H10

Nope, majority will return if the standard of living is high enough, they only came here because their countries were screwed up in some way and Canada was less screwed, once the tables reverse, they are going right back, that is why they never give up their 2nd citizenship. These people don't really want to live in a country with a white majority, huge amounts of racism, treated as a 2nd class citizen and constant job discrimination, where in their own countries they are given more opportunities. They will continue to take advantage of Canada, so long as it is advantageous, but return once things turn around. You cannot honestly think that if the GDP per capita in the filipines was $100,000 and they had more social services and health and education people would be coming here. that is why there are very few Japanese immigrants to Canada in the last few decades compared to china, korea, taiwan, etc. There is a reason we have lots of Indian and Pakistani immigrants but almost none from Brunei, singapore, Dubai or Saudi. We have much more immigrants from poor middle eastern nations than rich ones like qatar or even jordan.

Why should some people get subsidized land and free land from their ancestors who got the land for free?

It is silly because it could never withstand any challenge. You cannot make immigrants face a morality test Canadians don't have to. Plus people would just lie. As long as they are not an active isis member, they'd be fine by me.

Whites can insult each other, but it is a joke or the professor is trolling overly pc people like you to show your hypocrisy. Coming from a russian experience, caucasians are called blacked, so I am confused by your comment. However, white nations will stay majority white because non-whites will return back home once the standard of living in their nation rises.

I'm not sure it is all one sided. I don't think jews are the issue. This is a political issue between political leadership. The Israeli government is fanning flames because they know they have the American support, the American government is using Israel to dominate the region of countries who don't want to do what America wants them to do. The problem starts when Israel was imposed onto Palestine against the wishes of the entire region. It is a political issue, not a religious conflict.

The one white professor who said that? O please, that is like a joke, no one takes it seriously, and Trump is in charge, congress is white, military leader is white, president about to be white, senate is white, WILL NEVER HAPPEN. And who the hell is going to carry out this white genocide? African Americans have no interest in killing whites in large numbers, Native Indians are down to 6 million, 50% of Hispanics are white wannabees and identify themselves as white, and are completely conquered in central america by white minority apartheid type governments. I don't see yellows or indians doing it either, their main enemies are each other. And plenty of white professors advocated original genocide, and the genocide was carried out. Original people did not chose to give up their language, religion, culture and birth names, whites committed genocide on them (and the red indians) and took it away. NA media is white media, whites run it.

Israel settlements in Palestine, really colonies, are grossly illegal and gross violation of law. I tend to be pro-Israel, but you cannot steal your neighbours land, those days are over of wanton aggression. it is one thing to remove terrorist or invade it, but taking land, no way.

But the professor is white, I don't take such comments seriously, people are allowed to insult their own race usually with little to no consequences. Plus, his mama white. And plus, Drake and all them rappers calls for genocide of African Americans all the time, and white media cheers them on.

In white universities which blanconate african americans historically. How does it teach people to hate pink skin people?

I vacation for 8 weeks a year too, so what?

Not exactly, so far, it has been limited largely to the rural poor as she stop subsidizing them. Doctors got a raise, it was much worse undr harris when they were having their wages, slashed and hospitals closed down and getting laid off and fired. You are probably just living in the wrong province. There is a reason why the provinces with the 3 major cities, are prevailingly liberal or left of centre. Conservatives don't even exist provincially in BC, lol. Your position is not the norm. Most, Ontarians were not given free land from the government where they pay no taxes on. They live in large to medium sized cities and thus are heavily reliant on government just for their most basic needs to be met. Without large centralized government, a city can not run effectively. Even in really red states like Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, the cities like Atlanta, Jackson, and Austin, Dallas etc tend to be comparatively much more liberal. Standing on your "own two feet" works fine when the government gave your grandfather a free 120 acre homestead and you don't really need the government help. But for a person who is Italian, coming to north york in the 1960s, there is no way you can compete effectively without government help. It is grossly inconvenient, a pain in the neck, and very hard to do basic things like getting your groceries. This is why the Italians in north york are so liberal, I know, I use to campaign door to door to them. But even the farmers cry for help now and then when things go bad. So everyone wants small government, until they need big government. We'd all like to pay no taxesbut get lots of services. Everytime you have the developers building suburbs, they are really just building future liberal voters, because you want government to build a rail to cut your commute time from 3 hours to 1 hour. It is the voters who want big government. Its not possible to survive in these suburbs like vaughan, richmond hill, mississauga, ajax etc without a big activist government fixing problems. I mean you can shift the blame, but it was the provincial government responsible for healthcare, not the feds. It got really bad under Harris, people remember chritien favourably as a good government. Canada's economy did well overall. For conservatives to win, they need to become more progressive, and fight for the little guy, and lose their mean spirtedness. Rob Ford was the only conservative I could think of that probably had any chance in that regard.

