Federal government creating inventory of racial minorities.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, marcus said:

Intergenerational trauma is usually seen within one family in which the parents or grandparents were traumatized, and each generation of that family continues to experience trauma in some form. In these cases the source can usually be traced back to a devastating event, and the trauma is unique to that family.

Seems to me the biggest trauma was the Holocaust. Yet the Jews who survived it and came to Canada and the US thrived and prospered. No one made any special allowances for them, and nobody gave them preferential treatment in hiring or promotion or anything else.

Are you saying natives are inferior to Jews?

 

 

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is brainless. Why wouldn't we have 'power' in a democracy when we're the majority? Why should we feel at all guilty about that? Why should we give preference to others? Especially when they're immigrants?

I didn't say you had to feel guilty; I said white people who feel victimized by non-white people are stupid and dishonest.

[Argus]

Just now, dialamah said:

I didn't say you had to feel guilty; I said white people who feel victimized by non-white people are stupid and dishonest.

What is wrong with feeling aggrieved when the government gives preference to people of another group when there seems precious little justification for it?

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, marcus said:

Did you (or do you) speak out when the former Conservative government was giving out billions in incentives to oil companies?

Why would I? They give a few billion and get 100X as much back.

If they could invest money in Ontario and get it back many times over, should I object to that as well?

Oil wasn't always at $50-100/bbl. When it was down around $17, quite a few years back, it almost cost that much to extract it in Alberta. Alberta isn't like some other places where you just put a pipe in the ground and pump oil out. It's an expensive, dangerous, highly-technical process. 

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

What is wrong with feeling aggrieved when the government gives preference to people of another group when there seems precious little justification for it?

Well, I suppose when you deny other people the right to feel aggrieved for the decades in which whites were given preference, and deny that it still happens despite your own involvement in doing just that in your own hiring practices, and with declarations like "Why wouldn't we have 'power' in a democracy when we're the majority?", it looks a little like maybe you just want to play victim.  Well, not a little - a lot.

Yes, things are improving - I'd agree with that.   I'm not convinced it's "equal opportunity for all" yet.  But I see hopeful signs, despite right-wing dinosaurs that are not quite extinct yet.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, marcus said:

Intergenerational trauma is usually seen within one family in which the parents or grandparents were traumatized, and each generation of that family continues to experience trauma in some form. In these cases the source can usually be traced back to a devastating event, and the trauma is unique to that family.

What makes the intergenerational trauma in the case of First Nations people different is that it wasn't the result of a targeted event against an individual – it was a set of government policies that targeted and affected a whole generation. Children were traumatized when they were taken from their parents and placed into either government-funded, church-controlled, residential learning institutions or into foster homes. Many children suffered horrific abuse while in these homes and institutions. And parents and communities were traumatized when their children were taken away from them with little or no idea if or when they would return.

Direct survivors of these experiences often transmit the trauma they experienced to later generations when they don't recognize or have the opportunity to address their issues. Over the course of time these behaviours, often destructive, become normalized within the family and their community, leading to the next generation suffering the same problems.

You have a childish way of looking at things Marcus: "White people did this to the first nations and it was obviously because they're evil!!!!"

Go try living in Alberta from Oct 1 to March 31 in a home with no insulation or central heating and then revisit this topic. I've used an outhouse in the prairie winter many times and I can tell you that you don't read magazines or scroll through FB there. 

Raise some kids in Canada, with no knowledge of the english language, and obviously no reading and writing skills, and tell them that they have no option to be a part of the modern economy, they'll be hunter gatherers for all their future generations - it's their only option. Would that be fair to your kids Marcus? Shouldn't they get the chance to be accountants, cab drivers, doctors, firemen, plumbers, etc, if they so choose?

FYI native children weren't 'targeted' at all. What you think of as 'woke' terminology is actually just 'racist'. Residential schools were not devised as a form of torture. It was supposed to be for their own good.

