What Obama Actually Said:

[Guest American Woman]

I don't really care what the media has to say on this particular issue. I study Canadian government, and what they say is rather irrelevant to me.

Of course you don't care what the media has to say on this particular issue; you pick and choose whether you care what the media says, whether or not one can learn all there is to know from the media, according to whether or not it supports your views/beliefs/preconceived ideas.

Oh, and yes, the profile is lower. The profile of Canada is lower too. I'm talking about the equivalency of the office, in which case, things aren't that far off (though it could be argued that the GG is in fact more similar to the vice president.

There is no "equivalency" between the offices. The profile of Canada is lower, but the profile of Harper is a helluva lot higher than that of the GG. And for the record, there's a major, huge, total, complete difference between the POTUS and the VP.

[Smallc]

Of course you don't care what the media has to say on this particular issue; you pick and choose whether you care what the media says, whether or not one can learn all there is to know from the media, according to whether or not it supports your views/beliefs/preconceived ideas.

The media is often wrong on this particular issue. I happen to know a great deal about this particular issue. That doesn't have to mean anything to you, but it does to me.

There is no "equivalency" between the offices. The profile of Canada is lower, but the profile of Harper is a helluva lot higher than that of the GG.

Well of course the profile of Harper is higher than that of Jean....the head of government usually is (except maybe in a semi presidential system). The prime minister though, is completely different than a president in that they aren't chief executive. The governor general is the in country representative of one, and carries out most of the executive duties.

Further, I'm not sure where you get the idea that there is no equivalency between executive offices.

And for the record, there's a major, huge, total, complete difference between the POTUS and the VP.

Well of course there is. I didn't say I'd argue that they were similar, I said that some would. Anyway, this isn't central to the point of Canada's racial issues being less at the forefront.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

...Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Not only both ways, but with unwavering focus on the USA as the benchmark because of access to American media....Americans have no equivalent exposure to Canada's experience with race, despite its obvious existence. For example, it is impossible to get an OJ Simpson trial impact in Canada because it does not have the capacity to do so at many levels. Racial fault lines in America are easy to find....Canada naively defines them starting with the backward notion of a "visible minority". When found to be lacking, Canada imports any gaps in hate lexicon from the USA.

Canada never had a "Civil Rights" movement, let alone on national television, despite blatant federal and provincial discrimination and racist policies. So again, Canada's racist narrative has not been as elevated in media of any kind. So we get gross generalizations about American cities and "The Old South" because this is what dominates their bandwidth on such matters. It's no wonder Canadians are blind to what goes on in their own backyard.

The KKK absolutely thrived on Canadian prairies, but it is de-emphasized because it is/was seen as an American problem for source and scale. Canadians prefer to run away from the issue, unless forced to confront it (e.g. Somalia Affair).

[Shwa]

And jingo was his name-o.

Not only both ways, but with unwavering focus on the USA as the benchmark because of access to American media....

Not quite, but if the USA was used as a benchmark, we could do worse. The problem is, we have access to European media as well - moreso nowadays, but we always have, especially the UK media. I highly doubt ready access to American media makes it necessary to use America as the final benchmark. Come on now.

Americans have no equivalent exposure to Canada's experience with race, despite its obvious existence.

And yet here you continue to prognosticate - seemingly very pleased with yourself - despite having no equivalent exposure to Canada's experience. But wait! You have access to the Internet. So much for that premise.

For example, it is impossible to get an OJ Simpson trial impact in Canada because it does not have the capacity to do so at many levels.

It was entertainment here and not much more.

Racial fault lines in America are easy to find....

Good thing that you, as an American, are aware of this. I am comforted.

Canada naively defines them starting with the backward notion of a "visible minority".

Again, naive and backward misuse of the term out of context. This shows that you are not even close in understanding the connotation of race in Canada.

When found to be lacking, Canada imports any gaps in hate lexicon from the USA.

Meh, its a compound world. You import our hockey players to fill gaps in your teams. So what?

Canada never had a "Civil Rights" movement, let alone on national television, despite blatant federal and provincial discrimination and racist policies.

Which were addressed. Or has modern times simply passed you by?

So again, Canada's racist narrative has not been as elevated in media of any kind.

Not to the same degree as the US, which is the point. Our racist "narrative" is quite small and insignificant compared to the racist canon of the US.

So we get gross generalizations about American cities and "The Old South" because this is what dominates their bandwidth on such matters.

Posting a list of mass racial violence as a small example is hardly gross generalizations. Do you require more? For one who easily finds the racial fault lines in the US, I wouldn't think so. But I did think dre's example of the NBPP voter fiasco to be somewhat specific and illustrative.

It's no wonder Canadians are blind to what goes on in their own backyard.

