Jump to content

Thank you, Immigration Canada!


Guest JakeYYZ

Recommended Posts

Well put Kip!

It appears that waht Jake is attempting to say is that certain people are responsible for a large portion of crime. Mitch, you even bolstered his case by writing that poverty is one of the prime factors in WHO commits crime. Poverty begets crime.

In Toronto if you break down thw WHO is poor you find that a much higher percentage of poor people are also visable minorities. The probelm is POVERTY!! IF the majority of poor people are also visable minorities then it stands to reason that more crime is perpetrated by those minorities. It is not they they are black, brown, green or white but that they are poor.

Then you get into issues of cyclical poverty etc etc etc

Jake also crosses into cultural issues. I think he is right when he says that some cultures will have different values regarding morals etc. That is why we clasify different cultures!

What irks me most is that you can't talk about another culture if 'you have nothing good to say'. The rest of the world/cultures can speak of "fat Westerners" or any number of other terms but if you speak, even slightly, of something you may not like in another culture you are deemed racist! This is especially true of the white male who, in my opinion, can't have an opinion now adays without someone being insulted.

The other issue that I think is inter-twined with this immigration issue is the fact that we have pockets of different cultures in our country and they can be large. I think most people are very tolerant of other cultures--which is why tourism is so popular. But it is not uncommon in Ontario (and other parts of the country as well I am sure) to see large populations of immigrants--Asian, Indian etc. confined to small areas.

Immigrants have always brought their culture, beliefs and customs with them and so, if you lie in an area that has become home to many of these immigrants you may well feel overwhelmed. I have a friend who moved from Brampton because his entire neighborhood was Sikh. Now he is not racist but found when EVERYONE was Sikh that he had little in common with them and that they, in general, had little interest in him.

In the early 90's an uproar occured in Markham, Ontario when a resident got upset about the bank machines language being Chinese first and having to choose if he wanted to proceed in English. If I remember correvtly the Maor was involved and may have resigned. Anyway, again a large population of immigrants in one area.

This is not new either. In the 50's and 60's these same issues came up with the "damn Italians", the "bloody Irish" or the "blockhead Germans". My Dad has countless stories of the fights he was involved in soley because he came from somewhere else.

Anyway, the point is, as Kip mentioned, you should be able to discuss these types of issues without being labled racist. Maybe Jake is or maybe he didn't articulate his thoughts so that others could understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest JakeYYZ

VOTE Kip...vote the vertebrate party ticket!

Only a blind person would not register a person's race as a general observation.

Profiling on the basis of race is instinctive and utilitarian — just like age, gender, height and sexual orientation.

Academic research, market research and the insurance industry have used profiling for some time. They routinely generalize without criticism. Drivers under age 25 cost the insurance companies the most, so they pay the most in auto liability premiums, even thought there are a lot of excellent drivers in that group. When you don't have the resources to fully check out all the "players," you have to go with the statistics. I think that’s reasonable. But, I’m sure a lot of under 25 year olds would disagree.

Now we have a statistic that says; “Blacks accounted for 27.1 per cent of violent charges laid by Toronto police while representing only 8.1 per cent of the city's population.”

(http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035775425705&call_pageid=1034935301156&col=1034935301113)

And according to what is politically correct, no general observation should follow?

I think You stretch the term "racism" to cover what is, in reality, Common_Sense...

You would also have us think that the inability of recent immigrants to prosper for instance is our fault and has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that, over the last 30 years, a much smaller percentage of newcomers hail from Commonwealth countries, have a familiarity with Anglo-American systems of government and are able to speak English. Nope, you’re right, it's our fault.

I feel better now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

Where do you suggest the blacks in Canada come from?

Most of the Canadians "blacks" (as you call them) come from countries in the West Indies that are or were former Commonwealth countries, with a British educational system, an Anglo-Saxon parliamentary system, and English speaking.

Do most of us here a favour and keep your ignorance away. After all, it's an airline forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we were speaking of immigration

recruitment from Cameroon and Tunisia….but, never mind.