Do you know what the wealthiest people in Britain do? They put their kids in boarding schools, where a large percentage of them gain admission to Ox-'bridge. They don't put them there to be abused, or because they don't love them, they do it because it's what's best for them. Side note: it's also extremely expensive. 

I'll admit that residential schools were rife with serious problems, but they weren't built on bad intentions, they were just hounded by the failings of individual humans who were put into a position of having too much power over children. That's not a 'white' thing, it's all over the planet. 

Edited September 18, 2020 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Well, I suppose when you deny other people the right to feel aggrieved for the decades in which whites were given preference, and deny that it still happens despite your own involvement in doing just that in your own hiring practices, and with declarations like "Why wouldn't we have 'power' in a democracy when we're the majority?", it looks a little like maybe you just want to play victim.  Well, not a little - a lot.

Yes, things are improving - I'd agree with that.   I'm not convinced it's "equal opportunity for all" yet.  But I see hopeful signs, despite right-wing dinosaurs that are not quite extinct yet.

No one will accept your sympathies as being sincere when they come hand-in-hand with your ignorant and idiotic assignment of evil intent.

Bad things happened in res schools because when people are put in positions of absolute power, like they were in Res Schools, bad things are GOING to happen, always. (1) Not every residential school was run by rapists fwiw, but the impression given is that they all were (2) google "Stanford Prison Experiment" for a brief education on how bad things can go, and how quickly, when people are completely unsupervised in a position of power. 

 

Dialamah, if we were having this debate in 1955 would you honestly be arguing in favour of children growing up in igloos and teepees/longhouses, with no understanding of the english language?

If you went to visit some first nations people living in the NWT on Jan 12th 1955 and saw how little children were living would that not melt your heart? Wouldn't you want to tell that child "there's a better life for you, with clean clothes and the possibility of being more than just a hunter/gatherer"? 

I bet you talk about 'the empowerment of women' a lot, and yet you're trying to act as though you'd let little girls be forced by their parents to live in the stone age in the NWT in 2020....

Come on dialamah, you just want to preach, you don't want to make sense.

If you really gave a shit about first nations people you'd want to be involved in a healing process, not in a blaming process, and not in a contest to score political points for.... basically no one? Whose side do you think you are helping by casting a fake shadow on the people who set up the residential schools anyways?

Are you just helping the people who are racist against whites? Honestly if that's not the case I don't even have a good guess at what side you're on. Obviously you're not just engaging in this debate out of a sense of altruism or you'd have a better understanding of why Res Schools were started, and you'd be focused more on healing than hate-mongering. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I'll admit that residential schools were rife with serious problems, but they weren't built on bad intentions, they were just hounded by the failings of individual humans who were put into a position of having too much power over children. That's not a 'white' thing, it's all over the planet. 

The intent of government policies at the time was to eliminate native culture, their language, traditions, way-of-life and religion - to make them white christian in all but skin color.  That goal is no different than the goal of extremists today in certain third-world countries: eliminate the culture, traditions and religion of Jews/Christians/Muslims/etc. 

Do you know how many kids died as a result of those government policies?  They died through starvation/beatings/disease at the res school, and they died trying to escape and get back to their homes, often 100s of miles away.  

This was not a benign "help the poir darlings out", it was "destroy them by any means, short of lining them up against the wall and opening fire".  

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The intent of government policies at the time was to eliminate native culture, their language, traditions, way-of-life and religion - to make them white christian in all but skin color.  That goal is no different than the goal of extremists today in certain third-world countries: eliminate the culture, traditions and religion of Jews/Christians/Muslims/etc. 

Do you know how many kids died as a result of those government policies?  They died through starvation/beatings/disease at the res school, and they died trying to escape and get back to their homes, often 100s of miles away.  

This was not a benign "help the poir darlings out", it was "destroy them by any means, short of lining them up against the wall and opening fire".  

1) Wrong again. Most of the kids who died, died from TB, and they weren't safe from it in their homes either. TB was killing everyone, but res schools were a ripe target for that kind of disease.

