The Logic of Discrimination...

[Scott Mayers]

I'm opening this thread to discuss the political philosophy regarding how and what is the underlying nature and causes of what we determine is or is not behaviors that discriminate in a derogatory way. In particular, I'm personally offended by the way our system is tackling real problems of abuses that occur to people by using an even worse type of discrimination that targets select other peoples in a type of vengeance that only enhances more problems than it solves.

I am using the issues surrounding our Aboriginals here in Canada with an opposing contrast to the Caucasians here without any personal intent to signify favor for any one group or the other. I happen to be Caucasian but do NOT speak to defend any REAL discrimination that occurs by any Caucasian any more than by an Aboriginal. I believe that this abuse is a universal problem that occurs everywhere yet the 'solutions' to overcome them always tend to distract us from what I believe is the sincere and logical causes of discrimination among ALL people everywhere. So this discussion is inclusive of most world peoples everywhere.

Let's begin by introducing the 'problem' which we are commonly trying to address. What appears to be the problem is that certain group or groups of people based on some identifiable genetic inheritance seems to be targeted by one or more groups somewhere at some times by some or all others in a derogatory way that defeats the success of individuals based in this.

If you or others agree who are reading this, please mention this in your response to assure that we at least agree to this much up front. To help clarify, I am not saying who or which groups are the cause or the recipients of the abuses as I am defaulting to assume this is a function of all people with concerns to the group identities. If we can at least agree to the problem first as a most generic condition, we can try to move forward to see if we can resolve it.

I will begin with my own belief of the cause and effects with my proposed means to repair the problem.

Causes and Efffects

(1) Evolution itself commands that any individual interprets what is 'good' or 'bad' based on their initial experiences in life to assign what these values to adapt to their local environment.

This means that when we only assign any values based on our initial self-derived needs or interests from early childhood on. Once 'assigned' they are often at least partially hardwired to assure a means to instinctively react to real dangers and to determine which things we can trust.

For example, much of our 'moral' values derive from a hardwired program that has a variable form that seeks the environment to assign whether what it experiences is 'favorable' or not to what it presumes is consistent. These occur through windows or periods of time where the brain is developing to both test the worthiness of experience to save brain space for it or to ignore it so that the space can be used for other things.

A cat, for instance, is born without sight during the initial month whereupon a period of time is necessary to 'test' whether the brain should allocate memory space for that sensor or to use it for other things. While not technically a 'value' in the way we think of morals, the purpose is no different. If the cat for whatever reason has an eye that does not work or is blinded in this period, the window testing the area of the brain where sight is assigned only stays open for a month or so after its initiation. Should that part of the brain receive no data during that period, it reassigns it to some other window for testing, like hearing, so that it can optimize that space in the brain rather than feed it when it has no use. This is a type of pruning of environmental 'values'.

In the same way, we have initial windows that open to seek what we will or will not "favor". It is NOT based on a predetermined idea of pleasure and pain as these too are 'values' which get assigned. For instance, if your window opens to determine how to interpret a cut on your skin through the pressure sensors that get affected in such a case, you may have a case where insufficient information is being active during this period OR another set of events are traumatizing (overwhelming) this window's expectation to assign value of skin sensors. A flu or some other sickness, for instance, during this window may be affecting your brain that occupies attention at the time. But because of this, if the window should close in this period, the assignment for the brain may interpret ANY strong sensation of the skin as at least more worthy of assigning value even if it is NOT a survival trait.

You may be 'cut' to bleed the brain due to Meningitis in this window, a 'good' or survival factor, which your brain then assigns as a 'good' sensation. But this assignment may then accidentally assign the sensation of being cut as a 'good' feeling even though it is objectively not with respect to the possibility of getting infected. There are a few 'diseases' like this. For instance, leprosy, is one kind of misassignment to the value of what should be 'pain'. The lack of it in such people makes them unable to sense when or where they get injured and so it affects them with dire consequences.