Ahhh... So when you said "BLACKS have a propensity for violent crime 10 times that of their white counterpart" You really meant people from Cameroon and Tunisia? Is that right?

...and when you said: "They (blacks) cannot even keep it together in their third world countries without raping and hacking each other up with machete's, now what the ferck makes you think when we transpose them to a semi-civilized country they will leave their jungle antics behind?"

You really meant to put "People from Cameroon and Tunesia" in those parentheses? Is that right?

..I'm still having some difficulty figuring out what it is you meant though when you said: "If the leaders of these several ethnic "evil doer" cultures with a propensity for violence quit talking about how WHITEY keeps putting their ilk down [...]"

My objections to your comments have nothing to do with what's "politically correct" Jake. They have to do simply with what's really correct. I have no concern what-so-ever for the PC versions of reality. But I can't stand idly by and watch while someone trashes others simply because of the colour of their skin.

As I tried to say earlier... if you want to describe behavioural differences in one particular culture over another, to me, that's pefectly reasonable... people from different cultures do behave somewhat differently in many instances. But to say that behavioural differences exist based on skin colour alone is completely ridiculous! ...and that's where your comments became "racist", in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank heavens for people like you, Mitch. You know bad when you see it and you won't back down from criticizing it.

It's an embarrassment to read people apologize for a racist being taken to task for his views. It's an embarrassment to watch people equate backbone with defending racist views. And it's an embarrassment to read people defend racist comment with pseudo-scientific data, poorly chosen statistics, irrational comparisons, innuendo... just pitiful. It makes you further embarrassed to think that you belong to the same species of animal, let alone the same race.

JakeYYZ said: "They (blacks) cannot even keep it together in their third world countries without raping and hacking each other up with machete's, now what the ferck makes you think when we transpose them to a semi-civilized country they will leave their jungle antics behind?"

and,

"Wake up, BLACKS have a propensity for violent crime 10 times that of their white counterpart---so where the ferck is the prejudice in stating the facts?"

These are racist comments. They're not the TRUTH about the black race, or about any other race on the planet. They're, in the first instance, a vicious generalization about a race taken from a highly volatile and underdeveloped part of the world, which then condemns every black person on the planet for the same crime. That statement says, that it doesn't matter where a black person lives or who he is, he is a rapist and a genocidal maniac whose preferred method of slaughter is the machete.

It's the ugliest form of generalization there is.

According to credible reports I've read, black on black violence in Africa recently reached genocidal proportions, and is still a terrible problem. According to other credible reports I've read, white on white violence in Bosnia/Serbia recently reached genocidal proportions also. According to well-verified accounts, whites have perpetrated the worst genocidal acts in history. But while we're at it, let's not forget the genocide perpetrated by Asians in Cambodia during the 70's and 80's, the Japanese in the Second World War, the genocide waged on the Armenians by the Turks, etc, etc, etc.

The second instance makes a claim based on, according to JakeYYZ, something Juan Fantino said, with no attribution or corroboration or independent verification whatsoever. Juan Fantino, by the way, is the Toronto Chief of Police who presided over unprecedented levels of corruption in his own police force. Perhaps someone would like to cite Mr. Fantino's credentials as a sociologist? Or his background in anthropology? Or perhaps his wide experience in other societies, cultures, and countries? In short, would someone like to verify that Juan Fantino actually said the things JakeYYZ attributed to him, and that even if he did, he's the kind of man that you'd like to take your advice from?

Every racist the world over, and throughout time, has employed the same methods as JakeYYZ. Find a social problem... somewhere, anywhere... identified with a particular race, and then condemn the entire race worldwide as being identified with that problem. And, at the same time, completely ignore examples of the same problem in your own race.

Every racist the world over, and throughout time, finds a quote somewhere by someone, anyone, who's comments reinforce their own prejudice, and then trot them out as somehow being a sound view on racial issues.

