Jump to content

Cancel Culture . . . alive and well.


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Well, we are boring but that can also be hilarious.  Follow Sir Mackenzie Bowell on Twitter.

I guess we have to kill more people for our history to get exciting.

I don't find it boring, people just don't care, even when we've fought wars they don't care.  War of 1812 who cares yada yada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2021 at 8:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Anglos prefer to erase their history by adopting American culture anyhow.

I would much rather prefer to adopt white American British/European culture rather than some non-white foreign incompatible third world culture. All third world cultures have nothing to offer me but now just more multiculturalism and diversity which means the genocide of all white people. It is the white British/European people that have built and made North America great.

The third world immigrants will destroy this once great British/European nation it's culture and traditions and send North America into third world chaos and mayhem in decades to come. A country cannot mix dozens of different third world cultures, languages and traditions and expect to survive without turf wars happening in the future. It will create big time problems for white people in North America for sure. Another decade and the white people of Canada and America will become a minority in their own white homelands. It has to happen and old whitey is sure going to pay for it big time. Sadly, the majority of white people refuse to see the writing on the wall. 🤢   

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, taxme said:

I would much rather prefer to adopt white American British/European culture rather than some non-white foreign incompatible third world culture. All third world cultures have nothing to offer me but now just more multiculturalism and diversity which means the genocide of all white people. It is the white British/European people that have built and made North America great.

The third world immigrants will destroy this once great British/European nation it's culture and traditions and send North America into third world chaos and mayhem in decades to come. A country cannot mix dozens of different third world cultures, languages and traditions and expect to survive without turf wars happening in the future. It will create big time problems for white people in North America for sure. Another decade and the white people of Canada and America will become a minority in their own white homelands. It has to happen and old whitey is sure going to pay for it big time. Sadly, the majority of white people refuse to see the writing on the wall. 🤢   

Check the Republic of Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa history to see how well the white Europeans survived with the African cultures being 98% of the population.  It was like trying to mix oil and water.  It simply did not work.  How liberals think it will work in Canada is a mystery.  They somehow think saying the word "multicultural" will mean the future will be bright and everyone will be happy for the European founding people in Canada while they bring the third world into Canada who will eventually take over along with the rise of the aboriginal race. 

What is even stranger is the liberals love of and trust of the United Nations (UN).  If anyone thinks the UN has any love for the Caucasian people, they should think again.  The UN has turned around and given Canada UNDRIP, the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People.  If you examine UNDRIP and take it literally, it is saying that Canada basically must be handed back to the indigenous people.  That would mean the decolonization of Canada.  Not sure how that will work.  But it gives enormous political power to a handful of people in Canada, the aboriginal red power activists, who are already using UNDRIP for all they can.  They have even got the BC NDP government to adopt UNDRIP into law in principle if not in reality.  What this means is hard to fathom.  Makes one wonder just how closely connected the NDP is to the Marxist U.N. in ideology.

What liberals and the woke don't understand is that the U.N. have no love for the Caucasian European founding people in Canada (or anywhere for that matter).  The U.N. is controlled by mainly Marxists and dictators from the third world.  Yet Canada blindly trusts them and follows along with whatever they wish.  The W.H.O which is an arm of the U.N. is run by a former Marxist revolutionary from Ethiopia. Yet Canada cow tows to the W.H.O. and follows it like an obedient child.

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

Check the Republic of Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa history to see how well the white Europeans survived with the African cultures being 98% of the population.  It was like trying to mix oil and water.  It simply did not work.  How liberals think it will work in Canada is a mystery.  They somehow think saying the word "multicultural" will mean the future will be bright and everyone will be happy for the European founding people in Canada while they bring the third world into Canada who will eventually take over along with the rise of the aboriginal race. 

What is even stranger is the liberals love of and trust of the United Nations (UN).  If anyone thinks the UN has any love for the Caucasian people, they should think again.  The UN has turned around and given Canada UNDRIP, the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People.  If you examine UNDRIP and take it literally, it is saying that Canada basically must be handed back to the indigenous people.  That would mean the decolonization of Canada.  Not sure how that will work.  But it gives enormous political power to a handful of people in Canada, the aboriginal red power activists, who are already using UNDRIP for all they can.  They have even got the BC NDP government to adopt UNDRIP into law in principle if not in reality.  What this means is hard to fathom.  Makes one wonder just how closely connected the NDP is to the Marxist U.N. in ideology.

