The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Macron referred to it as an Islamist terrorist attack tied to free speech and almost every English-language piece of coverage I heard about it focused primarily on his tone and how Muslims could be scapegoated.

I just heard on the news that James Cross passed away, and it brings the following question to mind: did Canadian Anglos really actually push for making sure no one called the FLQ "terrorists" because doing so would risk that most separatist Québécois, who are peaceful, could be scapegoated?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

It is really kind of insidious. Think of a phrase like "the US just likes to bomb brown people".

Considering the fairly high level of imperialism displayed during the eight years 2009-2016, I find it funnier to rephrase this as "The Obama Administration really loved to bomb brown people".

[shreddog]

An interesting take on the "self identification" movement many in the progressive community feel is a vital tenet on the path to individual and societal acceptance ...

Indigenous filmmaker wants fines, jail time for 'pretendians' who misrepresent their identity

A Haida filmmaker is pushing for new legislation in Canada to penalize people who pretend to be Indigenous in order to access grants, awards and jobs intended for Indigenous people.
...
Bell's move comes on the heels of Indigenous elders exposing filmmaker Michelle Latimer's unfounded claims that she was Indigenous. Latimer, who recently directed the CBC television series Trickster and the documentary Inconvenient Indian, is in fact primarily French Canadian, Irish and Scottish.
....
"It is reprehensible in all measures, so I think as Indigenous people, we have to draw a line in the sand," Bell said Monday at a news conference in Vancouver...

source

Human nature being what it is, whenever there is some perceived value to belonging to a group (as opposed to a negative connotation) there will be falsehoods. The next question then who will be the "judge and jury" to determine membership to the community? As we saw recently, the Federal gov'ts rules on whether a group was "black enough" to qualify for Black targeted funding went awry even though the criteria was documented.

So should the criteria be defined by the provider of the value (i.e. the govt when they provide the cash) or the targeted community (which may be insular and nepotistic as we have seen with some Band councils in Canada)?

Certainly something to be discussed, I just have no idea what the answer is.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

I just heard on the news that James Cross passed away, and it brings the following question to mind: did Canadian Anglos really actually push for making sure no one called the FLQ "terrorists" because doing so would risk that most separatist Québécois, who are peaceful, could be scapegoated?

Huh?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Indigenous filmmaker wants jail time for 'pretendians' who misrepresent their identity

Elizabeth Warren would have to avoid traveling to Canada from now on

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Huh?

I don't see what anyone could possibly not understand in my post...?

[biguc]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What makes you think this? I'm from the UK, so not quite "Europe", but this smug Canadian exceptionalism, that Canada is the only place that does multiculturalism (a silly term) is bizarre to me. The extent that multiculturalism exists in either country seems the same to me, with the only problems in the countries being where they are multicultural the most (in Canada - French/Anglo/indigenous, in the UK - ghettoes of certain cultural groups and Islamic extremism).

Plenty of minorities in the UK can trace their heritage back decades and count themselves just as much a special kind of weirdo as a white Briton. I've little reason to think this is much different on the continent.

I live in Germany. Turks rebuilt this country and have lived here for generations, but they're still Turks. Germans who are otherwise smart and cosmopolitan will say terrible things about them.

I guess I live in one of those ethnoburbs Anglo media tells us are really scary and hotbeds of terrorism. It's actually pretty nice. The Turks are actually pretty nice too; friendly people. They don't beat me up for looking like a German. They don't — my wife at public pools.

That's just an example. It isn't always negative either--Italians and Portuguese get around and everyone loves them, but they remain Italians and Portuguese. Being German runs deep. You can learn the language, eat their (underrated) food, listen to their (terrible) music, watch their (great) football, but you'll never be one. It's not that they aren't welcoming, or hate multikulti, it's just that their culture is deep and weird. They've all disavowed nationalism, for good reason, but when they start moaning about heimat it's like they've just adopted a new, creepy way to talk about it. Whatever.

It's given me some empathy for immigrants in Canada. I totally get why they live in communities of their own. One of my best friends back in Winnipeg is from Ethiopia, and only since leaving Canada do I realize how incredibly bold he is. His seemingly reticent friends make all the sense.

All of this is to say that any culture is somewhat impermeable for outsiders. In Canada, at least, as an immigrant you can declare yourself Canadian. That would be a weird thing to try here.

Britain, France, and The Netherlands are different because of their colonial empires. I felt like Portugal was too, but I don't know enough about it to say. I don't know about Spain. Not to say that being, say, Dutch seems any more attainable than being German--they use their language like membership in a secret club and don't even care about outsiders learning it. But once you get into central Europe there's a different history of colonialism and less--or at least different--obligations to accept outsiders.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well one way out is to admit a lack of knowledge and decide not to hold strong opinions on a subject. I don't feel like I am in a position to judge how racist Quebec or France are with respect to Middle Easterners or Muslims.