JakeYYZ's comments were racist. End of story. He can't rationalize it away, and neither can anyone else. Is JakeYYZ the flaming, bigoted, racist that he sounds like in his posts? I don't know; maybe he just likes to get people worked up and revel in the attention. Maybe he doesn't actually believe the tripe he's posted. But it doesn't make any difference. His comments deserve condemnation because they're intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible; and because, in contravention of the law of the land, they tend to promote hatred against an identifiable group of people.

People, if you can rationalize JakeYYZ's comments as sound, valid comment about black humanity, you will get not one iota of respect from me.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neo:

I've been trying to come up with something similar for days now, but I just couldn't put it into words. Thank you for your very eloquent post. Personally, I think JakeYYZ needs help, maybe even alot of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Neo.

I was trying to avoid adding to this thread because each time I started a reply I became angry at the bigotry and ignorance in some of the posts above and felt that my words were too filled with exasperated invective to be a reasonable contribution. I am probably just too tired to form a cohesive commentary, so I kept deleting.

Your elegant and considered response is most welcome and I appreciate that you took the time to write it.

ccairspace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Neo said; "Why import some skank from Bullemia...."

On behalf of all Bullemics of the world, I object to the clearly rascist assertion that we are 'skanks'.

The "problem" is that many object to the intrusion of "alien" values, cultures and norms. Canada accepts (even invites) immigration from countries of peoples that insist upon carrying with them behaviour which is normative FOR THEM but which is antithetical to our culture.

For example; in some countries, the payment of insurance premiums is seen as an acquisition of right and ensures that many insureds will endeavour to recover the money paid. For most Canadians, this conduct is recognized as criminal AND it results in an increase in premiums for "law-abiding" policy holders. That conflict generates resentment.

If one lived in Toronto 25 years ago, they remember that one could walk the streets at any hour without fear; they "remember" cleanliness and "liveability" ---it was a City of which one could be justly proud. Today? Well ----it just ain't the same and one seeks an explanation for the change. Maybe it can't be blamed upon immigration policies; maybe it is simply socio-economic variables BUT, one should be able to at least appreciate the level and extent of frustration.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that there are racial characteristics that may lend themselves to assimilation into some cultures and that result in conflict with others. One should be able to discuss that fact without being assailed by accusations of racism.

However, that being said ---there is no question ---the syllogism doesn't work ---since some whites have guns and guns are dangerous; all whites should be avoided. Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UpperDeck,

You're clearly an individual who understands words, their meaning and context. Hence, why are you writing as if you can't discern the difference between a comment about an individual, and a comment which attributes all members of a group with a certain characteristic?

The words of mine you quoted were both nonsensical and made in obvious jest, but assuming they weren't, would stating that we should never import Eastern Buleemian skanks be a racist remark? No, it would not. Just as it wouldn't be a racist remark to say we shouldn't allow black pornographers, or Asian mobsters, or Caucasian war criminals to emigrate to Canada. But to state that "all Buleemians are skanks" or that "blacks are pornographers"; or to state that "Asians are mobsters" or that "Caucasians are war criminals" is: 1) intellectually stupid and morally reprehensible, and 2) contrary to the law of Canada, which prohibits speech or communication which tends to promote hatred against a recognizable group.

Now, there's some people who think that a law like that is some kind of mushy, PC crap. Sometimes they're the same people who scream, whine, grovel and whimper to every media outlet in the country the moment that the slightest thing happens to disenfranchise some miniscule element of their sense of entitlement. And sometimes, they're the very people who are only too willing to ride roughshod over the rights and sensibilities of others... not because those "others" have ever done anything to them, but because a poverty of spirit, along with a serious shortage of decency and morals, compels them to attack others in fear of losing what they perceive to be 'theirs'.

So, UpperDeck, get some spine to go along with your obvious intelligence. Call a spade a spade. Don't make apologies for reprehensible crap in an effort to appear balanced and wise.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neo, bravo on both posts. Nailed it, IMO. Good work too, Mitch, for saying something while many of us sucked for air.

