kimmy

yummy! Delicious and confrontational! -k

As with any other field, debate on racial issues has a glossary of its own that's not always in complete agreement with what Merriam or Webster consider accurate. While Merriam and Webster would probably agree with the view that racism is racism regardless of which race is the hater and which is the hatee, that does not seem to be the accepted academic view on the subject. The Dr Butlers of the world argue that racism is when white people hate not-white people. Which leaves apparently, no word available to describe the reverse situation; "reverse racism" seems as apt as anything.If you're opposed to the mangling of the language in this way, complain to the people who've redefined "racism" in the first place. Go right ahead. If you feel like being a dick, who am I to stop you? Why need it be representative of the whole to be worthy of discussion?ArchAngel has been pilloried in this thread for suggesting that "anti-racist" rhetoric caused her to lose sympathy for that cause. I've presented a couple of examples of that rhetoric, and simply asked whether her claim is all that unrealistic in the face of this kind of hyperbole. You're not here discussing it. You're here trying to limit the terms of the discussion to exclude it. If we limit the discussion to exclude Dr Butler (and presumably any other "anti-racist" whose views make you uncomfortable) then what should we concentrate our attention on? Earlier you dismissed Dr Butler as "a fringe academic from nowheresville." You now concede that there's "a lot of such wankery in academic circles" (are they all fringe? are they all in nowheresville?) but you still wish to avoid it discussion because "that's where it tends to stay". I think the claim that "that's where it tends to stay" is pretty suspect. I have not closely followed the "black school" topic, for instance, but I would anticipate that folks in academic circles were heavily consulted. Likewise, I'd anticipate that they're heavily consulted any time lawemakers or large employers draft policies regarding workplace diversity, equity, affirmative action, and the like. I also point out that these academics and activists have means to advance their views beyond the academic world. It's the information age. Everybody can publish and distribute anything they want; all they need is a willing audience. And finally, I suggest that the "who really cares, it's just academic wankery" attitude is the main reason the disgraceful University of Delaware "diversity program" was able to reach the point it did. Most likely, somebody asked "diversity experts" to come up with a "diversity training" course without ever bothering to find out what kind of bullying was going to be inflicted on the students. Well, I'm provoked. I'm discussing. I find it quite sad that so many people are scared shitless to challenge views. Perhaps some are afraid they'll be branded racists if they disagree with people like Dr Butler. -k

I remember when I lived in Ottawa, being downtown at 4:01pm on a weekday and being almost crushed by the stampede of federal government workers rushing out of the office towers and onto the buses, like a Canadian version of the running of the bulls. "That sounds pretty sweet," I thought to myself. So a few years later, reflecting on the memory of those happy and unburdened office workers, I decided to browse Government of Canada job postings online, and on a whim decided to apply for a position. After filling out the first page in the online application, I was informed that I would not be considered for the position because of my... ...postal code. They never even got the chance to reject me because I'm too Anglo or too pale; I got rejected because I lived in Edmonton. Perhaps Kimmy needs to learn French to be eligible for the civil service, but the civil service needs to learn a hell of a lot more before they're eligible for Kimmy. In the time since, I have read Argus here on MLW explain how job postings in the federal service can be classified as "french required" not as a result of any requirements of the job, but as a means for a manager to narrow the field in favor of a prefered applicant. And I recall another poster who provided an article stating that an Anglo learning French at public schools doesn't have sufficient fluency in French to satisfy the language poobahs anyway. (Perhaps if there were equally vigilant English language poobahs, I wouldn't have to listen to some inept civil servant's incomprehensible mumblings when I try to get assistance by telephone.) Dangling cushy jobs as an incentive to learn French is a painfully fake means of boosting the French language; and deceptive anyway: learn french, and there'll be some other reason you're not good enough for them. -k

