101 replies to this topic

[bush_cheney2004]

... In fact, the idea that the black body was naturally accustomed to the climate was used to justify slavery. 'Geographically' it's further north, but environmentally and ecologically it's not that silly.

The "black body"? They tried "natives" first but that didn't work out, even though they had lived in the South for thousands of years. It is very silly...my slave ancestors did not bring overcoats to Virginia.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I think I read that the African slaves learned to communicate with their masters in English and that is how they bent the words and introduced some of the unique expressions. This was then picked up by the children of the slave owners.

US Southern dialects are far more complicated and varied than that. Slower speech patterns in parts of Canada cannot be attributed to children of slave owners.

[cybercoma]

The "black body"? They tried "natives" first but that didn't work out, even though they had lived in the South for thousands of years. It is very silly...my slave ancestors did not bring overcoats to Virginia.

They tried indentured labour from England first, actually. When people decided they would rather starve to death in Jolly Ol' England, than risk being sent to their death in the Chesapeake, the settlers there tried using Natives. However, this didn't stop them from turning to the Caribbean and begging Britain to allow them to transfer slaves up from the colonies. The vast majority of slaves to the United States were brought in this way, rather than directly from Africa, contrary to popular belief. Britain initially resisted because they believed that the Chesapeake was even much too far north for blacks to survive. They believed that their bodies were not accustomed to that environment, but the American colonists insisted otherwise.

[bush_cheney2004]

They tried indentured labour from England first,

Indentured labour was different than slavery....no going back to jolly old England.

Britain initially resisted because they believed that the Chesapeake was even much too far north for blacks to survive. They believed that their bodies were not accustomed to that environment, but the American colonists insisted otherwise.

"Blacks" were part of the earliest contingent at Jamestown (about 1620). The slave trade would evolve from the economics of colonial ag products to England, finished goods to Africa, and blacks to the Americas.

[bleeding heart]

US Southern dialects are far more complicated and varied than that. Slower speech patterns in parts of Canada cannot be attributed to children of slave owners.

No. It's here most often tied to Conservative voters, though whether cause or effect is unclear.

[Manny]

No. It's here most often tied to Conservative voters, though whether cause or effect is unclear.

Speaking slowly and carefully is something you acquire as you grow older and more wise. As is the embrace of conservatism in general. Yes, I was a liberal once. Then I really thought it over...

[-TSS-]

The main-gripe about immigration is the perceived unwillingness of the incomers to adapt to the laws and customs of the land they have moved into. Nothing really to do with race or religion even though members of a certain religion show special stubbornness in this context.

[bleeding heart]

Speaking slowly and carefully is something you acquire as you grow older and more wise.

Well, of course I was joking, and not even the worst partisan could suspect otherwise.

As is the embrace of conservatism in general. Yes, I was a liberal once. Then I really thought it over...

The same sort of thing happened to me, though the other way round. The older and wiser I've gotten, the more lefty I've become.

[Manny]

Well, of course I was joking, and not even the worst partisan could suspect otherwise.

I know.

[cybercoma]

The main-gripe about immigration is the perceived unwillingness of the incomers to adapt to the laws and customs of the land they have moved into. Nothing really to do with race or religion even though members of a certain religion show special stubbornness in this context.

They don't have to adapt to the laws of the land. They can go to prison like everyone else that breaks them.

[Bonam]

They don't have to adapt to the laws of the land. They can go to prison like everyone else that breaks them.

But if too high a percent of them break them and go to prison, then that casts doubt on the worthwhileness of them immigrating here in the first place. Immigration can and should be evaluated purely on the basis of its benefit to Canada. If, because of average crime rates or average unemployment rates among a certain group, the immigration of that group is a net drain to Canada, then there is nothing wrong with placing limits on the immigration of said group.

Ideally, each individual applicant for immigration would be thoroughly evaluated and an individual judgement can be rendered as to whether to take him/her or not. But if we are to be too cheap and lazy to do so, judging people by the "risk demographic" they belong to, just like insurance companies do, is also something that can be done without it being racist or discriminatory.

[Michael Hardner]

But if we are to be too cheap and lazy to do so, judging people by the "risk demographic" they belong to, just like insurance companies do, is also something that can be done without it being racist or discriminatory.

Insurance companies use education, past claims, age and similar qualities to provide a risk assessment. They do not use race, religion or nationality.