Mayday mayday

[Wild Bill]

These were your words, Wild Bill:

It seems pretty clear to me that you were stating that India has declined since independence, based on the criteria that matter to you, and that it is not a culture you can respect while British culture is a culture you can respect since they were able to get the trains running on time. The only significant accomplishment with which you credited post-independence India was the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I don't see how I was putting words in your mouth. It also seems that you were ultimately suggesting that we should be concerned about immigration from a country such as India because it could lead to the importation of that culture, which is less worthy of respect.

I'll stand by my words! I would add that if I were to state EVERYTHING I believe it would take more than a forum post. It would take a book!

I do believe that India still has vast numbers of people living in poverty. I do believe that getting a phone line often requires a bribe, although that may be outdated since the arrival of the cellular phone.

Are you saying these things are NOT true? Because I can't respect any culture that would value getting the nuclear bomb over feeding its people!

As for your cite of Indian mathematics, it's true those are valid contributions but not sufficient in themselves. Most of that contribution came from a long time ago. I'm concerned with what's happening today.

I've worked with many people who came from India and was struck by many cultural traits. Some were positive, some were negative. The most racist man I ever met was a Hindu! In some ways I found the strong expression of Victorian Britain to be fascinating. One trait I found infuriating is that it seemed everything revolved around status - you either kissed ass or kicked ass! They always seemed very conscious as to who was of a "higher level" in any given situation. We had great difficulty with some order desk people from that culture, who seemed to think they were "superior" to any mere customer.

However, I certainly don't single out India. We are accepting great numbers of immigrants and refugees from the more primitive cultures. While the numbers are not large enough to change mainstream culture what worries me is the numbers that are accepted by the civil service! It has been said before that Hell is where the cooks are British and the civil service is Indian! There's some truth to that. A country runs on the efficiency of its civil service and the LAST thing we need is to adopt the Indian way of running the country!

I should point out that I APPROVE of the idea of "cherry picking" other cultures for our immigrants! When I said we should be concerned I did NOT mean we should not accept people from a particular culture! Rather, I meant we should screen them more carefully. Often people are born in a particular situation through no fault of their own and have no chance to thrive. One culture's misfit is another culture's asset!

Some folks are born with a talent for agriculture but they have to emigrate to another culture to get the chance to be successful at it! It doesn't make a country an agricultural success if they have to depend on foreign countries to have enough supply.

Thinking of people in terms of their culture rather than their race seems to me to be much more accurate and practical. For a lot of reasons ranging from philosophy to their time in history Britain and Europe gave us most of what we have today. Other cultures tend to be parasitical instead. Some are hybrids. One of the most important western cultural traits was the habit of cheerfully adopting anything from a foreign culture that WORKED! We should be promoting western culture because in the final analysis it means more people fed, healthy, comfortable and educated! Cultures that do not do such things as well should be discouraged.

[DogOnPorch]

Stepping into either of my Service Canada or BC Access centres makes me think of a MacDonalds commercial.

[Michael Hardner]

Stepping into either of my Service Canada or BC Access centres makes me think of a MacDonalds commercial.

What is the context of that statement ?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you saying these things are NOT true? Because I can't respect any culture that would value getting the nuclear bomb over feeding its people!

Wild Bill, what you have stated here is a principle. That, to me, is an idea that transcends anything you think of race, culture or what have you.

But your principle comes pretty damned close to condemning the US as well, a country with great numbers of poor that spends 47% of the worlds military budget.

Either you disrespect the US as well as India, or you're cherry picking your principles to match your pre-existing dislike of India. Sorry, but that's the clearest way I see your statement.

Thinking of people in terms of their culture rather than their race seems to me to be much more accurate and practical. For a lot of reasons ranging from philosophy to their time in history Britain and Europe gave us most of what we have today. Other cultures tend to be parasitical instead. Some are hybrids. One of the most important western cultural traits was the habit of cheerfully adopting anything from a foreign culture that WORKED! We should be promoting western culture because in the final analysis it means more people fed, healthy, comfortable and educated! Cultures that do not do such things as well should be discouraged.

