Maclean's: Winnipeg Is Most Racist City

[Black Dog]

Her colour, since she stopped dressing like she was in the hood has played absolutely no role in her life. Maybe it was the way she presented herself before, and not her colour, eh?

That you equate race with skin colour shows you don't understand race at all.

[Smallc]

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Yeah, my own. Sorry for giving deference to my own judgement.

I'm sure there's arguments for reforming or even getting rid the Indian Act/treaties. You haven't made it though.

Actually, you have, you just don't seem to realize it. If there is systemic racism, the Indian Act, treaties, and Royal Proclamation, 1763...are it.

And what way is that?

In that there aren't actual races. There are only humans of various colours. Who cares?

[Smallc]

That you equate race with skin colour shows you don't understand race at all.

Since people generally identify people's race by the colour of their skin, I'm talking in terms of generally accepted concepts.

[Black Dog]

In that there aren't actual races. There are only humans of various colours. Who cares?

People who live in the real world and understand that dealing with these issues involves confronting the reality of race and not pretending it doesn't exist or hoping it just goes away.

Since people generally identify people's race by the colour of their skin, I'm talking in terms of generally accepted concepts.

Except they don't. At least not exclusively. You said so yourself about how successful your fiancee became once she started dressing white.

[Smallc]

People who live in the real world and understand that dealing with these issues involves confronting the reality of race and not pretending it doesn't exist or hoping it just goes away.

Actually, if we all legislated and acted as if it doesn't exist, it would go away.

Except they don't. At least not exclusively. You said so yourself about how successful your fiancee became once she started dressing white.

That's a very offensive concept. It presupposes that only white dress is appropriate. In fact, what people wear today is clothing that has come from a variety of cultural backgrounds.

As for the concept of race, well, skin colour is the defining characteristic in most cases. A white person that dresses ganster doesn't suddenly become another race, to use your own example.

[Black Dog]

Actually, if we all legislated and acted as if it doesn't exist, it would go away.

Nonsense.

That's a very offensive concept. It presupposes that only white dress is appropriate. In fact, what people wear today is clothing that has come from a variety of cultural backgrounds.

No, it presupposes that our cultural ideas of what is appropriate has a racial dimension (among others).

As for the concept of race, well, skin colour is the defining characteristic in most cases. A white person that dresses ganster doesn't suddenly become another race, to use your own example.

Because "dressing gangster" has no racial element there, no siree.

[Smallc]

Nonsense.

That's actually impossible. If no one acted as if race existed, it in fact would cease to be an issue for anyone.

No, it presupposes that our cultural ideas of what is appropriate has a racial dimension (among others).

That is a cultural dimension. But generally, gangster clothing (of its various types) is associated with bad behaviour, because it tends to be related to bad behaviour. A black man in a business suit will not be seen in a bad light. A white kid dressed with red sweat pants and a hoodie, and a ball cap barely on his head, will be. It's not racial, it's cultural. The culture of gangs, which originated in black America, has spread to be pan racial. It doesn't encompass all of what it is to be black American, but rather an undesirable element of various cultures.

Because "dressing gangster" has no racial element there, no siree.

Generally, it comes from black american culture. It's a cultural thing, not a racial thing. That was my point.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Smallc

[Black Dog]

That's actually impossible. If no one acted as if race existed, it in fact would cease to be an issue for anyone.

And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping. Expecting race to disappear is a pipe dream.

That is a cultural dimension. But generally, gangster clothing (of its various types) is associated with bad behaviour, because it tends to be related to bad behaviour. A black man in a business suit will not be seen in a bad light. A white kid dressed with red sweat pants and a hoodie, and a ball cap barely on his head, will be. It's not racial, it's cultural.

Race and culture are not separate things.

[Smallc]

Race and culture are not separate things.

Then perhaps the proper would would be culturism?

[cybercoma]

Then perhaps the proper would would be culturism?

No. The proper term is racism, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Smallc]

No. The proper term is racism, whether you want to admit it or not.

Not when we're talking about cultural issues that transcend the general concept of race. Generally, race is about appearance (as the definition in fact makes clear. It's not cultural, except for the appearance aspects. One idea cannot be properly transposed like that.

[overthere]

No. The proper term is racism, whether you want to admit it or not.

and it is rampant on the Prairies, whether or not his fiancee experiences it.

