dizzy

There's nothing odd about it. The Hercs are doing near daily supply runs. Besides, their larger capacity will help ease the rotation out next summer and transition to Kabul.

I cant speak for others but I don't think it's because you're a "yank". Being from wisconsin or wherever is not intimidating to a torontonian or montrealer, etc. Debate without honesty is just a series of liars, lying to each other. I didn't parse black from american anymore than you did québecois from 'rest of canada'. I could extend to say that ethnic difference carries value, but the historical 'nuance' of slavery does feed into the american anxiety differently than it does here. Africville is evidence that things sucked here for blacks, too, but differently than it did for americans. reference my second point above. And Andrew Lang.

I think BC is bright enough to see the point. He's also aware of the implications of accepting it.

Not me. I'm paying attention to words, not people's self-perception regarding their 'reputation'. This isn't high school, it's a discussion forum. Or maybe, if you reread my post you'd notice I made no criticism of blacks. I was using a similar scenario, one you seem more than uncomfortable discussing, to illustrate why your OP was flawed. You've made reference to quebec sovereignty here, as a reflection on identity. I have no hyper sensitivities about about any of your comments. It would benefit your position to do the same. Yup! So, in the following article we see how a compliment directed to blacks belies a more negative undertone: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101495.html Does it provide you with any thoughts wrt how an unnecessarily flattering perspective of another group of people can be just as limiting as a negative one? I'm not keeping track of the score, just trying to have a discussion (and, in this case, looking for clarification on an obtusely laid point).

Like I've said, I've seen canadians in american threads blanket discredited because their tone was too often one-note. It makes sense to me that people will distrust another if he or she seems profoundly oriented toward shaming the majority of the group, especially when he or she is not a party to the group. Consider it more evidence of the tribalism we're discussing. I think your reaction when you thought I was attacking you by attacking blacks suggests otherwise. Despite the wonderful forward movements of the internet, most of us still respect old-fashioned notions like honesty and integrity. And I've more than explained it. It was one line projected in a proper context. I can't take responsibility for how you received it. sooooo.... moving on? I didn't know that you were american? Yes, I did. And I was not projecting a view on blacks. I was comparing how congratulating blacks for being articulate has the the same negative impact as expecting canadians to be peaceable. As you've stated, it's all about staying in place and not being 'uppity'. I don't understand. please explain.

The other possibility is that they identify with their particular brand of fiscal conservatism and social progressiveness. As Evening Star states above, many see them as the voice for modern day red tories.

You're right. I reread and you don't seem surprised that you're not banned. You are commenting on your perceptions of others' attitudes toward you. I was asking you to defend a statement you made. I feel no personal slight. Let me understand this, in a thread where you are making claims about canadians, you are feeling sensitive about reasonably comparable statements I've made about what is happening america? I used one reference closer to your personal experience alongside one closer to mine. In the same paragraph. I'm sure you know that part of exploring the worth of an idea involves comparing it to other possible world scenarios. I was not disparaging towards blacks or americans in my comparison. Here's a reference, from the same institution that provided us with the fodder for this thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101495.html Again, I did not make disparaging comments wrt race and I've not shown any disrespect to americans in this thread, so park the baggage. This isn't therapy time.

Not entirely true. There are many conservative voters in the west who declare the Greens as their second choice. So they have the ability to splinter both the left and the right. In a proportional representation system, the impact would be considerably less.

So, why did you say you were surprised that you haven't yet been banned? I see nothing ban-worthy nor exceptional about your posts. Others have stated that they find them predictable. While your obsession with canadiana is noted, I find it curious, not offensive. I could as easily argue that your refusal to put down the baton on this discussion accomplishes the same. But I won't because that would be silly. You have reasons to be here right now, as do I. I'm more interested in testing the quality of your words. That's a normal part of debate. Yes, racism exists in Canada. I was just making a simple reference to a popular complaint that arose during your most recent presidential process. Likewise I also offered an example of canadian ignorance directed toward americans in the very same post. I'm surprised that a race reference would throw you into such a tailspin... and you keep playing the race card. FTR, I had no idea you were black before you claimed to be in this thread, and it affects my opinion of you in no way. I continue to judge your words on your ability to defend them. But your discomfort with race does prove my point that characterizations such as those portrayed in the author's op/ed can be without worth, even when they're meant to be kind.

So, if you play within the established rules, why would you expect to be banned? They are not above reproach. And I have not called you anything I could not defend. What was the intention behind your calling me out for my nomadic global man schtick? I had provided another example, one that targeted similar behaviour from canadians toward americans and yet your ability to respond is obsessed on my valid acknowledgment that many blacks find insult when whites call them articulate? Why are you so sensitive about race?

I am suggesting they have a role to fill in governance, not that I'd like to see them govern. Some of their nonsense defaults toward useful ideas, for example 'pay-per-use' roads. Tempered and on some issues, they could contribute to a better mix in taxation.

Or maybe you're experiencing the canadian tolerance you misrepresent? People can dislike your manner and still allow you to exist, not unlike the US and many other liberal democracies. Well, I disagree. points to me for not trying to make you feel small. I knew what you should have, that it wouldn't work. I made an example that reflected upon a real conflict between people represented by two social constructs, to demonstrate that weakness of not moving beyond rugged impressions about a people before interacting with them. Again, you don't find that sloppy?

