The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Look at the Western world using the terms in play, whatever their real value or coherence.

You have a declining ethnic core of about 12% of the global total. Their countries are enormously, disproportionately wealthy following five centuries of European colonialism and hegemony. They are comparatively sterile, and policy across all of their major power centres is to maintain postwar demographic structures through migration.

Over the horizon, there is the world that once stood as a cache to be mined, harvested and repopulated. There are bitter memories of this. The fortunes that did these things and were made from these things remain in control of an enormous share of global wealth and influence, through various vehicles and in various forms.

What do?

I could think of worse strategies than a radical rhetorical alignment in favour of the second population, using the US civil rights movement (MLK etc.) and the 1960s post-colonial movement (Fanon etc.) as your narrative templates.

It could decrease the restiveness of the once-dispossessed, who are now a mass presence in your capitals. It could put you on the fatter demographic side for the future. If it looks forced or crude or careless, those are benefits. They raise the visibility of what, after all, are only financial/commercial trends. You get it so people pick sides.

It won't hurt anyone important; there were always compassionate fellow-travelers. You can be that. Your institutions can be that. Is it even patronage when some of the beliefs that once excluded whole populations actually were stupid? Well yeah, it is, if the owners don't change. But it's better.

When you write it like this, it sounds like something that people sat in a room and decided, but I don't think these sorts of narratives need that. I think they are emergent properties of systems.

An "anti-woke" Ford Foundation, whatever the philosophical import (meaningless stuff you hire writers for), would be a bad long-term vehicle for capital.

A society is driven by its demographics.

Every business does 'gay friendly' today even if one's sexuality had nothing to do with the business. So, you get rainbow stickers at TD Bank. Aside from the cost of the stickers, there's no real change. TD Bank cleans up from your mortgage interest and everybody feels better. The net expenditure is near zero.

The long-term goal being to Westernize and make good little Westerners out of everyone. Being a good consumer isn't skin colour dependent. So that someone with the surname Nguyen has more in common with someone like the name Martin than someone back in Ho Chi Minh City. At the end of the day, business will dance to the tune of people with money. Being actually racist is pointless. Now being anti-poor, well... that's something else.

[dleung]

As annoying and out-of-touch as diversity training is, after all the damage that right-wing/nationalist populism has done, I'll take this kind of PC over the other kind a-la "you're unpatriotic you question our police/troops!", "Kaepernick is disrespecting the FLAG!", "universal healthcare is SOCIALIST", etc.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by dleung

As annoying and out-of-touch as diversity training is, after all the damage that right-wing/nationalist populism has done, I'll take this kind of PC over the other kind a-la "you're unpatriotic you question our police/troops!", "Kaepernick is disrespecting the FLAG!", "universal healthcare is SOCIALIST", etc.

It doesn't seem like we had this to the same degree in Canada though. We have universal healthcare.

[dleung]

We have Trump flags in anti-lockdown protests in Toronto. The madness is contagious

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dleung

As annoying and out-of-touch as diversity training is, after all the damage that right-wing/nationalist populism has done, I'll take this kind of PC over the other kind a-la "you're unpatriotic you question our police/troops!", "Kaepernick is disrespecting the FLAG!", "universal healthcare is SOCIALIST", etc.

I don't agree with any of these statements, so I guess I am good now!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Look at the Western world using the terms in play, whatever their real value or coherence.

You have a declining ethnic core of about 12% of the global total. Their countries are enormously, disproportionately wealthy following five centuries of European colonialism and hegemony. They are comparatively sterile, they are old, and policy across all of their major power centres is to maintain postwar demographic structures through migration.

Over the horizon, there is the world that once stood as a cache to be mined, harvested and repopulated. There are bitter memories of this. The fortunes that did these things and were made from these things remain in control of an enormous share of global wealth and influence, through various vehicles and in various forms.

What do?

I could think of worse strategies than a radical rhetorical alignment in favour of the second population, using the US civil rights movement (MLK etc.) and the 1960s post-colonial movement (Fanon etc.) as your narrative templates.

It could decrease the restiveness of the once-dispossessed, who are now a mass presence in your capitals. It could put you on the fatter demographic side for the future. If it looks forced or crude or careless, those are benefits. They raise the visibility of what, after all, are only financial/commercial trends. You get it so people pick sides.

