What happened to Canada

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

That's capitalism, you're just talking about capitalism, which, by definition, entails the exploitation and suffering for the many for the enrichment of the few unless restrained by the heavy hand of the state.

Absolutely ahistorical nonsense. If one was to pick a tipping point, it was 2008 with the election of a Black President which drove the right completely insane.

And it's funny as hell to see a guy who unironically uses the term "commies" whine about "tribalism".

You spelt "capitalism" incorrectly. The word you used as per your definition is spelled "communism".

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I wish we could stop distinguishing people by colour except as an objective physical description.  It’s good to talk about people’s individual experiences, and sure colour may come into that, but every individual is different.  Both victimhood and privilege come in many forms.  Yes historically some groups have had it harder, but if our policies are fair and people’s attitudes are getting better as they work together and intermarry, the ingredients for positive change are there and much progress has been made. Yes racism persists and so we enshrine equality legislatively and emphasize it in our education, media, pulpits, etc   

I hope colour doesn’t come into the immigration debate.   

I don't think it will much. Most people don't really seem to be all that mad at the immigrants. If anything they feel a little sorry for them. But they're mad about the volume

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I don't think it will much. Most people don't really seem to be all that mad at the immigrants. If anything they feel a little sorry for them. But they're mad about the volume

I agree.  It’s about volume and impact on services, infrastructure, housing, and other costs primarily.  Some groups do integrate more successfully than others, and it’s not about colour.  I’d also say that it’s fine and healthy to celebrate Canadian traditions, games, etc.  It doesn’t make people white supremacists, unless the Punjabi-Canadian hockey commentators are now white supremacists. Protecting local culture, historic architecture, etc. is important in all societies, which is why I get concerned when a beautiful Victorian row is bulldozed in a quaint neighborhood to build three 50 storey towers due to the explosive population growth in areas that can’t absorb so much change so fast.  Casting shadows with non-descript condo towers is the theme in our cities and suburbs.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[Black Dog]

19 minutes ago, Legato said:

You spelt "capitalism" incorrectly. The word you used as per your definition is spelled "communism".

No, stupid, because then it wouldn't make any sense.

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No, stupid, because then it wouldn't make any sense.

 

It would to everybody else.

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

It would to everybody else.

The system I described that "entails the exploitation and suffering for the many for the enrichment of the few unless restrained by the heavy hand of the state" would only describe communism to people who either don't know what communism is or who have suffered a debilitating TBI, which one are you?

[Zeitgeist]

Ah man, a proud communist.  At least you’re owning it.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The system I described that "entails the exploitation and suffering for the many for the enrichment of the few unless restrained by the heavy hand of the state" would only describe communism to people who either don't know what communism is or who have suffered a debilitating TBI, which one are you?

Aaaawwww look at you, pretending that you know what political/social structures look like    So cute.

Sorry kid, go read a book.  Your description is far closer to communism or socialistic models in general than capitalism

Capitalism  would fail and vainish within a couple generations if it looked like you propose.  Capitalism cannot survive if it were to entail the exploitation and suffering etc etc. Simply wouldn't work

You go back and read a few books and we'll chat again when you've got a clearer reality

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

So which part of Russia or China are you actually from?

it is the Post National State which most resembles China & Russia

I was born in British North America, under the rule of the British Crown, by the British North America Act 1867

Cuidich 'n Righ

[Black Dog]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Aaaawwww look at you, pretending that you know what political/social structures look like    So cute.

Sorry kid, go read a book.  Your description is far closer to communism or socialistic models in general than capitalism

Capitalism  would fail and vainish within a couple generations if it looked like you propose.  Capitalism cannot survive if it were to entail the exploitation and suffering etc etc. Simply wouldn't work

You go back and read a few books and we'll chat again when you've got a clearer reality

Ah I see, you're stuck on reading definitions in books and not looking at the actual real world applications of the system, a common stupid person move.

[Dougie93]

On 1/24/2024 at 12:27 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

  Another tribalist in our midst.  Eat sh*t like all the rest.

British is not a race

British is not a place

British is a system of governance

called Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy

founded by William Prince of Orange in 1690

founding Great Britain and all her realms, to include HM Confederation of Canada

Dileas Gu Brath

[Legato]

19 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Ah I see, you're stuck on reading definitions in books and not looking at the actual real world applications of the system, a common stupid person move.

Where did you buy the rose coloured glasses, you know, the ones that help disguise reality.

Must have been one of those pseudo communist countries.

[Black Dog]

11 minutes ago, Legato said:

Where did you buy the rose coloured glasses, you know, the ones that help disguise reality.

Must have been one of those pseudo communist countries.

What are you talking about, dummy? Do you think my describing capitalism as a system of exploitation implies that exploitation is exclusive to capitalism?

[Legato]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

What are you talking about, dummy? Do you think my describing capitalism as a system of exploitation implies that exploitation is exclusive to capitalism?

No. Your explanation is not exclusive nor inclusive, it's just a communists way of saying nothing meaningful.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Weird how decades of de jure and de facto racial discrimination in this country never get mentioned when you talk about the good old days; why is that?

Why do we need to speak about it? Were any of us there then? Have we not changed so that such behaviour patterns are now extremely unusual and rarely encountered? We don't even have the excuse the American Left is obsessed with, of 'making it up' to groups that suffered under racism. Well, except the natives. But everyone else was only in Canada in very minimal numbers back then. 

Explain to me the logic of giving institutional preferred admittance, hiring and promotion to immigrants or the children of immigrants in order to 'make it up' to their color group from back in the day when neither they nor their ancestors were even here to 'suffer'. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I hope colour doesn’t come into the immigration debate.   

l actually thought olde stock sounded kinda innocuous and folksy in nature. Maybe it's because I'm a grandfather.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Why do we need to speak about it? Were any of us there then?

