SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Multiculturalism in Canada (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227075)

manny_santos Feb 11, 2017 11:49 PM

Multiculturalism in Canada
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7708252)
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.

Admittedly that's something I've been guilty of. I've sometimes at least commented, if not complained about "whiteness" of certain smaller cities since I've lived in Toronto. Multiculturalism is such a big part of Toronto's culture, that I enjoy, that it's easy to look down on other cities that don't have that.

Martin Mtl Feb 11, 2017 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7709189)
I didn't even know there was a "Quebec is racist" stereotype before this topic came up.

Heinous crimes statistics - percentage by 100 000 res.

1st Peterborough (17,9)

7th Vancouver (5,9)

10th Toronto (5,1)

23rd Québec (2,8)

26th Montréal (2,6)

National average (3,9)

SOURCE: LA PRESSE+ from Statistics Canada data.

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 1:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7709189)
I didn't even know there was a "Quebec is racist" stereotype before this topic came up.

It's been a pretty common narrative in contemporary. I am actually a bit reassured that someone of your generation has never heard of it.

TownGuy Feb 12, 2017 1:35 AM

I've never heard that either for what it's worth.

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 1:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TownGuy (Post 7709288)
I've never heard that either for what it's worth.

There's hope for us still! :)

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 1:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7708845)
I see black. I see white, native, all of it. Culture's the same though.

That's the thing : That idea of multiculturalism can only live within the first generation. We're a remarkably homogeneous society culturally. If immigration stopped tomorrow but %95 of Canadians were first generation, it would be mono-cultural by the second generation. Maybe third for some. You can walk into any long-established restaurant and if it's Greek, count the people of Greek extraction. Chinese ? Do the same thing. The owners have passed on the information of their culture to people not of that culture's stock. That's how cultures spread and integrate.

I can always count on this place to provide a daily dose of the CBC PSAs you may have missed. People in this thread, specifically, keep bringing up how great multiculturalism is without providing any evidence at all for the contention. It's annoying because it's an article of faith but some people here treat it like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. What's so great about some cultures? Some cultures are demonstrably inferior to the one you inherited by being born in Canada.

If the idea is that we need more visible minorities then I have to disagree. We can always use more people and I don't care where they're from but there's nothing that says it's necessary for the functioning of the great society we've built. Why is it somehow better if they're visible minorities ? Islamic culture should not be conflated with Western culture. If you live in an Islamic culture I'm sure you think it's fine. It's completely incompatible with Western culture if you expect certain things to be done the same way but in terms of basic freedoms (specifically around women, religion, and what you're allowed to think) it can't be assimilated. That's fine so long as anybody coming to the West is willing to drop certain aspects but I would say that it's objectively inferior to Western culture. Why do some people think it's a great idea to import as much of that culture as possible? Why is THAT a good idea?

It's the uncritical acceptance of these ideas that annoys me. I have friends from every corner of the earth. Skin color tells me sweet fuck all about what kind of person they are. Spend some time in a country where your culture is the minority and you'll see that people are all the same the world over. There's absolutely nothing about different races that makes them any different. It's the culture and they're not all very good. In fact, the culture you live in is undoubtedly one of the best you could have possibly hoped for. It IS superior even if you feel guilty about it for whatever reason. I always hear this "fact" slipped in that we were all taught that whiteness was better. Somehow being white made you superior. How old are you if you were ever taught that ? You must be pushing at least 80 because the last time any substantial number of people ever held that opinion was sometime in the Jim Crow South. Nobody born since at least 1970 says that. I've never heard anybody seriously say that sort of thing on TV or even in movies. It's such a red herring.

This is a pretty good post. I share about 90-95% of what you said here.

You're right that in our era we are somewhat obsessed with "cultural equivalency", but the reality is that not all cultures are equally enviable as you say. Cultural practices where 10 year old girls get married off to 50 year old men are not "equivalent" to the way such things are usually done in western democracies. Does this mean that I want to impose my views on this on other countries where they marry off little girls? Perhaps not. But I sure as I hell don't think that it would be "six and one half dozen of another" between that and current "Canadian values", and that if it changed it would be no big deal.