This is also the kind of thing that occurs with most moral values as well. For the purposes of this argument, I specifically think that these type of assignments are what initiates the bonding values we associate with close family and environmental groups we experience with a tendency to bias more favor for and against external ones. These do not mean that one necessarily favors their own. If you experience assignments that go against through trauma, you may find even bonding to similar apparent stimuli as 'bad' or even just 'indifferent'.

(2) Because of the above, assigning who or what we favor forces us to 'discriminate' between those we deem safe and 'good' as opposed to unsafe and 'bad'. There is likely much variation to include many degrees in between including the middle position of 'indifference'. So from the individual, we judge what is 'good' for us is what is 'good'. Because those we associate with as next in line as essential in our environment, we assign values to the people and things next in significant proximity to 'favor'. Then, we extend this to weaker and weaker associations the further out we go.

Obviously, this causes us to tend to favor our ethnic group or culture in better ways when or where these things are most productive to our survival. However, survival itself is a matter of degrees too. Even if one gets assigned values that are not necessarily destructive as some disease which affects our capacity to be healthy, sometimes the very assignments we receive early on are also lost soon after we develop them. For instance, most babies have limited needs in the beginning. As such, even a struggling and relatively poor mother may be able to nourish the baby sufficiently in windows of development to be assigned values which are productive to survival. But if and when that baby grows and begins to require more nutrients of reality from its environment it lacks, the hard wiring they received could create real problems.

As such, even if our initial experiences make us healthy, the very assignments we hard wire can also backfire on us where we then experience another stage of life that lacks or goes against those values we learned. That is, if you appropriately acquired the assignment to feel pain when hungry, such an assignment if permanently hard-wired can create a worse condition for another period when or where you lack food later. As such, the hunger acts to make one suffer. This of course is a normal means to entice our consciousness to seek the environment in order to survive. Yet it also makes us suffer without it.

So this cause creates the means to most people everywhere to feel the 'value' of pain and suffering as much as it does to the pleasures and comforts that most of us equate with. Where we suffer early on can thus conflict with the environment we are in as we still develop further values which turn against ourselves as individuals as well as to our groups. We might then tend to feel 'favor' for what others may appear to have which we value externally and begin to interpret how discrimination affects us differently based on what appears to be true, which is most evident in our outward appearances.

(3) We begin to interpret the larger representations of our own identities and the corresponding virtues of their comforts as opposed to sufferings as dividing lines between ourselves and others based on external appearances, including behaviors. So if many of your own 'kind' appear to suffer in some way, AND others do not to an equally admirable degree, you seek justification for this. Since these are often about statistical averages we induce upon experience, it will always tend to be the extremes we see which help us interpret what we favor most over which we don't. If you are of a suffering group, you only see your own group as suffering as the furthest extension of oneself and see the out-group who represents the most prosperous as the representative group taking in all the benefits. The simplest is based on race and ethnicity.

Notice though that the 'cause' here can err in significant but imbalanced ways. For one, while one extreme to you is your own group with positive certainty, the out-group with the strongest symbolic representative of the virtues you believe your group lacks, will be stereotyped as if the whole of the other group is equally in similar prosperity by contrast. In an opposite way, the more 'prosperous' group will NOT necessarily see their in-group as a whole as prosperous because they themselves are potentially suffering too. They may 'see' the same group of people as the others objectively prosperous but cannot logically include themselves if they too are suffering even for being a part of that supposed 'favored' group. To them, their perception feels stuck between two general classes simply because they are a 'minority' within the prosperous group. In contrast, the ones prosperous in the objectively determined group by statistics may also interpret themselves as being fortunate as a whole, even where in error.

Summary example: Assume 10% Race/ethnicity group A is suffering while 90% of A is prospering. Then assume 90% of group B is suffering while 10% of their race/ethnicity in the same group B is prospering.

The Majority of both groups tend to steal the best and worst of each group and is generated by the 90% in each but never by the whole. Yet stereotyping is most strongest on both extremes and so the assumption if adjustments are to be made by both extremes will be to trade 'favors' between those majorities in both to keep them at peace, if it should exist.

