The White Man's Fear

[TimG]

Actually you don't have to do anything except pay taxes and let others get on with it. And it will change, the current situation is intolerable.

Except Argus and myself don't believe any of the vested interests have any interest in a practical solution because they benefit from the disfunction. You may have different beliefs but they are just beliefs - not facts - which means you really have no business lecturing people that don't share your naivity.

[overthere]

It truly makes my skin crawl when people refer to 'cohesion', 'practical solution', 'assimilation'. That's what residential schools were for.... Pack up the kids, and either make them white or kill them in the effort. At least the churches had the excuse that it is what Jesus would want for them. The ugliness in our collective hearts is no less today than it was then.

First Nations have had self governance for a generation or less, after 150 years or so of sly attempts at genocide. The reaction here is predictable: they are scum and crimnals for sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding. How does our record of governance stand up to a little scrutiny, to bring us to this, to the situation we have today?

Yep, it won't take another 150 years to wipe them out entirely with our welcome and kindness and compassion.

[overthere]

Except Argus and myself don't believe any of the vested interests have any interest in a practical solution because they benefit from the disfunction

These vested interests......are you talking about yourself, the federal government, rednecks in general or First Nations?

I ask this sincerely, because First Nations have been in a position of near complete subservience since at least 1867. They own no land, they have no power, they are in jail, they die young from bad health, they have no power and they are hated. Are those the benefits they enjoy?

[Moonlight Graham]

Yet another thread to try to rationalize racism, bigotry and xenophobia. It is not against the law to hold racist or bigoted or xenophobic views. Many can rationalize those views as being nationalistic or patriotic. View other races, religions, etc. as inferior to yours puts you into that category. The fact that you believe that your race or colour or gender is superior to others does not make it a palatable view by most people.

I don't know Argus' ultimate agenda with this thread but the article he linked (or his OP) to has nothing to do with what you said. It's about the fear by white people of speaking against or about anything where anyone could inaccurately cry "racism!". And you just proved the point!

[Big Guy]

I merely take responsibility for my actions. I don't have the colossal arrogance to try and take responsibility for what my ancestors did.

Interesting. How does someone preaching bigotry and racism and hiding behind an anonymous avatar take responsibility for what they post?

[Smallc]

It truly makes my skin crawl when people refer to 'cohesion', 'practical solution', 'assimilation'.

Cultural assimilation should never be the goal. Legal assimilation - where everyone is treated the same under the law, regardless of race or family class, should be the goal. At current, it isn't, nor do I expect it to be.

[Spiderfish]

Think of the children.

Actually you don't have to do anything except pay taxes and let others get on with it. And it will change, the current situation is intolerable.

I wouldn't hold my breath on it changing anytime soon, certainly not under this current government. Trudeau has already made clear his intention to scrap the First Nations Fiscal Transparency Act.

[Argus]

Your credibility is greatly diminished when you state that all First Nations governments are the same. The quality of governance ranges from very competent to very poor- not unlike white man governance . . Maybe you could acquaint yourself with both types, not just insist incorrectly that there is only shit and that it will prevail indefinitely.

Strange... I don't recall saying "All first nations governments are the same". Your credibility is greatly diminished when you make things up, you know.

However, we saw a couple of years ago just how the chiefs self-interest as a whole defeated the government's hope to improve native education. The government was ready to commit billions but too many chiefs decided they wanted to have a putsch against the native leadership instead. And what were they promised by the new leadership? More money with no strings, of course, to spend however they wanted (meaning on themselves and their families if they so chose).

[TimG]

I ask this sincerely, because First Nations have been in a position of near complete subservience since at least 1867. They own no land, they have no power, they are in jail, they die young from bad health, they have no power and they are hated.

Except for the Chiefs who make out like bandits while their people suffer. Despite the claims of people who mindlessly hate Harper, his attempt to address education on reserves was serious. The chiefs blocked the deal because it infringed on the fiefdoms by requiring that they demonstrate that the schools met objective standards in return for more funding.

I should make the caveat that not all bands and Band Chiefs are equal. Some do an excellent job of managing their people with the resources they have and are able to negotiate with governments and get more. But it is simply dishonest to say the problem rests entirely with Ottawa. It takes two to tango.

Edited January 5, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

It truly makes my skin crawl when people refer to 'cohesion', 'practical solution', 'assimilation'. That's what residential schools were for....

No, residential schools were to educate and 'civilize' natives.

Cohension makes your skin crawl? Maybe you're living in the wrong country, then. It sounds like Somalia or Iraq are the places you'd feel more comfortable. Or perhaps any of those African countries where a dozen different tribes 'flourish' in their unique and wonderful individual cultures, making those countries impossible to rule.

First Nations have had self governance for a generation or less, after 150 years or so of sly attempts at genocide.

Emotionally overwrought drivel with no substance.

I assure you that our ancestors were very good at killing people. Had they intended to commit genocide there'd be no natives around any more.

The reaction here is predictable: they are scum and crimnals for sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding.