What liberals and the woke don't understand is that the U.N. have no love for the Caucasian European founding people in Canada (or anywhere for that matter).  The U.N. is controlled by mainly Marxists and dictators from the third world.  Yet Canada blindly trusts them and follows along with whatever they wish.  The W.H.O which is an arm of the U.N. is run by a former Marxist revolutionary from Ethiopia. Yet Canada cow tows to the W.H.O. and follows it like an obedient child.

Liberalism is a serious mental illness and disease that needs to be eradicated now, especially here in Canada. Fidel Trudeau plans on bringing in another one million new third world immigrants into Canada in the next three years. The population of Canada about five years ago was around 35 million. Today, it is hovering close to 37 million and counting.

There can be no doubt about it that this is a genocidal white depopulation plan by Marxist Fidel Trudeau to make the white people of Canada to become a minority in their own white homeland in this decade. Approx. 85% of the new immigrants coming to Canada are all coming from non-white countries. That says it all. It will be goodbye to good old whitey and his homeland. 

The new third world immigrants are told that they do not have to assimilate into our British/European white people's culture anymore. For instance, the East Indians and the Chinese can now pretty much live in British Columbia without ever having to deal in English anymore. They have everything they need to carry on in Canada like they did back home. 

Shocking indeed. 😞

Edited by taxme
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone watched the Manitoba aboriginal chiefs in full headgear on CBC this morning on the steps of the Manitoba legislature, they will know what I am talking about.  They sound like they have tremendous hate for white man and want to see Canada become decolonized.  They sound like they are living around about 200 years ago.  Right out of past.  The way they talk, there is no rational discussion with them possible.  They demand Premier Pallister and his aboriginal affairs minister resign.  They forget or ignore the fact that the government was elected by the people to govern for the whole province, not just a tiny minority of radicals. They admit native bands have huge problems related to alcohol, drugs, domestic abuse, poverty, etc., but really don't sound like they would be interested in finding any rational solutions.  Their ridiculous demands do nothing to help find solutions to the problems they have, but will turn Canadians off.  It is a sad situation.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pallister said nothing racist or radical in his remarks when he said that most immigrants wanted to build a better life. It’s true.  His government’s Indigenous Affairs minister did much the same.  Most people do the best they can with what they know.  The residential schools had serious problems, but most of the people working in them thought that they were doing the right thing.  Public education was provided free by the non-Indigenous and was widely seen as a social good.  Most of the people staffing these schools did it as a vocation, taking vows of poverty and leading simple lives.  Life was much harder for everyone a century ago.  Abuses took place in most schools, albeit more so in residential ones.  There is no evidence of murder, no genocide or systemic policy of abuse by the standards of that period.

What that group on the steps of the Manitoba legislature is demonstrating is a racist attitude towards non-Indigenous people.  This is what happens when a country creates special entitlements and status for select groups of people.  I hope that the special status and benefits end and that the same rules of taxation apply to all Canadians.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  The residential schools had serious problems, but most of the people working in them thought that they were doing the right thing.  Public education was provided free by the non-Indigenous and was widely seen as a social good.  Most of the people staffing these schools did it as a vocation, taking vows of poverty and leading simple lives.   

2. There is no evidence of murder, no genocide or systemic policy of abuse by the standards of that period.

3. What that group on the steps of the Manitoba legislature is demonstrating is a racist attitude towards non-Indigenous people.  This is what happens when a country creates special entitlements and status for select groups of people.  I hope that the special status and benefits end and that the same rules of taxation apply to all Canadians.  

1. I think you can see that here, but in a "public" context you get ripped apart for saying that. (I put that in quotes, because I'm actually talking about the audience for political communication via television, radio, the press and digital).

2. That's not proven: people have alleged murder and cover-up took place.  As for 'genocide', the definition has changed to include those kinds of cultural cleansing that are happening today with Chinese Muslims.  Your point that we shouldn't be so appalled by the morals of the past is taken - but, again, it depends on how mature your audience is.

3. Social identity doesn't work that way.  White people, who have done well on the whole, will attribute that to the merits of their culture.  The cultural lens can't be shared between groups, it doesn't work that way.  If people just enjoy fighting about this kind of thing, they should go to their own room for it.  There are Indigenous and White people who are ready to focus on talking about real solutions - and leave aside the cultural finger-pointing to focus on potential outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
Quote

 

A First Nations-run education authority in Northern Ontario is facing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for allegedly failing to protect students who lived at one of its boarding facilities from sexual abuse.