(4) The last point means that we now have a concern to resolve any problems by appealing to balancing fairness to attend to the majority. Yet this ignores two other minorities in each group. The 10% of B who are prospering won't complain because while they may be in the minority of those prospering, they do not actually suffer the consequences of it and so stay silent. In contrast, the 10% of A who suffer in the class who normally prospers, has an even more opposing need to complain as they get targeted as being of the class who DOES prosper by statistics yet more appropriately fit in with the same group B of the 90% who DO suffer as well.

As such, the very ones who suffer as a common class, we might define as C, such that they are the 10% of group A + the 90% of group B, are pitted most strongly against one another without justice. The ones who prosper consisting of the 90% of group A + the 10% of group B, say group D, are then most apparently the least who consequentially suffer from any proposed changes that either favor or disfavor their group.

So this last point is where I see the causes meet the effects that get distorted to be about race and ethnicity in a false logical concern. Yet this tends to create a never-ending cycle of abuses because it doesn't recognize that the way we classify the issue IS the end cause in a chain that begins in our nature as animals. It is irrational thinking if we sincerely believe there is some common moral significance to fairness. If 'fairness' is not a concern by focusing on our innately genetic predisposition (our genetic inheritances), then the only thing any resolution will remain concerned about will take the extremes as they both believe in tackling things BASED on genetic and evolutionary factors.

My suggested solution:

Although this should be obvious from the above, we reclassify the sincere issues based on our less natural but more 'humane' ideal of altruism based on real conditions as individuals and not on statistical majorities of those who are most suffering as opposed to those who are most prospering. It is these extremes who are commanding the problem. AND, they are both targeting the minority of the supposed prosperous group who also represent a minority but get ignored by all sides. All it does is to make those minorities potentially become the next 'terrorists' as the ones in those minor-minor sufferers are demonized most universally as well as being isolated more intensely.

I believe this is what our problem is with the Middle East. The minority of the minority in the Muslim-Arabic groups are demonized by those like Israel most significantly who represent the strongest and most prosperous group by extreme contrasts. They both act with a fervor to stand strong for themselves as a strictly defined group and command the way all means to possibly resolve them. And to outsiders looking in who prosper, we interpret the way the 'prosperity' of the Israelis to act without such obvious direct violence but through exclusion as non-problematic as if they aren't doing anything wrong. And then we see the most violating acts through the desperate 'terrorism' by those in the Arabic community as MORE responsible to ALL the problems.

What ends up happening is that we interpret the strongest extremes of the ones who suffer as the most villainous creators of all the problems while the majority of the ones who are targeted for being of the 'prosperous' class escape culpability no matter what their actual responsibility to the causes are.

For Canada, the Caucasian Male is deemed to be the largest plurality of those benefiting in society. But no matter what kind of arrangements are made to overcome it, only those in that class who most benefit are also the ones most likely to both escape the liability AND actually appear as 'friends' to the largest plurality on the bottom. It is in there interest to do this as they most FAVOR their own and so equally believe that the ones who are on the opposite spectrum are losing because they do not by contrast for the same reason. Thus they are both the sincere racists when they appeal to favoring CULTURE as the definitive measure of all mankind. And yet, this creates just another group beyond both who are non-CULTURALLY related to either but become the next extreme group that either MUST conform by forming associations with others who suffer like them and become a NEW CULT, ...OR accept themselves as measly sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered in another future cultural war.

Notice that there is a kind of Trinity here? Extreme group A and B are culturally opposing with their economy until the losing group makes a big enough force that both negotiate to favor each culture in exclusion of a third, group C who lack cultural connection but are forced to become one. The group D is an indifferent group and so participates only by standing back to observe C appear to 'terrorize', allowing group B, who suffer by statistics to gain because of group A, who last belonged to a previous C in the past. The cycle is endless until we intellectually realize this.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[jacee]

Hunh?

Totally incomprehensible.

Try some context:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/17/truth-and-reconciliation-report-goes-well-beyond-residential-schools-walkom.html

Residential schools, the commission says, were no accident. They were aimed at destroying aboriginal cultures that mainstream society viewed as inferior.