There are some concrete events or scenarios that tend to expose differences of opinion so it's not all airy discussions of philosophy. For example when that teacher in France got decapitated by meat cleaver after showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons in his class (the perpetrator was Chechen and doesn't look darker skinned in the photos than the median French person though I don't really know who qualifies as what race). Macron referred to it as an Islamist terrorist attack tied to free speech and almost every English-language piece of coverage I heard about it focused primarily on his tone and how Muslims could be scapegoated. I get the impression that a lot of North Americans don't believe there is any appropriate way to discuss Islamist terrorism as such, even if we are careful to be clear that the vast majority of Muslims are completely innocent non-terrorists, even in the wake of an extremely brazen and explicit terrorism event.

A related question is whether or not you think the Charlie Hebdo people should be allowed to publish their cartoons. Working on those cartoons and displaying them publicly is a somewhat risky activity. To me there's no question that if we want a modern society with free speech people need to be allowed to poke fun at public figures including religious ones. There will be some jokes made in poor taste that make some people happy but I'm not sure how it's avoidable in an open society.

I only got involved in this threat because someone posted a strong opinion about English Canada. I generally avoid these society threads because I don't care; I'm here for the city stuff. I don't have opinions about how racist French or Quebecois people are, and I hope I haven't given the impression that I do.

That said, this has been a good conversation and I'm enjoying participating.

Someone in another thread, foreign affairs I think, had a tantrum recently about freedom being ruined because they couldn't be an unremitting —. Freedom of speech isn't so different from general freedom in a society; eliminating the freedom of individuals to coerce each other leaves more freedom.

That's all I have to say about what Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to do. What they should actually do though, is not what they do. Freedom and obligation are two different things. Just because you have the right to antagonize people don't mean you have to exercise the right. France has unique troubles in this respect. The issue is one of manners more than rules.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by lio45

I just heard on the news that James Cross passed away, and it brings the following question to mind: did Canadian Anglos really actually push for making sure no one called the FLQ "terrorists" because doing so would risk that most separatist Québécois, who are peaceful, could be scapegoated?

I have never heard of any such whitewashing campaign, and it is hard to imagine something like that even happening, because, well, why?

I remember the FLQ, which was self-evidently a terrorist group, being described as such by my high school teacher in the early 90s... there was no pussyfooting around it. I think people are capable of distinguishing between ordinary separatist sentiment vs. a small extremist faction.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

I have never heard of any such whitewashing campaign, and it is hard to imagine something like that even happening, because, well, why?

I remember the FLQ, which was self-evidently a terrorist group, being described as such by my high school teacher in the early 90s... there was no pussyfooting around it. I think people are capable of distinguishing between ordinary separatist sentiment vs. a small extremist faction.

I think lio was referring to the actual time of events (there'd be no issue calling it terrorism today, I shouldn't think). Without going back to review media reports of the time, who knows?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

That's all I have to say about what Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to do. What they should actually do though, is not what they do. Freedom and obligation are two different things. Just because you have the right to antagonize people don't mean you have to exercise the right. France has unique troubles in this respect. The issue is one of manners more than rules.

France also has a unique approach to manners, I'd argue.

We in Quebec aren't necessarily like them, but we do have a semi-insider's view on what makes them tick.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think lio was referring to the actual time of events (there'd be no issue calling it terrorism today, I shouldn't think). Without going back to review media reports of the time, who knows?

Yeah, that was before my time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

I only got involved in this threat because someone posted a strong opinion about English Canada..
.

Not sure you will find this satisfying but I will kinda bear down on what I said, by invoking cultural relativism, and its contradictions.

There is among "nice Canadians" a trend whereby cultural traits, beliefs and behaviours that would not be accepted of Euro-Canadians, are either pooh-pooh-ed or even applauded as authentic or exotic or worldly. In the name of openness.

Religion falls into this, so while belief in divinities is "not for them", they staunchly defend even the most over-the-top stuff as something that needs to be accepted in the name of diversity.

Sometimes the Evil Acajack's mind conjures up a picture of British colonial dudes in white suits and hats sitting in comfy chairs watching the "natives" wearing barely more than animal skins dance around a big fire with a vat that has god-knows-what cooking in it...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sometimes the Evil Acajack's mind conjures up a picture of British colonial dudes in white suits and hats sitting in comfy chairs watching the "natives" wearing barely more than animal skins dance around a big fire with a vat that has god-knows-what cooking in it...

So that explains it!

The difference to today being I guess, that those white suits would find that behaviour amusing and tolerate it abroad, there's no chance they'd be bringing it back home.

[Ducharme78]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So that explains it!