Anyway, the best thing about less desirable aspects of culture is that, as you kind of alluded to, no one is genetically predisposed to anything. It's all acquired and it can all be un-acquired too.

Regarding the immigrant groups you mentioned and the incompatibility of certain practices with Canadian society, my position on this is that everyone regardless of background is welcome in Canada, but not all practises are welcomed or encouraged. To be perfectly honest, in almost all communities generally the most problematic practices are not supported by the majority of people in those communities anyway.

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 2:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl (Post 7709241)
Heinous crimes statistics - percentage by 100 000 res.

1st Peterborough (17,9)

7th Vancouver (5,9)

10th Toronto (5,1)

23rd Québec (2,8)

26th Montréal (2,6)

National average (3,9)

SOURCE: LA PRESSE+ from Statistics Canada data.

I've seen these stats before, and they've been quite consistent (e.g. Quebec on the low end) for a couple of decades.

I once used them in an argument with someone reasonably smart, and to my astonishment, in all seriousness and with a straight face, he countered that in Quebec there were fewer hate crimes because the hateful people here didn't feel compelled to act, given that hate and racism was the dominant view in all levels of society, from the political classes to the education system, the courts, police, etc. :koko:

lio45 Feb 12, 2017 2:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709287)
It's been a pretty common narrative in contemporary. I am actually a bit reassured that someone of your generation has never heard of it.

Same here, that's good news. I don't think saffronleaf is a representative sample at all though - he seems to have a big chip on his shoulder for some reason, which makes him hateful (but I think I'm libertarian and open enough to tolerate his hate, so, let him think what he wants).

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 2:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7709322)
Same here, that's good news. I don't think saffronleaf is a representative sample at all though - he seems to have a big chip on his shoulder for some reason, which makes him hateful (but I think I'm libertarian and open enough to tolerate his hate, so, let him think what he wants).

Hey, you know what I always say about tolerating the intolerant! :haha:

lio45 Feb 12, 2017 2:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709323)
Hey, you know what I always say about tolerating the intolerant! :haha:

Generally I'd agree, but I'm willing to give saffronleaf a break - it's probably not his fault, I assume he was raised in an environment where hate was normal, poor guy... ;)

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7709328)
Generally I'd agree, but I'm willing to give saffronleaf a break - it's probably not his fault, I assume he was raised in an environment where hate was normal, poor guy... ;)

Too bad he didn't grow up in Quebec. He'd be more relaxed around people with different views on things! :haha:

Martin Mtl Feb 12, 2017 4:03 AM

I think that the low count of visible minorities or immigrants in general in Quebec City, compare to other Canadian cities, is very much explained by the fact that it is 100% french. You have to be fluent in french if you want to live there, let alone work there. There are far more immigrants that readily speak english than french.

Why would an Asian or an Indonesian want to to go to one of the most wintery city on the continent, pretty much isolated, and where you have to be able to speak or learn french?

Vancouver or Toronto, where you only have to speak english, is such an obvious, easier, natural choice. Even coming to Montreal is not as easy, because you pretty much have to learn TWO langages to get a decent work. Langage explains in large parts why there are more immigrants going to the ROC rather than here or in Quebec City.

This is one reason why the efforts of the province to encourage french-speaking immigration makes sense and as a result we'll be seeing more and more immigrants from Arab countries here. It's a big wave and we have to adjust to it, just like BC had to adjust to the asian immigration at some point, I suppose.

Also, immigration from France is booming in the province, but that doesn't add much to the visible minority stats, most of France's immigrants being caucasian.

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 4:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl (Post 7709372)
I think that the low count of visible minorities or immigrants in general in Quebec City, compare to other Canadian cities, is very much explained by the fact that it is 100% french. You have to be fluent in french if you want to live there, let alone work there. There are far more immigrants that readily speak english than french.

Why would an Asian or an Indonesian want to to go to one of the most wintery city on the continent, pretty much isolated, and where you have to be able to speak or learn french?

Vancouver or Toronto, where you only have to speak english, is such an obvious, easier, natural choice. Even coming to Montreal is not as easy, because you pretty much have to learn TWO langages to get a decent work. Langage explains in large parts why there are more immigrants going to the ROC rather than here or in Quebec City.