Six men from northwestern Ontario are suing Northern Nishnawbe Education Council (NNEC) for $2-million each for aggravated and punitive damages, including past and future loss of income, as a result of alleged sexual crimes committed against them as young boys in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when they left their homes to attend high school in Sioux Lookout.

 

You didn't add much in your post, so I will: nobody should mistake the misdeeds of the Residential School System for a sign that others in authority are exempt from doing wrong.  Will that be mentioned in the media ?  No.  Should it be ?  I would say not really.  If you think that the point of the media coverage is to convict and bring shame to groups and institutions, rather than inform, then I can see why you think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You didn't add much in your post, so I will: nobody should mistake the misdeeds of the Residential School System for a sign that others in authority are exempt from doing wrong.  Will that be mentioned in the media ?  No.  Should it be ?  I would say not really.  If you think that the point of the media coverage is to convict and bring shame to groups and institutions, rather than inform, then I can see why you think that.

My point was to illustrate that most of what was wrong about residential schools was due to the bad choices of individuals.  Once Indigenous took control of residential schools the problems didn’t disappear.  The idea of providing universal free education is a good one, including for Indigenous, though by today’s standards the old curriculum was biased in favour of the settler viewpoint. However, it was the settlers who provided public education and it reflected their values.  Was it better to have that biased education than none at all?  That’s the real question.  Abuse is something that happened when bad individuals found the opportunity, and there was more opportunity in a boarding school than a day school.

With regard to the stance taken against the Manitoba government on the steps of the legislature, it’s unfair and probably racist to denigrate settlers by saying that they were not trying to “build better” but instead were intentionally destroying native culture.  Most of them probably were trying to make better lives for their families and communities and harboured no ill will against Indigenous.  Not sure what’s radical about that idea. 

People are people.  Genocide, if by that we mean the dictionary definition of the intentional killing of a people, did not take place.  There was no systemic plan to abuse or kill indigenous.  There’s no evidence of children being murdered in those graveyards.  If we want reconciliation, there must be truth.  We are getting very inflammatory and misleading media coverage on a lot these days and it’s important to try to bring realism to the discussion.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 If you think that the point of the media coverage is to convict and bring shame to groups and institutions, rather than inform, then I can see why you think that.

I think that the political/social ideology under which most of the members of the media operate finds it empowering and satisfying to draw society's attention to the evils of how minorities were/are treated. They believe white society has been racist throughout history and oppressed all racialized groups and are determined that it accept its sins and join them in denouncing its wickedness and repenting. 

If that sounds like it's not very nuanced that's because it's not. There is little acknowledgement on the part of the media that such behavior was largely ended years ago. None that racism is common among racialized people, even more than among whites. And absolutely no acceptance of disagreement. Remember that Stockwell Day guy who was a regular on political panels until he had the temerity to diffidently suggest that Canada is not a systemically racist country? He was disappeared for his sins. And if they could do the same to Pallister they would.

The media determinedly search out any and all instances of white on other racism, no matter if it arises from some nobody involved in a traffic dispute in nowhere Saskatchewan or some drunk on a bus. All of it s brandished aloft with wild-eyed zealotry and waved eagerly around by the media to demonstrate white society's evil. Racism going in the opposite direction is, of course, ignored whenever possible as that doesn't line up with the narrative.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

If anyone watched the Manitoba aboriginal chiefs in full headgear on CBC this morning on the steps of the Manitoba legislature, they will know what I am talking about.  They sound like they have tremendous hate for white man and want to see Canada become decolonized.  They sound like they are living around about 200 years ago.  Right out of past.  The way they talk, there is no rational discussion with them possible.  They demand Premier Pallister and his aboriginal affairs minister resign.  They forget or ignore the fact that the government was elected by the people to govern for the whole province, not just a tiny minority of radicals. They admit native bands have huge problems related to alcohol, drugs, domestic abuse, poverty, etc., but really don't sound like they would be interested in finding any rational solutions.  Their ridiculous demands do nothing to help find solutions to the problems they have, but will turn Canadians off.  It is a sad situation.

The native Indians needs to STFU. If the Indians are having family problems then do something about it. Stop trying to blame old whitey for their problems that they have created for themselves. Whining and crying about the past is not going to fix the problem. They need to be told that the 18th century left long ago and to stop trying to relive those good old past  Indian days. They have it a hell of a lot better today than what they had two centuries ago. Why even good old whitey got the Indians to stop killing one another from another tribe. Where is the thanks for that, eh? Geez, some people's native Indian kids!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. I think that the political/social ideology under which most of the members of the media operate finds it empowering and satisfying to draw society's attention to the evils of how minorities were/are treated. They believe white society has been racist throughout history and oppressed all racialized groups...