You seem to be making excuses for natives. Is it because in reality you don't think they're civilized people or capable of honest government? Because it's not like they just crawled out of a cave a few decades ago, you know. The native chiefs have kind of been living in our society for some time now. If local towns and villages are capable of reasonably honest and efficient government than so are the reserves.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't know Argus' ultimate agenda with this thread but the article he linked (or his OP) to has nothing to do with what you said. It's about the fear by white people of speaking against or about anything where anyone could inaccurately cry "racism!". And you just proved the point!

I know. Wasn't it amazing? He didn't even seem to realize he was completely fulfilling everything Dosanjh said!

[Argus]

These vested interests......are you talking about yourself, the federal government, rednecks in general or First Nations?

I think he was referring to smart people. Not those who get all teary eyed and wring their hands and blubber in guilt every time they see a native. Those who recognize the mess of the Indian Act and can recognize that the reserves are a dead end and have to be abolished so natives can live in dignity with the rest of us.

The main perpetrators of their disgraceful state of being are liberals and progressives who insist on seeing them as quaint museum pieces and are determined to 'guard' their 'rights' to live out their short lives on isolated reserves with no jobs and no hope.

[Wilber]

Ah no. It is advantageous to the immigrants to integrate to the extent they speak an official language, learn to cope with bureaucracy, and function at a high level socially. But there is no necessity. It is entirely possible to survive without any of those things and a fair number do just that. And that is what Canada is really about: you have that choice- you can suck it all up like a sponge or not. When I welcome a guest to my house, I require that he or she respect the rules of my home, but I have no need that they become like me.

This is what I see as required of both new and old Canadians: 1) obey the law 2. pay taxes. That's it. All the rest is up to you, make of it what you wish. Freedom baby!

A guest is a tourist, not someone seeking to be part of the family.

[WestCanMan]

Yet another thread to try to rationalize racism, bigotry and xenophobia. It is not against the law to hold racist or bigoted or xenophobic views. Many can rationalize those views as being nationalistic or patriotic. View other races, religions, etc. as inferior to yours puts you into that category. The fact that you believe that your race or colour or gender is superior to others does not make it a palatable view by most people.

I keep reading here where self appointed "Islam Experts" try to explain why Islam is a violent and dangerous and bad religion that will lead those Muslims to come here and kill us all. No one is convincing anybody of anything.

Enough already.

You do not like what Islam stands for and what Muslims preach then have the courage to suggest what you would do about it.

I do not think anybody has solutions because there is no problem. This is just another opportunity to slag another group that "is not like you". The Irish were the recipients in the past and well as the Eastern Europeans (remember those DP's?) then the Portugese and the Vietnamese and now Muslims.

It was the same kind of racists and bigots and xenophobics who lamented the extinguishing of "Canadian values" on soap boxes who are now anonymous naysayers warning of a refugee Armageddon. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. The difference is that the Internet has provided millions of anonymous soap boxes for racists, bigots and xenophobes to spout their unfounded fears without the danger of taking responsibility for their racial rhetoric.

The sky is not falling.

Enough Already!

The tolerance that we treat people with in Canada is not the worldwide standard. The author of the article isn't saying that Canadians should beatdown immigrants who don't do exactly what we tell them to do. He's saying that this country has worthwhile cultural and value systems that it's important for new immigrants to understand and embrace. If new groups come to Canada and huddle together, trying to make parts of this country into mini-me's of their homeland instead of integrating in the spirit which they initially claimed they intended to, then they represent a weakness in our social experiment. We don't want it to end with a sad but true "one bad apple spoiled the bunch" story.

FYI the Canadian approach to race relations still isn't a proven "thing". It's an experiment that's still evolving (gay marriage isn't exactly as old as the hills yet) and extremely young compared to the whole recorded history of humanity. And one thing worth remembering, we have been fat and happy the whole time. When obesity is an issue and starvation is not part of the living memory of your culture you don't really know how durable the cultural fabric is.

If the country is divided into factions in the best of times then what do you think will happen if we ever get hungry? When foreign wars get ugly? Etc, etc.

[WestCanMan]

Cultural assimilation should never be the goal. Legal assimilation - where everyone is treated the same under the law, regardless of race or family class, should be the goal. At current, it isn't, nor do I expect it to be.

Assimilation isn't the goal, the goal is to avoid "ghettos". (Before anyone takes offense to that word they should read the dictionary definition). People who come from places like Northern Ireland are better off living in areas of diversity rather than finding areas that are completely devoid of Protestants or Catholics so that they can keep their old issues close to heart.

[taxme]

(X)Try having a White History Month and it will be attacked and considered to be promoting white supremacy. Several decades back a politician in New Brunswick wanted just that, and he was attacked by one of our always whiny ethnic group, and the idea was shot down. By attacking those who dare to suggest having such a Day is racist.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting; [entireOP]

[Moonlight Graham]

I'd be ashamed at trying to spout such a transparent attempt to pave over what happened during our ancestors reigns. Taking responsibility is neither narcissistic nor masochistic.

