What evidence is there to support Canada being 'systemically racist'?

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You're still not seeing the distinction.  

Systematically racist is not the same thing as systemic racism

The first is overt, institutionalized and intentional. The latter is insidious, general and often subconscious.  

Unconscious racism exists. But there exists no evidence anything can be done about it. The unconscious bias courses do not work, and can actually make things worse.

Further, unconscious bias/racism exists in all people. Why is every government effort at combating it aimed solely at White people, who are probably less guilty of it than non-whites?

And there seems to be little evidence to show this unconscious bias is responsible for different economic and social outcomes among different groups as opposed to cultural factors related to education and marriage.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not exactly ... systemic means literally 'of the system'.  I already explained that unpublished practices and attributes of institutions and systems count.  Some examples could be 'stop and frisk' practices of police, federal government communication practices or naming of policies ... all elements of communication from the govt. etc.

 

Practices are procedures.  Carding has been banned from many police forces because it was used more against some groups than others without clear justification. Carding was a policy.  If you’re talking about unwritten verbal approaches, that’s not systemic.  No doubt people say and do things off the record, but individuals are individually accountable.  If it’s in the form of a verbal directive impacting multiple personnel, yes I’d agree that’s systemic if it impacts practices across an organization or segment of an organization.  I think that in our current climate such directives would be caught out fairly quickly.  Information spreads too easily among too many different interests for these kinds of practices to carry on for long, and the consequences are too big for culprits.  I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but I don’t think they’re common.  

Edited October 14, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We have white people on here complaining about the number of black people in commercials.  And this person is asking Blacks to ignore systemic racism?

Seems like a double standard.

I didn't complain. I took note of something apparently good little progressives aren't supposed to notice. Canada's Black population stands at just over 3%. Why are there so many black newscasters and reporters? Why does almost every commercial have someone black in it? Because the media are progressives and progressive get all their queues from the United States. Thus progressives are obsessed with racism against black people and so every institution is frantically hiring Black people to push out into the cameras to avoid accusations of anti-Black racism. Black people are being displayed like tokens or trophies by the media, held aloft triumphantly by virtue-signaling corporate hacks to show everyone how pure their spirit is. A kind of get out of racism-jail free badge. "Look, we hired a Black guy! See how black he is! We can't possibly be racist!"

Note, indigenous people make up 5% of our population. I know of not a single indigenous newscaster, weatherman or reporter in my city or on either of the national networks. I see zero indigenous people in commercials. Nor do news shows work to find indigenous people to interview on every possible subject the way they do with with Blacks. 

Asians make up almost 18% of our population now. They are occasionally visible in commercials, but nothing remotely like Blacks. Nor are Asians sought out for interviews by news reporters.

Why? Because our media are racist towards Asians? Or because progressives don't care about Asians because Asians do very well economically in spite of Canada's alleged 'systemic racism' and this makes progressives squirm uncomfortably as they try to blithely dismiss it as unimportant?

By the way, before we an ask Black people to ignore systemic racism perhaps we should establish if it even exists. So far no one has had much success in doing so.

Edited October 14, 2022 by I am Groot

[Moonbox]

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Further, unconscious bias/racism exists in all people. Why is every government effort at combating it aimed solely at White people, who are probably less guilty of it than non-whites?

It's not aimed at white people.  We're the predominant culture - the norm.  The efforts are aimed at improving the situation and opportunities for minorities that are visibly struggling, and hopefully get them up to a point where we don't have to have these discussions anymore.  

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

And there seems to be little evidence to show this unconscious bias is responsible for different economic and social outcomes among different groups as opposed to cultural factors related to education and marriage.

There's tons of evidence.  Economic status is heavily correlated with single-parenthood, and both of these are strong predictors of future prosperity for children.  

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. I didn't complain.
2. I took note of something apparently good little progressives aren't supposed to notice. Canada's Black population stands at just over 3%. Why are there so many black newscasters and reporters?
3. Note, indigenous people make up 5% of our population. I know of not a single indigenous newscaster, weatherman or reporter in my city or on either of the national networks. I see zero indigenous people in commercials. Nor do news shows work to find indigenous people to interview on every possible subject the way they do with with Blacks.
4. Asians make up almost 18% of our population now. They are occasionally visible in commercials, but nothing remotely like Blacks. Nor are Asians sought out for interviews by news reporters
5. in spite of Canada's alleged 'systemic racism'  

1. I didn't call you out.  I did respond to you though and you didn't respond to my response.
2. Who cares ?  Why do you care ?  If business wants to do it then why interfere ?  They also put young and good looking people on TV too.
3. I guess you don't have APTN or follow CBC's indigenous reporting.  Ok.  It's a free market, just as the market that puts blacks everywhere.
4. I have friends who appear in TV commercials... there are lots of call for Asians... but it doesn't matter... not sure whether your claim can be supported or debunked.

