Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

"The Problem Of Blackness"

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

It's all about whether Caucasians want to call and have a country of their own where they are the majority or just not worry about it anymore, and become a minority in their homelands. I am pretty sure that Africans, Asians or Arabs would not allow their countries to be taken over  by another race of people.

Well, nobody wants to.  Everyone wants to move in the direction of milk and honey, and that's never going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That is about the whitest statement I have read in awhile.  Privilege seems to have some clear traits, and giving an inch isn't one of them.

So you think that it doesn't really matter if someone calls for genocide against Whites because it's not like anyone will be influenced and try to kill white people?

Seriously? You know how many lunatics are out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

So you think that it doesn't really matter if someone calls for genocide against Whites because it's not like anyone will be influenced and try to kill white people?

Seriously? You know how many lunatics are out there?

This is an argument that people often use in regards to mass media.  That is, there are so many nuts out there that you should watch what you say.  I have two thoughts: it's difficult to provide a principle to follow with regards to these types of communications, because it depends so much on the qualities of the message, the audience and so on and people do have the right to express themselves even with extreme speech, to a point; secondly, whatever rule someone uses to parse out problematic speech in this regard, it shouldn't depend on whether the speaker agrees with you on other points.

To be honest, I don't agree with what the professor said but I'm interested in hearing others' ideas on how to parse such communication.  Most seem to start with evaluating the politics of the speaker, then work backwards to rationalize based on whether they're on the same page politically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is an argument that people often use in regards to mass media.  That is, there are so many nuts out there that you should watch what you say.  I have two thoughts: it's difficult to provide a principle to follow with regards to these types of communications, because it depends so much on the qualities of the message, the audience and so on and people do have the right to express themselves even with extreme speech, to a point; secondly, whatever rule someone uses to parse out problematic speech in this regard, it shouldn't depend on whether the speaker agrees with you on other points.

To be honest, I don't agree with what the professor said but I'm interested in hearing others' ideas on how to parse such communication.  Most seem to start with evaluating the politics of the speaker, then work backwards to rationalize based on whether they're on the same page politically.

Hate speech is well-defined. Why don't we start with that. Seems to me this guy could be charged under our hate speech laws. He might get off under S319 but it's iffy. Not a clear cut case. He could get off on 'hate propaganda' but could be convicted under 319 if the judge decides he was inciting hatred against White people.

"Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, taxme said:

O please. To say such a thing is deplorable. Why would anyone want to even suggest that all white people should be eliminated?

If I said that a certain race should be illuminated you would be the first one here to call me a white supremist racist. Sure we are the numbers right now but that will be changing in the future as all Caucasian countries continue to flood their countries with non-whites. Any white person who can't figure that one out well we might as well sign our own death warrant and get it over with now.

 

Whites can insult each other, but it is a joke or the professor is trolling overly pc people like you to show your hypocrisy.  Coming from a russian experience, caucasians are called blacked, so I am confused by your comment.  However, white nations will stay majority white because non-whites will return back home once the standard of living in their nation rises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Argus said:

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

I think that the 'hate speech' thing is a different discussion.  We could discuss whether his statement comes under hate speech, or whether it would be prosecuted under hate speech.  Those are two different things, also separate from the question of how to evaluate incendiary speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that the 'hate speech' thing is a different discussion.  We could discuss whether his statement comes under hate speech, or whether it would be prosecuted under hate speech.  Those are two different things, also separate from the question of how to evaluate incendiary speech.

How is a different discussion? You questioned how we would define what sort of hateful speech should be banned, and I merely pointed out we have already done so. This blackness thing looks very much to me like a course which would meet the supreme court's altered definition (from the cite above)

In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group".

This course certainly appears likely to "circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity" towards whites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Argus said:

How is a different discussion? You questioned how we would define what sort of hateful speech should be banned, and I merely pointed out we have already done so. This blackness thing looks very much to me like a course which would meet the supreme court's altered definition (from the cite above)

In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group".

This course certainly appears likely to "circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity" towards whites.

This course is completely voluntary and is taught at a university where the majority are white students not black. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Argus said:

How is a different discussion? 