Kip, I know what you're getting at, that sometimes well-intentioned ideas are pressed to the point of negative return, but as to that being the case here? I wonder if we could send a portfolio of the Jake's postings on this thread to that chap who was attempting to gain more useful knowledge for the Toronto Police, and ask him if he thinks Jake would make a good fellow traveler in the fight against over-zealous PC'ness?

The response might be illuminating. That's speculation of course, but like pornography, altho' racism may be hard to define, but most of us know it when we see it. Do you really assert that those posts were about well-intentioned research?

Regards, IFG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One small quibble, neo, which I forgot before, is that Julian (not Juan) Fantino is the Chief cop in YYZ. Among Jake's excrable contributions:

Wake up, BLACKS have a propensity for violent crime 10 times that of their white counterpart---so where the ferck is the prejudice in stating the facts? Mitch, did know that blacks make up 15% of the Toronto population but are responsible for 70% of the violent crime in the city. The Fantino guy is out (well, one of the reasons) for making that statement. -  Accused him of supporting racial profiling. I’m not going to spoon feed you…google it yourself

He'll have to provide the link to "that statement". The statistic posted later (8% vs. 27%) was compiled by the Toronto Star (so it must be true tongue.gif). Fantino has fallen all over himself denying that such statistics are even compiled by TPS:

One of his mouthpieces on the issue published this, skewering the Star's methodology:

As for the conventional wisdom that PC'ness opposes keeping the statisitics, not necessarily so, but there's certainly plenty of concern about how those stats might be used, and the motivations driving some of the advocates:

Cheers, IFG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of you to say so, IFG, and thanks for weighing in on an important forum issue.

My last post does deserve some self-criticism, though, by way of an important clarification. It's not racist to say, "Keep Buleemian skanks, etc, etc out of the country..." as long as it's clear that what you're saying is, we don't want skanks, mobsters or war criminals of any ethnic or racial background. In other words ethnicity and race, which are intrinsic properties of all humans, should be irrelevant in determining social policy and in informing one's view of the world. But that doesn't mean that you can't be discriminating about other people's choices in life.

There's one more point which cannot be permitted to go unspoken. The comments defaming a particular racial group were stupid and represhensible no doubt. But to then describe that same group as genocidal is the vilest of hypocrisy. You see, it's in precisely words of the former sort that incite genocide in the first place. Some member of one ethnic or racial group, almost always the majority, stands up and points out how members of some minority group are the source of society's problems; how they're somehow subhuman, unworthy of inclusion in society. Once voices like that take hold, it's but the shortest of steps before the killing starts. That sounds overly dramatic? Then simply ask yourself, how did it get started in Rwanda? Bosnia? Germany?

Some Canadians seem ready to roll their eyes over our laws against hate, perhaps viewing them as excessively politically correct. I suggest that if you carefully regard the consequences of ignoring this issue, you'll come to another conclusion. Consider: it's well known that it's unlawful to incite panic in people such that harm can come to them; for instance, irresponsibly shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Everyone knows, or should know, that humans won't orderly get in line and calmly walk out of the place. They'll panic and in the ensuing mess, people can get hurt or even killed.

Well, Canada's laws against spreading hate are about precisely the same thing. Some people are only too willing to say the most dangerous and hurtful of things, as long as it's someone else who will be the victim. They think nothing of the damage that can ensue from inciting people to irrational behavior, once again, as long as they're not the ones who fall victim to the fear and anger. Those who choose to behave in that way first deserve the disapproval of all decent people, and second, deserve society's legal sanction. Canada's law against spreading hate may not be perfect, but believe me, it's heart is in the right place.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew! What a difference a day makes!

I was tongue tied there for a while... could only spit out semi-coherent thoughts, and knew that somehow, that was killing me here... Yet I knew what I was reading was so damned wrong! Thanks neo, for picking up the ball I dropped... and I'm sorry I dropped it. Sometimes I just haven't got the right words, or the right mind to say the right things. It's incredibly frustrating when that happens when it most counts!

Somehow, from my perspective, the world seems to be spinning just a little more smoothly today. Thank you.