Yes, but this foolishness was started by mike harris. So you going to vote out the liberals for enacting the conservatives plan? Ontario, or at least the gta, is a liberal progressive hot bed. They wield the votes in large enough numbers where without being able to penetrate it, conservatives cannot win. The conservative small government agenda, is directly contra the interest of GTA voters because large regions require good activist government, not "small and limited government" . The only thing conservatives could do is to offer tax cuts to the upper middle class people, and you'd be talking elimination of provincial taxes to really get the votes. Basically, they'd have to copy kansas style disaster tax cuts to really get the votes. Also the pc party is not progressive in ontario. Wynne is grossly corrupt, but we got toll highways from the last conservative government and jon tory, the former conservative leader of ontario is bringing in more toll highways to toronto. So how does a conservative government look to you? More john tory style corruption, more tolls, more being nickled and dimed. Wynne isn't winning because people like her, they just realize the conservatives have a platform of anti-middle class, anti-working class, and anti-poor agenda. Further their history of racism does not help them at all.

As far as the north american context goes, we don't call people white because people in china may have used that term (and I am not sure they did), it is because white people chose to call themselves that starting in the 1600s. In the 1400s and 1500s whites were calling themselves christians, not white, the term was not used like that. They do now, back then, it just didn't exist like that. They knew people looked different, but it was not a codified system. Do you have any evidence China maintained a race base system during this period? Do you even know if the terms are translated accurately or figuratively. And what evidence is there of white people calling themselves white in this period?

The point is that when whites call themselves white, they are calling themselves that as a classification system! It is not based on their color. Whites claimed that africans had black and brown skin and asians had yellow skin and brown skin. They knew their skin was not white but some kind of pink or beige. Hence whiteness is different. Whiteness is an ideology or a religion about who will and won't get. Most the people classified as yellow or black now, would be classified that way 300 years ago. 300 years ago, most the people in Europe were not counted as white people, it is a status and a ideology, not a real skin color or race.

Well it seems you agree with me that white does not refer to skin color, because we seem to agree that no one is white like paper. And that has been my point. The racial concept of whiteness was never about skin color, it was always about an oppresive system designed to oppress anyone classified as non-white regardless of the fact that their appearance. The term caucasian as used is odd to me, there is not even a consensus of what it means. In Russia and east europe, the caucasian people (as in those from the ethnic groups from the caucaus mountains) are called black people. So I am not even sure what you mean by the term caucasian. The fruit of colonization for non-white people, is a poisonous fruit, if you try to enjoy it, it kills you. Most countries were destroyed by colonialism, it was just an economic system to suck money out of the colonized. You have proven and I agree that people noticed different skin colors, but races as we view them today, no, this is a colonial concept developed out of nationalistic europe in the colonial era.

Did white people live in ancient china? Did they classify themselves as white?

That would be like saying if there are no fruits made from dragons, how can you say non-dragon fruits? If fruits made of dragons don't exist, the fruits made not of dragons don't exist. Whiteness is not about skin color, it is a fabicated social class. Non-whites are people who have typically non-pink skin and are classed outside of the social class. Paleface, not white face. Pink is paler than red indian! The fact that the categorization of whites can change, shows that whites are not being described for their physical nature but rather something social. Unless you are trying to say that portuguese born in 1910 raced magically shifted in mass by the 1960s? No one is arguing about European cultural identities, you can be as Italian, French, Spanard, british as you want to be.

