Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 ...and I would say you know little about the history of racism in Canada...that continues to this day. I probably could know more, but I suspect you know less than I. Do you have some academic specialty in the subject? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 You are making a fundamental and - by using this thread as a benchmark, oft repeated - mistake in understanding the terms. "Non-visible-minority" does not exclusively refer to "whitey." Would you prefer "non employment equity group" which as far as I'm aware refers, if not exclusively, then nearly exclusively to white men. Secondly, I am not arguing that affirmative action is not discriminatory - just not "insititutionalized racism" as some posters go on and on about with their fairy tale scenarios. So if you read through the articles, it is a big stretch to see affirmative action as racist. Discriminatory, sure, racist, no. So if you purposfully discriminate against someone or for someone on the basis of race that's racist UNLESS you do it for what you consider to be a worthwhile purpose - and then it's NOT racism. Have I got that right? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I probably could know more, but I suspect you know less than I. Do you have some academic specialty in the subject? ...and I suspect it wouldn't matter anyway. You're one of those "as long as it's worse in the US" kind of rationalist. Either way, the history and legacy of racism in Canada has been discussed at length in several other threads. And justlike many other nations, it ain't a pretty picture. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 What race is a visible minority? It hardly matters what brand of beer you drink. It's still beer. Your argument is about the same as saying that you can't get drunk on Sleeman's you can only get drunk on beer. To which I would say that Sleeman's IS a beer, to which you say that's a fairy tale. Your argument is simply silly. You are obsessing over a point which has no validity. There it is silly for you to even pretend to have even the simplest clue as to how affirmative action works. Again, this akin to someone saying I'm not an expert in how water purification systems work. It's true, to a degree, but entirely irrelevent. I can still tell if water is wet, if its cold, and if it tastes good without having years of expertise in how its processed. Now, if you want to take the actions of your make-believe fairy No matter how many times you attempt to make a derisive statement about how water isn't actually wet that doesn't make your point any more valid. What's far fetched is your conclusion based on a fairy tale that you made up on the spot. Far fetches and hilarious actually. Right, oh, I see how it works now... in Bizarro World. Now you're simply being insulting and disrespectful. That's no substitute for a valid, logical or factual argument and it makes you, and your arguments, I'm sorry to say, of no further interest. I won't be responding to you again. I came her to discuss politial issues with adults, but you don't appear capable of mature discussion. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 ...and I suspect it wouldn't matter anyway. You're one of those "as long as it's worse in the US" kind of rationalist. Either way, the history and legacy of racism in Canada has been discussed at length in several other threads. And justlike many other nations, it ain't a pretty picture. Racism is rarely a pretty picture but I don't see how your having read some discussions on a wet site supports your belief you have more knowledge of racism in Canada than I. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) ...and I suspect it wouldn't matter anyway. You're one of those "as long as it's worse in the US" kind of rationalist. Either way, the history and legacy of racism in Canada has been discussed at length in several other threads. And justlike many other nations, it ain't a pretty picture. Whether racism was worse or better in Canada than in the US is irrelevant to the discussion. Affirmative action in Canada needs to stand or fall on its own merits. And those merits are few and far between, while the problems are legion. Besides the principle of the thing, that racism is unjust even if it is to achieve supposedly good intentions, the reality is that the majority of beneficiaries of affirmative action in Canada were not themselves present in Canada, nor were their ancestors, to experience any institutionalized racism against them that may have existed. The vast majority of those classified as visible minorities in Canada are relatively recent immigrants, who arrived after institutionalized discrimination against them here was no longer an issue. Thus, they have no historical disadvantage to be compensated for, period. Edited January 4, 2011 by Bonam Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Racism is rarely a pretty picture but I don't see how your having read some discussions on a wet site supports your belief you have more knowledge of racism in Canada than I. I made it my business to find out a long time ago....comes in very handy around here. Canada never had a civil rights movement and spent more time and resources fighting over language instead. So there were historic apologies after the fact by Prime Ministers. Edited January 4, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shwa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Would you prefer "non employment equity group" which as far as I'm aware refers, if not exclusively, then nearly exclusively to white men. Are you slow thus need to make up terms to fit your make-up scenarios? So if you purposfully discriminate against someone or for someone on the basis of race that's racist UNLESS you do it for what you consider to be a worthwhile purpose - and then it's NOT racism. Have I got that right? What race is a visible minority? Quote