Ancestors of people who benefit from the legacy of things their ancestors did in the past is A LOT different than actually being responsible for those past actions.

Now, us ancestors who benefit from the achieved status quo may owe a debt to be repaid to those our ancestors screwed over, and that's up to us ancestors to decide if any debt should and will be repaid. If yes, then the ancestors and the screwed-over I suppose should work together on the means of this correction. This responsibility, to decide and (if yes) provide essentially reparations, is the only responsibility us ancestors should feel (I say "only", even though this is still a massive responsibility/undertaking).

[kimmy]

It truly makes my skin crawl when people refer to 'cohesion', 'practical solution', 'assimilation'. That's what residential schools were for.... Pack up the kids, and either make them white or kill them in the effort. At least the churches had the excuse that it is what Jesus would want for them. The ugliness in our collective hearts is no less today than it was then.

Assimilation isn't about taking children away from their families and sending them to abusive institutions. Assimilation might have been the goal of residential schools, but that doesn't make the two things one and the same.

My family comes from Swedish and Ukrainian ancestors. They didn't speak any English when they got here. If they hadn't assimilated, they'd have been nowhere. I'd still be nowhere. I'd be churning butter at a colony in the far north of Alberta.

Who better to talk about assimilation than Ujjal Dosanjh, the guy who wrote the op-ed that Argus posted? He didn't speak English when he left India as a teenager. But in Canada, he became a lawyer, an advocate, an MLA, an MP, a Premier, a Cabinet minister, a member of the Privy Council... he's what we can hope for when immigrants arrive in Canada. There can't be many immigrant-does-good stories better than his. And he's living proof of what newcomers can accomplish when they join the mainstream of Canadian society.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

Cultural assimilation should never be the goal. Legal assimilation - where everyone is treated the same under the law, regardless of race or family class, should be the goal. At current, it isn't, nor do I expect it to be.

How exactly do you mean it isn't?

[On Guard for Thee]

Ancestors of people who benefit from the legacy of things their ancestors did in the past is A LOT different than actually being responsible for those past actions.

Now, us ancestors who benefit from the achieved status quo may owe a debt to be repaid to those our ancestors screwed over, and that's up to us ancestors to decide if any debt should and will be repaid. If yes, then the ancestors and the screwed-over I suppose should work together on the means of this correction. This responsibility, to decide and (if yes) provide essentially reparations, is the only responsibility us ancestors should feel (I say "only", even though this is still a massive responsibility/undertaking).

I guess my basic point is the old adage about "those who forget history..." I think maybe we are getting there, with the help fo the more progressive thinkers, but it will be easy to fall back if we don't remain vigilant. Humans can be pretty fucked up entities let's face it.

[Smallc]

How exactly do you mean it isn't?

The goal, as stated by the government and aboriginal leadership, is a nation to nation agreement. I happen to know one high placed aboriginal official who demands 50% of all resource revenue, and nothing less. More legal separation, and not less.

[Argus]

Interesting. How does someone preaching bigotry and racism and hiding behind an anonymous avatar take responsibility for what they post?

Perhaps you should find a mirror and ask yourself that. In my opinion your posts reek of bigotry and an arrogant paternalism towards non-whites.

What is your name, by the way? You've often sneered at others hiding behind anon Ids, yet you insult people every single day while hiding behind yours.

[Argus]

I guess my basic point is the old adage about "those who forget history..." I think maybe we are getting there, with the help fo the more progressive thinkers, but it will be easy to fall back if we don't remain vigilant. Humans can be pretty fucked up entities let's face it.

The native issue will NEVER be solved by progressives. The only way it's ever going to find a solution is for a hard nosed conservative, someone like Mike Harris, to bull his way through all the screaming and screeching which any significant change to the existing system will bring and make drastic changes to the Indian Act. Something like abolishing the reserves, selling the land and giving the money to natives, or building them all houses in towns and cities where they can find work. Progressives still swoon at the cigar store Indian, and want to keep natives on reserves as quaint museum pieces.

[Machjo]

I have no shame. That's on you. Judging the past cultural behaviour and thinking of our ancestors based on present day mores and our current level of sophistication is an exercise in narcissistic masochism. Do I think everything that was done w/r to racial, cultural or social issues in the past was correct? Of course not! But I'm not about to writhe in guilt because my ancestors weren't nice to people.

Didn't our ancestors of not even 200 years ago read the Sermon on the Mount of centuries earlier? Even by the standards of centuries before, the residential school system and other forms of Canadian colonialism were tyranous. Unless you're saying that the Gospel had already become a dead book by then?

[Smoke]

Didn't our ancestors of not even 200 years ago read the Sermon on the Mount of centuries earlier? Even by the standards of centuries before, the residential school system and other forms of Canadian colonialism were tyranous. Unless you're saying that the Gospel had already become a dead book by then?

What is the timeline for having to accept guilt after the fact?