This is one reason why the efforts of the province to encourage french-speaking immigration makes sense and as a result we'll be seeing more and more immigrants from Arab countries here. It's a big wave and we have to adjust to it, just like BC had to adjust to the asian immigration at some point, I suppose.

Also, immigration from France is booming in the province, but that doesn't add much to the visible minority stats, most of France's immigrants being caucasian.

And that's why focusing on francophone immigration isn't just about linguistic purity, it's about Montreal, Quebec and also Canada capitalizing on a strategic advantage that few other countries have and attracting even more good people. There is far less competition for French-oriented immigrants and the francophone population is increasing rapidly in many parts of the world, and education levels there are high or on the rise.

SaskOttaLoo Feb 12, 2017 12:04 PM

Multiculturalism in Canada
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 7709094)
+1 to that, it's generally how I view things as well.

Great post. It's remarkable how in rural Saskatchewan the places with a lot of war brides were extremely multicultural following WWII. And even more so many years prior when the land was settled. It's also remarkable how within a relative blip of time all of that multiculturalism is essentially gone, and the places I'm familiar with are incredibly homogeneous. Too much so, in my opinion - it's really difficult to operate very far outside the somewhat rigidly defined norm. Example: not playing hockey as a kid.

Acajack Feb 12, 2017 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaskOttaLoo (Post 7709554)
Great post. It's remarkable how in rural Saskatchewan the places with a lot of war brides were extremely multicultural following WWII. And even more so many years prior when the land was settled. It's also remarkable how within a relative blip of time all of that multiculturalism is essentially gone, and the places I'm familiar with are incredibly homogeneous. Too much so, in my opinion - it's really difficult to operate very far outside the somewhat rigidly defined norm. Example: not playing hockey as a kid.

Saskatchewan was until recently, and may still be, the most ethnically diverse province in the country. There is no single group there that is even close to being 50% of the population, and the British Isles group there is substantially smaller in percentage than it is even in BC and Ontario.

Sask is something like 20% British, 25% German, 15% Ukrainian, 5% Finnish, 5% Russian, 5% Dutch, 3% Swedish, 5% French, 15% aboriginal. Anyway, these numbers are not the real numbers at all, but it's just to illustrate how the province is really diverse in terms of origins. The percentage for the group that has a "plurality" is very low. Well under 50%.

And yet it's fairly homogenous culturally due to decades assimilation. (With the possible exception of the aboriginal group.)

It's also the most wholly anglophone province in the country after NL.

So if we take the example of Toronto, it may be that the outcome of its hyper-diversity will eventually be a place that is fairly monocultural, only with lots of different skin colours and facial features.

Kinda like Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Stryker Feb 12, 2017 5:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709618)
It's also the most wholly anglophone province in the country after NL.

So if we take the example of Toronto, it may be that the outcome of its hyper-diversity will eventually be a place that is fairly monocultural, only with lots of different skin colours and facial features.

Kinda like Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Lol when your exposed to Assimilated kids like this you realise how incredibly boring this country is.

dreambrother808 Feb 12, 2017 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709618)
So if we take the example of Toronto, it may be that the outcome of its hyper-diversity will eventually be a place that is fairly monocultural, only with lots of different skin colours and facial features.

Kinda like Sao Paulo, Brazil.

The Sask example of diversity is still just white and Euro, disregarding the First Nations, which is readily done in that kind of environment.

Toronto is not São Paulo. Brazil is a linguistic/cultural island for the most part with a heavy strains of racism and white supremacy. Toronto while not perfect is far more advanced in its evolution.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808 (Post 7709919)
The Sask example of diversity is still just white and Euro, disregarding the First Nations, which is readily done in that kind of environment.

I specifically accounted for the aboriginal exception in my post. I guess you missed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808 (Post 7709919)
Toronto is not São Paulo. Brazil is a linguistic/cultural island for the most part with a heavy strains of racism and white supremacy. Toronto while not perfect is far more advanced in its evolution.

That is true, but this will only serve to make Toronto more harmonious, not necessarily any less monocultural (ultimately).