There is that nice, warm and fuzzy jingoistic centrism again. However, you have amply pointed out - ironically by misusing the term 'visible minorities' - that we indeed see what we need to see. We simply are not as oversensitive to the issue as you appear to be. That must stick in your craw or something.

The KKK absolutely thrived on Canadian prairies, but it is de-emphasized because it is/was seen as an American problem for source and scale.

Not de-emphasized, merely footnoted. And as a problem, well America certainly was the source and it was of a much larger scale down there.

Canadians prefer to run away from the issue, unless forced to confront it (e.g. Somalia Affair).

Hardly, as you have proven already with the reference to employment equity programs and hate crime statistics. Canadians don't need to run away from the issue, we deal with it fine enough, especially when it comes up like it did in the Somalia Affair. But even still that incident was hardly My Lai was it?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Shwa

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hardly, as you have proven already with the reference to employment equity programs and hate crime statistics. Canadians don't need to run away from the issue, we deal with it fine enough, especially when it comes up like it did in the Somalia Affair. But even still that incident was hardly My Lai was it?

Another perfect example of minimization through scale and comparison to the USA...seemingly awkward as some Canadians are more than happy to invoke the "10 to 1" ratio for other issues to tilt a more favorable perspective...but not when it comes to "race relations". No...it is very important to the collective Canadian consciousness to be seen as less focused on "race" than the Americans, even if its not true.

And yes, I am happy to use another American invention (more jingo points!) to explore race riots and exclusion laws in Canada.

[Shwa]

Another perfect example of minimization through scale and comparison to the USA...seemingly awkward as some Canadians are more than happy to invoke the "10 to 1" ratio for other issues to tilt a more favorable perspective...but not when it comes to "race relations". No...it is very important to the collective Canadian consciousness to be seen as less focused on "race" than the Americans, even if its not true.

And yes, I am happy to use another American invention (more jingo points!) to explore race riots and exclusion laws in Canada.

The only one invoking and "10 to 1 ratio for other issues" is you BC. Which would explain the difficulty in accepting a contrary view to your persistent internal reflection. Or did you not get the reference to My Lai as a pointer to the jingoist attitude? I am betting you competely missed it. So much for paying attention to the "narrative."

Please use as many American inventions as you wish to explore the footnotes to Canadian history, such as Wikipedia that lists all three Canadian race riots.

[bush_cheney2004]

The only one invoking and "10 to 1 ratio for other issues" is you BC. Which would explain the difficulty in accepting a contrary view to your persistent internal reflection. Or did you not get the reference to My Lai as a pointer to the jingoist attitude? I am betting you competely missed it. So much for paying attention to the "narrative."

Nope...didn't miss it at all...how could I when you had to find something to "top" racism and murder in Somalia. That is the point you keep missing.... I can find more references to American "Jim Crow Laws" in this Canadian forum than actual Canadian "content", but it can be found if one looks hard enough.

Please use as many American inventions as you wish to explore the footnotes to Canadian history, such as Wikipedia that lists all three Canadian race riots.

When in Canada...do as the Canadians do.

[Shwa]

When in Canada...do as the Canadians do.

Now you are getting it!

[August1991]

No, I think AW has nailed this one quite well. The term "visible minority" is a very Canadian way of pretending not to consider race important while assuring that it remains most important in the context of the dominant "race".

On the contrary, AW hasn't nailed this at all and B_C, this is something you Americans just don't get.

Canada had/has serious problems with race...

So serious, several million died in a Canadian Civil War?

Bush_Cheney, you Americans killed several million people for no reason in a Civil War. We Canadians have resolved in general our religious and language differences peacefully without violence or death.

We Canadians are civilized since we resolve our differences through newspapers.

You Americans are uncivilized since you fight civil wars.

The Europeans are most uncivilized of all. They kill each other wantonly, and involve millions of others. Europeans are the most uncivilized people on the planet. (To understand this: Think of Germans in Poland fifty years ago. Now, imagine if Manitobans had invaded North Dakota in 1935. Or if New York had invaded Ontario or New Jersey.)

----

As I said to AW at the start of this thread (and I may have missed several posts, sorry), this is not a "he said, she said, I'm right, you're wrong" zero sum argument.

We Canadians have managed to live together peacefully (more or less) for centuries and I think Barack Obama is saying (more or less) the same.

As The Economist once said, the world needs a little more Canada.

Let's try it, and see if it works.

Edited August 3, 2010 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

On the contrary, AW hasn't nailed this at all and B_C, this is something you Americans just don't get.

Of course...and we need Canadians to make us "get it"...marvelous.

So serious, several million died in a Canadian Civil War?