I'm too often surprised by racism. It comes out in the most unexpected ways and places sometimes. A neighbor casually mentions a conversation with her girlfriend the cop about how blacks have wrecked everything... expecting me to agree. A coworker drops "the 'N' word" while lamenting the lack of pretty groomers... expecting me to agree. A gas jockey drops the N word while apologizing for my wait, expecting me to laugh... They're surprised when I don't!

I had to sit through some "familiarization" on South African A300's once, with a man who wanted to spend most of his time telling us why blacks "caunt even be t'lusted to klean the bluddy airc'lauft!". He threw his chalk at me when I challenged his nonsense... I didn't have the balls to get up and walk out then, but I did tell him I wasn't there to listen to his BS explanations for Aparthied... and he cut his lecture short.

It's one of the kinds of issues where a failure to verbalize your disagreement can create an illusion of agreement and prolong the problem. People of that mind have to damn well hear that we don't agree! Their children, and the children of all sorts of minorities are waiting to hear from us... our actions, at times like that, are a part of what shapes the world, and I sure as hell don't want my small contributions to that end being negative ones!

You're wrong Jake, and I hope you'll see exactly how wrong, and why, before your words are able to affect anyone's children.

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

Mitch, I def. agree with your hatred of racism. My point of view is and will remain this:

"there are members of every race, religion, color, sexual orientation & nationality that bring the bar down for all of us but their behavior is not because of their race, religion, color or nationality, it is because of what they, as an individual, are!!!!

My favorite phrase is: "I reserve the right to dislike anyone despite their race, religion, color, sexual orientation or nationality and also reserve the right to judge them as an individual."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigotry and ignorance in my view are a far cry from racism. I have reviewed most of the above posts and conclude that we are talking here about prejudice… not racism. This is more than a subtle play on words to appease those offended by previous comments. Prejudice tends to be a bias based on ones experience, or in the absence of experience, stereotypical behavior patterns … intellectually, the author knows that what he is stating does not apply to the entire race. Racism is a whole different animal and the word itself is easily one of the most overused in polite Canadian society. Hate legislation tends to address racism… prejudice is usually protected by free speech; in my view, this must extend to subjects most people find offensive to be of value to all. Having seen more of this than I care to, the line (in my mind) is pretty clear.

I think holocaust survivors are eminently qualified to talk about racism. On a similar note Peace Keepers who have served in Bosnia and Rwanda have first hand experience. Their stories and perspectives are worth listening to if you’re not above shedding a tear for the victims.

Identifying ethnic groups with a statistical propensity for violent crime that exceeds their relative population levels is entirely reasonable if the intent is to roll up your sleeves, identify the threat, establish root causes and take appropriate measures to solve those root causes. It can be a force for common good, no?

Racial profiling is something of a hot button as well. Using scarce security resources on elderly ladies with blue hair is unreasonable and fails to address the threat. When old ladies with blue hair start blowing airliners out of the sky I’m perfectly prepared to acknowledge the new threat and react accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch, you have nothing to apologize for. You didn't drop the ball, you carried it when it mattered most. My hat's off to you.

Wolfhunter, your comments sound reasonable, but are they, practically and factually speaking? I have deep reservations about that.

Is bigotry a "far cry" from racism? On the contrary, they go so hand in hand as to virtually indistinguishable in many situations.

Does prejudice tend to be based on one's experience or on stereotypical behavior patterns? Not according to normal definitions of the word. See for yourself:

1. opinion formed beforehand: a pre-formed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes.

2. irrational fear of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of some group or person, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality or social status.

(Quoted from the Encarta Encylopedia, bold-face mine.)

The kind of racism under discussion here is simply a specific form of prejudice; one directed at a particular race, rather than an ethnic, religious or other group.

Does a bigoted author intellectually know that his comments do not apply to an entire race? Well, if he does, that's how he should state his comments, not the other way 'round. After all, bigots clearly believe themselves to be superior to those they speak against. Therefore, they should demonstrate that superiority by speaking in an intellectually sound way.