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 3:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tosin007 (Post 7709473)
"Diversity is Our Strength" though. - Justin Trudeau.
(Ok I added the "though" part). ;)

Being the devil's advocate, but diversity can also be having areas within the country that have a United Nations mix of people, others that are mostly of British origins, others mostly of French origin, others mostly indigenous, etc.

dleung Feb 13, 2017 5:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life (Post 7709528)
...I never did the census since i was in rehab.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jets4Life (Post 7709529)
I don't care what the damn census says. Winnipeg has in excess of 800,000 people. The municipal counts for 2016 is 804,200. We are larger than Quebec City.

LOL

SSP don't ever change

dleung Feb 13, 2017 5:10 AM

Multiculturalism in Canada
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.



No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

wg_flamip Feb 13, 2017 5:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck (Post 7708222)
Cynical response: "I can eat Pakistani food, but I can't eat queer food or disabled food".

Slightly more reasonable response that aims at the essence of my cynical response: "I can participate in Pakistani culture. I can learn Urdu and read up on Pakistani history and talk about Pakistan with my Pakistani friends, and go to their house for a traditional meal. My relationship with Pakistani culture can be a two-way exchange.

But I can't participate in disabled culture. If I did, it would be seen as incredibly patronizing. I can be an ally, and be understanding, but I can't participate in a symmetrical power relationship that I entered out of my own self-interest."

You're centring yourself here; the benefits of diversity do not begin and end with universal access. All else being equal, a city with spaces for the communities formed by people with disabilities and for the cultural expression of those communities is more diverse than a city that does not make those spaces. This is true whether the existence of those spaces is relevant or even accessible to you as a non-disabled person; this form of diversity is absolutely relevant to people who do have disabilities. And, of course, your status as a non-disabled person is not guaranteed to last in perpetuity; what is irrelevant and inaccessible to you now will not necessarily remain so.

You're ignoring the access you have to the cultures of disability* while downplaying the power dynamics that shape intercultural (i.e. inter-ethnocultural) exchange and the limits on your abilities to participate in a different (ethnic) culture. You can learn ASL just as well as you can Urdu; you can use it (and are encouraged to use it) to interact with staff at a restaurant just a few blocks away from where I'm now sitting. You can visit a braille library. You can attend a piano recital of music composed by those with one functional hand played by those with one functional hand.

Conversely, there's only so far you can go in your participation in Pakistani culture: The dynamics of your proposed two-way cultural exchange are mediated by centuries of colonialism and racism and by the shape of globalization.

*This phrase seems imprecise, inaccurate and even condescending, but a better term is proving elusive.

Spocket Feb 13, 2017 6:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)
No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

Metro-One Feb 13, 2017 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710208)
Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

You would think this, but this is the hyper sensitive age where everything must be done to the extreme, and if you are not 100% in line with a group / movement / ideology, well then, you MUST be the enemy (because, you know, there are no shades of gray anymore).

I actually believe that the Black Live Matter movement missed a huge opportunity in its infancy to be accepted by a much wider range of people when a few moderate liberals started saying "All Lives Matter." Of course this is the age of division (identity politics) and no one was going to have any of that. Those people were made into social pariahs and had to apologize. That alienated many potential supporters of the movement and then caused the "All Live Matter" quote to be stolen by those on the right as a counter protest. A sucky situation really. One can argue that having allowed the "Black Lives Matter" movement to naturally evolve into "All Lives Matter" (which is was at first) would have lost some focus of the original goal, but I feel that doing so would have been to the larger benefit of the black population in the end, and indeed all people (using inclusiveness instead of exclusion) For godlessness sake, doing such may have been the extra straw needed that would have prevented a Trump presidency. Just something I have wanted to say for a long time (and expect to be called a racist for doing so, because nothing wins an argument like calling someone a racist these days)

I also agree that too many people rank an area's worth by its diversity. I remember an SSP conversation years ago about how Portland was "too white." To me, calling an area "too" anything is racist and quite disgusting. An area does not need diversity to be fun / interesting. Look at Japan, it is the least diverse place in the world (99% Japanese) so if you are going to fault some cities in North America for being "too white" then you better also fault Japanese cities for being "too Japanese."

That said I also don't think that any area being too diverse should be looked at as a negative either. There are many positives to having great diversity in a city. (some that i miss very much living in Japan)

Both have their positives and negatives and in the end, with all other factors equal, generally even out.