. From what I've read here, some were not objecting to the topic but how and from whom it was presented. I've witnessed some one-note canadians on american threads whose opinions are immediately discredited in a similar manner. Of course, you'll also find people everywhere who just don't want to be challenged by outsiders. It's not unique to this forum or to canadians. I'm pointing to demonstrable behaviour. Do you have a point then about my nomadic global man schtick? Race and national identity are both social constructions. As descriptors, they are blunt instruments, not in any way useful except as a starting point. Your author failed to move beyond these rugged impressions before moving to a new land. You don't find that sloppy?

The greens can bring attention to social/environmental issues without having to navigate a loyalty to unions. The greens can advocate for a shift toward consumption taxes. The greens can fight for proportional representation.

So we agree that drawing caricatures of entire nations is boring? I'm not sure what that does for your OP. Of course I'm invested in this concept, I live here! If I didn't like this society's experiment, I'd simply move.You keep playing cards that I'm not assigning to you... american.... african american... I'm simply approaching you as an individual. No relevance to the point. Try again. I'm sure it has. I don't spend a lot of time in this forum, but I am well exposed to the discourse. As I've mentioned, it's an interesting discussion. Your 18000+ posts here suggest that you would agree. I'm not sure where the nomadic global man schtick accusation comes from. I'd love for you to point to where I used it to dominate the discussion. As I see it, you're simply using it the way your republican/tea party types do when speaking about city-folk, to diminish an experience that doesn't suit your own. Once again, I don't care about your nation or race statistics... only your words. See the difference?

If AW and I continue our civil discussion, what I can expect from her is that, even when she gets upset, she won't disparage... evidence from the american front that an entire people should not be characterized as having one perspective that governs all things. I spent the effort, you chose not to navigate your way out of the corner you painted yourself into. BTW, There's nothing tortured about having a constantly evolving and unformed identity. It's part of what I love about being canadian and why I continue to contribute to this thread. I wish you could see this comment through the looking glass... If you can offer sage advice on being canadian, why can I not on being african-american? What I've done is considerably more honourable than your 2D perspective on canadians, as I never suggested the 'articulate accusation' was the normal experience for all african americans. In fact, I highly doubt that most african americans suffer the complimentary curse of being considered articulate by white americans, if you know what I mean No worries, I'm brown and grew up surrounded by south asian, south-east and east asian, west indian, african people. So you can understand why I have no attachments to your idea that, just because a bunch of people live together, they share one static identity. Happy shoveling... I can relate more than many americans, as this is one other dimension of identity that does not cleanly align with political borders.

So you're objective was to irritate? Honestly, BC, I'm quite ready to continue the debate as I found it interesting. But no lost sleep here. I haven't name called you for being american, so the oppressed stance is not required. You're always welcome to prove this with evidence. There is no debate that many black americans find insult in being called articulate. I simply used it as a comparison to the flaws I outlined in your and your author's rhetoric. I never suggested it was 'very important' to me. I'm having a lazy sunday today, with time and interest to embrace this conversation. I do understand that I misunderstood your intent earlier. What I see now is that you can debate reasonably until you run out of space, then it's all about your troll count! Glad to have supported you in this very important endeavour by adding to your post total today.

And yet you tried... hence this thread. Yes, as you imply, there are many views on canada by canadians. The only thing absent in this thread is a compelling argument that the one you propose is one we should all subscribe to. You clearly weren't aware of at least one notable reality for blacks in america. I simply offered google as a tool to illuminate on the subject of identity conflict, much as you did when you fished out the 6 yr old article we are debating. BTW, the offer is still there to pick up on the civil discussion that ended with me challenging your last non-trolly points. I can provide the link again...

Your arguments were not reaching their intended goal, i.e. that canadians don't have a clear identity. When specific examples were provided, the evidence provided demonstrated that we do. I actually don't like many elements of it, but I don't question its existence. Which point did I fight off? I responded, right?

Nuance? I linked you to the last post of connected discussion. Everything looks crystal clear there. Let me know what's confusing you and I'll clarify. You missed the point entirely, 'stereotype land' is everywhere, not just Canada.

I look forward to the day when the green party can make themselves relevant to an age demographic that actually votes. I think they could bring a lot to the table as another voice of opposition.

I disallowed nothing, you failed to prove it exists...

I'm. pretty sure I've responded to all of your points. Please advise me if I missed any. You're accusing me of beating one drum I was using the shortcomings afforded by other well-known stereotypes, including one wrt cross-racial stereotyping, to 'colour' the one that drives this thread. It exists, everywhere, all of the time. It's not unusual that it existed as it did in the evidence you provided in your OP.

Yes, I get the strategy. Find the one 'weak' point and pummel it endlessly until the whole argument bruises. You got me, I used a bad word. As an aside, I've responded thoughtfully to all of your equally thoughtful posts and, at present, they are unanswered. Would you care to move back to the point of your OP? I just put "whites" and "articulate" into google and then "whites", "articulate" and "Canada". I'm happy to report that there's not issues like the one I referenced wrt the articulate comment for blacks. It reinforces my point that a compliment can be an insult when it enforces only one possible identity for a large group of people.

I've already retracted the word 'asshole' as it's clearly created some misunderstanding with regard to my intent. That's the weakness of soundbite culture, I guess. I still imagine a world where people like winston churchill have value. Put the words "articulate" and "black" into google and report back to me. You may not have known it, but a lot of black americans don't like being called articulate.