5. I find it weird that you are bringing that term up again when you ignored my response.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It's not aimed at white people.  We're the predominant culture - the norm.  The efforts are aimed at improving the situation and opportunities for minorities that are visibly struggling, and hopefully get them up to a point where we don't have to have these discussions anymore.  

There's tons of evidence.  Economic status is heavily correlated with single-parenthood, and both of these are strong predictors of future prosperity for children.  

Correlation isn’t necessarily causation.  Is it racist attitudes or related to language and economic challenges bound up with immigration, cultural reasons, etc.?  Single parenthood is lifestyle/situational.  It may be cultural or relate to multiple factors.  Again, a deeper analysis may not result in the conclusions you want.  One major reason there are fewer minorities in higher management positions in relation to current population demographics is because demographics were quite different decades ago when the people at the top were getting experience, education, etc.

These are complicated outcomes to unpack.  You can find research to support or counter your interpretation, depending on your political outlook.  I don’t have any time for identity politics, and I don’t respect people who lean on it as an excuse.  That in no way means that I would ever accept discrimination.  Show me an example of it and I’ll oppose it, but it comes down to specific behaviour from specific people, not assumptions about the meaning of statistical outcomes data.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's why you're having so much trouble with this topic.  Nobody is saying that Canada is systematically racist.  We're saying that systemic racism is a challenge that ethnic minorities face in Canada.  Those are two very different statements and mean very different things, and we can't really debate many of your points.  

The former is something you consider an accusation meant to put you down or subvert you. 

The latter is an appeal to try to remove challenges that ethnic minorities statistically and also verifiably face.  

I can say in the same breath that Canada is probably one of the least racist countries in the world, while still affirming that systemic racism is a substantial problem problem.  Measuring ourselves against China, Russia or Saudi-Arabia doesn't really help anyone.  

Your right i am struggling with this topic, but the more i read the more i am convinced that from the PM done this has been their message. Our nation is systematically racist. below is a definition of systemic racism from UBC university... I may not be the sharpest pencil in the box, but are the below statements on target, are they what is being the base line for our racist institutions. Or are these just statements for a bunch of woke students, who will soon be out on their own as adults. 

Quote

Systemic racism, also known as institutional racism, refers to the ways that whiteness and white superiority become embedded in the policies and processes of an institution, resulting in a system that advantages white people and disadvantages BIPOC/IBPOC, notably in employment, education, justice, and social participation.

Quote

In a settler colonial state like Canada, systemic racism is deeply rooted in every system of this country. This means the systems put in place were designed to benefit white colonists while disadvantaging the Indigenous populations who had lived here prior to colonialism. This power dynamic continues to be upheld and reinforced in our society, extending its impact on new racialized citizens.

Referring to the fist quote, if true, what current policies do we have now that meet these criteria? Because i can find none in fact i can find dozens of policies that do the exact opposite, both federally funded and private funded.

The second quote is much more to the point, it is rooted in every system of this country, and is meant to benefit only white colonist. DO you see any of this in our current government. 

 

Yes, i did take it to be a slanderous statement for all Canadians, now i will admit i am tired of all this woke shit that has been brewing for some time now, and if it is not true i want to call it out for being false info. 

What challenges are you talking about, ever Canadian regardless of race color or creed has access to the very same programs as any white Canadian. in fact, we have laws that protect ever Canadian equally in these cases. I get it there are many factors that determine classes within our country. poverty, lack of education, Justice system, and racism itself.

I think a lot of this is choices that people make, take indigenous people for instance, a very low percentage decide to take higher education, why is that it is free in most cases, do we force them, or large black communities ( Jamican) and in Toronto where poverty and crime offers quick cash and profits, with none of the education what do you do here force them.  And our solution seems to be blame all of it on white Canadians and turn them into victims when it is not true at all. Tell me is this solution solving anything, is it getting better or is it dividing us further. 