Tosin007 Feb 13, 2017 7:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7710096)
Being the devil's advocate, but diversity can also be having areas within the country that have a United Nations mix of people, others that are mostly of British origins, others mostly of French origin, others mostly indigenous, etc.

I guess..

Skyisnolimit Feb 13, 2017 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7709312)
I've seen these stats before, and they've been quite consistent (e.g. Quebec on the low end) for a couple of decades.

I once used them in an argument with someone reasonably smart, and to my astonishment, in all seriousness and with a straight face, he countered that in Quebec there were fewer hate crimes because the hateful people here didn't feel compelled to act, given that hate and racism was the dominant view in all levels of society, from the political classes to the education system, the courts, police, etc. :koko:

Most people I met from Quebec were more on the whiny side then the aggressive side . I think it's more with culture and upbringing why the lower numbers.

Marshal Feb 13, 2017 9:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7708252)
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.

This is only true in the most superficial sense. Actually that isn't even true: it is a rational fallacy. The two sides of the coin only appear the same because of similar form, but the meaning of the nouns you use involve complexes of many different things (ideas, perceptions, values, definitions, histories, states of affairs . . . ) - and they differ from each other in both substance and context.

By the way, the expression involving the proverbial coin doesn't fit the point. Yes coins have two sides, but nowhere does that mean the two sides are equivalent. In fact, to state it without fallacy, no two sides of a coin are the same.

Damn, thinking is tricky!
_

As a post note: "hipsterism" is not an argument. And, if you are called a socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal for the things you say, you should ignore that source, as they are equally stupid in their form of argument.

The whole thing about "political correctness" is getting tired fast. This too is a stupid, mostly meaningless, phrase. You should neither say nor not say anything based on "political correctness" (whose correctness is this anyway). People are sounding off with bigotry in the name of opposing PC. Others self censor in that same name. Both are the thoughts of fools. You say things because you either believe them, know them to be true, have been convinced of them, or have given them thought and think they are the best you can come up with at that time. Opinions are fine, but they are just that. The only reason to inflate your un-proofed opinions as facts is if you are out to trick people. Facts are facts - not absolute truths, but statements of information that survive the tests we humans have been working on (philosophers, scientists, artists, and everyone else) for thousands of years. This is one of the first benefits we earned by settling down. Why throw it out now. The people who disregard the voice of science concerning Climate Change all accept science's voice in creating their smartphone, the spacestation, the airplane, the internet, graphic interfaces, and the billion technologies and materials of our age. Funny. Most of those things are more complex than the atmospheric data analysis which show our effects on climate. Warning - there is a lot of bullshit out there.

Marshal Feb 13, 2017 9:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710208)
Don't they ? Or are some lives worth less because they're the wrong religion, race, or culture? Maybe they have the wrong job? People getting upset about saying that yes, in fact, all lives DO matter is the kind of intolerance we can do without. I wouldn't say that your life doesn't matter. Why would you think that you should say that to somebody else?

Much the same here. For similar reasons (the massive complexity of human existence and cultural being) there is no equivalence between "black lives matter," and "all lives matter." Those of you who think "all lives matter" is a clever counterpoint are just being sucked in by a little bit of similarity between two phrases.

For crying out loud, try to think a little deeper. The "all lives matter" expression is an intellectual embarrassment. You are hood-winking yourselves.

_

So, before you go off on a tantrum: of course ALL LIVES MATTER! No one is actually against this. Those that appear to be against this are just trying to hold to the meaning that is embodied by (and I will abstract it to make the point): THE LIVES OF THOSE FACING PERSECUTION AND PREJUDICIAL HARM AT THE HANDS OF OTHERS, ESPECIALLY THE AUTHORITIES . . . MATTER. And to keep it clear for you, "matter" means "needs attention until racial unfairness is more or less (nothing is ever perfect) dismantled.

The "black" part, of course, refers to black people, their troubles and their horrible history since being hunted in West Africa and beyond. Black people, feeling under threat, feeling and living the lack of equality you are spouting . . . black people are who started this movement. Why are you offended by the catch phrase they chose (under circumstances neither you or I will ever really know, feel, or understand)?

