gc1765

Well that makes a lot of sense, and by that reasoning, we should assume that every white person is a member of the KKK unless they can prove otherwise.

No "left-winger" supports genital mutilation, or any other extremist aspects of Islam, and to suggest otherwise is a joke. Where the left-wing differs from some of the right-wing is recognizing the fact that most Muslims are not extremists, and therefore do not make sweeping generalizations about them.

You mean like how Europe traded with Natives in North America and Africans? So, I guess what you're saying is that Natives helped Europeans to become rich?

Another example of what I am talking about: Link I can see the merit in having schools for students who are not doing well & have a high-risk for dropping out, and I understand that the drop-out rate is higher among blacks...but shouldn't these schools focus on which students are failing & likely to drop out rather than focusing on race. Is this just a form of segregation? If you tell students "well, you're black so you're probably going to drop out of high school" isn't that actually going to encourage more people to drop out? Tell someone something long enough, and sooner or later they might start to believe it. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy...

I consider myself lucky to be Canadian, more so than proud. I can also look at all the great things that Canada has done, and if I had been involved in them, I would be proud.

The only time I have heard Obama talk about "uniting" is with respect to uniting Republicans and Democrats.

Well, I was hoping we could have one interesting debate about politics without all the partisanship, but perhaps I was wrong. Anyways, aside from the rest of your analysis, do you have an answer yet?

Wow. That is one of the most well-thought out & well-argued points that I have ever seen. Kudos.

What most people seem to forget is that Europe was also quite poor & full of disease prior to the industrial revolution. Africa may have been a bit behind the rest of the world, likely due to adverse geography, but virtually every other region of the world was equally poor.

Obviously people tend to vote on racial or religious lines. No one would dispute that. I think you completely misinterpreted my question, or else chose not to answer it. My question was does making race an issue a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? IOW, does it tend to cause racism? This issue goes a lot deeper than this political campaign, and politics in general. I disagree. I have very rarely, if ever, heard Obama talk about race. But when I turn on the TV, or read the newspaper, that's all they are talking about. Again, this issue goes a lot deeper than this campaign. Racism has been around a lot longer than that. My question, though, was whether the fact that race is an issue (defining people based on their race, or telling people that because they have different skin colour they are "different") contributes to racism? If you think you have answer to that question, by all means share it with us.

And I doubt Levant wants to look like an idiot.

Before the British arrived, Kenya's economy was on par with countries that are now rich (europe, japan etc.), and other countries were even more advanced (china). North America (much like Britain) also had the advantage of much more favourable geography than either Kenya or Pakistan. So there is no reason to suggest that North America's economy wouldn't have flourished the same way as Britain's did.

Ain't that a great reason to try and improve the status of Natives? And how could you possibly know that?

Well, then I could just as easily say that Paul Martin does not need to give answers for something which is not wrong. But the point is, usually when someone has nothing to hide, they answer the question. Not answering the question usually makes people assume the worst.

Or ask Bob J. Perry and John Corsi...or Bob Corker....

Ok, let me put it this way... Paul Martin did not disclose who donated to his 1990 leadership bid. Nor did he have to. He had every right to refuse to disclose his donours. But does that not make him look bad? Or would you simply say that he does not have to. Or when a cop asks you a question, you don't have to answer it or co-operate. But do you think someone who says "I won't answer your question because I don't have to" is going to be viewed with more suspicion by the cops?

I agree. I think I'd rather have snow than constant rain (rained every day except one last January, if I remember correctly). Then again, the grass is always greener on the other side. I think with global warming, Vancouver might start to lose some of its appeal.

Like I said, I don't claim to know why he published them. But the comments he made about why he published them give me the impression that it was not because it was newsworthy. The reasons don't matter in the sense that he has the right to do so...just as I have the right to call people morons. But if he is giving the impression that he did it "because he can", and if you agree that doing something just because you can is stupid, then he is making himself look like an idiot.

You make some good points... I'm not saying that it's not an issue, obviously it is. But whether the fact that it's an issue is a good thing or a bad thing. I think that defining people based on their race has a lot to do with racism. Telling people "you're different, because you have different pigmentation in your skin" causes racism, IMO. Segregation was all about "you have a different skin colour, so you have to drink from this fountain, or sit at the back of the bus". I think that telling people how different they are is part of the problem. Now, I'm not trying to say that CNN caused racism. Obviously racism has been around for a long time. But I think part of the root of the problem of racism is defining people based on the colour of their skin. And I think that continuing to make race an issue will not get rid of racism. If we stopped making such a big deal of race, it would still take a long time to rid the world of racism. But I think the more we make race an issue, the longer it will take to get rid of racism. I dunno, just a thought. I could be wrong...

And it's statements like that which makes me think this is all about "I did it because I can...", rather than any other purpose. Again, I could go around calling people morons "because I can"...but I wouldn't say that it would be wise to do so.

No, I don't know for sure...but if it was for the sole purpose of giving the news, rather than being offensive, then why didn't he say so instead of saying this: "Mr. Levant, who occasionally writes for the National Post, said he was asked about his rationale for publishing the cartoons. "I don't need to be reasons-able. I have maximum rights of free speech," he said later. "I have the right to publish this for the most offensive reason, for the most unreasonable reasons." Sounds like he would have published them even if it was irrelevant to the news story.

If that was the purpose of publishing the cartoons, then I might agree with you. However, I kinda get the impression that the whole reason he published them was to create controversy, which IMO is stupid. I don't go around calling everyone I see a moron just because I can, and just because I have the right to free speech...if I did, I'd probably get a punch in the face sooner or later...

Did you not see what happened in Denmark? Do I really need to explain why it's stupid? Unless you think riots and death threats are worth it to "see what the commotion was all about"...

I agree with kimmy

So I was watching CNN the other day, and they had a special on race and politics. It seemed to me that they talked obsessively about the fact that Obama is black. And I wonder, is this a good thing - making race an issue? Why is he viewed as a black man running for president rather than just a person running for president? I like Obama, but not because of the colour of his skin - nor do I dislike him because of the colour of his skin. The colour of his skin is irrelevant to me. But does defining him by his race, especially in the media, actually cause racism? I mean, if we keep telling people how "different" they are, isn't that bound to create racism? I just can't believe that the colour of a person's skin is an issue any more than the colour of their shirt. I don't see the colour of shirt that a person wears being an issue in politics, and I don't see any discrimination based on the colour of a person's shirt, so why is skin so different? If we treated one race the way we treat people who wear blue shirts, and treat another race the way we treat people who wear red shirts (i.e. the same), would there be as much racism as there is "shirt-ism" (i.e. none)? Any thoughts? Does defining people based on race create more racism or less racism?