I came for a trailer park in NB my family was poor, and yet somehow i am led to believe i am where i am today, becasue of white privilege and out nations policies, and my determination, or hard work did not play a role in that, Im sure i find it a little hard to swallow. 

[Moonbox]

29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your right i am struggling with this topic, but the more i read the more i am convinced that from the PM done this has been their message. Our nation is systematically racist.

One more time I'll say that systematically racist is not the right terminology.   That would suggest that we have deliberate policies and methods explicitly designed to make things harder for minorities.  Nobody is saying that. 

Systemically racist, on the other hand, points to the combination of unconscious, naive and sometimes completely innocent biases inherent in a society built and shaped by a dominant majority.  You seem to just be focusing on the word "racist", taking it as an accusation of malfeasance or something.  

If you can't or won't acknowledge the difference here, I'm afraid there's not much to discuss because you're really just arguing with yourself.  

29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I came for a trailer park in NB my family was poor, and yet somehow i am led to believe i am where i am today, becasue of white privilege and out nations policies, and my determination, or hard work did not play a role in that, Im sure i find it a little hard to swallow. 

Nobody is telling you that.  Your ability to drag yourself out of poverty is admirable.  Consider your experience a success story and a testament to your resilience and worth ethic.  Growing up in poverty is a huge disadvantage and the challenges it represents could be considered a systemic problem in Canada.  Poor kids don't get the same opportunities as rich kids.  That's a fact.  The system is therefore biased towards rich families (systemic problem).  

Edited October 14, 2022 by Moonbox

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

One more time I'll say that systematically racist is not the right terminology.   That would suggest that we have deliberate policies and methods explicitly designed to make things harder for minorities.  Nobody is saying that. 

Systemically racist, on the other hand, points to the combination of unconscious, naive and sometimes completely innocent biases inherent in a society built and shaped by a dominant majority.  You seem to just be focusing on the word "racist", taking it as an accusation of malfeasance or something.  

If you can't or won't acknowledge the difference here, I'm afraid there's not much to discuss because you're really just arguing with yourself.  

Nobody is telling you that.  Your ability to drag yourself out of poverty is admirable.  Consider your experience a success story and a testament to your resilience and worth ethic.  Growing up in poverty is a huge disadvantage and the challenges it represents could be considered a systemic problem in Canada.  Poor kids don't get the same opportunities as rich kids.  That's a fact.  The system is therefore biased towards rich families (systemic problem).  

More race baiting and class baiting.  Look, of course some people are born into more privileged families than others, based on prior family history wealth accumulated through past achievement and sometimes dumb luck, but the antidote to that isn’t Marxist redistribution (theft) from people who have stuff to those who don’t.  Tried it and it disincentivized people from being entrepreneurial and working hard.

We can give modest subsidies, scholarships, etc., paid for through taxes and donations.  That’s fine and noble, as long as we don’t borrow money to do it or make it pay for people to sit on their hands.  If we stop rewarding merit, our economic progress will unravel fast.

In today’s society the privilege into which you’re born might give you more money and opportunity, but whether you use it to grow and contribute to society is still a choice that depends largely on merit, hopefully.  Giving reasonable legs up is good.  Just keep it simple to avoid moral hazard.  While privilege is more prevalent among some groups than others, there are privileged individuals from all backgrounds.  Assess people by their individual merits.  Even that can be difficult, which is why we can’t really judge before walking in someone else’s shoes.  

Edited October 15, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Army Guy]

47 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

One more time I'll say that systematically racist is not the right terminology.   That would suggest that we have deliberate policies and methods explicitly designed to make things harder for minorities.  Nobody is saying that. 

Systemically racist, on the other hand, points to the combination of unconscious, naive and sometimes completely innocent biases inherent in a society built and shaped by a dominant majority.  You seem to just be focusing on the word "racist", taking it as an accusation of malfeasance or something.  

If you can't or won't acknowledge the difference here, I'm afraid there's not much to discuss because you're really just arguing with yourself.  

Nobody is telling you that.  Your ability to drag yourself out of poverty is admirable.  Consider your experience a success story and a testament to your resilience and worth ethic.  Growing up in poverty is a huge disadvantage and the challenges it represents could be considered a systemic problem in Canada.  Poor kids don't get the same opportunities as rich kids.  That's a fact.  The system is therefore biased towards rich families (systemic problem).  

