Hollus

I agree. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. The onus is on the Police officer to know how much force is needed to defuse the threat. When we give goons the responsibility of using that force it can be abused just the same regardless of what tools hang from their belts.

Bad policing killed Robert Dziekanski but bad policing is not why Mr Dziekanski is dead. The simple fact is that Mr Dziekanski died from bad communication (a very sad thing to die from in the age of pocket-sized electronic translators). This man did not fly into YVR with the intentions of causing public disorder he came to visit his mother. While he may not have been the most knowlegdable world traveller, I would hope an international airport would have the customer service available to deal with an unsure foriegn speaking traveller. What would happen if a foriegn speaking traveller had a sudden medical emergency? Does YVR not have some staff to handle such situations? Where were they? How was Mr Dziekanski allowed to linger in an area smaller than an ice-rink (the most secure area of the airport, crawling with staff and survaillance) for over ten hours without being helped? YVR needs to explain why this situation was allowed to escalate to the point where police had to be called. As for the Police response, it is clear they had their minds made before they even approached the distraught man: Remove the public disturbance and clear the area for the next incomming flight. Not a bad plan. However the execution of that plan was horrible and tragic. I believe that if the Policemen, the YVR staff or anyone else had been able to communicate with Mr Dziekanski the situation would have easily been resolved. I am not against the use of tazzers. Although it is quite obvious they are abused in the line of duty, I do believe they are a useful tool for good cops. Rather than contempate the removal of the tazer from the RCMP tool belt I suggest we add to the tool belt an electronic language translator. That way the officer will at least be able to open a line of communication before he zaps the perp to death.

This is complete BS. Violence ensues in response to a variety of stimuli. You've set the parameters of this thread as strictly dealing with skin color. As soon as you start bringing violence into the discussion you out-step your parameters. Whatever are you talking about? I "outstep" my parameters? Skin color has never been and never will be the sole factor of racial violence. If you speak of racial violence you must speak of the environmental and sociological conditions from which it occurs. This most certianly includes culture, which you have barred from debate. Your musings of racial violence are completely irrational within the sope you have set for this thread.

This is complete BS. Violence ensues in response to a variety of stimuli. You've set the parameters of this thread as strictly dealing with skin color. As soon as you start bringing violence into the discussion you out-step your parameters.

I don't. Where as the "melting pot" is sometimes more of a crucible, multiculturalism attemts to promote diversity (but not separation) and to alloy cultures to one another. You should come out to Toronto for the Dragon Boat races........ I love these bumper sticker metaphorical cliches you keep tossing out. How do you propose "alloying" Sharia to common law, or Jamaican druglords to law abiding society? You might as well try to mix oil and water. And of course you need to wave the happy happy "cultural diversity" flag in the form of "dragon boat races." How about we celebrate the cultural diversity of Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops, and Sikh terrorism instead? They are at least as prevalent as "colourful street festivals"... Sharia law can be 'alloyed' with Canadian law just as Jewish and Catholic law have been through faith-based arbitration. This does not mean women will be stoned in public for adultery. Jamaican druglords, Asian street gangs, Vietnamese grow-ops have alloyed quite well with our criminal culture. Are you upset because the grow-op on your street is not run by Hells Angels? Pissed off because your business is being extorted by Asian gangs rather than Italian ones? You would like to be mugged by Native street kids instead of Jamacian street kids? Love how you distinguish crime by the ethnicity of those who commit it.

Just last night I witnessed an argument between two third generation Canadians where one of them claimed to be 'Canadian' and the other claimed to be 'German'. Knowing both of these people it was clear that the first person was full of nationalistic pride and held contempt for those who did not identify with his ethnocentrism. The second person was simply recognizing their cultural ancestry and in doing so, was subjected to berating comments for lack of patriotism and for identifying with a Country which the first person emphatically described as being inferior. (It was a little ironic how the first persons blind nationalism had him making condemnations of Germans as domineering Nazis, when he was clearly much more compatible as a Hitler youth than the person he was attacking). People put alot of wieght in words like 'Canadian', 'German', and 'Multiculturalism', but these words mean many different things to many different people. If your taking issue with someone over the their use of words without having taken the time to understand they're intended meaning your interpretation will be irrational.