But that in itself is a naive representation. Discrimination was promoted by portraying Indigenous people as 'inferior', justifying horrific abuses, but in reality Indigenous Peoples were discriminated against because of their 'superior' rights to the land and resources that greedy colonialists wanted to claim as their own.

Discriminated against ... and subjected to genocide.

True reconciliation, the commission says, can be accomplished only if Canada adopts a new vision that fully embraces aboriginal peoples right to self-determination within, and in partnership with, a viable Canadian sovereignty.

.

Edited December 21, 2015 by jacee

[Argus]

Let's begin by introducing the 'problem' which we are commonly trying to address. What appears to be the problem is that certain group or groups of people based on some identifiable genetic inheritance seems to be targeted by one or more groups somewhere at some times by some or all others in a derogatory way that defeats the success of individuals based in this.

Your post is way too long and complicated for this type of forum but worse than that your definition of the problem is completely wrong.

Discrimination is not caused by 'some identifiable genetic inheritance' but based on real or exaggerated expectations of behaviour. Store detectives don't follow black customers around because they think they're inferior but because in their experience, and based on statistics, they think they're more likely to steal. Companies might not hire natives because they feel they have a poor work ethic and reliability issues. People might be wary of Muslim newcomers because of what they have heard about their religious beliefs.

None of these are based on genetics or perception of genetic superiority, but upon cultural differences between groups.

[eyeball]

The Logic of Discrimination...

People are bigots because they're sphincters.

It's really straightforward.

[Scott Mayers]

Hunh?

Totally incomprehensible.

Try some context:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/17/truth-and-reconciliation-report-goes-well-beyond-residential-schools-walkom.html

Residential schools, the commission says, were no accident. They were aimed at destroying aboriginal cultures that mainstream society viewed as inferior.

But that in itself is a naive representation. Discrimination was promoted by portraying Indigenous people as 'inferior', justifying horrific abuses, but in reality Indigenous Peoples were discriminated against because of their 'superior' rights to the land and resources that greedy colonialists wanted to claim as their own.

Discriminated against ... and subjected to genocide.

True reconciliation, the commission says, can be accomplished only if Canada adopts a new vision that fully embraces aboriginal peoples right to self-determination within, and in partnership with, a viable Canadian sovereignty.

.

You either misinterpret my sympathy and are reacting without concern to attend to the details.

The Aboriginals WERE violated and discriminated by default of the conflicting differences in the stage of European advancement against the Americans (all of America) prior to their move here. The clash is precisely what occurred in many places before AND each civilization has gone through these stages. The stage of the North American Aboriginals was still in an earlier stage of development by contrast to the Europeans. It doesn't mean one stage is 'superior' or 'inferior', even while one will interpret the other in this way.

Tribal lifestyle is transient until settlement is established through an era of agricultural evolution. This began in Central America and they had just passed the phase of initial overproduction of the land in their pyramid phase that had already occurred more than four thousand years ago in Egypt from which the Old World ancestors had gone through. The Egyptian, Middle East, and Mediterraneans had struggled with this phase and the repercussions of it still exist as we are experiencing now in the present conflicts there.

These are all derived from the differences in 'ownership' claims or ideals, and to the idea of who should have a 'right' over others to inherit.

In North America, it was unfortunately most drastic since the phase differences were so drastic. You can't simply make a large population in an early tribal phase adapt to the technological and intellectual advances that had already occurred to that point in Europe when they were expanding to the rest of the world. Even the Europeans who came over were and still are insufficiently evolved to appropriately address any ideal to handle the concepts of ownership and inheritance in a world that is limited in resources but unlimited in demand.