Does Canada's hate legislation tend to address racism? Canada's hate legislation is inclusive, not exclusive. It prohibits speech or other communication which would incite hate against ANY recognizable group. That group could be based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or what have you. Race need not enter into it at all.

Prejudiced communication is NOT protected free speech, where it tends to incite hatred against a recognizable group. Free speech is not an absolute right, nor should it ever be. The spoken or written word has the power of the sword, as the well-worn axiom reminds us. Use the right you enjoy under our laws and use it wisely and responsibly, or keep your mouth shut. It's pretty simple.

Are holocuast survivors eminently qualified to talk about racism? There is no logical reason why a victim of that disaster becomes instantly qualified to speak about racism. While genocidal behavior will almost always be motivated by prejudice, race may have nothing to do with it at all. The Hutus slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsi's in Rwanda; they're members of the same racial group. Serbs murdered hundreds of thousands of Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia; they're members of the same race. Likewise Germans against Jews in the Second World War; race (despite the crap about Aryanism) had nothing to do with it.

The further objection I have to your statement is that it suggests that only those who are victims of prejudice/racism/bigotry etc are qualified to speak out against same. Sorry, my friend, it's the duty of every decent, fair-minded person to speak out forcefully against those things. The consequences of not doing so are so obvious and so disastrously bad, that no reasonable person should have any doubts whatsoever on this score.

"Identifying ethnic groups with a statistical propensity for violent crime that exceeds their relative population levels is entirely reasonable if the intent is to roll up your sleeves, identify the threat, establish root causes and take appropriate measures to solve those root causes. It can be a force for common good, no?"

Yes, it could be a force for the common good, Wolfhunter, but it will never, ever be a force for the common good when it's motivated by prejudice. It will be a disaster. For example, your words say nothing whatsoever about the intent and motive of such a social goal, nor about the methods you're willing to use to achieve it. Without those things morally and intellectually fixed beyond any criticism, you're treading on dangerous ice for us all.

Best,

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second instance makes a claim based on, according to Juan Fantino, by the way, is the Toronto Chief of Police who presided over unprecedented levels of corruption in his own police force.

"Hate motivated crime has many faces and wide reaching consequences; in most cases it represents the voice of intolerance and bigotry intended to harm and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.

However experienced or otherwise displayed, be it actual violence, threats of harm, intimidation or damage to property, hate crimes diminish the cherished values of a free and democratic society by creating an environment of fear, community anxiety and the feelings of disenfranchisement of human rights and entitlements."

Juan's World

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prejudice

Bigotry

Racism

Hate

Ignorance

Discrimination

There are so many nouns that are all frequently used interchangeably in the above posts. The first four tend to define themselves but I would like to pull two out: discrimination and ignorance, because discrimination is too often used as a synonym for prejudice and ignorance doesn’t belong on the list.

Discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing, but those who would wish to promote inappropriate discrimination will use this fact frequently when trying to defend their positions of prejudice. We discriminate when we choose one car over another; we discriminate when we chose fresh food over spoiled; etc. So the argument will follow: “What is wrong with racial discrimination? We discriminate every day. It’s normal.”

The importance of disproving such faulty logic cannot be underestimated.

Then there is ignorance. Prejudice, bigotry, racism and hate are all based on fixed pre-formed opinions and beliefs, not facts, and persist in the presence of factual argument to the contrary. Ignorance, on the other hand, can be educated. Present a cogent argument based on factual information to someone who is ignorant, and that person can learn. Whether they choose to learn is another topic altogether.

What I read in Jake’s posts do not evidence any intelligent discrimination and don’t appear to reflect ignorance. The words are so prejudicial, hate filled and inciteful that they left me fearful and effectively mute. But Neo, you are right. “…it's the duty of every decent, fair-minded person to speak out forcefully against those things. The consequences of not doing so are so obvious and so disastrously bad, that no reasonable person should have any doubts whatsoever on this score.”