2. There is little acknowledgement on the part of the media...

3. The media determinedly search out any and all instances of white on other racism ...

1. I think so, if you define ideology as pervasive ingrained beliefs, rather than some kind of active agenda.
2. Well I guess your personal ideology may vary.  I don't think it's very interesting to argue religion, or ideology.  You have to learn to live with it.
3. They don't have to look far.  ut you aren't' going to convince anyone to change their stripes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. My point was to illustrate that most of what was wrong about residential schools was due to the bad choices of individuals.  Once Indigenous took control of residential schools the problems didn’t disappear. 

2. Was it better to have that biased education than none at all?  That’s the real question.  Abuse is something that happened when bad individuals found the opportunity, and there was more opportunity in a boarding school than a day school.

3. Most of them probably were trying to make better lives for their families and communities and harboured no ill will against Indigenous.  Not sure what’s radical about that idea. 

4. People are people.  Genocide, if by that we mean the dictionary definition of the intentional killing of a people, did not take place.   
5. If we want reconciliation, there must be truth.  
6. We are getting very inflammatory and misleading media coverage on a lot these days and it’s important to try to bring realism to the discussion.

1. I got that.
2. Well, the problem wasn't that education was 'biased'.  There are other factors, so the question isn't relevant IMO.  The whole idea was bad despite the intentions.
3. You would likely have a difficult time backing that statement up.
4. The definition has changed, which is why China can turn it around on us.
5. Do we want reconciliation though ?  Because settlers would likely expect to give more out of such a process than they would get.
6. The media is not there to teach you or change minds on difficult subjects.  They will reflect the prevailing thought and sometimes facilitate mass learning/discussion of new issues.  They tend to follow popular thought, not lead it.  I don't think anybody is getting their deep values/opinions changed by anything on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I got that.
2. Well, the problem wasn't that education was 'biased'.  There are other factors, so the question isn't relevant IMO.  The whole idea was bad despite the intentions.
3. You would likely have a difficult time backing that statement up.
4. The definition has changed, which is why China can turn it around on us.
5. Do we want reconciliation though ?  Because settlers would likely expect to give more out of such a process than they would get.
6. The media is not there to teach you or change minds on difficult subjects.  They will reflect the prevailing thought and sometimes facilitate mass learning/discussion of new issues.  They tend to follow popular thought, not lead it.  I don't think anybody is getting their deep values/opinions changed by anything on this.

2.  The idea of education was bad?  Does that include basic literacy?  Not being able to read and write is a ticket to poverty.  The execution by today’s standards had problems.  By yesterday’s standards it was considered cutting edge progressive.

3.  Really?   So what suddenly changed in education that suddenly turned bad education into good?   I don’t think that most of the teachers or priests were bad or doing bad work.

4.  The roots of the word genocide speak for themselves and shouldn’t be open to interpretation, unless murder is merely metaphorical.

On other points I basically agree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.  The idea of education was bad?   

2. Really?   

3.  The roots of the word genocide speak for themselves and shouldn’t be open to interpretation, 

1. No, it's good.

2. Try to find a way to assess the character of people long dead.

3.  We don't make the rules.  Calling a woman a hussy used to be a compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, it's good.

2. Try to find a way to assess the character of people long dead.

3.  We don't make the rules.  Calling a woman a hussy used to be a compliment.

On your second point the door swings both ways.  It’s very hard to impute good or bad character to most people.  Bad acts that run afoul of the law, if discovered, are dealt with accordingly by our courts and produce a record to which we can refer.   That’s why evidence is so important.  Without it we can’t discern much.

On your third point I don’t accept that every piece of language is up for interpretation, not when what the word or term denotes is crystal clear.  Genocide is one of those words: gen = people; cide = kill.  Otherwise we play the game of calling the colour purple another colour, green for example.  We basically mischaracterize the world, which is happening too often these days.  We can commit collective lies, but don’t think for a moment that honest, thinking people won’t see through it and maintain their identities, even if it becomes harder and rarer to do so. Without truth there can be no reconciliation, so no, I don’t think reconciliation is probable right now.

We’re in the throes of the French Revolution, sending all clerics and bourgeoisie to the guillotine because of unsubstantiated claims of “genocide” and “atrocities”. Basic research reveals no genocide and there’s a high probability that the vast majority of child deaths at residential schools were caused by the same diseases and illnesses that killed many non-Indigenous children, but with greater numbers due to the poorer and more crowded conditions at residential schools.  Requiring children to leave their parents was also very damaging and surely worsened health outcomes.