So when the Americans first came over, while unfortunate, the ideals of the newcomers clashed NOT because of any significant difference in genetic capacity but to the impossibility of change to occur as quickly as it is demanded of ALL people. What may have been 'fair' may have been for the early Old World immigrants to have turned back home. However, realistically, many of those immigrants were as much victims from places they originated from regardless. The point here is that just as any and every 'culture' of the Old World had equal interest to come here to claim what they understood was 'free land' since the natives of the Americas had not completely reached the stage of saturation in agricultural settlement. So, especially to the North American natives, their tribal lifestyle seriously clashed merely by accident. But DO NOT mistake the idea that somehow the populations here prior to the Old World immigration, that all tribes were somehow angelically altruistic towards each other and had any intrinsic 'culture' that was any more nor less superior to those newcomers. The only difference is that the power of the New Immigrants had the needed time to get the advancement they had which granted them the technology to competitively overcome the American Natives.

Had the Natives been somehow magically empowered with this at that time, the reverse scenario would occur without a doubt. And if you or others insist anything different, you are deluded with a sincere internal belief in a racial supremacy AND inferiority as much as the worst of those from any immigrants who felt the same whom you may find most criminal.

I sympathize with the problems that have lead to present problems in discrimination. However, I believe that, as I argued in my OP here, that what we tend to do is to only enable those qualities of hatred of groups where we have those who believe in the supremacy/inferiority classifications are a justified, and often, religiously derived belief that we SHOULD segregate into clear and distinct groups based on genetic as much as to environmental inheritances. And it is always these people who represent the vast minority of ALL people who steal the powers due to their internal agreeing hatreds of others as much due to the insane LOVE for their own with clear boundaries.

To you or others who think our multicultural ideal is a 'good' thing, this is more about your absurd beliefs that we should be allowed to segregate with forces that CONSERVE exclusive distinction of peoples so as to impose these forcefully in law and allow you to pass this same Nationalistic set of standards upon your children. This is natural if we return to the purest survival-to-the-fittest thinking that the rest of the animal kingdom adheres to. But if and only if you appeal to ANY intellectual advancement with compassion to us all as a part of the same world, a Nationalistic imposition to segregate entices more hatred than to defeat it. You are encouraging a continuation of our natural instinct to be selfish as our genes command us to be. And while this is 'natural', you can't then feign that you are somehow MORE compassionate and righteous by all people to impose this on the rest of us.

Segregation laws DO aid some people merely on the accidental nature of what it means to a child in a family who gets spoiled over other siblings: while the sibling who gets exceptional treatment will naturally advance and appreciate their favoritism, they cannot fairly accept losing this favor regardless of their intellect against it. They think, yeah, I don't like the fact that my brothers and sisters are suffering at my expense, but if I give in and allow them equal treatment, I'll lose my own benefits. And my 'parents' have been treating me so well even though they are abusive to some of my siblings unfairly.

So the sibling will justify this by openly supporting segregated treatment but try to entice others at least with a false hope that they too could get the treatment they receive if they only find their OWN fortune separately. It is the story of the 'Ugly Duckling' in practice. I can't figure out how this story ever gets thought of as something even remotely compassionate let alone REAL for people as it was to the adopted swan!?? This fable says that if those who suffer in some family, they should merely recognize that they are just some 'different' species and go ELSEWHERE to seek their appropriate home with those of their 'kind'. It transfers the burden to be compassionate by the ones who are being treated badly by 'going away' and to seek their OWN kind.

Therefore, the exclusive nature of segregation forces the 'ugly ducklings' among them to either CONFORM to their group (assimilation) OR to find their own group (as distinct beings), even if they don't exist, to equally create a group that looks at them as Swans while the rest as Ducks. This creates the anger and frustration of those who get expelled from their own to rightfully turn into hyenas, not swans, as this is what it takes for the rejected to survive where there truly is no such fantasized Swan family they belong to. Its a myth.

Do you think that half-breeds (intercultural inherited people) are worth being discriminated against since they don't have a distinct group they 'belong' to? Do you think they should take on your own pretense that others are 'out there' simply to satisfy YOU even while this is a complete an utter lie only intended to make the undesired 'go away'? It's HATE, pure and simple! And it is NOT owned merely by the large MONO-culturalists who are in more power; the MULTI-culturalists only feign their own internal MONO-cultural love for their own and hatred for others by contrast of need to do so UNTIL they could become powerful enough to take over the last Conservative interests.