Saipan Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Nope. I'm not into the "Saipan method". True, you don't. When you're losing debate you resort to name calling and belittling. We've already established that TrueMetis misappropriated his name and has no true metis lineage. 1) When we did that? 2) What he and his lineage has to do with the issue? 3) Does anyone care about your lineage? Quote
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) Wrong. The fact that natives are excluded from the definition of visible minorities is a mere footnote, and is hardly relevant. They benefit from plenty of other laws and programs that apply neither to Caucasians nor to visible minorities. Edited January 4, 2011 by Bonam Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 The fact that natives are excluded from the definition of visible minorities is a mere footnote, and is hardly relevant. They benefit from plenty of other laws and programs that are apply neither to Caucasians nor to visible minorities. Still, it is most curious... "visible minorities are persons (other than Aboriginal persons), who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour (Statistics Canada; 1999:100)." Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shwa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 It hardly matters what brand of beer you drink. It's still beer. Your argument is about the same as saying that you can't get drunk on Sleeman's you can only get drunk on beer. To which I would say that Sleeman's IS a beer, to which you say that's a fairy tale. Your argument is simply silly. You are obsessing over a point which has no validity. Yet you make sweeping declarations based on a fairy tale scenario that you - yourself - invented to suit your prejudice. Now you are talking about beer. Again, this akin to someone saying I'm not an expert in how water purification systems work. It's true, to a degree, but entirely irrelevent. I can still tell if water is wet, if its cold, and if it tastes good without having years of expertise in how its processed.No matter how many times you attempt to make a derisive statement about how water isn't actually wet that doesn't make your point any more valid. Now you are talking about water! OMFG! Now you're simply being insulting and disrespectful. That's no substitute for a valid, logical or factual argument and it makes you, and your arguments, I'm sorry to say, of no further interest. I won't be responding to you again. I came her to discuss politial issues with adults, but you don't appear capable of mature discussion. I gave you two sources about employment equity in Canada - about the policies that oversee that process in Canadian governments. I asked you to point out the racist parts. Then you reply with some drool about beer and water. Perhaps I am not capable of mature discussion, but perhaps your not mentally coherent enough to understand affirmative action and how it works, instead perferring the little make-believe scenarios in your head as representative of those processes. It's not that you won't discuss, it's that you can't. At least you are consistent. Quote
Shwa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 The fact that natives are excluded from the definition of visible minorities is a mere footnote, and is hardly relevant. They benefit from plenty of other laws and programs that apply neither to Caucasians nor to visible minorities. No, the fact that you see non-visible-minorities as wholly equating to white people or Caucasian is hardly relevant. What benefits or "other laws" have has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and your attempt to hijack the term for your own point of view here is completely disingenuous. Blatantly disingenuous. Notwithstanding the fact that visible minority is a discretionary term that one applies to themselves, what "race" is the child of a Caucasion and Korean? How about the child of a Metis father and a Chinese mother? Eh? What "race" are they Bonam? Quote
jbg Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 I don't believe anyone has made an argument here that the two cartoon figures didn't make. The only difference I see is the two cartoon characters didn't call each other names - until the end. Affirmative Action simply means "Caucasians need not apply". Such as in some police departments etc. Mostly government jobs. Similar to (English) signs on whorehouses in Japan. "Only Japanese Gentlemen Only". You pretty much said it all. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shwa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Saipan, on 29 December 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:Affirmative Action simply means "Caucasians need not apply". Such as in some police departments etc. Mostly government jobs. Similar to (English) signs on whorehouses in Japan. "Only Japanese Gentlemen Only". You pretty much said it all. Except that Affirmative Action may also include women. Caucasian women. Or did you forget this in your zeal? "oops" right? Quote