What is you argument Scott? Are you saying that there is a difference between 'races' beyond physical appearance?

Jefferiah: I am not trying to control people’s choice in who to marry. I don’t care. I’m in here talking about how skin color fits into one’s fundamental values. I don’t think it does because skin color is a superficial aspect of a person. Others here think skin color is a fundamental value. I don’t know why. I’m not worried of these people trying to control me either. I just think they lack moral substance based on their impressed importance of pigmentation.

Jefferiah: Your interpretation of my response to your analogy is incorrect and your subsequent projections pure fiction. The analogy itself was quite a poor one but I responded in good faith. I wish I hadn’t.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us? You are confusing the existence of something---these groups as you say---for what they might conceivably decide to do in the future. It is possible that some Afro/Asians might become racist and wish to attack, but that has nothing to do with the genetic makeup of Afro-Asians. You are starting to sound like the racist now. Have you been reading this thread??? This is very racist. It is not a sentiment I have been presenting, it is one I have been contesting. My post you are replying to here was designed to illustrate the racism of such thinking. Apparently you picked that up (sort of).

Jefferiah, ScottSA, Kimmy: I think I’ve been very clear on my views regarding this subject. I don’t see skin color as having any significance in the quality of a person’s character and from what I can read you have all agreed with that sentiment. Yes? No? You all agree that skin color is superficial. Yes? No? You all wonder (or surmise) why I oppose the idea of deliberate and intentional preservation of skin color. It is because I see no room for sentimentalism or superficialities when dealing with fundamental values. All of you put a great deal of importance in preserving skin color. So much so that you allow it to dictate something as fundamental as whom you choose to marry and have children with. So what is it that is so important that you must hold this superficial aspect as a fundamental value?

Ya, I think its wrong. I see the two families as part of a bigger family. So now that one of the families has lost their 'meaningless jewel', the other family will not join with them. That creates a negative meaning for the jewel.

Yes I mean people who choose their mate based on the ability to preserve their appearance. Kimmy says she believes it to be "a duty, more or less" And in response to a question of whether or not a mate must have a certian skin color, Scott says: "Yup, I'm certainly not going to contribute to submerging my Caucasian genes". Im not saying these people do not have some other standards by which they choose a mate, but it certainly seems that perpetuating their whiteness is paramount.

Would you not be afraid that my Afro/Asian group might dicriminate against whatever appearance group you belong to? Do you think there is any reason my Afro/Asian group should be afraid that your appearance group whould discriminate against us? Do you think there is any reason Scott's appearance group should be afraid of discrimination from either of us?

Ya, I think my distinquishing between marriage and procreation is inconsequintial, so please disregard that. And I agree that my original analogy was off, the rephrased one is not.

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland? Is this something you would support? Lol. You know that is a very ridiculous comparison. You are becoming the breeder putting two people together like a farmer. There is a huge difference between that and two consenting adults deciding to marry each other. You are forcing your will on someone and pre-arranging the marriage based on the idea that other people should marry the way you want. As far as I can tell, Scott is not going to come to my house with a burning cross if I decide to marry an asian. And he can choose who he wants to marry. There is no overseeing farmer. Allow me to rephrase that. If I was born from African and Asian parents and considered myself and other African/Asian offspring as unique, would you support my concerns for the survival of my kind and my fear of discrimination and my desire for a homogeneous homeland? Side note: I’m not speaking of marriage. I’m speaking of people procreating with the intention to create a specific looking offspring, which would make those people ‘breeders’.

Would you be defending me if I decided to breed Africans with Asians and declare their offspring to be Afians? And if I then started to passionately voice my concern about the possibility of discrimination towards my newly defined concoction of physical appearance, and their need for a homogeneous homeland? Is this something you would support?