2) You're lying again. The difference between "their culture and our culture" wasn't "What name do we give our god and how do we pray" so this was nothing like what happens in the middle east. Do you understand that? 

This was the difference between a culture that was landing on the moon and one that wasn't smelting bronze yet. They didn't even have the fucking wheel. 

First nations children aren't apes. It wouldn't be ok to leave them in the stone age while the rest of the world moved into the space age. I'm not slighting them.... Just surviving 25,000 years on the frozen prairies was a cray achievement, surviving in the NWT is mind-boggling. But they just had to move on. No one ever said that being a luddite was man's highest calling. 

It's unfortunate that religion was involved in the way that it was, but FYI, from the early 1600s to the early 1900s religious schools were basically the only schools in the country. Go learn something dialamah. I'm not your tutor.

Your blatant ignorance is only matched by your hideous racism.

Edited September 18, 2020 by WestCanMan

[marcus]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why would I? They give a few billion and get 100X as much back.

Really now.

What if investing money to a specific group ends up giving a return? This is why they make these investments. It is to receive a positive return.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Well, I suppose when you deny other people the right to feel aggrieved for the decades in which whites were given preference,

Which decades were these? As I've pointed out numerous times two thirds of non-whites are immigrants who arrived since immigration was liberalized in the late 1970s and especially after the 1980s when Mulroney tripled immigration.

Quote

and deny that it still happens despite your own involvement in doing just that in your own hiring practices,

There's nothing wrong with discriminating against people who don't speak English, or who barely understand it. Almost all our non-white immigrants come from third world countries and few speak, read and write English very well. Even fewer speak English AND French. Many, many immigrants have poor or made up educational experiences, or they don't work in Canada, or they're fine but since their language abilities suck they won't be hired for them.

They are 'discriminated against' in other words, because they're not up to the job.

Quote

and with declarations like "Why wouldn't we have 'power' in a democracy when we're the majority?", it looks a little like maybe you just want to play victim.  Well, not a little - a lot.

I'm sorry. I keep forgetting to not try to use basic logic with you as you don't understand it.

Quote

Yes, things are improving - I'd agree with that.   I'm not convinced it's "equal opportunity for all" yet.  But I see hopeful signs, despite right-wing dinosaurs that are not quite extinct yet.

You mean 'right wing dinosaurs' who believe in hiring and promotion based on merit, right?

Edited September 18, 2020 by Argus

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's nothing wrong with discriminating against people who don't speak English, or who barely understand it.

There is something wrong with looking at a name on a resume and assuming they won't speak English, won't understand English, won't have the right sense of humor, won't fit into the office culture.  That's exactly what racism is. 

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

Almost all our non-white immigrants come from third world countries and few speak, read and write English very well

Even if that is true, making assumptions based on a name or skin color is wrong because that person may well be a second or third generation with perfect Canadian English or French.   You don't know, and you won't even consider that a random Parmjit Singh or Zara Abadi could communicate clearly or understand our culture.  Instead, you'd just ignore their application.   Even if you're nice to the East Indians and Arabic people you interact with otherwise, your conviction that, as a group, they aren't as good as White Canadians and don't really belong here is what defines a racist attitude.

[DogOnPorch]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There is something wrong with looking at a name on a resume and assuming they won't speak English, won't understand English, won't have the right sense of humor, won't fit into the office culture.  That's exactly what racism is. 

 

Argus said nothing about looking at a resume. You did.

 

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

Even if that is true, making assumptions based on a name or skin color is wrong...

 

Says the race baiter lovely person who can't shut-up about characterizing 'white people' by their skin colour.

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Argus said nothing about looking at a resume. You did.

You clearly haven't seen all the posts he's made, here and elsewhere.  He did actually explain about when he was in a position in which he hired people, he'd ignore resumes if the name indicated that they were immigrants.

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Says the race baiter lovely person

My White Supremacist neighbor called me a race baiter because I objected to his abuse of the brown people next door. He behaved so badly that he was eventually put on a bond not to come within 500 metres of his own home - so he and his wife sold up and left, presumably to a nice white-only neighborhood.  So you are in good company. 