The question I was responding to is this:

 

Quote

it's not like anyone will be influenced and try to kill white people?

Seriously? You know how many lunatics are out there?

 

...I am not interested in talking about what the legal definition of hate speech is, or whether/how the government would prosecute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

This course is completely voluntary and is taught at a university where the majority are white students not black. 

And does that mean the majority of those taking the course are white? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The question I was responding to is this:

 

...I am not interested in talking about what the legal definition of hate speech is, or whether/how the government would prosecute it.

You complained that evaluating such speach could be affected by the political views of those who evaluate it. I responded with the law which takes no notice of ideological or political views.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

And does that mean the majority of those taking the course are white? Nope.

How do you know?  It hasn't started yet.  Do you have the demographics of the students enrolled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Argus said:

And does that mean the majority of those taking the course are white? Nope.

A similar course was offered at an Arizona University in 2015.  

Quote

Bebout said the demographic makeup of his 18-person class last year was diverse, including several mixed-race students. Next year, the course will be expanded to accommodate 38. He said the angry responses stem from a misunderstanding of what it means to study the “problem of whiteness.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Argus said:

You complained that evaluating such space could be affected by the political views of those who evaluate it. I responded with the law which takes no notice of ideological or political views.

Ok, so how do you apply the law - which tests hate speech - to the question of whether any particular example free speech can cause harm or not.

How do I test whether I should tweet that a political figure should be killed, whether somebody with more twitter followers should, whether Charlie Sheen should etc. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

How do you know?  It hasn't started yet.  Do you have the demographics of the students enrolled?

It is being put on by the African studies department. The majority of those who take courses in African studies are Black, just like the majority who take womens studies courses are women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so how do you apply the law - which tests hate speech - to the question of whether any particular example free speech can cause harm or not.

Do you find that illogical?

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How do I test whether I should tweet that a political figure should be killed, whether somebody with more twitter followers should, whether Charlie Sheen should etc. ?

Charlie Sheen didn't say that Trump should be killed. He tweeted that he hoped he was the next celebrity to die. Different things entirely. His actual tweet was "Dear God. Trump next please!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is being put on by the African studies department. The majority of those who take courses in African studies are Black, just like the majority who take womens studies courses are women.

2% of the student population is black.  Here is a description of the course, doesn't sound too scary to me:

 

Quote

Students will write two papers in the course. The first will be a reflection of themselves and their racial identities and how that plays into their roles in modern society. The second will be a critical engagement with the required readings.

According to the online class description, readings will include:

W.E.B. Du Bois, 1920. “The Souls of White Folks” in Dark Water
George Yancy, 2010. Look, a White!
Ta-Nehisi Coates, 2015. Between the World and Me
Damon Sajnani, 2015. “Rachel/Racial Theory: Reverse Passing in the Curious Case of Rachel Dolezal”
Tim Wise, 2016. White Lies Matter: Race, Crime, and the Politics of Fear in America

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 50 universities offering degrees in African-American studies programs, at least 14 of which are at the PhD level. Courses like this are nothing new, check out Northwestern that offers an "Unsettling Whiteness" course. Yes, a lot of these programs are about culture, literature, dance, etc. But race relations and racism also play a role in most of the programs as well. How about you go to Bates college and study Cannibalism as an Eating Disorder in the Conquest of America, or Screening Blackness at Cornell (screening as in film, but we know nobody actually reads course descriptions). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎31 at 7:14 AM, hernanday said:

Whites can insult each other, but it is a joke or the professor is trolling overly pc people like you to show your hypocrisy.  Coming from a russian experience, caucasians are called blacked, so I am confused by your comment.  However, white nations will stay majority white because non-whites will return back home once the standard of living in their nation rises.

Your last statement is completely false. The vast majority of immigrants never return home  and their countries never increase in standard of living. In fact its called the brain tdrain. We suck out the educated class from third world nations condemning them to continued impoverishment, Their educated classes become our taxi drivers. The educated class does not want to return. Many of them won't return as their education makes them dangerous and potential opponents to the ruling regimes of their former countries. I am not sure what planet you lie on but the standard of living in African countries has not changed, its gotten worse in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The shift of population today shows this. Its not just global warming causing flooding and storms, its also desertification in third and fourth world countries caused by human practices.  Most conflict zones have water and food shortages related to human created issues.