Casual, overt and all too common.

And it cuts both ways, which is not surprising.

[Smallc]

and it is rampant on the Prairies, whether or not his fiancee experiences it.

Casual, overt and all too common.

And it cuts both ways, which is not surprising.

The concept of racism as he invisions can't cut both ways. Racial discrimination (the generally understood example of racism) does in fact exist on all sides. I'm saying it's not and shouldn't be a factor in my life. It really shouldn't be in anyone else's either.

[Black Dog]

Not when we're talking about cultural issues that transcend the general concept of race. Generally, race is about appearance (as the definition in fact makes clear. It's not cultural, except for the appearance aspects. One idea cannot be properly transposed like that.

You're absolutely wrong about this. Physical characteristics are part if it, but so too are assumptions about innate behaviours.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

Not when we're talking about cultural issues that transcend the general concept of race. Generally, race is about appearance (as the definition in fact makes clear. It's not cultural, except for the appearance aspects. One idea cannot be properly transposed like that.

It's incredible how little you know about this, but continue to speak as though you're some kind of authority. You want to pretend these "cultural" issues transcend race when they certainly do not. Your race is a part of who you are. People treat you a certain way because of your race. This is universally true regardless of where you go on the planet. You can be so blissfully unaware of how damaging your race can be because your race is privileged in our society. Actually, wasn't it you who said you were treated poorly for being white in a predominantly First Nations region? As if that means your chances in society were limited at all and you had less of an opportunity than they did. Funny now how you have managerial control over many aspects of their lives (at least that's what you've said before), isn't it? What percentage of the workforce in the department of aboriginal affairs (or whatever whitewashed name they're giving it these days) is actually from First Nations, Metis, or Inuit origins? Also, have you looked at the research that controls for where people live, what their education is, how much experience they have, and yet still their race determines their chances of getting hired? Race has an independent effect on people's outcomes. It has been researched and shown statistically over and over again. Yet you want to sit here and pretend it doesn't exist. Pretending there is no problem only contributes to it further.

[Smallc]

You're absolutely wrong about this. Physical characteristics are part if it, but so too are assumptions about innate behaviours.

You do understand the actual scientific definition I hope. You're using the much broader (made up) sociological definition.

It's incredible how little you know about this, but continue to speak as though you're some kind of authority.

You're again trying to pass of definitions that aren't generally accepted as if they are concrete.

You want to pretend these "cultural" issues transcend race when they certainly do not.

The thug life may have originated in the black hood, but it certainly extends far beyond it now. It's not a racial issue. Dressing that way is not 'dressing black'.

Your race is a part of who you are.

Why? Because you say so?

People treat you a certain way because of your race

All people? Really?

This is universally true regardless of where you go on the planet.

That's categorically false.

You can be so blissfully unaware of how damaging your race can be because your race is privileged in our society.

That's one opinion.

Actually, wasn't it you who said you were treated poorly for being white in a predominantly First Nations region?

Yes, which is why I refuse to ever look at the world in that way. There's absolutely no reason to

As if that means your chances in society were limited at all and you had less of an opportunity than they did. Funny now how you have managerial control over many aspects of their lives (at least that's what you've said before), isn't it?

I do business with them. Nothing less, and nothing more.

What percentage of the workforce in the department of aboriginal affairs (or whatever whitewashed name they're giving it these days) is actually from First Nations, Metis, or Inuit origins?

It should be equal to their share of the population. I'm almost positive it's higher, but I could be wrong.

Also, have you looked at the research that controls for where people live, what their education is, how much experience they have, and yet still their race determines their chances of getting hired?

There are other factors. With immigrants for example, their education education often takes a back seat to their language skills. In the case of aboriginal people, there is more likely to be a criminal past an an incomprehensive work history when they come from a reserve.

Race has an independent effect on people's outcomes.

It probably does to a small extent, and that's unfortunate.

It has been researched and shown statistically over and over again. Yet you want to sit here and pretend it doesn't exist. Pretending there is no problem only contributes to it further.

I've never said there was not a problem with discrimination. I said that there shouldn't be, and attitudes like your's, as well intentioned as they are, don't help.

[Black Dog]

You do understand the actual scientific definition I hope. You're using the much broader (made up) sociological definition.

There's no scientific definition of race. At least none that are not also "made up." Yes there are genetic differences between different populations, but taking those differences and assigning them to a given "race" is a sociological excercise, not a scientific one.