"I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. " "Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism?" Well you defined ethnocentrism as your belief that your culture is superior to others and then you said your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based on your ethnocentrism. So if we take your second statement and substitute 'ethnocentrism' with the definintion you gave it in your first statement we get: Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my belief that my culture is superior to other cultures. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my belief my culture is better than other cultures.?

Aww, your sarcastic smiley face looks so sad. Well I didn't watch much Sesame Street. Thought Mr. Dress-up was way more fun. But as I remember it: Elmo is red, Grover is blue, Grouch is green, Cookie monster is a different shade of blue that I can't really describe, Hermit is green, Mumford is pink etc. And that's cool because they're all pretty cool (well except the Grouch is kind of a dick, but hey: He lives in a trash can. And the Cookie Monster might rip you off. He's clearly suffering from addiction). I guess lots will interpret the show differently. I don't think the show's message of the value of diversity is about the value of color. I think it is teaching that lots of different looking characters can be pretty cool. The characters community is a rich tapestry of looks and personalities, and as the show evolves over the years some the colors and personalities vary. The important part is they remain a tolerant and accepting community. I think the most interesting aspect of this thread is how much thought people put into pigmentation. ...and I still haven't figured out what prompted that. Because I waxed poetic about my skin and hair? Because I said I hope those characteristics live on in future generations? I don't get it. How does someone interpret that as an attack on other skin colors? -k Sorry for such a late reply to that; maybe my sinister impression was wrong: I thought you were speaking of race when you stated "However, I'm not too big to admit that I am influenced by appearance. My suspicion is that only the visually impaired can truthfully say otherwise." I don't see how else your comment could have pertained to our discussion.

Well Scott, watching the mainstream news (especially Fox) the past few years, I've witnessed countless occasions where people expressing opposition to the handling of the terrorist threat have been labelled anti-American. In fact the Bush admin straight out said your anit-American if you don't support what they do. And I think it's quite reasonable to say that the handling of the terrorist threat has only exacerbated the problem. I cannot recall any instance in the mainstream media where someone has been labelled a racist for condemning radical Islam. Maybe its happened, but certainly not to the extent that people have unjustly been labelled anti-American So I think my post is valid.

I don't think race and culture are the same thing. I just don't buy your claim that your desire to preserve the the caucasian race is not based out of your ethnocentrism. You're playing with terms that I don't think you understand. Of course my desire to preserve the the caucasian race is based on my ethnocentrism. Duh. When did this particular penny drop? When did I ever claim it wasn't based on my ethnocentrism? Sorry if Im a little confused but: So your desire to preserve the caucasian race is based out of your view that your culture is superior, yet this has nothing to do with culture? What am I missing here?

Except now if you don't 'stand up and say that' you will be called anti-American.

And I would invite you go go back to highschool long enough to distinguish between culture and race. Why must you persist in pretending they are the same thing? I don't think race and culture are the same thing. I just don't buy your claim that your desire to preserve the the caucasian race is not based out of your ethnocentrism.

Here is the mushy thinking of the left on display. As one of those making derogatory comments about thirdworld hellholes and slimepits, and 6th century madmen leading 21st century fools to an early grave, and any number of regressive African skewerings of each other with Assegai and whatever weapon lies at hand, I'd like to point out that culture and race are two different things. KListen closely now: I think European culture is eons ahead of any other culture. I am ethnocentric, and proudly so, if what you mean by that is that I think my culture is superior to other cultures. This thread has nothing to do with culture. I don't think white people are intrinsically better than any other people. So are you saying this thread is strictly directed at the idea of maintaining the physical attributes of caucasians? If this thread has nothing to do with culture why are you suggesting the need of a 'caucasian homeland'?

Well I would invite you to take a read through Scott's posts and take note of the negative connotations and judgements he uses when referring to people of other cultures. I would question your Black friends motives. Maybe they would have absolutely no root in hatred or contempt, but if he was choosing his mate as if he was shopping for certain coloured car I would say he's a very shallow person.