Which leads me to mention one other noun. It has only 7 letters but is probably one of the biggest words I know: courage. Thank you Mitch for having the courage to speak up when so many of us were sitting slack jawed and dumb-founded.

ccairspace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, Airband, and thanks for posting that. My apologies to Chief Fantino for getting his first name wrong.

It's clear that Chief Fantino vigorously opposes prejudice and bigotry, and it's certainly his responsibility to do so. The maintenance of public order demands that every citizen, and particularly demands that those who are charged with maintaining public order, pro-actively work and speak against prejudice.

I challenge anyone to read Chief Fantino's treatise on prejudice and hate and find any similarity to the comments written here in this thread which debase a particular racial group.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigotry and ignorance in my view are a far cry from racism.  I have reviewed most of the above posts and conclude that we are talking here about prejudice… not racism.  This is more than a subtle play on words to appease those offended by previous comments ..[&]..

Hate legislation tends to address racism… prejudice is usually protected by free speech; in my view, this must extend to subjects most people find offensive to be of value to all. Having seen more of this than I care to, the line (in my mind) is pretty clear. ..[&]..

I think holocaust survivors are eminently qualified to talk about racism ..[&]..

Identifying ethnic groups with a statistical propensity for violent crime that exceeds their relative population levels is entirely reasonable if the intent is to roll up your sleeves .etc..etc..

Hi, Wolfhunter - I grew up in the 50's & 60's, much of it in the genteel ex-colonial racism then dissolving in the Caribbean, and of course witness to the unravelling of legal segregation in the US. I don't know if I make your cut for to be "qualified" to discuss racism or not dry.gif, but can you indulge me here?

Racists almost always dissemble. Never seen anybody stand up and declare themselves to be racist, or even bigoted, prejudiced, intolerant, ignorant, or whatever the euphemism-du-jour might be. It's always expressed in code, whether it was the phoney "States' rights" arguments against US Civil Rights legislation, or the self-satisfied patronism I witnessed so much growing up. It does make it difficult sometimes for reasonable people to sort out the well-intentioned from those not so. Occasionally, tho', someone speaks uncoded.

I have consistently respected your postings here. If "the line (in [your] mind) is pretty clear", upon which side of it does the following sit?

  • "They (blacks) cannot even keep it together in their third world countries without raping and hacking each other up with machete's, now what the ferck makes you think when we transpose them to a semi-civilized country they will leave their jungle antics behind?"
  • "Wake up, BLACKS have a propensity for violent crime 10 times that of their white counterpart---"
  • "If the leaders of these several ethnic "evil doer" cultures with a propensity for violence quit talking about how WHITEY keeps putting their ilk..."

I have no arguement when you and Kip and others comment on distinctions, difficulties, subtleties etc that attend social problems with a racial aspect attending them, and the occasional perversion of well-intentioned ideals into frustrating counter-production. I would like to know, tho', straight up, if the expressions above comport with a good world view IYOHO?

Regards, IFG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only dictionary is a tattered pocket model that has provided years of service. It’s missing a few pages and extensively reinforced with duct tape:

a. Prejudice – Bias, partiality, pre-conceived opinion (usually unfavorable);

b. Race – Descendants of common ancestor, distinct variety; descent, birth, family; and

c. Racism – Belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities.

Between definitions of prejudice and racism I believe that racism stands alone. It is virulent and likely to cause injury… whether that is physical, economic, emotional or otherwise. While distasteful, disrespectful, rude, wrong etc… I don’t believe the previous posts were racist and I suspect our hosts don’t either. Additionally, I don’t agree with neo’s position that prejudice and racism are indistinguishable. I think they are distinguishable, that was my point, true racism towers above prejudice. It’s a hateful animal… the racist truly believes in his racial superiority and is often willing to act either directly or indirectly on this belief. These attitudes are damaging, tough to change and usually expressed with more eloquence. I guess I find the posted comments lacking the required intensity and edge of superiority/hatefulness required to qualify as racist. It’s a matter of degree and we are not there yet. Prejudice yes, racism no. There is the “line”. In calling it racism I fear we are detracting from the harshness of true racism and blurring the line further. By the way, please tell me you don’t think I’m in agreement with him!