Your right, the light bulb just came on, i screwed up and misspelled the word systemic, but i want you to take a look at UBC definition and tell me that is the right one. Although i did misspell the word i have the right meaning and thought process. 

Systemic racism: What it looks like in Canada and how to fight it?   | VPFO | UBC

this one basically said the same thing from universities here in Canada. 

Understanding how racism becomes systemic | Centre for Human Rights & Legal Pluralism - McGill University

We live in a democratic society where our economy is based on free enterprise where anyone can be anything they want rich, poor, etc. and a true systemic racism free society is not possible. 

I say that becasue in your example rich kids have more opportunities is a systemic problem. they do but why is that a problem, it is a matter of choice. a Truely systemic free society would be one of nirvana, everyone had the exact same thing, wages, job, housing, car, infants, etc... no one had an advantage over another. 

 

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I say that becasue in your example rich kids have more opportunities is a systemic problem. they do but why is that a problem, it is a matter of choice.

People choose to be poor?   That is a very faulty premise.   How did a kid born into poverty choose that?  

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

People choose to be poor?   That is a very faulty premise.   How did a kid born into poverty choose that?  

The kids did not choose anything; however, it is their choice to remain. There is no magic pill for this, it takes a lot of hard work and determination, but it is possible millions of people around the world do it every day. It is also a choice to remain there as well.

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I didn't call you out.  I did respond to you though and you didn't respond to my response.
2. Who cares ?  Why do you care ?  If business wants to do it then why interfere ?  They also put young and good looking people on TV too.
3. I guess you don't have APTN or follow CBC's indigenous reporting.  Ok.  It's a free market, just as the market that puts blacks everywhere.
4. I have friends who appear in TV commercials... there are lots of call for Asians... but it doesn't matter... not sure whether your claim can be supported or debunked.

5. I find it weird that you are bringing that term up again when you ignored my response.

Why do I care? I've already said I don't much care. But I notice. And I mentioned it because it shows the degree of groveling, simpering desperation to show purity of thought to the progressive activists, to, as I said, hold up black people as a kind of shield against any accusations of racism. I just see it as cowardice in the face of demands which should be simply laughed at.

Do I get APTN? Or watch CBCs indigenous programming? No, why would I? Why would anyone who wasn't indigenous? What's next, CBCs special programming for Black people? For Chinese people? For Indo-Canadians? 

You find it weird I'm bringing what term up? Systemic racism? You sound offended I didn't respond to one of your posts. I don't even see everything here much less respond to all of it. 

[I am Groot]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

2. Sure, but racism in 'institutions' definitely HAS existed in the past, and those institutions and the attendant power is white.  I would assume the idea is that you can't sanitize individual thoughts but you can fix institutions to offer fairness to "the" public in terms of services, response etc.  IOW - racism is not the problem, racism in our institutions and the corridors of power is a problem.  

It would be if it existed. Thus far no one has managed to show it exists.

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

However - specific to your point, there are examples of systemic racism in Canada such as how the government manages services targeted at FN/Metis/Inuit people, how the police operate in practical terms etc.

There is no conscious racism in how the federal government, at least, manages services to indigenous people. My best friend was a manager then executive at Indigenous Services, and not only did they try their best, not only had they basically no budget limitations on serving their indigenous clients but hiring and promotion was very much skewed towards indigenous people wherever it was possible. The Indian Act is a hot mess but the government can't get rid of it because the chiefs want it to stay in place. Most likely because of the economic value they see for themselves in it.

As for police practices - they are aimed at criminals. The high criminality, esp the high violence rate among Blacks (and natives) draws police attention disproportionate to their population numbers. In particular, the higher rate of violence among these communities draws police violence in return.

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

 If Justin Trudeau actually uses the term 'systemic racism' with respect to federal government operations, he is basically saying that he is at the head of a racist organization and is therefore a racist, which we already know from his blackface act that he likes to trot out.

Trudeau can claim every institution is rife with systemic racism but in my view that's just virtue signalling, flaunting his purity. I don't know if he even believes it, but then I regard him as a pretty shallow person so what he believes doesn't really influence the truth or reality of a situation in my view.