And, again, to stem any revolt, "Black lives matter" was coined, no doubt with some regret, as a catchphrase to publicize a movement and its issues. I suggest you ponder some of our world's nastier problems concerning race, and get of the literalistic soapbox. (and yes, that's not a word.)

There is nothing hipster here: this is the civil rights movement telling everyone that bthe project isn't finished. That's all. Surely you can acknowledge that much. And if you can, what do you gain by saying the what you do.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)

Are you one of those people who say "All Lives Matter"? :rolleyes:

Yes, I would say that all lives matter. But I wouldn't say that "All Lives Matter" as in the movement itself. Get the difference?

Spocket Feb 13, 2017 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka (Post 7710303)
If we could get this thread focused back on statistics and StatCan releases that would be great, thanks.

This thread is rarely about statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marshal (Post 7710261)

The "all lives matter" expression is an intellectual embarrassment. You are hood-winking yourselves.

The embarrassment is that BLM exists because roughly %0.2 shootings were of black people by white police officers. Go ahead...look it up. Never mind the hundreds committed by blacks or the smaller number committed by whites. In fact, statistically, there should be a WLM since those same stats are pretty clear about who's doing most of the shooting and who's taking most of the bullets.

Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country. Let's keep it that way. I know what you're going to say but is that because there's absolutely no reason for the police to be in those communities? BLM is a racist movement and people who support it in principle are fine but people who think it's a call to kill "whitey" can stay the fuck out of my country.

Oh, and who told you I was offended by BLM? I mean, I am because I know something about the leaders and speakers in the movement but what's really a shame is that you don't. More importantly, if you truly believed in equality and justice then you wouldn't narrow it down to equality and justice for some people based on genetic traits.

Drybrain Feb 13, 2017 3:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710340)
Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country.

You are wrong. I don't know even how to dispute your point, though:. We can discuss the severity or prevalence of discrimination, or compare it to other countries, but to say baldly that there is no systemic bias is an incredible claim.

Read this, to start with.

ciudad_del_norte Feb 13, 2017 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spocket (Post 7710340)
This thread is rarely about statistics.


The embarrassment is that BLM exists because roughly %0.2 shootings were of black people by white police officers. Go ahead...look it up. Never mind the hundreds committed by blacks or the smaller number committed by whites. In fact, statistically, there should be a WLM since those same stats are pretty clear about who's doing most of the shooting and who's taking most of the bullets.

Now, in the U.S. there's a lot more to the story obviously. Here in Canada, though, no, there isn't. There is no systemic bias against blacks, Asians, whites, or anybody else in this country. Let's keep it that way. I know what you're going to say but is that because there's absolutely no reason for the police to be in those communities? BLM is a racist movement and people who support it in principle are fine but people who think it's a call to kill "whitey" can stay the fuck out of my country.

Oh, and who told you I was offended by BLM? I mean, I am because I know something about the leaders and speakers in the movement but what's really a shame is that you don't. More importantly, if you truly believed in equality and justice then you wouldn't narrow it down to equality and justice for some people based on genetic traits.

:uhh: To be clear, systematic racism can be much more nuanced than getting shot. Many of the issues don't manifest themselves in your face as much as they might in the states, but Canada is in no way immune to, or above such things.

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:42 PM

In fact, it can even make it worse, because if there's enough perception that racism is still a problem, there are chances steps will be taken to address it (societal level / long term) while if the majority seems to think everything's fine, things will stay as is.

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 7710387)
You are wrong. I don't know even how to dispute your point, though:. We can discuss the severity or prevalence of discrimination, or compare it to other countries, but to say baldly that there is no systemic bias is an incredible claim.

Read this, to start with.

I recall you shared that a while ago already... poor guy! He did the right thing sharing his story though, and he's pleasant to read.

On the other hand, I can't help but detect traces of arrogance in what he recounts - calling a cop "bro", for example. Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but I'd NEVER dream of doing that. In the cop's head, you're immediately categorized as cocky a.f., and it's really not a good way to start (whether or not you happen to be black).

lio45 Feb 13, 2017 3:52 PM

Okay, just noticed that while I was replying the thread was somewhat cleaned... Shouldn't a mod just branch this off and start a new thread, if we must keep this one pure for statistics?

