Shwa

You recommendations line up with the Education Programs of Indian Affairs.

No, nothing speculative about that at all. It's more about stupidity than speculation. Unless of course, you come up with the "evidence" that they gathered "tens of thousands of people" for "sacrifice." Can't? Didn't think so...

You got Imperialism when the article says "There is no evidence that the city was conquered. Instead the assailants seem to have abandoned it after their attack." And I am not sure where the genocide part comes in from the discovery of 33 bodies. What I do find very interesting: So they executed them, then buried them with some ceremony leaving behind their jewellry and other precious items. Almost like the killers were savage, but noble.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute in your use of the phrase "tens of thousands" nor in your unreliable use of speculative archaeological data. In other words, you're making shit up again.

No, there is a discussion going on here, somewhere, I think I saw something a few pages earlier... oh, here it is: I wouldn't deny that groups of people are comprised of sub-groups, that seems to be a prevailing property of practically all groups of people that I know about. Sometimes it is based on moiety, clan, guild, work specialization, etc. But these are all traits of culture. And despite the differences, there are similarities in the cultures of Europe which can be contrasted with the cultures found in China or India. I'm not quite convinced that the idea of the dominant culture is not what they were trying to get across using 'white' as a metaphor. The articles are fairly clear on this idea, even if the sloganeering is off the mark. The key to me seems the definition of "What is racism?" according to the website: "Racism is a set of beliefs, attitudes and actions which either directly or indirectly assert that one race is inherently superior to another." Beliefs, attitudes and actions impress me as being cultural traits. I don't think it is possible to divorce any messaging from culture since messaging uses culturally appropriate spoken language, gestures, cultural tropes and so on. A large advertiser would want to target those messages to as wide and typical an audience as possible. (ads targetted at women is a whole thread in itself!) I think the media attention is very important, especially since it appears to be quite clear that the Racism Free website is oriented toward the dominant culture group, and they say this on their "What is racism" page: "“Race” not only refers to biological characteristics, but is always defined by the dominant group in society." The media picked up on this and called them on it, which they should have. I'm not sure. If "white privledge" is a stand-in for "dominant culture" then I can see their point - to a degree. But I don't see the "dominant culture" in terms of skin colour, which I think is a bit perverse. Now if a white landlord chooses not to rent to an aboriginal or black person just because of skin colour, I don't see that as a condemnation of the dominant culture even though membership in the dominant culture has privledges. Well, demographically, the dominant culture here in Canada is comprised mostly of white folks, which I am going to guess is true of Edmonton. However, the racial/skin colour demographic in Edmonton is not the same as in Toronto or Vancouver. I doubt the "white privledge" message would even fly in Toronto or Vancouver, which is another mistake in applying the concept generally. However, racial demographics aside, we have fairly clear examples of how racism has benefitted the dominant culture over the years and some of these benefits are still being realized. It is tenuous rhetoric at best, I am just speculating. If we revert the to metaphorical idea of "white privledge" then Ian Hanomansing would have far more benefits than a new Polish immigrant who can barely speak English. Now, there might be some minor advantages associated with that racial demographic, but I think any benefit would have to be realized by the actual immigrants's understanding of that benefit, not some academics in Edmonton. Or an apartment in Edmonton as suggested by the article. I just have difficulty of accepting the exceptions as the rule, which I think what is being implied. I think we do flock together, but that doesn't negate that within the flock we don't find other ways to distinguish ourselves through cultural means - subgroups, surnames, jargon, etc. But even still, the regions of the world still display a racial homogeneity. And when I say 'flock together' I think we can point out to racism or racial chauvenism as an example of how that worked for a long time. Now... having said thatI don't think all of this chauvenism is based on skin colour, but much of it could be attributed to culture. In another thread earlier in the year, ShakeyHands made an interesting comment regarding a young woman who was speculated to be a convert to Islam. Shakey's suggested that maybe she did it to fit in. His comment seems counterintuitive, but I think it made a lot of sense. Yep, I agree, which is why I started with the domimant culture. Even if it means recognizing our flag, national anthem or the place that maple syrup and hockey have in that national culture. And this is the key point here since I believe that vast majority of people in our 'dominant culture' see it this way which is why I see that sort of "white privledge" message to a bit over the top when poorly defined and applied generally. That despite any mistaken preconceptions - whether race, clothes or language, etc., we tend towards the more postive factors to make our determinations between cultures or sub-cultures. Which leads to an interesting question as to whether we have always been a multicultural society or was it forced on us through legislation and program? I believe the former since history tends to bear this out quite nicely.