The government should’ve done much better, but again, that judgment is in retrospect.  It will take time to heal. There have been big payouts and repeated apologies. We have to help those who are still suffering the effects, learn what we can about the dead, and give the proper honour to the dead where this hasn’t been done.  I’m not sure much more can be done or that everyone will be happy with the resolutions.  That’s our reality and it’s important not to get buried in despair but to improve what we can and look forward.  Some of the TRC recommendations have little or no connection to what took place.  They’re surprising to read actually.

Again, put Indigenous in the driver’s seat for what to do with the Indian Act and other policies that may maintain social problems, but it will have to be revenue neutral with existing funding levels or taxpayers will demand a say. That’s the hard truth about self-determination:  There can be no true self-determination without self-financing.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. On your second point the door swings both ways.  It’s very hard to impute good or bad character to most people.  

2. On your third point I don’t accept that every piece of language is up for interpretation, not when what the word or term denotes is crystal clear.  
 
3. Genocide is one of those words.

 

1. Well there was SOME bad in there.  Your wording was that 'most of them' ... which is a lot harder to assess.
2. Ok, I don't like it either but like I said... I mean, I tried to call myself Christian, though I'm athiest/agnostic and it didn't fly.
3. Canada itself uses the very definition you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well there was SOME bad in there.  Your wording was that 'most of them' ... which is a lot harder to assess.
2. Ok, I don't like it either but like I said... I mean, I tried to call myself Christian, though I'm athiest/agnostic and it didn't fly.
3. Canada itself uses the very definition you disagree with.

To your third point, Canada used the term “cultural genocide”, a misleading term that nevertheless tries to convey the elimination of culture by incorporating a word that very specifically means killing.

The main reason I don’t respect our current federal government is because they engage in fatuous wordplay often.   Rather than taking a clear stance they try to use language that’s confusing enough to leave room for mischaracterization.  It’s the work of professional politicians who don’t want to be accountable for a position.   It’s really pushed me away from the Liberal party because rather than saying, yes, these people who ran residential schools have qualities in common with all of us today and we have to learn from past mistakes, they pretend that these people were some other unrelated species.   Trudeau is as old Canada as it gets.  We either accept our ancestors and see the good as well as the bad, or we might as well send all Canadians to hell, which is ridiculous.

Indigenous were no better than the colonials either. Everyone played a role in the mess.  I laughed when Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie acted appalled when a local priest said that some good work took place in residential schools.  What, she’s better than them?   She would’ve fought hard against the idea of educating and “civilizing” the Indians?   What a joke.  You think Trudeau would’ve been on the right team by today’s standards? We need to stop this arrogant self-righteousness, because it just makes hypocrites of us all, including the Indigenous who don’t seem in any rush to give up the Indian Act and its status/benefits despite its “colonial” origins.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cancel Culture is real and upon us. We continue to flood in despots from the wrong countries rather than English speaking professionals from clearly logical points of origin. Riding transit, I rarely hear English spoken (and why do they all yell?). If I were to move permanently to say Italy, it's utterly ridiculous to imagine I would go not speaking Italian or at least fast track learning it once there so as to fit in and coexist.

Even worse, the children of these migrants, ones born here are speaking Farsi, Arabic and Mandarin and being encouraged to do so by I assume their parents. I consider this almost child abuse given future educational and employment goals HERE. In effect, they're creating a ghetto amongst themselves. If they insist on living in the old country they should have stayed there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RedDog said:

1. Cancel Culture is real and upon us. We continue to flood in despots from the wrong countries rather than English speaking professionals from clearly logical points of origin.

2. Riding transit, I rarely hear English spoken (and why do they all yell?). If I were to move permanently to say Italy, it's utterly ridiculous to imagine I would go not speaking Italian or at least fast track learning it once there so as to fit in and coexist.

3. Even worse, the children of these migrants, ones born here are speaking Farsi, Arabic and Mandarin and being encouraged to do so by I assume their parents. 

1.  I doubt that it's the immigrants cancelling much.  They don't even participate in mainstream culture much.  One exception, though, that made me raise my eyebrows was religious Muslims supporting Doug Ford and aligning with fundamentalist Christians to stop sex education in schools.   
2. I lived in Europe and there are a lot of immigrants there, although the 'no go zones' thing is a myth.
3. This is false.  The kids speak perfect English, every one I have met does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...