It's... interesting that a discussion about how racism exists but flies under the radar in Canada, and that as long as we continue to ignore it rather than face it, the problem is likely to remain, would get quickly and entirely swept under the rug by well-thinking moderators who are uncomfortable with it!!! Quite the Q.E.D. there.

d_jeffrey Feb 13, 2017 4:21 PM

If there's any systematic racism in Canada, it's towards natives. It's litterally systematic. I don't comprehend how society acts as it's no problem at all.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710182)
No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

:

That depends. Most of the "international" buffet restaurants are "jacks of all trades, masters of none". They almost never offer the true high level cuisine of the countries they claim to cover. Whereas if you go to the best Japanese, best French, best Moroccan, etc. in town, you know you're going to get something really good, unique and special.

The same can be transposed to cultures, cities, nations, etc. If you want just a pastiche of all the world's cultures, that's fine. But that's "EPCOT". Not the real deal.

If they have a choice, nobody goes to a new world city or country to sample an old world culture.

BretttheRiderFan Feb 13, 2017 9:02 PM

Without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. diversity vs. melting pot vs. cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, I'm pretty happy with how we do things in Canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 9:24 PM

Mental exercise.

Imagine for a minute that 100,000 "Army of Jesus" people move from the U.S. to Canada. They move to a handful of areas only, so while they're not the majority anywhere, they're numerous enough to pack some punch. After a couple of years most of them are Canadian citizens. They exercise their rights to act on their "Guns and God" mindset to the fullest limits of Canada's gun laws. Which aren't nearly as tight as most Canadians think BTW. As a result, there are way more visible guns around and more lethal guns in these communities than there used to be ever before.

Anyway, they also lobby for changes to Canada's gun laws to make them even less strict. Because, after all, since they've moved to Canada, not a single Army of Jesus member has been involved in a crime involving a weapon.

How would y'all react to that?

north 42 Feb 13, 2017 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bretttheriderfan (Post 7710751)
without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. Diversity vs. Melting pot vs. Cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, i'm pretty happy with how we do things in canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

+1

Aylmer Feb 13, 2017 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bretttheriderfan (Post 7710751)
without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. Diversity vs. Melting pot vs. Cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, i'm pretty happy with how we do things in canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

+2

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan (Post 7710751)
Without getting into a lofty technical discussion of multiculturalism vs. diversity vs. melting pot vs. cultural mosaic or all of that stuff, I'm pretty happy with how we do things in Canada and think it works well. Let's stay on the path towards a more inclusive society for all people, whether they came here yesterday or their ancestors have been here for millennia.

Let's hope we can preserve that.

Aylmer Feb 13, 2017 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7710773)

Anyway, they also lobby for changes to Canada's gun laws to make them even less strict. Because, after all, since they've moved to Canada, not a single Army of Jesus member has been involved in a crime involving a weapon.

How would y'all react to that?

If the studies suggest that the looser gun laws will not have any significant incidence on crime in Canada, I guess there only reason for me to oppose it would be my own ideological aversion to guns. And that isn't enough to impose my insecurities on others.

If it does risk materially increasing the severity of crime as a result of this new legislation, then there is no reason for that group to impose their insecurities on society at large.


But, as with all hypotheticals, I think we should remember the words of Jean Chretien:

"If, if, if! If my mother had wheels, she would be a bus!

Acajack Feb 13, 2017 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aylmer (Post 7710789)
If the studies suggest that the looser gun laws will not have any significant incidence on crime in Canada, I guess there only reason for me to oppose it would be my own ideological aversion to guns. And that isn't enough to impose my insecurities on others.

If it does risk materially increasing the severity of crime as a result of this new legislation, then there is no reason for that group to impose their insecurities on society at large.


But, as with all hypotheticals, I think we should remember the words of Jean Chretien:

"If, if, if! If my mother had wheels, she would be a bus!

Great quote!

I highly doubt that the views of the Guns and God crowd are in any way related to insecurity.

dleung Feb 14, 2017 1:18 AM

^^Of course it is about insecurity! Obama called it in 2008, and it's even truer in 2017.