Neo, I agree with most of your comments on Canada’s hate legislation and free speech. I didn’t suggest it was otherwise and I think the above definitions support that. Having a bias and pre-conceived unfavorable opinion about a group and expressing it in a confrontational and rude manner is not tantamount to being a purveyor of hate literature; and yes, I believe a prejudiced author can, and usually does, know that his comments don’t apply to all; the superiority you refer to is the domain of the racist. I maintain that there is a difference… there’s that line again. Or, maybe I just need a bigger, thicker and newer dictionary.

Identifying ethnic groups with a statistical propensity for violent crime that exceeds their relative population levels is entirely reasonable if the intent is to roll up your sleeves, identify the threat, establish root causes and take appropriate measures to solve those root causes. It can be a force for common good, no?

I fail to see how that is “motivated by prejudice”. Take the leap of faith required to assume that I meant it sincerely. Failure to do so doesn’t just stifle action on root problems… it cripples it. The original premise (no matter how poorly presented) has largely been ignored in the quest to define the nouns. I’m obviously guilty of that myself … but, If the above quote is indeed “motivated by prejudice”, I’m at a loss as to how it may be rationally put forward. The UN has raised this sort of thing to an art form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfman...

Re: "Between definitions of prejudice and racism I believe that racism stands alone. It is virulent and likely to cause injury… whether that is physical, economic, emotional or otherwise. While distasteful, disrespectful, rude, wrong etc… I don’t believe the previous posts were racist and I suspect our hosts don’t either."

How can you think those statements wouldn't cause emotional injury to any black person reading them? I'd even say they hurt me. I can only see them as racist!

They come from the deepest roots of racism, where otherwise rational people attempt to put a spin of reason on their racist beliefs. Most of the time, of course there's no awareness of the racism... it was bred into them. They grew so accustomed to the beliefs permeating through their everyday existence in their own largely unirace world, that they can't see it for what it is at all.

I know what that's like because I grew up in it myself. In the last communication I had with my father, he complained of my "unbalanced opinions" and used as an example the occasion I'd blasted him for his racism when he'd written a complaint about the "coloured nurses" in a hospital he'd been in. He grew up with it too. Somewhere, at some point in our future, it has to be recognized for what it is.

Our world has changed a great deal since our parents were kids. In their world, it wasn't nearly as common for such huge numbers of people moving about the globe. In our world, and especially in our children's' world, people of all stripes will have to be able to recognize each other as equals, or there' just isn't any hope for our species to survive at all.

As for our hosts... Their obligation, I think, is to remove any posts that contravene any of our laws, when and if they become aware that such laws have indeed been breached. Your reference to them must mean, I think, that you suspect they think that hasn't happened... As far as I know, espousing racist opinions isn't ilegal... but as I said earlier, I think Jake's post were approaching the limit for "hate legislation" (as you put it), but there is most certainly some grey there... Additionally, they've generally been pretty good at removing posts that have generated complaints of offence... I haven't complained, and apparently nobody else has either, but I wouldn't take any absence of action from our hosts as a confirmation that his comments weren't deserving of the label "racist".

imo,

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch:

Racism, prejudice, discrimination etc are all moving targets - hard to pin down. If I was to make a comment about a (hypothetical) inbred, white-trash hillbilly living down the street you can't tell if it's racist until you know whether or I'm a white-trash hillbilly myself. Even if I'm not, context and intent come in to it as well. Although many of these sort of remarks might satisfy the theoretical litmus test for racism the intent of the speaker and their subsequent actions count too. Not to say that these things, intent and actions, are easy to ascertain. I respect your way of dealing with these issues; to confront and challenge any expression of racism is admirable. I don't, however, feel that it is the only way of dealing with it. Someone starts to tell a joke, "Three Italians walk into a bar....," I don't put my hand up and say, "Stop." The joke likely is racist but for me personally the telling of the joke is not the true measure of a racist attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...