[Scott Mayers]

Your post is way too long and complicated for this type of forum but worse than that your definition of the problem is completely wrong.

Discrimination is not caused by 'some identifiable genetic inheritance' but based on real or exaggerated expectations of behaviour. Store detectives don't follow black customers around because they think they're inferior but because in their experience, and based on statistics, they think they're more likely to steal. Companies might not hire natives because they feel they have a poor work ethic and reliability issues. People might be wary of Muslim newcomers because of what they have heard about their religious beliefs.

None of these are based on genetics or perception of genetic superiority, but upon cultural differences between groups.

Culture IS merely a facade of Nationalism by those who believe TRADITION is the root of all culture. You ignore that culture to the VAST MAJORITY of people is a choice of one's present environment, not merely of traditionalists. But since the traditionalists have the force of precedent by past gains, it is their idea of 'culture' which supersedes those who believe culture is transitional and ever-evolving.

This is the most appropriate forum in which I even have a hope to speak on these issues. I do NOT have any other 'place' to go to to competitively prove this. The CBC, as a prime example, will NOT allow dissenting views against the traditionalists of the groups robbing the attention of the individuals in the more impoverished classes. The same goes for all the other media outlets but they only differ on which 'groups' get the voice.

While it may seem too complex for you, I hope you DO take the time to invest in reading and understanding what I'm saying and contribute in kind. But don't tell me to simply 'go away' because you can't or won't try to understand. I am completely being relevant being here and to go to another venue that is restricted to the philosophers is like sending me to my own 'reserve' so that I cannot be heard or seen by the majority I'm trying to appeal to.

[jacee]

People are bigots because they're sphincters.

It's really straightforward.

Ya thanks.

That's the nutshell I was looking for.

Lol

Hey Scott ... you can write volumes until the mods cut you off, but no one has to read it.

.

Edited December 21, 2015 by jacee

[Scott Mayers]

People are bigots because they're sphincters.

It's really straightforward.

Yes. But as simple as you word this, it will only appeal to those who agree they are NOT the bigots....which is EVERYONE! It doesn't repair the damages we want to resolve.

[Scott Mayers]

Ya thanks.

That's the nutshell I was looking for.

Lol

Hey Scott ... you can write volumes until the mods cut you off, but no one has to read it.

.

It's your choice. But why are you even here then? Are we only here to 'vent' without trying to convince each other our points of view?

I'm trying to be constructive to what skill I believe I have to contribute. And it doesn't come by merely tweeting likes and dislikes without substance and depth. If these problems were 'simple' they'd already be solved and no one would actually have anything to complain about. This is my own fair appeal to help. And you, as much as anyone here, qualify to participate in equal depth and willingness to discuss and debate our differences.

[Bryan]

People root for their home team. They keep with their own. People from their town, people from their country, people with their religion (or lack thereof), people wit their political outlook, people who look like them, people who speak the same language, etc, etc. They have an easier time relating to people who they identify as like them.

[Scott Mayers]

People root for their home team. They keep with their own. People from their town, people from their country, people with their religion (or lack thereof), people wit their political outlook, people who look like them, people who speak the same language, etc, etc. They have an easier time relating to people who they identify as like them.

Yes. This is the point I'm saying is our genetic fittest-for-survival animal instinct. Yet we ignore that when one attends positively to one specifically favored group, this necessarily implies discrimination AGAINST the outsider to the degree you FAVOR your own.

Do you think it acceptable to selectively FAVOR one or more of your children over one or more of the others based on inherent appearances or behaviors? This isn't about judging one child who is merely being 'difficult' or abusive to the family unit. This kind of discrimination actually causes the motives to BE in opposition to one another. The one treated most favorably thinks the 'culture' of their parents is just because one's internal pride is derived from the selfish appeal they naturally have for it, even if it is done with mere shallow or non-real qualifications.