I have friends who were raped in residential schools.

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

But everyone else was only in Canada in very minimal numbers back then. 

Our institutions back then were every bit as powerful and generally unaccountable as today. We inherited a responsibility for what they did - a responsibility we're bound to by law.

Edited January 25 by eyeball

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Why do we need to speak about it? Were any of us there then? Have we not changed so that such behaviour patterns are now extremely unusual and rarely encountered? We don't even have the excuse the American Left is obsessed with, of 'making it up' to groups that suffered under racism. Well, except the natives.  But everyone else was only in Canada in very minimal numbers back then. 

Because it shows the idea that dividing people by racial or gender or ethnic lines is a newfangled creation of woke lefties is absolute nonsense. Dividing people along such lines has been a fundamental part of this country's history (Head Tax, Chinese Immigration Act, the Indian Act, various de facto segregation policies).

 

Quote

Explain to me the logic of giving institutional preferred admittance, hiring and promotion to immigrants or the children of immigrants in order to 'make it up' to their color group from back in the day when neither they nor their ancestors were even here to 'suffer'. 

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

 

[Zeitgeist]

Just so you’re aware, Canada in its entire colonial history had less than a 1000 slaves. They were basically remnants from other jurisdictions, as slavery was banned from the beginning of Upper and Lower Canada.  In fact Canada was a destination of freedom in the Underground Railroad.  The West Coast Indigenous did keep slaves for thousands of years.  Canada’s history on slavery is completely different from the US.  As for the Indian Act, yes much has been said about how problematic it is, but right now it’s the Indigenous who want to keep it.  It grants special status that provides tax breaks, treaty rights, and many benefits.  Context is everything and there are detailed threads on all these topics.  The bottom line is that human history is full of war and oppression, but Canada has had less of that than just about any country and has remedied it more than just about any country.

Edited January 25 by Zeitgeist

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

How does one conclude that Trudeau's the "post-national" if he's the one that understands the country's 90% empty and we can't solidify an economy with a minimal internal market?
Unless you define post-national as someone who thinks the country was perfect in 1953 and doesn't agree.

You're free to move out onto the Arctic tundra if you want. But that's not where immigrants are going. They're going to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. This whole nonsense about what a big, empty country we are has always been disingenuous since almost everyone lives in a dozen large, urban centres and virtually all immigrants go to those cities.

As for our 'minimal internal market', which ignores our free trade agreement with the US, as well as one with the EU, forty million puts us among the largest countries in the world, population wise. There are 36 countries with larger populations and about 160 with smaller populations. And among those with smaller populations are nine out of ten of the world's best places to live.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

The system I described that "entails the exploitation and suffering for the many for the enrichment of the few unless restrained by the heavy hand of the state" would 

Describe all systems. ALL. 

What Capitalism brings with it and Socialism fails, is a general level of economic comfort that allows the majority of people to have at least some disposable income and time.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Ah I see, you're stuck on reading definitions in books and not looking at the actual real world applications

Oh, you've lived in a lot of communist countries around the world have you?

Run along little guy.

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Describe all systems. ALL. 

What Capitalism brings with it and Socialism fails, is a general level of economic comfort that allows the majority of people to have at least some disposable income and time.

That is true to a large degree, any system will be exploited by those who can.

And capitalism makes it hard for one person to succeed without making other people around them more successful as well and that spreads.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of abject poverty than any system in the history of the world, it's one of the most successful economic models of all time.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I have friends who were raped in residential schools.

Do you want a cookie? Weren't people raped in all kinds of settings? Wasn't sexual assault and molestation something society didn't take much interest in? Even date rape was a concept we didn't pay much attention to back in the day. Much less something within the family. There were abuses in every institutional and residential setting, from boy scout campgrounds to boarding schools for the elites, from institutions for the mentally retarded (that used to be a word) to prisons, juvenile detention centres, and even ordinary schools and churches.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Our institutions back then were every bit as powerful and generally unaccountable as today. We inherited a responsibility for what they did - a responsibility we're bound to by law.

A responsibility they did to whom? There are 1.5 million blacks in Canada. In the 1971 census there were 30k. Which means something like 95% of blacks in Canada are immigrants or their kids. What 'responsibility' do we have to them? The same rough figures would be applied to Asians. Why do we have 'responsibility' to them? 

I mean, you can make an argument about indigenous people but no one else.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Because it shows the idea that dividing people by racial or gender or ethnic lines is a newfangled creation of woke lefties is absolute nonsense. Dividing people along such lines has been a fundamental part of this country's history (Head Tax, Chinese Immigration Act, the Indian Act, various de facto segregation policies).

Okay. But even if we accept that do you believe it's wise to implement similar policies today? I mean, it was dumb to apply to minorities but it's even dumber to apply to the majority.

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

 

I thought I had explained it clearly. The vast majority of racialized people in Canada (exempting indigenous people) are immigrants or their children. Why are all our policies designed to benefit them at the expense of white people?

28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Just so you’re aware, Canada in its entire colonial history had less than a 1000 slaves.

Just a minor point of clarification to say that at the time when slavery was legal there was no Canada. This was British colonialism. The number is roughly  accurate tho

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Just a minor point of clarification to say that at the time when slavery was legal there was no Canada. This was British colonialism. The number is roughly  accurate tho

Worth noting a few other things.  We weren't "Canada" yet - but even among the handful of territories that would become canada slave rights laws were passed. (hilarious i know).  For example, it was law in upper canada that slavery HAD to be VOLUNTARY and a slave could stop being a slave at any time.  Or it was just outright banned.  So even our 'slavery' was pretty half assed. And of course it was long gone from all british holdings long before we became canada.

Of course - the first nations had a history of slavery in many parts of what is now Canada but that's a different issue.