditionally an insult but somebody decided to "take back the word" and now it's part of the language. This idea forever reinforces the notion the LGBT people are odd, unusual, different, and even freakish. Not until the general population and the LGBT community itself acknowledges that —/gender minorities are completely unusual and as unique as white bread will they become completely free of discrimination.

I can't wait til someone decides that — is somehow empowering and decides to also "take back the word". Wouldn't it be interesting to have this conversation 30 years from now and find that — has become part of our language reinforced by "leaders" of the black community themselves.

[JHikka]

Anybody that's listened to American hip hop or rap in the last thirty years will tell you that they've already taken and owned the word, or at least a variant of it, for their own purposes. Here's a video of American (and Canadian Tory Lanez) rappers applauding Rich Brian for taking that word and making a Chinese variant (Chigga):

• Video Link

(As an aside, the funniest thing about this video is 21 Savage calling out Brian's fannypack like six months before they became wildly popular to wear again )

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I can't wait til someone decides that — is somehow empowering and decides to also "take back the word". Wouldn't it be interesting to have this conversation 30 years from now and find that — has become part of our language reinforced by "leaders" of the black community themselves.

Do you live on another planet? Do you consume no media other than this forum?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's not a problem because pretty much everyone who's sane agrees that it's not a problem, even black Québécois (at least, all the ones I know, including my Haitian relatives-through-marriage, and many tenants; as well as the completely independent ones that Acajack knows, it seems).

You don't get to tell us how things are in our homeland

True, but you’ve already clearly shown you have a highly-limited sensitivity when it comes to measuring such things.

Your anecdotal experience is interesting but I also wonder if you’ve shown yourself to be the kind of person one would open up to on such matters. I don’t talk about homophobia with douchey str8 guys. They aren’t worth my vulnerability.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Queer was traditionally an insult but somebody decided to "take back the word" and now it's part of the language. This idea forever reinforces the notion the LGBT people are odd, unusual, different, and even freakish. Not until the general population and the LGBT community itself acknowledges that —/gender minorities are completely unusual and as unique as white bread will they become completely free of discrimination.

I think it’s a good term with broad meaning. I use it often.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

True, but you’ve already clearly shown you have a highly-limited sensitivity when it comes to measuring such things.

Compared to you, sure, but in my view, you're the incredibly oversensitive one here. (While *my* level of sensitivity is just right. )

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Thankfully the African American community hasn't chosen the path of the "leaders" of the LGBT community.

Queer was traditionally an insult but somebody decided to "take back the word" and now it's part of the language. This idea forever reinforces the notion the LGBT people are odd, unusual, different, and even freakish. Not until the general population and the LGBT community itself acknowledges that —/gender minorities are completely unusual and as unique as white bread will they become completely free of discrimination.

The words signified by the acronym LGBT were each at some point pejorative, either as schoolyard taunts or within the context of outdated medical narratives that pathologized non-straight/non-cis people. The word queer isn't special in that sense. Furthermore, in 2020, it's pretty rare to hear the word in its original pejorative sense; rather, it's been confined to mostly academic and political spheres firmly in "taken back" territory for the past few decades. And it's not like the word has any special power really—there are a slew of other words in wide use that carry a lot more baggage and remain almost unanimously eschewed by the community.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence (is there a Freudian slip in there?), but it seems to operate from a notion that the primary purpose of the LGBT community and its leaders is to redefine what people outside of the community think about us. While that may be important, especially where discrimination runs rampant, it's not the sole (nor, often, primary) purpose of our communities and the individuals that inhabit them: Celebration, personal liberation and the sharing of experience and knowledge (whether practical, historical, artistic or otherwise) are other important aspects among others.