charter.rights Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 The name of the source I have is Firefighting in Canada, and Canadian firefighter and EMS quarterly. You've just proven you don't have the ability or the honesty to check the sources name, let alone read the full article or the about us page. No what you have shown is you have a seriously bruised ego and your bloody nuts. I've got a Canadian source, you have nothing. Mark van der Feyst You are a fool. The guy is an American and received the bulk of his operations training in the US. Thus the reference is American, not Canadian. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 No, the fact that you see non-visible-minorities as wholly equating to white people or Caucasian is hardly relevant. What benefits or "other laws" have has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and your attempt to hijack the term for your own point of view here is completely disingenuous. Blatantly disingenuous. Notwithstanding the fact that visible minority is a discretionary term that one applies to themselves, what "race" is the child of a Caucasion and Korean? How about the child of a Metis father and a Chinese mother? Eh? What "race" are they Bonam? Umm, the child of a white and an Asian is half and half, obviously. How they choose to identify themselves is up to them. Generally, they WOULD qualify for benefiting from affirmative action as a "visible minority", if they chose to do so. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Umm, the child of a white and an Asian is half and half, obviously. How they choose to identify themselves is up to them. Generally, they WOULD qualify for benefiting from affirmative action as a "visible minority", if they chose to do so. What if they failed the critical "colour" test? That is...too "white" with "Caucasian" features? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Except that Affirmative Action may also include women. Caucasian women. Or did you forget this in your zeal? "oops" right? There are several aspects to affirmative action: gender-based, race-based, etc. Clearly the main thrust of the discussion in this thread is race-based affirmative action. Of course, gender based discrimination is also wrong, just as race based discrimination is. You need to stop dodging all over the place and trying to conflate the issue. The fact that whether one qualifies for affirmative action programs depends on one's racial origins cannot be disputed. You are just making the blind man's argument of "there is no race" which is nonsense to anyone who wants to have a serious discussion on this topic. Quote
jbg Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 Except that Affirmative Action may also include women. Caucasian women. Or did you forget this in your zeal? "oops" right? My people, the Jews, used to be held to a quota of 3% of the university entrants. To me, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 What if they failed the critical "colour" test? That is...too "white" with "Caucasian" features? I dunno, I'm sure there are some rules on that topic that you can look up if you so desire. Again, this all seems like idiotic nonsense to me: someone's colour should simply not be a consideration (except in the rare cases where it is relevant to the job at hand), period. Quote
Bonam Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 My people, the Jews, used to be held to a quota of 3% of the university entrants. To me, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Or, for example, in the Soviet Union, just plain old barred from certain university programs. Jews were not allowed to study anything to do with politics, advanced technology, physics, or anything else that was deemed a potential threat to national security, though occasional exceptions were made if one had a lot of connections. Interestingly, despite the lack of any affirmative action programs for Jews in Russia to right these past injustices, and in fact a continuation of pervasive antisemitism in Russia, they do better for themselves on average than non-Jewish Russians do. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 I dunno, I'm sure there are some rules on that topic that you can look up if you so desire. No...apparently StatsCan didn't think the silly concept through for such permutations. Again, this all seems like idiotic nonsense to me: someone's colour should simply not be a consideration (except in the rare cases where it is relevant to the job at hand), period. Agreed.....others in Canada opine the same sentiment: "Another criticism arises regarding the composition of “visible minorities” as defined by the Canadian government. The Canadian government defines visible minorities as “non-white” or “non-Caucasian” and further states that it comprises the following groups: “Black, South Asian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian, Filipino, Arab/West Asian, Latin American”. Furthermore, the category “West Asian” may offend those descended from the people of Georgia, and Armenia, if these do not regard themselves as Non-White or West Asian. If fact these groups have been the source of the term, Caucasian. Similarly, a Latin American, even if entirely of European ancestry, is implicitly defined as “non-white” or “non-Caucasian” under the definition of visible minority. Again, this use of the term “visible minorities” implies a Eurocentric definition of “white” and “Caucasian”. "Critics have also noted that the groups comprising “visible minorities” have little in common with each other, as they include some disadvantaged ethnic groups and other groups who are not disadvantaged." http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/thesearch/archive/2010/03/17/has-the-term-visible-minority-outlived-its-usefulness.aspx Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shwa Posted January 4, 2011 Report Posted January 4, 2011 My people, the Jews, used to be held to a quota of 3% of the university entrants. To me, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Well that is a nice point, but then you realized that by saying that Saipan "...pretty much said it all" you forgot to include women in the definition of Caucasion right? Quote
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.