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

4. Well, sure but historically I'm pretty sure you can find some racist reasons why, say, black folks have trailed behind since 1833  Can you 'prove' every single black person who is below a certain income line is impacted by slavery ?  Of course not.

Canada never had slavery. There were a small number of slaves here prior to our nationhood but in fact the majority were indigenous people. There were a few black slaves (including ones held by indigenous people ironically). But they were all freed decades before Canada was formed. Virtually all the Black people in Canada today are immigrants who arrived after the 1970s and their kids.

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

And I know you're a thoughtful poster so I'm sorry for dismissing your OP however therein is a telling point about discussion on such topics with 'the' public: it sucks.  There are too many people who are putting together arguments targeted at an audience that looks to defend loyalties first and look at facts second - and they are on all sides of the political spectrum.

This is one of those topics which has been more or less forbidden in the public sphere. Or at least, it's forbidden to take a negative or even questioning line towards the topic. I have a vague memory of one routine political commentator on one of those CBC panels disappearing off the face of the earth after they dared to deny its existence. It's simply easier to go along. There are many internet sites where you can't discuss it either. Nothing is permitted by full acceptance. But without discussion how do we know anything is true? And the truth is that for all the claims about systemic racism I've never seen anyone anywhere in Canada put a firm case for its existence. That is why I brought it up. 

I am not all on one side of the tribal fence. I am equally loathed by people on the far left and the far right.

 

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

My question when engaging in such discussions is: why are we talking about these things, and who is the audience ?  In this case, we are "talking about talking about the problem"...

Or talking about whether there is, in fact, A problem. Because we never had that discussion before we embraced systemic racism as existing everywhere. Where was the discussion? When was the evidence presented? 

On 10/12/2022 at 10:50 AM, Michael Hardner said:

determining the framework for discussion, what the terms refer to and having a deeper examination of the mechanics of looking at the problem.  That's a good thing, but it's very easy to confuse with people who do NOT accept point #1 above and refuse to reflect on our social mechanics.

Thanks for the post.

This is like the problem of talking about immigration. Because racists hate immigration (of non whites anyway) there is a knee-jerk assumption from the commentariat that anyone opposing immigration might/must/is likely to be a racist. And so immigration, like systemic racism, is another topic which cannot be opposed in public. Are there others? Probably. But there shouldn't be any in a free society. If we are going to impose a belief on the nation we ought to have damned well explored it and discussed it with no holds barred first.

[Moonbox]

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I say that becasue in your example rich kids have more opportunities is a systemic problem. they do but why is that a problem, it is a matter of choice.

A choice?  How is it a choice to be born in a trailer park and have to work way harder and claw your way up even to even the middle class, compared to the rich kid whose father paves his way paying for everything and connecting him to everyone he needs to know?  That's not a choice.  

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

a Truely systemic free society would be one of nirvana, everyone had the exact same thing, wages, job, housing, car, infants, etc... no one had an advantage over another. 

No, that's communism.  The truer system would be one where the child is at least started off with the same opportunities in terms of education, health and post-curricular activities.  We don't even offer that.  

[Moonbox]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We can give modest subsidies, scholarships, etc., paid for through taxes and donations.  That’s fine and noble, as long as we don’t borrow money to do it or make it pay for people to sit on their hands.  If we stop rewarding merit, our economic progress will unravel fast.

A good filter for finding the best and brightest is to find the people who claw their way up from nothing.  Give them the chance and see if they sink or swim.  If they sink, then then that's too bad, but the ambitious ones among them are often the most able and the most driven.  

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

In today’s society the privilege into which you’re born might give you more money and opportunity, but whether you use it to grow and contribute to society is still a choice that depends largely on merit, hopefully.  

too often they don't.  Growing up in a rich town and in a rich neighborhood, most of the guys around here ended up working for their dads doing nothing remarkable and the girls finished school, married a dude who worked for his dad, and became highly-educated stay-at-home moms.  When you have everything you need whether or not you apply yourself, it's too easy to be happy not applying yourself.  That's not the end of the world, and I'm not saying we need to take that away from them, but as a society we are not handing the tools and opportunities that we could to the people who would make the best use of them.  When people are not motivated to work hard, too many of them choose not to.  