The problem is not skin colour, its lack of democratic traditions and institutions and an educated class that can read and write, teach others to read and write. 85% of the Muslim world is still illiterate. The majority of Africa and Asia is still illiterate. Its about teaching sustainable life skills.

The concept of skin colour is stupid and archaic. Biology has shown it was a social construct created by people who think secondary genetic traits like hair texture or skin pigment define race.  They do not and never have. A coal black person and a milk white person could have more in common genetically than two white people or two black people.

The size of your lips, your skin colour, your hair texture are immaterial to the genetic composition and dna in your body that determines true genetic identity. People by nature are pack animals so they create packs of fellow apes  with the same physical characteristics. If pack behaviour does not inter mix with other packs, it would die out from g enetic illnesses brought on my inbreeding.

People who  find people who do not look like them  anxiety provoking are acting out  a primal  incest drive they have not learned to repress.

Show me someone who worships same physical characteristics and I will show you someone who has incest and inbreeding on their mind.

Some of the neo Nazis I have met for sure have pin heads from inbreeding. Its a tell tale shape.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 4:14 AM, hernanday said:

Whites can insult each other, but it is a joke or the professor is trolling overly pc people like you to show your hypocrisy.  Coming from a russian experience, caucasians are called blacked, so I am confused by your comment.  However, white nations will stay majority white because non-whites will return back home once the standard of living in their nation rises.

Nah, ain't going to happen. A small minority maybe, but not the majority will go back home even if the standard of living does rise in their countries of origin. And why would they when they can get pretty much free room and board from the Canadian taxpayer's. They can have all the children they want, and get the taxpayer's to help take care of them. Why go back to a country that does not offer all the goodies that Canada has to offer and given to the new third world immigrants and refugees. It would work for me if they all went back to their home lands but being a realist I cannot see that ever happening. Sad to say but it will only get bigger, and the liberals have proven and shown us already that they are prepared to flood Canada with the rest of the world. Now get back to work and pay your taxes so you can feel good about helping to save the rest of the world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taxme said:

Nah, ain't going to happen. A small minority maybe, but not the majority will go back home even if the standard of living does rise in their countries of origin. And why would they when they can get pretty much free room and board from the Canadian taxpayer's. They can have all the children they want, and get the taxpayer's to help take care of them. Why go back to a country that does not offer all the goodies that Canada has to offer and given to the new third world immigrants and refugees. It would work for me if they all went back to their home lands but being a realist I cannot see that ever happening. Sad to say but it will only get bigger, and the liberals have proven and shown us already that they are prepared to flood Canada with the rest of the world. Now get back to work and pay your taxes so you can feel good about helping to save the rest of the world.  

Spare me.  People h ave come to this country pale as can be looking for the exact same things people with brown skin have. Both have had children in this country. The children of both born here are equally as Canadian. Deal with reality. Deal with the reality your ancestors came here no different than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, taxme said:

Nah, ain't going to happen. A small minority maybe, but not the majority will go back home even if the standard of living does rise in their countries of origin. And why would they when they can get pretty much free room and board from the Canadian taxpayer's. They can have all the children they want, and get the taxpayer's to help take care of them. Why go back to a country that does not offer all the goodies that Canada has to offer and given to the new third world immigrants and refugees. It would work for me if they all went back to their home lands but being a realist I cannot see that ever happening. Sad to say but it will only get bigger, and the liberals have proven and shown us already that they are prepared to flood Canada with the rest of the world. Now get back to work and pay your taxes so you can feel good about helping to save the rest of the world.  

Nope, majority will return if the standard of living is high enough, they only came here because their countries were screwed up in some way and Canada was less screwed, once the tables reverse, they are going right back, that is why they never give up their 2nd citizenship.

These people don't really want to live in a country with a white majority, huge amounts of racism, treated as a 2nd class citizen and constant job discrimination, where in their own countries they are given more opportunities.  They will continue to take advantage of Canada, so long as it is advantageous, but return once things turn around.  You cannot honestly think that if the GDP per capita in the filipines was $100,000 and they had more social services and health and education people would be coming here.  that is why there are very few Japanese immigrants to Canada in the last few decades compared to china, korea, taiwan, etc.