In contrast, the ones who lack the FAVOR, while it may not always be about direct abuse, is a form of indirect abuse through neglect. But if the parent should recognize their behavior, if they sincerely care about this, merely saying they 'love' them cannot be interpreted as real if they do not voluntarily ACT on such words. And equally, should the parent opt to simply begin to offer gifts to placate the undesired child, it doesn't actually make them love the child any more than the words they think magically work. And the 'gifts' often lack the sincerity in that they are merely given out of the parent's guilt without a willingness to address their own mindset to favor one over the other.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

Yes. But as simple as you word this, it will only appeal to those who agree they are NOT the bigots....which is EVERYONE! It doesn't repair the damages we want to resolve.

What is there to resolve if we're all in agreement?

[eyeball]

People root for their home team. They keep with their own. People from their town, people from their country, people with their religion (or lack thereof), people wit their political outlook, people who look like them, people who speak the same language, etc, etc. They have an easier time relating to people who they identify as like them.

And that's why I'm an Earthling.

How ya doin'? Welcome to my planet. And yes that's my Ireland too.

[Scott Mayers]

What is there to resolve if we're all in agreement?

What specifically needs to be done to solve the problem. I'm saying that our Multicultural policies, or even Assimilation, are problematic because these are intended to allow laws to be made TO discriminate and fosters more hatred, not less. We need an Intercultural appeal that initially requires redressing the Constitution to rid it of a right to conserve culture, especially with regards to those based on inheritance (ie, tradition/history). These prevent the right of individuals to be treated equally based on similar REAL circumstances by 'gerrymandering' the way we define the causes of problems as due to culture over economy. The reverse is true. Ones economy creates the problems that get 'excused' by culture in reaction. This includes how those in the Middle East appear to be irrationally religious zealots competing for religious reasons. It hides the real causes such as the theft of the resources and economy of Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc, by their opposition, the Israelis and the Americans who are capitalizing on the same religious type excuses for their own justifications. Take out the cultural/religious excuses in laws, and you expose the real problems.

[Scott Mayers]

And that's why I'm an Earthling.

How ya doin'? Welcome to my planet. And yes that's my Ireland too.

I'm with you on this. I feel like I was born a 'floater' for merely not being a legitimate inheritor of any land, property, genetics, or cultural tradition anywhere on this Earth. Am I to accept my alien status? Am I NOT an Earthling too?

[jacee]

What specifically needs to be done to solve the problem. I'm saying that our Multicultural policies, or even Assimilation, are problematic because these are intended to allow laws to be made TO discriminate and fosters more hatred, not less.

There's no need to hate.

We need an Intercultural appeal that initially requires redressing the Constitution to rid it of a right to conserve culture, especially with regards to those based on inheritance (ie, tradition/history).

These prevent the right of individuals to be treated equally based on similar REAL circumstances by 'gerrymandering' the way we define the causes of problems as due to culture over economy.

Some people have an inheritance, property, resource rights, etc ... some don't.

That typically occurs due to bloodline.

Nobody ever said everyone is born financially equal.

The reverse is true. Ones economy creates the problems that get 'excused' by culture in reaction. This includes how those in the Middle East appear to be irrationally religious zealots competing for religious reasons. It hides the real causes such as the theft of the resources and economy of Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc, by their opposition, the Israelis and the Americans who are capitalizing on the same religious type excuses for their own justifications. Take out the cultural/religious excuses in laws, and you expose the real problems.

Ya it's the same problem: Colonialism/imperialism ... stealing and destroying people's land and resources ... their birthright and inheritance.

But it has nothing to do with race ... or does it?

Who are the usual invaders?

Hmmm ...

.

[TimG]

Some people have an inheritance, property, resource rights, etc ... some don't.

Nope. For everyone except Natives any inherited property is taxed at each transfer. If the asset does not produce income it will eventually revert entirely to the government.

Only natives are given property rights that are not subject to taxation. This is a racist provision that fundamentally immoral.

[jacee]

Nope. For everyone except Natives any inherited property is taxed at each transfer. If the asset does not produce income it will eventually revert entirely to the government.

Only natives are given property rights that are not subject to taxation. This is a racist provision that fundamentally immoral.