While I agree that we don't want to go in debt subsidizing education for poor folk, that doesn't mean we can't more aggressively work to provide them with these opportunities.  If you know anything about our tax system, you'd understand it's a joke and designed to fleece the upper-middle class and lower-end upper class, while making things easy for the richest of the rich.  I always laugh when I hear people complain about poor people paying no taxes, when in fact it's our very top earners who are not paying their share.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. Why do I care? I've already said I don't much care. But I notice. And I mentioned it because it shows the degree of groveling, simpering desperation to show purity of thought to the progressive activists, to, as I said, hold up black people as a kind of shield against any accusations of racism. I just see it as cowardice in the face of demands which should be simply laughed at.

2. Do I get APTN? Or watch CBCs indigenous programming? No, why would I? Why would anyone who wasn't indigenous? What's next, CBCs special programming for Black people? For Chinese people? For Indo-Canadians? 

3. You find it weird I'm bringing what term up? Systemic racism? You sound offended I didn't respond to one of your posts. I don't even see everything here much less respond to all of it. 

1. Ok, you say that you don't care but you have developed a kind of explanation of what's going on that seems to bother you at least a little.  I don't think that the approach to casting on advertising is so subject to pressure groups currently.  For example, stores engage in unfair labour practices and consumers don't know or care.

2. Relax.  I'm only responding to your point that indigenous points of view are lacking in media stories.  If you look, you will find them.

3. I just found it strange that I addressed you, then you skipped past my response to respond to another post although I already addressed your points.  No offense taken.

 

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

4. It would be if it existed. Thus far no one has managed to show it exists.

5. There is no conscious racism in how the federal government, at least, manages services to indigenous people. My best friend was a manager then executive at Indigenous Services, and not only did they try their best, not only had they basically no budget limitations on serving their indigenous clients but hiring and promotion was very much skewed towards indigenous people wherever it was possible. The Indian Act is a hot mess but the government can't get rid of it because the chiefs want it to stay in place. Most likely because of the economic value they see for themselves in it.

6. As for police practices - they are aimed at criminals. The high criminality, esp the high violence rate among Blacks (and natives) draws police attention disproportionate to their population numbers. In particular, the higher rate of violence among these communities draws police violence in return.

7. Canada never had slavery. There were a small number of slaves here prior to our nationhood but in fact the majority were indigenous people. There were a few black slaves (including ones held by indigenous people ironically). But they were all freed decades before Canada was formed. Virtually all the Black people in Canada today are immigrants who arrived after the 1970s and their kids.

8. This is one of those topics which has been more or less forbidden in the public sphere.  

4. I absolutely acknowledge that the term is overused, however I suspect that it still exists.  The contemporary example was the police carding debate in Toronto.  If you want to say that that wasn't significant, it was at least enough of a concern to generate public discussion so it was at least a question.

5. Well your friend had some good anecdotal examples, but it's a lot easier to prove something exists than it doesn't.  We had an extended debate on Attiwapiskat here and I recall that the government was suspected of throwing the local band under the bus but you'd have to revive that thread for the details.

6. Local Community don't see that as a reason to stop innocent black people all over the city and I agree.  That might be the example we're looking for here.

7. Canada maybe didn't have slavery but we had gross racism.  If you find it okay to reach back into the past to examine how we dealt with such things you'll find there are examples of mistreated peoples there.

8. Yes, and you seem to be missing the parts of this that I agreed with you on.

There's groupthink at play for sure, but there's also racism.  Probably everywhere given how vilified racists are today.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

A choice?  How is it a choice to be born in a trailer park and have to work way harder and claw your way up even to even the middle class, compared to the rich kid whose father paves his way paying for everything and connecting him to everyone he needs to know?  That's not a choice.  

No, that's communism.  The truer system would be one where the child is at least started off with the same opportunities in terms of education, health and post-curricular activities.  We don't even offer that.  

It is not a choice to be born into anything really, but it is a choice to remain there, here in Canada we are afforded many tools and opportunities to lift ourselves into a better life. And while rich kids do have a advantage it is not systemic racism unless of course we could make everyone earn the same amount, but that is not capitalist system, it is a socialist one. And even if everyone did have the same amount, there will be some that spend it all, or invest it all and we are back to square one.

I was never denied opportunities in education, health care, and i did play hockey during my childhood, i may have had used gear, or missing a few pieces but it was always afforded to me. I think here in Canada we do pretty good in those departments, but we have a long road to travel before it is optimum.  