The difference to today being I guess, that those white suits would find that behaviour amusing and tolerate it abroad, there's no chance they'd be bringing it back home.

Except that today 'abroad: means Brampton or Delta and home is Leslieville and Kitsilano.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Ducharme78

Except that today 'abroad: means Brampton or Delta and home is Leslieville and Kitsilano.

Yeah, fair enough.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So that explains it!

The difference to today being I guess, that those white suits would find that behaviour amusing and tolerate it abroad, there's no chance they'd be bringing it back home.

Brilliant. So disappointed in myself for not thinking of that line to add to my own post.

Case in point: there is a discussion taking place right now in a thread not too far from this one where one of the positions is that maybe our view of human rights "situations" is viewed through a biased, western person's lens, and none of our business.

I actually happen to agree with much of that, at least more than you guys might think.

But I also think that our "lens" (at least inasmuch as it still exists) has proven its worth for us and, yes, should largely predominate most of the time here, and I certainly don't think that views that are diametrically opposed to it should always be given a fair shake or a fighting chance (at implementation) simply in the name of openness to diversity.

Originally Posted by biguc

I live in Germany. Turks rebuilt this country and have lived here for generations, but they're still Turks. Germans who are otherwise smart and cosmopolitan will say terrible things about them.

I guess I live in one of those ethnoburbs Anglo media tells us are really scary and hotbeds of terrorism. It's actually pretty nice. The Turks are actually pretty nice too; friendly people. They don't beat me up for looking like a German. They don't — my wife at public pools.

That's just an example. It isn't always negative either--Italians and Portuguese get around and everyone loves them, but they remain Italians and Portuguese. Being German runs deep. You can learn the language, eat their (underrated) food, listen to their (terrible) music, watch their (great) football, but you'll never be one. It's not that they aren't welcoming, or hate multikulti, it's just that their culture is deep and weird. They've all disavowed nationalism, for good reason, but when they start moaning about heimat it's like they've just adopted a new, creepy way to talk about it. Whatever.

It's given me some empathy for immigrants in Canada. I totally get why they live in communities of their own. One of my best friends back in Winnipeg is from Ethiopia, and only since leaving Canada do I realize how incredibly bold he is. His seemingly reticent friends make all the sense.

All of this is to say that any culture is somewhat impermeable for outsiders. In Canada, at least, as an immigrant you can declare yourself Canadian. That would be a weird thing to try here.

Britain, France, and The Netherlands are different because of their colonial empires. I felt like Portugal was too, but I don't know enough about it to say. I don't know about Spain. Not to say that being, say, Dutch seems any more attainable than being German--they use their language like membership in a secret club and don't even care about outsiders learning it. But once you get into central Europe there's a different history of colonialism and less--or at least different--obligations to accept outsiders.

These are fascinating insights. Thanks for sharing them.

Not to take anything away from it, but since it is what started the discussion, I'd say that Quebec is somewhere in between the new world (of which Anglo-Canada is perhaps the world's prime prototype when it comes to this stuff) and the old world embodied by the European countries you are describing.

My opinion of which one it leans closest to varies from time to time.

I'd also add that France, for all its contemporary diversity-related woes and stirrings, is ironically perhaps the country in Europe which is the furthest along when it comes to a non-ethnic identity. If you look at French history both political and cultural there is a plethora of non-French sounding surnames that shows up far earlier than pretty much anywhere else in Europe. I suppose a case could be made that the UK and England are roughly equivalent to France in this respect at this specific moment, but I still think that deep diversity and the de-ethnicization of the national identity goes back quite a bit further in France.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's given me some empathy for immigrants in Canada. I totally get why they live in communities of their own. One of my best friends back in Winnipeg is from Ethiopia, and only since leaving Canada do I realize how incredibly bold he is. His seemingly reticent friends make all the sense.

All of this is to say that any culture is somewhat impermeable for outsiders. In Canada, at least, as an immigrant you can declare yourself Canadian. That would be a weird thing to try here.

There's an element of declaring oneself as a member of a culture and there's the unspoken complete acceptance of the locals as being a member of that culture.

In Canada's case, I may venture that the accent with which one speaks might be the greatest signifier. If the accent 'fits' and your mannerisms 'fit', you're a local. If it doesn't fit, you're more likely to be perceived as an outsider. The skin colour and features are background noise if you fit.

Which leads to weird situations. From a purely visual view, I 'fit' anywhere in Canada. I get off the plane in Toronto or in Thompson, MB and I'm a local. However, as soon as I open my mouth in Temiscaming, QC, I'm an outsider. Michelle Jean looks like an outsider in backwoods Quebec, but 'fits' there more than I ever will. I go to Phoenix, AZ and I 'fit' better than I do in Temiscaming, despite not being a member of that culture.