Nobody gave them those inherent rights.

And we can't take them away.

Get over it.

.

Edited December 21, 2015 by jacee

[eyeball]

I often feel like a stranger in a strange land too. Common ground that humans seem to be instinctively aware of but we just can't agree what it looks like. We could start with a A Pale Blue Dot

[Scott Mayers]

There's no need to hate.

Some people have an inheritance, property, resource rights, etc ... some don't.

That typically occurs due to bloodline.

Nobody ever said everyone is born financially equal.

Ya it's the same problem: Colonialism/imperialism ... stealing and destroying people's land and resources ... their birthright and inheritance.

But it has nothing to do with race ... or does it?

Who are the usual invaders?

Hmmm ...

.

What do you even mean by "there's no need to hate?" If you accept inheritance based on one's culture or ethnicity, the hate is coming from those defending these factors by imposing alternate hardships upon those excluded based on an equal STEREOTYPE that All White people are by default inheritors of wealth and privilege. This irks me and other, not simply of those being 'white' and poor, but to all those various mixtures of people being excluded in kind.

The taxes thing that Tim mentions is a significant example. For instance, I don't know HOW smoking is somehow an intrinsic property of ones' cultural rights simply by being the first on the land to have discovered tobacco? It's bad enough that I used to hear often how evil the white man was for bringing alcohol to poison the Natives or blankets from some particular incident of someone in history supposedly acting on behalf of some 'white' and universal conspiracy to wipe them out! As a smoker, I am being FORCED to pay 666% tax (no doubt not a coincidence) which means that of each pack I buy, 85% of that on average goes to taxes without any presumption that it has anything to do with my 'culture'.

As a poor person with the same background family problems as most of my Natives peers, I lack at least this one factor that penalizes me by the very privilege they are guaranteed. The function of government to favor the Natives is to placate certain complaints from the class of those poor by appealing simply to the largest majority who would risk government continuing to do this should they stand up against tobacco laws. As such, it isolates those of us who have to pay the taxes simply based on our apparent 'culture' we are supposedly inherited our riches from in a clearly inappropriate way. To make up for the loss of taxes from tobacco, the additional demand is to raise the tax to extortionate levels, knowing that as addicts we WILL pay.

This is just one issue. Other examples lie in job creation incentives which overtly declare up front they favor Aboriginals first, Immigrant minorities second, female minorities third, and last, the white male who is arrogantly assumed to be ALL rich.

So give me a break. You can't expect me nor anyone else to lay back and sacrifice our chances to survive better by sucking up the loss. You don't lose. The real establishment of 'whites' don't suffer where they are benefiting by their own discrimination. It is the lone individuals who get excluded who pay the penalty. And what for? You find this a kind gesture of love for me? No, its revenge through stereotyping.

[Bryan]

And that's why I'm an Earthling.

How ya doin'? Welcome to my planet. And yes that's my Ireland too.

That's a fun position to have in the abstract. Totally unrealistic in practice.

[TimG]

Nobody gave them those inherent rights.

They were given to them when the framers of the constitution choose to include them and they can be taken away or curtained by amending the constitution. Rights have no meaning without a legal framework and the Canadian constitution is the only legal framework that provides the mechanism needed to given the rights meaning. Edited December 21, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

"Caucasians", like the OP, feel hard done by and see discrimination against "their people" when the real discrimination of the past is being corrected by the government.

They see discrimination against the white man if the jobs available are preferentially give to non-whites or females to correct the discrimination that was pervasive in the past and is now being corrected.

The corrective action is not discrimination. That's where their definition is simply wrong.

[eyeball]

That's a fun position to have in the abstract. Totally unrealistic in practice.

Entirely doable nonetheless. It's simply a matter of choice but soon enough I think it will be an even simpler matter of necessity.

[bush_cheney2004]

I often feel like a stranger in a strange land too. Common ground that humans seem to be instinctively aware of but we just can't agree what it looks like. We could start with a A Pale Blue Dot

That won't work because Voyager I was a space probe mission by nationalists, not earthlings.