There is a reason we have lots of Indian and Pakistani immigrants but almost none from Brunei, singapore, Dubai or Saudi.  We have much more immigrants from poor middle eastern nations than rich ones like qatar or even jordan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rue said:

Your last statement is completely false. The vast majority of immigrants never return home  and their countries never increase in standard of living. In fact its called the brain tdrain. We suck out the educated class from third world nations condemning them to continued impoverishment, Their educated classes become our taxi drivers. The educated class does not want to return. Many of them won't return as their education makes them dangerous and potential opponents to the ruling regimes of their former countries. I am not sure what planet you lie on but the standard of living in African countries has not changed, its gotten worse in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The shift of population today shows this. Its not just global warming causing flooding and storms, its also desertification in third and fourth world countries caused by human practices.  Most conflict zones have water and food shortages related to human created issues.

 

Yes but that is temporary, most of the people have the idea of I'll move to Canada, work for 10-20 years, and go home and retire early and raise my family in the homeland. They end up getting stuck in Canada with mortgages, work, etc.  But its not the intent.  Also historically, most of the immigrants were coming from white  majority countries, so they had no real reason to go back.  We did not "suck out" the educated class, they left due to lack of opporunity, once that opportunity returns, they return. Africa is the fastest growing continent, it has high growth rates, and Nigeria is a trillion dollar economy.  The standard of living just in the last 10 years has risen substantially in many of these countries, and its not just Africa, Asia, the carribean etc. 30-40 years ago there were no Dubai type countries in Asia.  Your comment seems aimed heavily at very poor refuges who form a small minority of the total immigrant groups.  Maybe the people coming from North Korea or Somalia or Afghanistan and Russia that might apply, but for most it doesn't.

 

9 hours ago, Rue said:

The problem is not skin colour, its lack of democratic traditions and institutions and an educated class that can read and write, teach others to read and write. 85% of the Muslim world is still illiterate. The majority of Africa and Asia is still illiterate. Its about teaching sustainable life skills.

You have a lack of understanding of the world you are talking about, most of Africa and Asia is literate, and many of these regions like Kenya's silicon savanna or Asia's high tech sector are rapidly developing.  There are probably more opportunities for business there than here for someone with $100k in the bank.

 

9 hours ago, Rue said:

The concept of skin colour is stupid and archaic. Biology has shown it was a social construct created by people who think secondary genetic traits like hair texture or skin pigment define race.  They do not and never have. A coal black person and a milk white person could have more in common genetically than two white people or two black people.

The size of your lips, your skin colour, your hair texture are immaterial to the genetic composition and dna in your body that determines true genetic identity. People by nature are pack animals so they create packs of fellow apes  with the same physical characteristics. If pack behaviour does not inter mix with other packs, it would die out from g enetic illnesses brought on my inbreeding.

People who  find people who do not look like them  anxiety provoking are acting out  a primal  incest drive they have not learned to repress.

Show me someone who worships same physical characteristics and I will show you someone who has incest and inbreeding on their mind.

Some of the neo Nazis I have met for sure have pin heads from inbreeding. Its a tell tale shape.

Lol, I think white majority nations will stay white majority.  Most non-whites have had it up to here with racism, they just want their countries to become stable, even if they don't develop so they can return.  It is why even people with refugee status go back to their homeland.  No one wants to stay in canada who is not white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2017 at 4:43 PM, Rue said:

Spare me.  People h ave come to this country pale as can be looking for the exact same things people with brown skin have. Both have had children in this country. The children of both born here are equally as Canadian. Deal with reality. Deal with the reality your ancestors came here no different than anyone else.

Have you watched any of the citizenship ceremonies lately? You are lucky if one gets to see a pale face in there somewhere. The majority seem to always look very non pale face. What I am dealing with is the fact that my European ancestors are now being replaced by non European people. It has nothing to do with European births but more to do with trying to change the makeup of this country, and all being done as part of a conspiracy. Believe it or not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...