Bush_Cheney, you Americans killed several million people for no reason in a Civil War. We Canadians have resolved in general our religious and language differences peacefully without violence or death.

First, your math is wrong, but never let facts get in your way. I guess it was also fine for Americans to die in your Royal Wars. As for resolving things, Canada is still arguing over the basics.

We Canadians are civilized since we resolve our differences through newspapers.

No, this is where you bitch about each other and the Americans....still.

You Americans are uncivilized since you fight civil wars.

...and kick kings/queens in the ass.

The Europeans are most uncivilized of all. They kill each other wantonly, and involve millions of others. Europeans are the most uncivilized people on the planet. (To understand this: Think of Germans in Poland fifty years ago. Now, imagine if Manitobans had invaded North Dakota in 1935. Or if New York had invaded Ontario or New Jersey.)

Canadian superiority knows no bounds....See "Plains of Abraham".

We Canadians have managed to live together peacefully (more or less) for centuries and I think Barack Obama is saying (more or less) the same.

More or less leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for racist mayhem.

As The Economist once said, the world needs a little more Canada.

Let's try it, and see if it works.

Too boring.....

[Guest American Woman]

On the contrary, AW hasn't nailed this at all and B_C, this is something you Americans just don't get.

So serious, several million died in a Canadian Civil War?

So any country that hasn't had a civil war in its history doesn't have any serious problems with race and never has had any? That's a unique way of looking at it, I must say.

So evidently all the First Nation population peacefully and willingly gave up their land to all the peace loving people who invaded their country. And of course the KKK in Canada was a peaceful organization. And there are no hate crimes committed in Canada. Every minority feels as if they are treated equally and fairly, and couldn't be more content, and have felt this way for centuries. And of course they always will. That goes without saying.

Bush_Cheney, you Americans killed several million people for no reason in a Civil War. We Canadians have resolved in general our religious and language differences peacefully without violence or death.

So you're going back to the Civil War with regards to the U.S. and race issues while speaking of what's happening now in Canada regarding religious and language differences. Way to completely avoid hundreds of years of history! Too funny. I can see where that approach would come in handy for you, though.

We Canadians are civilized since we resolve our differences through newspapers.

So that's how you resolved your issues with the First Nation way back when and throughout time; through newspapers. And the KKK in Canada just sat around reading and writing editorials. There is no violence or gang problems in any Canadian city because all the gang members have newspaper subscriptions, and they get together and read.

You Americans are uncivilized since you fight civil wars.

Yes. It's what we habitually do. I can't tell you how many civil wars I've fought in!

The Europeans are most uncivilized of all. They kill each other wantonly.

I noticed that when I was in Europe. Everywhere I went they were wantonly killing each other. As opposed to Canada, where everyone was reading their newspapers, loving one another.

Edited August 3, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

So any country that hasn't had a civil war in its history doesn't have any serious problems with race and never has had any? That's a unique way of looking at it, I must say.

So evidently all the First Nation population peacefully and willingly gave up their land to all the peace loving people who invaded their country. And of course the KKK in Canada was a peaceful organization. And there are no hate crimes committed in Canada. Every minority feels as if they are treated equally and fairly, and couldn't be more content, and have felt this way for centuries. And of course they always will. That goes without saying.

So you're going back to the Civil War with regards to the U.S. and race issues while speaking of what's happening now in Canada regarding religious and language differences. Way to completely avoid hundreds of years of history! Too funny. I can see where that approach would come in handy for you, though.

So that's how you resolved your issues with the First Nation way back when and throughout time; through newspapers. And the KKK in Canada just sat around reading and writing editorials. There is no violence or gang problems in any Canadian city because all the gang members have newspaper subscriptions, and they get together and read.

Yes. It's what we habitually do. I can't tell you how many civil wars I've fought in!

I noticed that when I was in Europe. Everywhere I went they were wantonly killing each other. As opposed to Canada, where everyone was reading their newspapers, loving one another.

So any country that hasn't had a civil war in its history doesn't have any serious problems with race and never has had any? That's a unique way of looking at it, I must say.

More bait and switch. Canada DOES have some issues with race relations, and we definately have skeletons in our closet with regard to our treatment of first nations. But your claim was that "race is a faultline in Canada to the same extent that it is in the US. Not only is that claim ludicrous and false, its not even vaguely close to being true. I assume you realized that, because you immediately began goose-stepping away from that claim by saying "its getting worse and I was talking about in the FUTURE".

And then to top it all off you start typing words like "canadian racism" into google And you start posting anecdotes that you think prove your point, but none of them do anything remotely like that. Some of the prove we have issues with race relations here in both the past and present. But none of them do a thing to back up your origional claim, which is just flat out false.

Canada and the US are apples and oranges in this regard.