[Moonbox]

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It is not a choice to be born into anything really, but it is a choice to remain there, here in Canada we are afforded many tools and opportunities to lift ourselves into a better life. And while rich kids do have a advantage it is not systemic racism unless of course we could make everyone earn the same amount, but that is not capitalist system, it is a socialist one. And even if everyone did have the same amount, there will be some that spend it all, or invest it all and we are back to square one.

Not talking about everyone having the same one.  There's a huge grey area between where we are now, and a "socialist system".  The assumption of an immediate default to that as soon as we change anything is silly. 

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I was never denied opportunities in education, health care, and i did play hockey during my childhood, i may have had used gear, or missing a few pieces but it was always afforded to me. I think here in Canada we do pretty good in those departments, but we have a long road to travel before it is optimum.  

and that's really the point of these conversations.  Can we make things better?  It's not about taking things away from you.  

[Army Guy]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Not talking about everyone having the same one.  There's a huge grey area between where we are now, and a "socialist system".  The assumption of an immediate default to that as soon as we change anything is silly. 

and that's really the point of these conversations.  Can we make things better?  It's not about taking things away from you.  

Really you think that our direction our country is going in, is the right one. i can't say the same, i think in out attempt to make sure everyone is treated the same, we are making it worse, we are driving the country into little pieces that were once a united for the most part. And for some we have created even more racism like the fade of today is to punish the white race for its past... 

The cure is worse than the disease. 

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, you say that you don't care but you have developed a kind of explanation of what's going on that seems to bother you at least a little. 

I said I don't much care. I probably should have said I don't care "much". Yes, it irritates me because in part I perceive that they're trying to deliver "the message" at me, and resent it.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that the approach to casting on advertising is so subject to pressure groups currently.  For example, stores engage in unfair labour practices and consumers don't know or care.

The companies the advertising agencies represent are subject to pressure groups. Which his why they're all falling all over each other to proclaim their devotion to inclusion, equity and diversity. Same goes for the corporations that own the TV networks and stations. Well, except the CBC. But it isn't like they need any pressure to be woke.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Relax.  I'm only responding to your point that indigenous points of view are lacking in media stories.  If you look, you will find them.

On special networks, perhaps. But you'll not find the hiring of indigenous people given much priority in television compared to black people. Which once again just shows how heavily influenced by American identity politics we are.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I just found it strange that I addressed you, then you skipped past my response to respond to another post although I already addressed your points.  No offense taken.

It's likely I just forgot. Easy posts which take little time to answer can be done on my phone. If I see something which requires a longer answer, and more time to think it through, I'll put it off until I'm at my computer. But of course, I can forget.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I absolutely acknowledge that the term is overused, however I suspect that it still exists.  The contemporary example was the police carding debate in Toronto.  If you want to say that that wasn't significant, it was at least enough of a concern to generate public discussion so it was at least a question.

One of the issues here is that insofar as English Canadians still have a culture, despite everything the Liberals have done to destroy it, that culture contains a rock-solid belief in fundamental fairness. I'll admit that has been imperfectly meted out, especially in private. Maybe it's just a wish, or wistful hope. But hiring and promoting people based solely on checkboxes, as Trudeau appears to do with every damned public appointment offends our sense of fairness. And so far that seems to be about the only tool in the woke left's toolbox when it comes to combating 'systemic racism'. Well, except for forcing everyone into the modern equivalent of Mao's struggle sessions - now called anti-racism, or diversity and inclusion training.

So when does all this combating of systemic racism end? Down south, where this originated, you have police departments with black police chiefs and more than half the police officers being non-white, under decades of Democratic rule, often with Black mayors in states run by the Democrats for decades and yet still we are to believe these police forces are systemically racist. So it appears there is no cure in our lifetimes.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. Well your friend had some good anecdotal examples, but it's a lot easier to prove something exists than it doesn't.  We had an extended debate on Attiwapiskat here and I recall that the government was suspected of throwing the local band under the bus but you'd have to revive that thread for the details.

All I will say to that is that few of us trust politicians with our money, and yet somehow native chiefs aren't to be considered as politicians and their expenditures aren't to be publicly available or examined.

Why? 

These native bands are often tiny, just a few hundred people. The largest of them are smaller than most Canadian small towns. Why do so many of their chiefs make more money than provincial premiers?