You are correct, and immigration is the process of adopting things from foreign culture that works. How has Canadian culture declined with 20th/21st century immigration ? I can't see it. I can see change but not decline. Our success is based on our democratic traditions, our ability to dialogue with each other, our economy, our willingness to work... These things continue.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill, what you have stated here is a principle. That, to me, is an idea that transcends anything you think of race, culture or what have you.

But your principle comes pretty damned close to condemning the US as well, a country with great numbers of poor that spends 47% of the worlds military budget.

Either you disrespect the US as well as India, or you're cherry picking your principles to match your pre-existing dislike of India. Sorry, but that's the clearest way I see your statement.

You are correct, and immigration is the process of adopting things from foreign culture that works. How has Canadian culture declined with 20th/21st century immigration ? I can't see it. I can see change but not decline. Our success is based on our democratic traditions, our ability to dialogue with each other, our economy, our willingness to work... These things continue.

Far be it from me to claim the USA is faultless, Michael. Still, we have to keep some perspective. First of all, EVERY culture always has SOME poor folks! If India has 40% of its population living in squalor and the USA has 5% the two countries are NOT equivalent! Just because they both have SOME doesn't make them the same!

America no doubt has some political corruption as well but nothing like the scale practised in India.

America also has much more social mobility. Being born poor doesn't mean you have to stay poor! Can India say the same?

America is much more politically responsive to its people. The ratio of military spending to civil services is set according to which politicians are elected. I simply cannot believe that if America had the percentage of starving people as India has over the years it would not have adjusted its military spending ratio. It would appear that India just ignored its starving people. Either that or it kicked in a few bucks for some TV "feed the starving children" ads so THE REST OF THE WORLD would feed its people!

One's definition of "poor" is relevant, as well. The poorest American likely lives like a king compared to the bottom level of Indian society.

Simply spending ANY amount on a military while having widespread hunger is not at all hypocrisy. The first duty of any government is to keep its people safe from foreign attack. If the country is conquered or destroyed then what's the point? I would agree that India has some belligerent neighbours but did they need the Bomb? The scale of India's military buildup always seemed excessive to me. Much more capable of offence than merely a force for national defense.

No Michael, I'm not cherry picking my principles. You just need to more accurately define them!

[Michael Hardner]

Far be it from me to claim the USA is faultless, Michael. Still, we have to keep some perspective. First of all, EVERY culture always has SOME poor folks! If India has 40% of its population living in squalor and the USA has 5% the two countries are NOT equivalent! Just because they both have SOME doesn't make them the same!

Right, but YOU set up the principle here. Basically, you said you didn't respect India because of the treatment of the poor vis a vis military spending... THAT is the principle. If you qualify it, and add "yes, but..."... then it makes me think that you just don't like India, and are adding a principle after the fact.

Only you know the truth, but I would say that principles are principles and if you state one, then qualify it with percentages and have you, then it waters it down.

America no doubt has some political corruption as well but nothing like the scale practised in India.

America also has much more social mobility. Being born poor doesn't mean you have to stay poor! Can India say the same?

America is much more politically responsive to its people. The ratio of military spending to civil services is set according to which politicians are elected. I simply cannot believe that if America had the percentage of starving people as India has over the years it would not have adjusted its military spending ratio. It would appear that India just ignored its starving people. Either that or it kicked in a few bucks for some TV "feed the starving children" ads so THE REST OF THE WORLD would feed its people!

One's definition of "poor" is relevant, as well. The poorest American likely lives like a king compared to the bottom level of Indian society.

These are all "yes, but..." things. Of course all of what you posted is true, but America still spends a massive amount on military, despite their social problems - YOUR stated principle.

No Michael, I'm not cherry picking my principles. You just need to more accurately define them!

I don't need to do anything. They're YOUR principles. I have my perceptions, and I'm telling you.

[Wild Bill]

Right, but YOU set up the principle here. Basically, you said you didn't respect India because of the treatment of the poor vis a vis military spending... THAT is the principle. If you qualify it, and add "yes, but..."... then it makes me think that you just don't like India, and are adding a principle after the fact.

Only you know the truth, but I would say that principles are principles and if you state one, then qualify it with percentages and have you, then it waters it down.