Quote

who can't shut-up about characterizing 'white people' by their skin colour.

I'm characterizing Argus, nobody else.  

You, I'd characterize as Islamophobic more than racist. 

I characterize people based on what they post on these forums.  That's individual characterization rather than group characterization.

Sometimes I group characterize conservatives based on the worst of the conservatives on this forum, but I'm working at quashing that tendency.  

Edited September 18, 2020 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

You clearly haven't seen all the posts he's made, here and elsewhere.  He did actually explain about when he was in a position in which he hired people, he'd ignore resumes if the name indicated that they were immigrants.

My White Supremacist neighbor called me a race baiter because I objected to his abuse of the brown people next door. He behaved so badly that he was eventually put on a bond not to come within 500 metres of his own home - so he and his wife sold up and left, presumably to a nice white-only neighborhood.  So you are in good company. 

 

 

What colour am I, racist?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

What colour am I,

I suspect you could be black based on something you posted a couple of years ago.  But that could be entirely wrong.   If you are, it doesn't mean you can't be as big an asshole as my White Supremacist neighbor.  Assholes come in all colors. 

Quote

racist?

Oh yeah, I'm not even bothered.  You'll have to try harder with your slings, LOL.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I suspect you could be black based on something you posted a couple of years ago.  But that could be entirely wrong.   If you are, it doesn't mean you can't be as big an asshole as my White Supremacist neighbor.  Assholes come in all colors. 

Oh yeah, I'm not even bothered.  You'll have to try harder with your slings, LOL.

 

Keep treading water.

I'll keep your scree in mind next time you go on a racist rant about the evils of 'white people'.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I'll keep your scree in mind next time you go on a racist rant about the evils of 'white people'.

You do that, sweetie.  

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

You do that, sweetie.  

 

Mene mene tekel upharsin.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, marcus said:

Really now.

What if investing money to a specific group ends up giving a return? This is why they make these investments. It is to receive a positive return.

1) Really now. So it's ok to be racist, as long as there's somehow some profit involved?

What if the gov't was to determine that there's actually more money to be made by investing that $93M in Korean Canadians, or MexiCanadians, or Jewish Canadians?

Should we say screw the blacks and invest the money elsewhere? 

2) FYI there wasn't somewhere else to invest the billions that went into the oil sands. In addition to being the largest export commodity we have in this country, oil is a strategic military resource, and almost makes us a useful contributor to NATO. Additionally, whatever oil we don't make we'd be importing from somewhere else (we actually are importing a massive amount of oil, because the Trudeau's have been pumping Saudi oil in their gas stations for three generations now), adding to our trade deficit. There's literally no comparison between tapping into our oil reserves and the racism that our government is engaging in. The connection is laughable.

Edited September 18, 2020 by WestCanMan

[Moonlight Graham]

On 9/17/2020 at 1:55 PM, WestCanMan said:

No, whites are like everyone else - they are entitled to the protections of the Constitution and the Charter. Period.

Actually that's not true.  Section 15 of the Charter says that everyone is equal under the law, but then adds a caveat where it says "ah no actually that's not true cuz affirmative action".  So everyone is free to legally discriminate against whites and men.  Yay equality!
 

Quote

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

42 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

What colour am I, racist?

A nice Arab olive?

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Actually that's not true.  Section 15 of the Charter says that everyone is equal under the law, but then adds a caveat where it says "ah no actually that's not true cuz affirmative action".  So everyone is free to legally discriminate against whites and men.  Yay equality!

Ironically, the best reason that I've ever seen for a person to be racist is right in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

[marcus]

On 8/28/2020 at 1:06 PM, Argus said:

But since Muslims vote Liberal the government decided to increase their numbers.

Share where in our immigration system, there is any favour towards people who are applying from Muslim countries.

I work in the immigration and you are spreading misinformation again.

[OftenWrong]

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

If you feel guilty for anything, it should be

I don't feel guilty for any of those things. I am better than most people.