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. Local Community don't see that as a reason to stop innocent black people all over the city and I agree.  That might be the example we're looking for here.

Were Black people stopped all over the city or mostly in specific high-crime areas? Areas known for gang violence?

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. Canada maybe didn't have slavery but we had gross racism.  If you find it okay to reach back into the past to examine how we dealt with such things you'll find there are examples of mistreated peoples there.

Really, the only minorities who have a claim on us over that are indigenous people. There are very, very few other races who had more than a tiny number of people in this almost purebred white country up until immigration was liberalized in the 1970s.

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

8. Yes, and you seem to be missing the parts of this that I agreed with you on.

There's groupthink at play for sure, but there's also racism.  Probably everywhere given how vilified racists are today.

I don't think there's really much racism here. I don't think there are many racists. Prejudice, yes, and bigotry. Let's call things by their proper names. Racism is an actual belief in the inferiority of races. I doubt some farmer shouting ethnic slurs at an Asian or some truck driver sneering at blacks has an ideological belief in the superiority of the white race. What they have is prejudice, mostly learned through news media stories, the internet, or what their experiences have been in life.  

We don't keep racial stats but the Americans are very precise in theirs. Cities can tell you what the racial breakdown is in shoplifters, in burglars, in murderers, etc. If you're a white or Asian shopkeeper and you know that black people, who make up 5% of your customers are responsible for 60% of shoplifting from your store, are you not going to watch black people extra carefully? Yes, you're pre-judging them. That's what prejudice is. And if you are exposed to a daily summary of violent crime in the news media, mostly perpetrated by Black offenders, are you not going to be wary of Black men? Prejudice again. 

How do we combat prejudice given the source is people's sense of tribal loyalty and anger against 'outsiders' seen as constantly attacking the tribe?

It's like, the Chicago media never mentions race when hundreds of 'youths' show up downtown to trash stores, beat people up and rob them, but everyone in Chicago knows, if only from the videos on the internet, who makes up those gangs. And the same takes place here. Maybe the news media never mentions the race of murderers but they do tend to show their faces and few people are under any illusion about the disproportionate number of black and brown faces.

You want to address the prejudice you need to address the cause. Which is what is seen as the greatly disproportionate criminality of certain groups.

But that too is something we're not allowed to publicly discuss.

Edited October 16, 2022 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Really you think that our direction our country is going in, is the right one. i can't say the same, i think in out attempt to make sure everyone is treated the same, we are making it worse,

The problem is we are NOT treating everyone the same.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, Moonbox said:

A good filter for finding the best and brightest is to find the people who claw their way up from nothing.  Give them the chance and see if they sink or swim.  If they sink, then then that's too bad, but the ambitious ones among them are often the most able and the most driven.  

And why should we make such awards dependent on race?

 

[I am Groot]

On 10/14/2022 at 1:24 PM, Moonbox said:

It's not aimed at white people.  We're the predominant culture - the norm.  The efforts are aimed at improving the situation and opportunities for minorities that are visibly struggling, and hopefully get them up to a point where we don't have to have these discussions anymore.  

Those minorities (exempting natives) are, by and large, immigrant groups. If they're visibly struggling why don't we consider whether our immigration system is being operated properly? Whether we have the right requirements for immigrants? Immigrants who come here ought to be performing better than Canadians, not worse. They ought to be the best selected out of tens of millions of hopefuls.

We should not be saying that we need immigrants because "they'll do the shitty, low paid jobs Canadians won't".

On 10/14/2022 at 1:24 PM, Moonbox said:

There's tons of evidence.  Economic status is heavily correlated with single-parenthood, and both of these are strong predictors of future prosperity for children.  

Sure. But how is it the fault of our society that black kids have kids and the 'father' then ignores them? And defaulting to the US because they actually do study such stuff there while we don't - that absent father thing isn't the result of slavery or racism because it only started after the advances in civil rights in the late 1960s.

Edited October 16, 2022 by I am Groot

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

And why should we make such awards dependent on race?

 

Giving people stuff on the basis of group identity is ridiculous.  Providing assistance to individuals who are disadvantaged and have the evidence to support the claim is reasonable.   Should the rich black guy who owns a business around the corner from me get “money for black business owners”?  C’mon.

He’s a great guy, but he doesn’t need handouts.  

Edited October 16, 2022 by Zeitgeist