These are all "yes, but..." things. Of course all of what you posted is true, but America still spends a massive amount on military, despite their social problems - YOUR stated principle.

I don't need to do anything. They're YOUR principles. I have my perceptions, and I'm telling you.

Michael, YOU are the one stating MY principles! I may have not been as good as I could have been at defining them for you in my posts but I don't think it fair that YOU get to define MY principles and then call me down for not living up to them!

It would be more fair to state that I did not make my principles as clear to you as I should then to make me responsible for not living up to YOUR definition!

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, YOU are the one stating MY principles! I may have not been as good as I could have been at defining them for you in my posts but I don't think it fair that YOU get to define MY principles and then call me down for not living up to them!

This is a direct quote from you:

"Because I can't respect any culture that would value getting the nuclear bomb over feeding its people!"

[Wild Bill]

This is a direct quote from you:

"Because I can't respect any culture that would value getting the nuclear bomb over feeding its people!"

Context, Michael! Perhaps I should have added "...when so many of those people are starving!"

The USA didn't have to choose between starvation or the Bomb. That was the moral choice I was trying to highlight. Since the USA could afford to do both the question wasn't relevant.

[Shwa]

Context, Michael! Perhaps I should have added "...when so many of those people are starving!"

The USA didn't have to choose between starvation or the Bomb. That was the moral choice I was trying to highlight. Since the USA could afford to do both the question wasn't relevant.

Then what is the "context" for our trains running late, the blackouts we have experienced and the impure water that makes people sick from time to time right here in good ol' Canada?

[Michael Hardner]

Context, Michael! Perhaps I should have added "...when so many of those people are starving!"

You should have added it ? Or you need a way to modify your position after the fact ?

[Wild Bill]

Then what is the "context" for our trains running late, the blackouts we have experienced and the impure water that makes people sick from time to time right here in good ol' Canada?

If I understand you correctly, you would consider our situation where such things have occurred on a rare and infrequent basis as equivalent to the situation in India?

In other words, if it is "situation normal" for India but it also has occurred at least ONCE in Canada then both countries are the same?

If that's your position there's little point in arguing.

Canada and India both have some of the same letters in their name, you know.

[Wild Bill]

You should have added it ? Or you need a way to modify your position after the fact ?

You're nitpicking, Michael. Picking apart my model while ignoring my points. I had thought better...

[Shwa]

If I understand you correctly, you would consider our situation where such things have occurred on a rare and infrequent basis as equivalent to the situation in India?

In other words, if it is "situation normal" for India but it also has occurred at least ONCE in Canada then both countries are the same?

If that's your position there's little point in arguing.

Canada and India both have some of the same letters in their name, you know.

No, I was relating to what Mr. Hardner was saying, when you were quoted as saying:

You apparently have different yardsticks than I do for measuring the worth of a culture. I'm the techie, remember? I respect trains running on time. I don't respect cultures that can't do that. I expect the electricity to run 24/7 and the same for the water. That water is also expected to be reasonably pure.

Which specifically refers to Mr. Hardner's idea that your principles come with a 'yeah, but.' So, taken in THIS context, let's see if the shoe fits:

Yeah, but... you would consider our situation where such things have occurred on a rare and infrequent basis as equivalent to the situation in India?

The shoe seems to be a good fit. Now, about your contention that late trains in Canada are "rare and infrequent" ...

Edited October 1, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

You're nitpicking, Michael. Picking apart my model while ignoring my points. I had thought better...

I was initially impressed with your principled stance, until it dawned on you that it meant that you couldn't keep it, and support the USA.

I guess you just don't like India...

[Oleg Bach]

When local people who were immigrants say to me - that the nation and city are in decline because of over immigration..Even the immigrants don't want or need more immigrants..and old white guys like my self are displace economically because of the over populace of cheap and submissive mundane labour that is now soaking up the last of our resourses.

It's just wonderful that me a talented artist and musican is stuck on frinking welfare..where they want to "retrain" a 60 year old man...I took a social worker aside and said to her..These jobs that you want to retrain me for do not exist..you know that so what is the point?" - She really did not have an answer..

