The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And remote, virtual psychological assessments are always less interesting than fact-based arguments.

Human nature is not that opaque. If anyone thinks they’re hiding who they are with the things they say or the opinions they hold, they’re only fooling themselves. Over and above that, what you refer to as “fact” is usually just opinion in these discussions.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

I grew up speaking English and French (1 parent who started out with English and 1 who started out with French) and it's common to hear from non-native speakers who think they or somebody else sounds like a native speaker when they don't. I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that unilingual folks (including people who dabble in a second language; this group is probably the worst) underestimate the impracticality of trying to pass as a native speaker to other native speakers when you aren't one.

Not to comment on other elements of the debate, but this point can’t be stressed enough. On paper French is my first language, but even then I haven’t used it frequently to a point where it’s very clear to French speakers I’m more comfortable with English.

[Acajack]

This can't be anything but a mistake.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal...from-the-black-community-initiative.html

[rousseau]

The government deemed organizations to be sufficiently “Black-led” if at least two-thirds of their board members and senior leadership identify as Black, the official said.

I identify as black, and so do my business partners Stanislaus Smirnov and Abdul Farsi. That's three out of three. Where do we sign up?

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I identify as black, and so do my business partners Stanislaus Smirnov and Abdul Farsi. That's three out of three. Where do we sign up?

This is such a farce. Idpol in general, really.

[lio45]

Obviously we can't rely solely on self-identification to decide whether or not to give free money to people!

The Feds are clearly going to need a system that's less trivially easy to abuse than that. Probably something like this:

(Because it's 2021!)

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I identify as black, and so do my business partners Stanislaus Smirnov and Abdul Farsi. That's three out of three. Where do we sign up?

Not only do I personally identify as being black, I have decided that I am transgender and plan on using "it, they" as my personal pronouns. How many federal programs can I sign up for now????

[lio45]

I wish I could identify as aboriginal as easily as I identify as black, I'd have a lucrative quota-exempt large-scale lobster fishing business by now!

[Acajack]

Strange days indeed.

[Acajack]

Saw this on Twitter recently (there are two images).

https://twitter.com/jrobertnelson/status/1350956410142666756/photo/2

https://twitter.com/jrobertnelson/status/1350956410142666756/photo/1

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

I wish I could identify as aboriginal as easily as I identify as black, I'd have a lucrative quota-exempt large-scale lobster fishing business by now!

But if it were easy all of the locals would have identified in the appropriate way before you even heard about it. And the fishery would either be reined in or would collapse. It is only lucrative to a select few because of the limitations (which may include limitations on who within the group can participate; I don't remember details of how it's policed internally).

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Saw this on Twitter recently (there are two images).

https://twitter.com/jrobertnelson/status/1350956410142666756/photo/2

https://twitter.com/jrobertnelson/status/1350956410142666756/photo/1

Interesting tables. Counterintuitive results to many, I would guess...

[begratto]

An interesting take on the ROC and Quebec's different attitudes towards religion (link to the Tweet):

[Acajack]

I wouldn't pretend for a minute that there isn't racism based on skin colour in Quebec, but compared to the rest of Canada and the U.S. there is way less of a focus on that, and way more on language and also "values" which is what Bill 21 is actually about TBQH.

ROCers look at something like Bill 21 and ask "OK, what is the predominant skin colour of either side in the debate?" and base a lot of their judgements and positions on that.

It kinda misses the broader point(s).

Both IRL and online, I've had Anglo-Quebecers with so-so French and minimal cultural contacts with the broader Quebec complain that they don't feel included (even if their family's been here for 200 years) whereas foreign-born people who speak French and are from far-off places like Africa or Vietnam sometimes become instant Québécois media darlings.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by begratto

An interesting take on the ROC and Quebec's different attitudes towards religion (link to the Tweet):

Bad takes.

France is the exception in Western Europe. There's nothing more than a broad, mushy consensus between European states, western or otherwise, about how they should or do treat religion. France's strident secularism stands out as the kind of blind-spot assholery characteristic of quibbling racists who think they've uniquely noticed that Islam isn't a race. "We're not oppressing Muslims, we oppress all religion" doesn't read that different from "I'm not racist, I hate all people".

Anglo Canada does take freedom of religion more seriously than most European countries (I think most Canadians would be stunned at just how cozy church and state get in Europe). The thing is, freedom entails choice. Revoking the right to practise being black is prima facie silly, if not absurd. Practising your religion, on the other hand, is a choice and therefore a meaningful freedom.

Anyway, tangling race up in the matter only happens because a lot of bozos can't tell the difference between brown people and Muslims.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by biguc

Anyway, tangling race up in the matter only happens because a lot of bozos can't tell the difference between brown people and Muslims.

I think it is a bit more subtle than that. Racism is one of the most serious social charges in Anglosphere countries in 2020, while religion has taken a back seat. It's natural for racism as an issue or concern, therefore, to creep out into these other areas. If you accuse your opponent of religious chauvinism that's an obscure debate over beliefs. If you accuse them of racism you can tar them as a Deplorable.

There are a lot of people who are on the hunt for subliminal racist messages. It is easy to read racism into complaints about Islam, rightly or wrongly, due to mere correlations of race. The anti-racist "spidey sense" tends to misfire a lot when considering foreign cultures. I think it was fairly accurate to charge say early 2000's George Bush supporting Christian fundamentalists with a kind of ethno-cultural chauvinism that bordered on racism (many would have been OK with Christians of any race, many would not), but that concept does not apply to France as clearly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by begratto

Interesting tables. Counterintuitive results to many, I would guess...

Counterintuitive based on the received wisdom in Canada but not counterintuitive if you've been following polls during the past 20 years (or 50 years?)!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it is a bit more subtle than that. Racism is one of the most serious social charges in Anglosphere countries in 2020, while religion has taken a back seat. It's natural for racism as an issue or concern, therefore, to creep out into these other areas.

There are a lot of people who are on the hunt for subliminal racist messages. It is easy to read racism into complaints about Islam, rightly or wrongly, due to mere correlations of race. The anti-racist "spidey sense" tends to misfire a lot when considering foreign cultures. I think it was fairly accurate to charge say early 2000's George Bush supporting Christian fundamentalists with a kind of ethno-cultural chauvinism that bordered on racism (many would have been OK with Christians of any race, many would not), but that concept does not apply to France as clearly.

In an earlier version of this you talked about there is little overlap between the somewhat aggressive (at least by Anglo-Canadian standards) secularism of France and Quebec, and the Evangelicals in the U.S.

Most people don't see the nuance and as such there is an entire constituency that now thinks that Bill 21 is somehow a sinister plan to suppress non-Christian religions and Make Québec Catholic (Christian) Again.

When in actual fact if there is any risk at all of religion becoming more of a socio-political force again in Quebec it actually comes from the opponents of Bill 21, whose fight if it succeeds will lead to more visible (and arguably influential) religion in our society. It's not impossible and even likely than long-sleeping giant of Christianity could eventually get a boost from all of that as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Counterintuitive based on the received wisdom in Canada but not counterintuitive if you've been following polls during the past 20 years (or 50 years?)!

And also to any observant person who has spent any reasonable amount of time in Quebec and has noticed that people pretty much get along here exactly the same as they do in the rest of the country. With ups and downs of course, but mostly ups in everyday life.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by biguc

"We're not oppressing Muslims, we oppress all religion" doesn't read that different from "I'm not racist, I hate all people".

France doesn't "oppress Muslims", they're preventing public institutions from the influence of *all* religions.

And note that this is far from new, it's been a government policy since 1905, when the only religion in France was catholicism.