Naw, you misread my intentions son, but I didn't misread yours. Now you go and point out in this thread where C.R implies that "First Nations" were "quasi-perfect beings" please.

Maybe...maybe it was the Germans in WWII you are thinking about? Or the Russians in the Ukraine? Or maybe it was the Turks in Armenia? Or how about Christians everywhere who symbolically drink blood and eat of the body, that sounds like ritual cannibalism to me. So hard to keep them all straight. Maybe you should learn about the Popol Vuh.

How about the hundreds of thousands of women the Catholics sacrificed in the Middle Ages?How about the millions the Romans sacrificed in their colliseums? Or the billions the Greeks sacrificed to their Gods in earlier times? Hey, look at me everybody, I can make shit up just like TrueMetis.

Are you sure it is only a disgrace to "Canadian institutions of post-secondary education as a whole?" Why not Canada as a whole? Heck, let's not stop there, how about Western Civilization as a whole? Or, by extension, all of humankind as a whole? Or all living things as a whole? How about we agree that it was a discrace to all objects and concepts in all universes as a whole? Gosh, no, that would be hyperbole.

I am sure you are. Like Sun Myung Moon? Or are you a Movementarian looking to gather your flock to Blisstonia? Na-na na-na na-na na-na Leader!

What about it? Do you have some Ojiway or Lakota sources you would like to cite - perhaps some battle or war songs or some scrolls you can point to? Or are you referring to something you heard or read in a history book?

No, not necessarily. You had written: "I suppose the answer starts with a total lack of any fixed standards of morality." But I am not sure who you are speaking for when you say "a total lack of any fixed standards of morality" after using the Bible as a standard of morality or at least a historical reference. So are you basing the morality of "civilazation v. savagery" on Biblical standards or basically throwing it out the window to make modern determinations of what our standards of morality ought to be?

Damn! Nipped in the ass by freedom again. That is the third time this year!

Gimme a break, more shallow bullshit from someone who ought to know better. Thanks for proving it right here.

Finally, someone with some balls, thanks for that Dancer. Now, TrueMetis and Canadien, using he examples that Mr. Dancer has so willingly given, please explain how this invalidates the notion of 'Noble Savage' that was assigned to C.R

Isn't that what the Bible is for?

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, fug this Prime Minister business, let's vote for the President and get an NFL team in Toronto. All the rest of those annoying details can be worked out later. Plus, I want a Target up here so I can buy Count Chocula and Almond Joys.

Wow. You admit a few hours ago that you were "not familiar" of the Indian treaties and now think I must see Native cultures in terms of Avatar? That is quite a turnaround! When was the last time you read "Culitvating a Landscape of Peace: Iroquois-European Encounters in Seventeenth-Century America" by Matthew Dennis or "1491" by Charles Mann or "The Earth Shall Weep" by James Wilson or "Aboriginal Treaty Rights in Canada" edited by Michael Asch or... etc. You might want to also read "Beyond Culture" By Edward T. Hall who also expounds on the realities of different cultures. Very good book for gaining the basic understanding that some cultures don't operate the same way we do no matter how much we want to ascribe them to the idea that they do.