It is evident that our left wingers on the low end of the scale and our banker types who grow even more rich and powerful through corporate socialism...really don't want quality ..they want mundane..and submissive..and you would think that these guys who govern governments would at least be loyal and thankful to the people like me who worked to make them rich..but they are not.

[guyser]

When local people who were immigrants say to me - that the nation and city are in decline because of over immigration..

They say to you pretty stupid things. Decline? No, sorry. Find new friends.

..and you would think that these guys who govern governments would at least be loyal and thankful to the people like me who worked to make them rich..but they are not.

They were thankful, and showed it every two weeks when they handed you your paycheque.

Stop whining.

[Wild Bill]

I was initially impressed with your principled stance, until it dawned on you that it meant that you couldn't keep it, and support the USA.

I guess you just don't like India...

Michael, I don't respect where India has BEEN! That doesn't mean I can't agree that they have made some progress and hopefully will do more in the future. The state of the facilities for the Commonwealth Games is a disappointment.

If you can't understand the difference between the American situation and that of India then I will never make you understand. I almost think you are hardwired to believe that all cultures are equally positive, in any context. I believe that to be a fallacy.

Whatever! On to the next flame! Let's blame Harper for tsunamis! Let's label Ignatieff un-Canadian for living so long abroad, while we cheer for Jim Carey and Bill Shatner!

I'm still disappointed we didn't get more support for Katy Perry playing tag with Elmo...

[Michael Hardner]

If you can't understand the difference between the American situation and that of India then I will never make you understand. I almost think you are hardwired to believe that all cultures are equally positive, in any context. I believe that to be a fallacy.

Like I said - it was a principle - so it has nothing to do with individual countries - it's a statement of values, and a test to see whether a country meets that standard or not.

[Argus]

Both my parents' entire families live there and my parents grew up there. I have visited several times and have noticed the incredible progress. Judging a culture purely on 'whether the trains run on time' while placing less value on things like economic development, whether most people can even access those utilities, education, basic human development and social justice, agricultural production, or technological innovation seems hopelessly blinkered to me.

Or maybe you're just being defensive about your culture like the quebecers are about theirs.

How about this. A culture is not entirely civilized if they routinely have riots which cause dozens, hundreds, and even thousands of deaths.

[Argus]

I'll stand by my words! I would add that if I were to state EVERYTHING I believe it would take more than a forum post. It would take a book!

I do believe that India still has vast numbers of people living in poverty.

Poverty is not the problem with that culture. Ignorance and religious fanaticism are more problematic. As is racism (the caste system).

This is still a land where riots over something someone heard somewhere which they believe is somehow insulting to them or their religion or their caste or their sect can break out at any time in any city, causing hundreds of buildings to be burned.

[Argus]

You should have added it ? Or you need a way to modify your position after the fact ?

I understood what he meant the first time. I've made jokes about India and their nuclear weapons and the fact they're buying or trying to buy nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier while so many of their people live in absolute poverty where a goat is a sign of prosperity.

[PIK]

Lowell was having call in on his show about immigration and it was funny what people had to say about it and he just nailed them with the FACTS and they still would not give up. One guy and this is a 1st says we have to bring every chinnese and indian into the country that wants to come here or these 2 places will not buy our goods.People don't like lowell because he can be gruff ,but he researches everything he does, and this book will open up the eyes of canadians and it is out on the 4th I think. And there is alot more then the myth of 250,000 people that come here every year.

[gutb]

Immigration into Canada is the single most destructive factor facing our nation and whatever is left of the "Canadian people". Mass immigration has formed insular enthno-religious polities within our democracy which have attained political supremacy, virtually hijacking what little democracy we had and using those levers to get more immigration through the door.

[M.Dancer]

Immigration into Canada is the single most destructive factor facing our nation and whatever is left of the "Canadian people". Mass immigration has formed insular enthno-religious polities within our democracy which have attained political supremacy, virtually hijacking what little democracy we had and using those levers to get more immigration through the door.

Is that why the current PM is a white anglosaxon man? Or the last, a white franco gael, or the one before that, a white franco canadien, or the one before that....?