Well, actually what he's saying, in black and white, "A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality." See? That's not the same as what you said at all. What you said is that white people are born into privilege. What he's saying is that all white people are racist. "A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality." See? See how that's kind of different from what you thought he said? You thought he said that white people are born into privilege, but what he actually said is that a white person "is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system." You've been socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist system. You're a racist. Now don't you feel ashamed? If you don't think he's telling white people to be ashamed, then how do you think people should feel when they're told they're racist? -k

Basically, the guy is saying that it's a bogus term, and in that much, he's correct. The term "reverse racism" usually references instances of not-white people being racist towards white people. Which is really just plain ol' racism. Since "racism" has the connotation of whitey picking on non-whitey (?) and since some people (such as Dr Butler) argue that non-whites aren't able to be racist, "reverse-racism" makes the distinction that the racism flows in the reverse direction. If the term "reverse racism" offends the sensibilities of people like Dr Butler, then I am in favor of its use. If the term offends the sensibilities of pedants, then doubly so. I certainly didn't say that. I ask you the same question: should we just pretend that people like Dr Butler aren't part of the "anti-racism" movement? It seems like you more liberal types are the ones uncomfortable discussing this sort of "anti-racist" rhetoric. I sure would. Honestly: "Here's a fringe academic from nowheresville: now let's apply their position to everyone with possible political sympathies." is a strategy that's beneath you. I am not seeking to apply that position to everyone within the "anti-racist movement". I merely claim that the kind of statements made in Dr Butler's programme are hardly unique. Many academics and activists put forth arguments along the same line as Dr Butler. I just made mention of the University of Delaware "diversity training" course because it was handy and had been discussed here before. Give me a couple of days and I'll bury you under an avalanche of material from "anti-racists" that'll make even the most liberal white people blanch. I'm surprised you'd even ask to be shown. We both know it'll be easy for me to dig up plenty of similar material to illustrate the point that Dr Butler's views are hardly isolated among "anti-racist" activists. Yeah, because behind every racist belief is an anti-racist cause? A straw-man? Was that a straw-man, BD? From you? Behind every racist belief? Of course not. Behind every racist? Of course not. I seek to point out that framing this debate in the confrontational terms often used by many "anti-racist" activists creates an accusatory, adversarial tone that likely generates antipathy. Do you disagree? Do you want to argue the point? Do -k {yes, I realize that I've used "scare quotes" 20 times in this message. I can't bring myself to type "anti-racist" without "scare quotes".}

That's where you're wrong, my usually accurate friend. Those who defines such things state that Racism is embodied by a power differential. Racism is what people with power do to people without power. If people without power were prejudiced agaisnt people with power, it would be reverse racism! "Reverse racism: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism." Neat definition, huh? It came from that University of Delaware "residential life" diversity facilitation training course that was discussed in this forum a while back. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterE...ic_cesspools_ii A copy of the "training manual" is available here: http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/730a8163b35b36...b889c832ce9.pdf You might want to review before the next pop-quiz. You had better join Black Dog on the Group W bench, because you obviously haven't completed your re-training either. If you had, you'd recall that: "A racist: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)" Now, I don't like it anymore than you guys, but who am I to argue with the University of Delaware curriculum and the esteemed Dr Butler? So maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way, but to me it sounds like Dr Butler is saying that each and every white person, at least those within the United States, should be ashamed. I doubt many of you would argue with me if I claim that this sort of statement is not much different from statements made by other "anti-racist" activists in Canada and the US. Why would anybody be surprised that sentiments like ArchAngel's would be a natural reaction to this type of rhetoric? -k

For those scratching their heads, this is the airplane that ran out of fuel in mid-flight due to ground-crew error. The pilots were able to make a remarkable emergency landing at a small airfield near Gimli, Manitoba. I once saw a TV movie about the incident. -k

Well, you used the word "scripted" earlier. I agree completely that this was "set up"; I disagree with "scripted". -k

"Lifestyle choice" or not, these kids are still in for it when it's dodgeball day. -k