What is the parallel?

You are comparing stereotypes, to facts. It is a fact that all white people are participating in white supremacy, either actively or inactively, passively or progressively. You are using the term racist as a synonymous of bigotry. It is not really a correct use, it is a layman's use, and common use, but when you start off wrong, you will end up wrong. Your comment is silly because it erroneously assumes Europeans were somehow the first people with dominant technologies to encounter other peoples. africans had been trading with the indians and chinese from the bc period and sending large fleets back and forth between the two groups. At one point you had a chinese trader and explorer show up in kilwa with 30,000 soldiers and behaved peacefully. At another point mansa musa of mali travelled into asia with 150,000 soldiers and a tremendous technological advantage and didn't hurt a fly. Racism is not a "human problem" it has the potential to be, as of now, and as of the creation of race in the 1600s and 1700s, racism has been an exclusive problem tied to the fabricated white identity. Even in the 1400s you had europeans travelling but you did not have racism, the concept of race was nations, and each nation was a race. Hence they'd speak of the scottish race or spanish race etc. Now bigotry is a human problem, but racism is the exclusive domain of the invention called whiteness.

Whiteness cannot refer to skin color, because the same groups whiteness changes over time. Irish, Germans, Finns, Portuguese, Italians, Slavs, French and so on where viewed as non-whites by white society in the American context at some point in time. Unless it is your argument that in the recent past these people were all non-white, your argument doesn't hold. Whiteness is not about skin color but behaviour, treatment and access to resources. Western civilization has little to do with whiteness. The question is what is being white? And the fact that so many misunderstand what it is, is precisely why it needs to be studied. Who says they aren't studying all what is means to "be white".

Well it is a fact not racist. Not under the current conditions anyways. In Canada, in this world, in 2016, it is impossible for a non-white peoples to be racist to whites. Bigoted, biased, prejudiced, yes, racist, impossible. The only example I can think of approaching to what one could call people being racist to white people, was well, other white people, like Hitlers act on the slavs, or when Canada and USA defined some groups who they now call white as non-whites years ago and treated them poorly in the past.

No, because the concept of race did not exist back then in that view and it was not even consistent from nation to nation. Racism is not so much about individual practices here. That is more akin to bigotry. Let me guess, a white person wrote the list. Racism today is the same as it was 100,200, 300 years ago, white racism and global white supremacy.

It is right here: I don't agree with your comment, but even if it were true, use your brain. If a non-white person throws a rock out the window, there is a 75% chance it hit someone white (majority). Reverse it, the number falls to just 25%. There is no long history of non-whites mass murdering whites in canada, genociding them, enslaving them, denying them legal rights, and structural racism against them. Whites are a privileged group here, all the prime ministers have been white only. The reverse is not comparable because non-whites simply never did what whites did.

Why is it on the rise? Who is the caucasian race? Who are white people? White people can indeed be the solution, but the question is, will they take the necessary actions to make the world more peaceful Why is the world a white world to begin with? How did 5% of the world's population manage to take the other 95% of the world and put it under their control. And of course their stealing, robbing, taking and butchering from the other 95% would have nothing to do with them being disliked right? What is wrong with more non-white reporters if "Race doesn't matter and 'you are color blind and don't see race'"? If the world is white, then how are white people not surviving? Don't they only have themselves to blame since it is a white world? No one can be racist to white people, because under the global condition of white supremacy, whites are always in charge, that is what it means to be a white supremacist and to be under white supremacy. If people can be racist to whites, then we don't have a white world anymore. Which countries in Europe have they "woken up in". You mean Britain where they are sending back all the white polish workers and replacing them with non-white indians, africans, canadians and carribeans from the common wealth?

I agree that we should not blindly subscribe to expert opinion.