It won't hurt anyone important; there were always compassionate fellow-travelers. You can be that. Your institutions can be that. Is it even patronage when some of the beliefs that once excluded whole populations actually were stupid? Well yeah, it is, if the owners don't change. But it's better.

When you write it like this, it sounds like something that people sat in a room and decided, but I don't think these sorts of narratives need that. I think they are emergent properties of systems.





An "anti-woke" Ford Foundation, whatever the philosophical import (meaningless stuff you hire writers for), would be a bad long-term vehicle for capital.

While not entirely lacking in sincerity, the entire thing is still more of a strategic defence policy than born out of a sincere concern.

That's why it's so vulnerable to shifts in who the little guys to be defended are.

Jews are a classic example of a people clearly moving from David to Goliath (pardon the Old Testament imagery) status in the collective mind.

[kool maudit]

The top-down part has to be that way because capital is not a moral actor.

(Obviously the grassroots level is composed of moral actors moving in the direction of what they see as justice, but like I said, mass movements don't come from this level alone.)

You see the conditions, decide your tack, and hire a Kipling or a Kendi, as the case may be.

[Acajack]

As such, it's unlikely to lead to much tangible progress. At least, not this current (perhaps ultimate) iteration of it. The stakes seem way to high to me and the gambit too risky.

Its sincere allies are being set up to get let down.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While not entirely lacking in sincerity, the entire thing is still more of a strategic defence policy than born out of a sincere concern.

That's why it's so vulnerable to shifts in who the little guys to be defended are.

Jews are a classic example of a people clearly moving from David to Goliath (pardon the Old Testament imagery) status in the collective mind.

The politics of Israel and the relative numbers of Arabs play into that.

Sometimes one has to bet on a direction when choosing sides, should they have to choose sides.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

The politics of Israel and the relative numbers of Arabs play into that.

Sometimes one has to bet on a direction when choosing sides, should they have to choose sides.

Israel's been "being Israel" for a long time. My entire lifetime of 50 years.

Not much has changed on that front.

What has changed, as you say, is the demographics especially in western countries.

The West has had decent-sized Arab-origins populations for over a century in some cases, but for the longest time they were very predominantly Christian. These people tend to be less hostile to Israel and in some cases even side with Israel against its (majority Muslim) Arab neighbours.

But now the Arab-Canadian, Arab-American, British-Arab, French-Arab, etc. demographics are shifting quickly and dramatically towards Muslims.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Over the horizon, there is the world that once stood as a cache to be mined, harvested and repopulated. There are bitter memories of this. The fortunes that did these things and were made from these things remain in control of an enormous share of global wealth and influence, through various vehicles and in various forms.

What do?

I could think of worse strategies than a radical rhetorical alignment in favour of the second population, using the US civil rights movement (MLK etc.) and the 1960s post-colonial movement (Fanon etc.) as your narrative templates.

It could decrease the restiveness of the once-dispossessed, who are now a mass presence in your capitals.

But payback doesn't work. Trying to define who gets paid and who has to pay, and the practicalities of carrying that out, entails crazy contradictions that trample all over the liberal humanist principles and traditions that the West has painstakingly spent centuries developing that have resulted in the societies we have now where such an idea even exists.

Yeah, imperfectly. Slave-owners yearning to be free in the 18th century stands out. But then, so does the fact that no societies outside of the West had the principles that logically and eventually compelled them to free their slaves.

If there's one aphorism that really does stand up to scrutiny, it is "no good deed goes unpunished." Are the so-called "once-dispossessed" really going to be sated by wealth transfers, preferential treatment and the self-debasing genuflection of white males? It's not looking that way.

Also, I don't agree with the binary characterization of colonialism as solely wealth-mining for the Europeans at the utter expense of the colonized in a 1:1 ratio, as if the places that were colonized would have been world powers as well if not for the rapaciousness of Britain, Spain etc., therefore Europe needs to pay back in kind for what was gained. That's nonsense.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

But payback doesn't work. Trying to define who gets paid and who has to pay, and the practicalities of carrying that out, entails crazy contradictions that trample all over the liberal humanist principles and traditions that the West has painstakingly spent centuries developing that have resulted in the societies we have now where such an idea even exists.

I certainly agree there was a lot of exploitation in the past, and there is some still today, but I think a lot of people have a warped sense of how much of modern wealth was produced through this exploitation.