Also, I thought most people had already realized by mid 2016 that "All Lives Matter" is a disingenuous rebuttal started by racists and perpetuated by idiots

http://i.imgur.com/L3Tg3VY.jpg

dleung Feb 14, 2017 1:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7710675)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung
No one ever complains about "too much variety" at a buffet, botanical garden or art gallery. Double standard!!

That depends. Most of the "international" buffet restaurants are "jacks of all trades, masters of none". They almost never offer the true high level cuisine of the countries they claim to cover. Whereas if you go to the best Japanese, best French, best Moroccan, etc. in town, you know you're going to get something really good, unique and special.

The same can be transposed to cultures, cities, nations, etc. If you want just a pastiche of all the world's cultures, that's fine. But that's "EPCOT". Not the real deal.

If they have a choice, nobody goes to a new world city or country to sample an old world culture.

If you travel to Venice to sample "old world culture", almost all the businesses exist for tourists, and ALL of the goods are made in China. The real Italy - not the one artificially preserved in cryo stasis - is somewhere in suburban Napoli or Pescara. In Hong Kong, they're saying that the best Chinese food in the world is now in Vancouver... in other words, I wouldn't get too hung up on racial purity.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the threshold for when some place is "too (insert race)" already favors whites. Tons of people say Vancouver is "too Asian", at 30%. Some students avoid universities with that kind of ratio lol. It's scary not being the majority race. Yet no city is ever "too white" unless it's like 90% or higher.

Acajack Feb 14, 2017 3:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710964)
^^Of course it is about insecurity! Obama called it in 2008, and it's even truer in 2017.

Also, I thought most people had already realized by mid 2016 that "All Lives Matter" is a disingenuous rebuttal started by racists and perpetuated by idiots

http://i.imgur.com/L3Tg3VY.jpg

I thought I had clearly disassociated myself from All Lives Matter.

Acajack Feb 14, 2017 3:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung (Post 7710987)
If you travel to Venice to sample "old world culture", almost all the businesses exist for tourists, and ALL of the goods are made in China. The real Italy - not the one artificially preserved in cryo stasis - is somewhere in suburban Napoli or Pescara. In Hong Kong, they're saying that the best Chinese food in the world is now in Vancouver... in other words, I wouldn't get too hung up on racial purity.

Anyway, it's a moot point since the threshold for when some place is "too (insert race)" already favors whites. Tons of people say Vancouver is "too Asian", at 30%. Some students avoid universities with that kind of ratio lol. It's scary not being the majority race. Yet no city is ever "too white" unless it's like 90% or higher.

That's not at all the dominant discourse on SSP Canada, anyway.

Marshal Feb 14, 2017 3:25 AM

The only other thing I will add is: all authorities, including government departments and the police, simply need to follow the law and apply it fairly (meaning each citizen is equal). By and large both Canada and the US have pretty good laws. There are gaps and errors of various types and sizes, but if we take criminal codes, both countries would do well if the laws were simply applied as their statutes require.

Beyond that, it is reasonable to help those who are suffering (socially, economically, racially, whatever), as well as those who have suffered historically scaled injustices. It is straightforward that injury can be very difficult to overcome, especially if it has occurred over generations. This makes it reasonable to spend effort and money helping such people. It is rationally right as well as ethically.

(I can't respond to some of the misinformed ignorance of some of the posts. As for Spocket; well, its not even worth it - his/her information and opinions are just ignorant in the technical sense.)

dleung Feb 14, 2017 5:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7711064)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung
Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack
Complaining that a place is not diverse enough and judging it for being "too white" is currently a socially-acceptable urban hipster thing to say.

Complaning that a place has too many minorities and isn't "white" enough is a socially taboo, socially-unacceptable racist neanderthal thing to say.

And yet they're two sides of the exact same coin.

the threshold for when some place is "too (insert race)" already favors whites. Tons of people say Vancouver is "too Asian", at 30%. Some students avoid universities with that kind of ratio lol. It's scary not being the majority race. Yet no city is ever "too white" unless it's like 90% or higher.

That's not at all the dominant discourse on SSP Canada, anyway.

You have a very short memory of your own posts then :rolleyes:


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.