Like I said, weird.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

There's an element of declaring oneself as a member of a culture and there's the unspoken complete acceptance of the locals as being a member of that culture.

In Canada's case, I may venture that the accent with which one speaks might be the greatest signifier. If the accent 'fits' and your mannerisms 'fit', you're a local. If it doesn't fit, you're more likely to be perceived as an outsider. The skin colour and features are background noise if you fit.

Which leads to weird situations. From a purely visual view, I 'fit' anywhere in Canada. I get off the plane in Toronto or in Thompson, MB and I'm a local. However, as soon as I open my mouth in Temiscaming, QC, I'm an outsider. Michelle Jean looks like an outsider in backwoods Quebec, but 'fits' there more than I ever will. I go to Phoenix, AZ and I 'fit' better than I do in Temiscaming, despite not being a member of that culture.

Like I said, weird.

I think this is a really good take on things.

Though I'll add that in the era of customs agents at Pearson airport saying "welcome home" to immigrants (I agree it's a nice touch), the idea that a full-patch "Canadian" is simply anyone who happens to live in Canada at the moment (citizenship TBC) has a rapidly increasing amount of agency.

I realize you don't live in a large city and that this mindset is of course more prevalent in the larger cities (to lesser degree in Montreal though) but it is also IMO trickling down into smaller cities and towns in most parts of the country.

In my family I have a relative by marriage who is not a citizen but who has lived in Ontario for 20 years or perhaps more. This person looks European (not that I think it would necessarily matter for this consideration) and speaks fluent but very slightly accented English.

They live in a semi-diverse suburban area and I would guess that if you asked most people in their entourage (most being unaware of citizenship status) if such-and-such was "Canadian", the overwhelming majority would say yes.

There are clearly socio-political reasons for this, though I also don't think it's an insincere thing by any stretch.

[biguc]

I like the Nice Canadian template so much. It dovetails nicely with the points you two are making about accent, when I think about Nice Canadians talking themselves into knots trying to ask immigrants where they're from, without looking like a yokel who thinks everyone non-white is from somewhere else. "I don't want to presume but, I think, maybe, I - not to say that you don't speak perfect English; you do. But do I mayyyybe detect just a hint of an accent?"

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure you will find this satisfying but I will kinda bear down on what I said, by invoking cultural relativism, and its contradictions.

There is among "nice Canadians" a trend whereby cultural traits, beliefs and behaviours that would not be accepted of Euro-Canadians, are either pooh-pooh-ed or even applauded as authentic or exotic or worldly. In the name of openness.

Religion falls into this, so while belief in divinities is "not for them", they staunchly defend even the most over-the-top stuff as something that needs to be accepted in the name of diversity.

Sometimes the Evil Acajack's mind conjures up a picture of British colonial dudes in white suits and hats sitting in comfy chairs watching the "natives" wearing barely more than animal skins dance around a big fire with a vat that has god-knows-what cooking in it...

The image is satisfying enough, in its own way.

Funnily enough, it actually has helped me understand your perspective. I'm going to do another "nice Canadian" thing and tell you that your experience is valid (empiricism is very English; this is where it leads). But I think there's a better analogue than race to fit your observations: —.

Race is too inflexible to be a serious analogue for religion. It clearly can't change or be suppressed; it's solidly on the 'being' side of a behavior-being description of what a person is. It's also clearly visible in a way that religion isn't, which fouls up my intuitions about how comparable they could be, if not yours.

— satisfies all of your conditions, while being flexible and invisible. Most of us accept that —, in its broadest strokes is innate and immutable--only the willfully ignorant and cruel still believe in conversion therapy--but we admit flexibility in how people explore, define, and practise their —.

"Nice Canadians" may not go for those practices themselves. They may not accept many of those practices in cis-hets. But they tolerate or embrace them in the name of openness.

Now think of the homophobe's favourite line: "I respect their right to be gay, but do they have to act so gay?"

The correct response is that they can act however they damn well want. It's no skin off anyone's back (unless they're a consenting adult who's into that kind of thing).

Replace gay with Muslim or Jew and you get a picture of the inverse to the Anglo Canadian cultural consensus. One might ask why someone has to wear a hijab to work at the DMV. Strictly speaking, they don't have to. Not in the way they have to wear their skin colour. But they can wear whatever they damn well want. It's no skin off anyone's back (unless they're practising self-flagellation).

In this light, laws designed to protect a supposedly vulnerable secular state don't look so different from Poland's recent anti-"LGBT ideology" (whatever that's supposed to be) laws, designed to protect their supposedly vulnerable Roman Catholic state.

So, if someone wants to mince around the office in a tutu and a turban... I wouldn't do it myself--I'd probably even pillory a cis-het white person for punching down--but I will sit atop my rattan chair, twirl my moustache, and approve. In the name of openness.