The fact that I recognize it as ironic Bob, is the recognition of the difference. Furthermore, did you know that residential schools were also private religious schools run by various Christian religious groups. Perhaps those Native kids would have been better off at a private Jewish elementary school as well, but we'll never know. But it isn't the only ideal, so the negotiations continue. Besides, I think some Natives are a titch leery about another ideal integration proposal and we can't blame them with their experiences with residential schools and other ideal assimilation methods of the past. Did you know that Natives only received the federal vote in 1960? Would you agree it would be better for Canada to integrate with the United States? I mean, we hold treaties with them too. Other cultures have integrated with the US, no reason Canada can't right?

No, I am not talking about boring, I am talking about lazy. Now if all you see is a "boring litany of 'how dare yous'" and that is the best your mind can fathom, then really, laziness is the least of your problems IMO. But then again, I suppose there is something to be said for those who would apply their terminology to another group of people and expect those people to readily agree with the term and it's application, whether it is even applied correctly or not. That takes a certain level of privledge don't you think? Or does it take a certain level of audacity also?

Bullshit. And what's worse, is that the term 'noble savage' has a distinct European etymology that neither denies nor exonerates a group of people from human failings such a war, slavery or violence, but is used a contrasting device for European political philosophy. Seriously Canadien, try and stay awake will you?

I am not sure why you would have that feeling? Are you cynical or superior by nature or was it taught to you?

.So are you saying that a group of people that share physical features do not devise cultural similarities especially in proximate regions like, say, Europe? In the case of the article I would say that they are referring to a 'culture of privledge' that is associated to their skin colour. I know that the words 'culture' and 'race' are not completely synonymous, but they so share links. So a Polish immigrant coming off the plane might have an immediate affinity with the dominant racial group through the shared understanding of any shared cultural traits they might possess, such as white dolls, white newscasters or the prevalence of white people hawking goods on TV. I am not about to admit that this affinity is racist in any shape or form, it is just an affinity which may ease the transition of integration into a society of like individuals. Ultimatley yes, you are correct here. However there are plenty of government initiatives, guided by academic coalitions and special interest activists we don't hear about or hear about on a large scale. It seems to me this specific claim of white privledge hasn't gained major traction anywhere else in the media, other that the usual blah we hear about. I could be wrong since I haven't really bothered to follow it on a national scale. I am sure this concept has been out in the world for quite sometime though. So, related to my point above, sure it should be the onus of the claiments to support it, which they have attempted to do. Even if we refute what they have to say, there still leaves the question of what possible benefits could there be, realized from our perspective. If there are any. Yeah, and there's the trap I think. I don't feel less informed when I watch Ian Hanomansing or any of the newscasters or reporters of colour on CityTV or Cable Pulse here in Toronto. But is that a reasonable expectation of someone of colour, that is, not not feel less informed or belong less to the culture producing those things? I would think the reasonable way to find out is to ask them. They do and in many cases, lots of lead characters or heroes are non-white nowadays even if those instances sometimes appear to be the exceptions to the rule. I am not sure that an acknowledgement of "white privledge" is supposed to be anything more than an acknowledgement of an awareness that birds of a feather can, and often do, flock together and this might be detrimental to others in some limited cases. I suppose the other side of it is to recognize racism when you see it and, if possible, enter into the dialogue necessary to change it. Other than that, I dunno.

I sure do! I easily spotted it with your postings recently. Generalizing of the worse kind; you are not even subtle about it either, I mean, without outright admitting to it. Where are your citations son? Am I supposed to take your word for it? If that were the case, then show me your credentials other than the obfuscating backtracking you are attempting here. You say that you "know about the ones" but are proving yourself completely incapable of provding any citation or source material. Do you know that the Chinese are inherently bureaucratic because many of them speak Mandarin too?

Are you asking my permission to generalize about me too now or are you simply unable to debate on merit and have to make things up for others to "say." Spoken like someone who can't back up their story with any sort of objective fact. So are you admitting you don't actually know the Spanish?