The fact that you've dropped the description of the idea as an "All Black School" and are now touting it as an alternative educational program for "kids that would be left behind" that "anyone can attend" speaks to the flimsiness of your earlier position. However, the vocal proponents of the idea certainly envision this as a program for black kids, and they'd certainly also scoff at the suggestion that race isn't a big deal. "Ebonics" as a second language? Great idea. I wonder if that'll qualify them for government jobs designated "bilingual"? -k

I'm guessing you're white, Drea? (or, if you insist on saying that we're all one big happy brown family, you have less melanin in your skin than most of your brothers and sisters?) Somebody who would say that skin color isn't a big deal is probably white. Because what I have heard from all sorts of "brown" people is that skin color IS a big deal and affects their lives on a daily basis. In their perception, at least. However, I can't help but wonder at the accuracy of that perception. In my own experience with "people of color", I have found that race seems to often be interpretted into situations that didn't actually have anything to do with race. ("I didn't bump into you because you're asian. I bumped into you because you're blocking the whole doorway." "I'm not honking at you because you're brown. I'm honking at you because you're driving like an idiot." "I'm not rejecting your proposal because you're black. I'm rejecting it because I'm already spoken for. And because you're an obnoxious jackass.") -k

That was Canadian Border Services, actually. -k

Jefferiah, the claim that the woman is an actor is unsupportable. "Reality" TV shows simply don't need to script anything. They have thousands of people to choose from, and they simply choose the ones most likely to create zany, wacky, or bizarre episodes. Then, they put them in situations that are most likely to create just such an occurrence. Then, they film everything, and only show the most interesting parts. And if nothing zany, wacky, or bizarre actually happens, the episode probably won't make it to air anyway. The auditions episodes of American Idol illustrate the point. Of hundreds or thousands of auditions in each city, they only show a couple of dozen on TV. A handful of the "good" auditions, plus a bunch that are hilariously bad. Some of the people go to the auditions are trying their level best and are just plain terrible. Some of the people who go to the auditions are trying their level best to be terrible, in hopes of getting on TV. Either way, there's no need for the producers to hire actors to create the shenanigans on the show when people are literally beating down their doors to do it. There have been at least a couple of "reality TV" casting calls that backfired. One that was particularly well publicized was for an (aborted) series based on the Beverly Hillbillies premise: they wanted to take the most stereotypically Appalachian family they could find and put them in a Beverly Hills mansion. The idea that this sort of stereotype of rural Americans would be held up and ridiculed on TV made many Americans furious, and the network hastily apologized and dropped the idea. So ... why did they need to find "real" hillbillies? Why not just hire actors? Because the risk of being caught in a lie is too high. The loss of face would be enormous, and with reality TV then (and now) a "golden goose" for the networks in the US, the risk of doing something to jeopardize the golden goose is just unwarranted. Why bother, when people will come in droves for the chance to be on TV? Jerry Springer got caught when some of the battling trailer-park bimbos on his show were recognized as members of a small-time "professional wrestling" company. Any prime-time reality show would likewise get found out. Here is the wikipedia article about this "God warrior": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Perrin Some points worth reflecting on: -her appearance on the show achieved sufficient fame/notoriety to get her a guest-spot on Jay Leno. -she says that when she saw the show, she cried when she saw how her outburst looked. -she contends (like other "reality" TV guests have) that the producers used selective editing to create a portrayal of her that is different from the person she is in real life. And on an unrelated but sad note, her older daughter (the single mother seen in the clip) died in a car crash a few months ago. -k

So you feel that this ongoing move toward an All Black School for Toronto supports the theory that we're all just differing shades of brown? Ok, let's follow that route, then. How will they decide which students can attend this school? Will they have a hardware store paint-chip selector and a sign that says "You must be at least this dark to enter"? There are some very dark-skinned East Indian people... could they attend the "all black" school? What if somebody gets a really deep sun-tan over the summer. Will they then be able to attend in the fall? (would he have to keep going to a tanning salon to avoid getting expelled when his tan wears off?) Or maybe there's some factor other than their specific "shade of brown" that will be considered in deciding which students are "black"? How do you think they will decide which students can attend this school, CR? -k