You're again trying to pass of definitions that aren't generally accepted as if they are concrete.

Just because you don't hear it at Tim Horton's does it make it invalid. Nor do your dictionary.com references adequately encapsulate the complexities of this issue.

The thug life may have originated in the black hood, but it certainly extends far beyond it now. It's not a racial issue. Dressing that way is not 'dressing black'.

It was adopted by non blacks because of its associations with aspects of black culture.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Black Dog

[Smallc]

There's no scientific definition of race. At least none that are not also "made up."

No, the scientific definition centres around phenotype.

but taking those differences and assigning them to a given "race" is a sociological excercise, not a scientific one.

Making it pretty much meaningless.

Just because you don't hear it at Tim Horton's does it make it invalid. Nor do your dictionary.com references adequately encapsulate the complexities of this issue.

If people don't accept your definition, it's meaningless.

It was adopted by non blacks because of its associations with aspects of black culture.

And as a result, its racial connotations have basically disappeared.;

[Black Dog]

No, the scientific definition centres around phenotype.

No scientist would use "race" when talking about phenotypic variations.

Making it pretty much meaningless.

Maybe to the idiots at Timmie's.

If people don't accept your definition, it's meaningless.

Not this bullshit argumentum ad populum again. There's plenty of concepts in social sciences and, yes, hard science, that the average Joe doesn't know or understand. I guess those would all be invalid under your tyranny of idiots.

And as a result, its racial connotations have basically disappeared.

Nonsense. It's racial connotations are still there regardless of who has appropriated the look.

[Smallc]

No scientist would use "race" when talking about phenotypic variations.

Apparently some do. It's certainly not something I would endorse. The accepted definition is based on phenotype variation.

Not this bullshit argumentum ad populum again. There's plenty of concepts in social sciences and, yes, hard science, that the average Joe doesn't know or understand. I guess those would all be invalid under your tyranny of idiots.

Lack of understanding, and lack of accepted agreement are very different things.

Nonsense. It's racial connotations are still there regardless of who has appropriated the look.

If that's how you choose to view everything, I guess they never disappear.

[Black Dog]

Apparently some do. It's certainly not something I would endorse. The accepted definition is based on phenotype variation.

Cite? In any case, the existence of science around genetic variation doesn't invalidate or supersede the sociological concepts you refuse to even engage with.

Lack of understanding, and lack of accepted agreement are very different things.

And neither speaks to the issue of validity.

If that's how you choose to view everything, I guess they never disappear.

And you can make anything vanish if you just pretend it doesn't exist. As you do.

[Smallc]

Cite? In any case, the existence of science around genetic variation doesn't invalidate or supersede the sociological concepts you refuse to even engage with.

With further research, it does seem that there are competing definitions. One has to do with physical characteristics, and one with all around culture. The two definitions are valid with different groups.

Edit: there are actually several, the most accepted dealing with physical characteristics.

And neither speaks to the issue of validity.

It's important to a conversation though.

And you can make anything vanish if you just pretend it doesn't exist. As you do.

The form of dress is now more associated with bad behaviour than with black people...probably because of the bad behaviour that generally comes with it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Smallc

[Black Dog]

With further research, it does seem that there are competing definitions. One has to do with physical characteristics, and one with all around culture. The two definitions are valid with different groups.

Edit: there are actually several, the most accepted dealing with physical characteristics.

Cite?

It's important to a conversation though.

It's not. Debate the idea itself, not whether its popular.

The form of dress is now more associated with bad behaviour than with black people...probably because of the bad behaviour that generally comes with it.

It can be both simultaneously.

[Smallc]

Cite?

It's not. Debate the idea itself, not whether its popular.

It can be both simultaneously.

I'm not going to bother citing the definition as you'll say the same thing you did with racism. As to the idea itself, I've already told you I reject it. When talking about the negative stereotypes regarding race, appearance is the general characteristic we're discussing.

[Black Dog]

I'm not going to bother citing the definition as you'll say the same thing you did with racism.

Ah ha ha.

As to the idea itself, I've already told you I reject it.

Yeah: because you consider it invalid. because...well, you never really bother with that part.

When talking about the negative stereotypes regarding race, appearance is the general characteristic we're discussing.

Appearance as an indicator of other traits, not appearance qua appearance .