Adam Smith was writing about the somewhat bad payoff of slavery back in the 1700's (the labourer's basic needs and reproduction must be supported whether he or she is a slave or free, people tend to look after themselves better than slave owners, and higher compensation tends to promote harder work). Most of the gains have not been from slavery or resource extraction but from technological development and social advances. And these gains have been widely shared around the world.

For the past few decades there's been broad flourishing around the world and the poorest areas have seen the fastest relative gains. I expect that will continue for a long time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

If there's one aphorism that really does stand up to scrutiny, it is "no good deed goes unpunished." Are the so-called "once-dispossessed" really going to be sated by wealth transfers, preferential treatment and the self-debasing genuflection of white males? It's not looking that way.
.

Perhaps best embodied by: "We don't want Biden, we want revenge!"

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by someone123

I certainly agree there was a lot of exploitation in the past, and there is some still today, but I think a lot of people have a warped sense of how much of modern wealth was produced through this exploitation.

Adam Smith was writing about the somewhat bad payoff of slavery back in the 1700's (the labourer's basic needs and reproduction must be supported whether he or she is a slave or free, people tend to look after themselves better than slave owners, and higher compensation tends to promote harder work). Most of the gains have not been from slavery or resource extraction but from technological development and social advances. And these gains have been widely shared around the world.

For the past few decades there's been broad flourishing around the world and the poorest areas have seen the fastest relative gains. I expect that will continue for a long time.

Well said. In our current era we seem to have lost hold of the principle of proportionality.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Also, I don't agree with the binary characterization of colonialism as solely wealth-mining for the Europeans at the utter expense of the colonized in a 1:1 ratio, as if the places that were colonized would have been world powers as well if not for the rapaciousness of Britain, Spain etc., therefore Europe needs to pay back in kind for what was gained. That's nonsense.

It's a narrative for capital. It could be otherwise, but this one suits certain forecasts. Is it true? I don't know, was "the civilising mission" true? It was capable of serving its purpose in the context of its times. It now seems crude, cynical and even monstrous, of course, and that's why it has been retired. New era, new message, new scribes. Same pile of gold.

[whatnext]

This totally belongs here. I'd seen "Trickster" a couple times, it didn't really lure me in but it offered a refreshingly contemporary look at First Nations life in rural BC with a supernatural angle. It's based on books by Eden Robinson, an author who's a member of the Haisla and Heiltsuk First Nations.

But co-creator of the show, Michelle Latimer, claimed Indigenous heritage of a particular band without the paperwork to back it up. Geneologists have confirmed she does have two Indigenous ancestors but not necessarily of the specific band. She left the show in disgrace but that wasn't good enough for somebody, as CBC has now cancelled the second season of the show. So a bunch of talented Indigenous actors are all out of work. Thanks cancel culture.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...lled-1.5893752

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This totally belongs here. I'd seen "Trickster" a couple times, it didn't really lure me in but it offered a refreshingly contemporary look at First Nations life in rural BC with a supernatural angle. It's based on books by Eden Robinson, an author who's a member of the Haisla and Heiltsuk First Nations.

But co-creator of the show, Michelle Latimer, claimed Indigenous heritage of a particular band without the paperwork to back it up. Geneologists have confirmed she does have two Indigenous ancestors but not necessarily of the specific band. She left the show in disgrace but that wasn't good enough for somebody, as CBC has now cancelled the second season of the show. So a bunch of talented Indigenous actors are all out of work. Thanks cancel culture.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainmen...lled-1.5893752

She just announced she was fighting back against the allegations she is a fake.

[esquire]

It's funny that the show and its content are totally beside the point in this controversy... people who liked it before are now happy to denounce it. It all hinges on the producer's bloodlines. But such are the times we live in.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

It's funny that the show and its content are totally beside the point in this controversy... people who liked it before are now happy to denounce it. It all hinges on the producer's bloodlines. But such are the times we live in.

I don't get this, I've never watched the show, but was she the writer as well? Or was there a whole crew of indigenous support staff involved in the creativity side of the house? If it was a good show, it should survive the replacement of the director, right?

[Acajack]

Not to mention that the cancellation of Trickster likely puts more than a few Indigenous people working in the TV industry out of a job all of a sudden.