Following your advice, I've gone to the Australian Foreign Affairs site and found their travel advice for Canada, and I agree with you. The tone of the article is pretty over the top considering the common-sense content of the travel report. If anybody wishes to make up their own mind, the site is: http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Canada -k

That's cool. I wasn't attempting to open a debate on the validity of such programs, I was just pointing out the logical consequences of Drea and C.R's position. It seems to me that peoples' position on race often morphs to match whether it's convenient or inconvenient to their political views. -k

What minorities? Now that we're all brown (in different shades) there are no minorities. We're all one big happy majority! -k

Well, if it does, look forward to lawbreakers coast to coast blurtint out "en francaise, si vous plais?" in hopes of overturning the arrest just like Mr Bell is doing. -k

He wasn't talking about what was printed on the ticket, he was talking about the language spoken by the RCMP officer. He requested that the RCMP officer interview him in French (even though he himself is fluent in English.) An article: http://www.newstalk980.com/incoming/200801...lingual-isnt-it -k

If one follows that line of thought, then it seems logical to me that potential visitors to Canada should also be warned that defunct satellites and meteors have also crashed in Canada and therefore that visitors to Canada are at risk of being bagged by space-junk. There are places (in the Middle East, Africa, southeast Asia, particularly...) where the risk of political violence (usually carried out in forms that would be considered terrorist attacks) is not just a hypothetical but a fact and a frequent occurrence. To me it seems like they're doing a disservice to people by putting Canada in the same category as other places where the risk is actually real. Well, that one I'll agree with. As a tourist there are areas of Greater Toronto or Vancouver that I'd be as nervous about being lost in as I would in areas of Detroit or D.C. -k

Good point, Joan. The only news items I've found relating to the issue relate to a bilingual Saskatchewan man contesting a speeding ticket because he requested to be served with the ticket in French. zzzzz -k

Well, be that as it may... what do you think the response would be if we presented Drea and Charter-Rights' position to serious academics or social theorists? -k

Canada IS a dangerous destination. Winter road conditions and avalanches often claim lives, particularly in the mountainous areas that attract huge numbers of tourists who want to ski. Much of the rest makes me laugh out loud, though. Rabid animal bites? People being bitten by wild animals is such an extraordinarily rare occurrence in any event, and rabid wild animals must be doubly so. I think Australians and Americans would probably be much safer among Canada's allegedly wild animals than amongst the venomous insects and reptiles that can be found in most areas of their homelands. And threat of terrorism? Because of all the terrorist attacks in Canada? Earthquakes? "Honey, I just read that Canada is dangerous because there are earthquakes. Maybe we should go someplace else. San Francisco sound good?" The warning regarding winter travel and mountainous areas is spot on. The rest, though, I think is pure comedy and probably belongs under the heading of "legalese" (cover-your-ass type warnings, so that if some hapless tourist catches rabies after losing a fight with a raccoon, they can't turn around and sue claiming that "You never warned us that Canada was infested with rabid raccoons!" -k

So, affirmative action programs, "sensitivity training", university programs based on the premise of racial relations and white privilege, these are all obsolete now, because we're all just different shades of brown? Awesome! But what about the people who've made careers of complaining about white people in loud, strident, and often inflammatory manner? What'll they do now? -k

Considering the difficulties that law enforcement agencies are having recruiting quality applicants in many areas (last time I was in Edmonton, there were billboards literally begging people to apply for the city police force...) I think it'll be a boon to English-speaking cities if a bunch of experienced RCMP officers suddenly became available for hire. However, the prospect of firing otherwise-qualified RCMP officers because they can't speak French makes me ill. Wouldn't a simpler solution be to designate areas where French fluency is required, then just not post anglophone RCMP officers there? It appears that police forces are having a hard enough time recruiting qualified English speaking officers. If they limit their hiring to fluently bilingual applicants, I can hardly wait to see how far they have to lower the bar to get enough applicants. I am picturing a new Police Academy movie in the making. -k