Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Marocc

Racism in Canada

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yes, I do realize that. The question was in regard to referenced "cultural values" by Argus. The problem you are talking about is due to long-standing poor economic decisions and dependency on foreign investment. We've done well enough screwing our country up all on our own in that regard, no need for immigrant cultural bogey-men there.

and the answer was to your question of anything else needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Read some history, psychology, and anthropology, then you'll have some grounding before getting up on your soapbox and trying to pontificate about human nature. Then you'll understand that capitalism is a perverted economic system that values the worst aspects of human nature....the stuff we have to set aside during times like this as we become 'socialists' on the local level at least, and try to look out for others. That is why, faced with a pandemic, it's the capitalist nations like the US of A, that are going to shit. Because, during a health crisis like this, you need healthcare systems that treat the sick, prevent the spread of dangerous diseases, because it's to everyone's benefit if nobody and no population is carrying a disease and can't be treated or afford to be treated!

That's why the billionaires were the first to flee New York and other business centers as soon as the Covid-19 got out of control in Europe and the US, and started holding their meetings on Zoom. Capitalism means the pandemic gets bigger and takes longer to get under control than it does in more socialistic societies, where the first priority is public health/not the health of banks and major corporations!

And,  there are many of us who are frontline workers in a range of fields, who have no choice other than to work directly with people who may be exposed to this virus, and do what we can to try to protect ourselves, and our families....who we do not want to bring it home to also! 

And on the bottom rungs of the work ladder are people who are doing REAL work...not fiddling on their computers or trying to sell shit online instead of in person.....those who have to work as delivery drivers, grocery stores, food prep, meat processing plants and other industries declared as essential...they have to go out and do it everyday for less money than they should be earning, especially during a time like this! The capitalists who grab the lion's share of the returns do not do real work! And that's why....especially doing a 3 trillion money grab in the US, they're anxious to get the real workers out there again and make the economy run....pandemic or not!

I wrote two sentences there and you're accusing me of pontificating, during this incoherent screed?

Capitalism is where humans contribute based on their own interests and abilities, their risk tolerance and effort level, and are rewarded for their success. Socialism is where humans are rewarded for being born, and where the reward for hard work or success is that you contribute more to society but get basically the same reward as anyone else.

I get that you feel like working in a starter job for Cargill should get you the same income as a person who has invested most of what they have into a business, and put in 70 hrs/week. I get that you feel like the person who owns the company should only make a bit more than the workers. I just disagree. 

Many businesses owners worked during covid just like shelf-stockers at Safeway did. Many of their businesses will close permanently due to covid. Those business owners didn't just lose their jobs, they lost their investments - their 70+ hrs/week just ended up putting them in debt. Their employees can just go and apply for another job without the albatross of debt on their back, they have also EI to help them hold it together. 

You suffer from tunnel vision RtL. You see the world through the eyes of a person who gives the bare minimum through the first 18 yrs of their life and ends up entering the workforce as a bottom-feeder, and continuing to give the minimum. 

Share this post


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

WOW are you ever wrong.

First of all it's the G7, second of all we're 4th out of 7.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

 

Sorry if you missed my implied sarcasm.  It is ridiculous to not include the largest economy in the world (especially since they seem to set all of the rules today - and where "going viral" has taken on a new meaning), thus G8.

I wish I could find the citation but I think it was based on combined public and private debt, not just federal accumulated deficit.

But: thanks for catching it anyway.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Sorry if you missed my implied sarcasm.  It is ridiculous to not include the largest economy in the world (especially since they seem to set all of the rules today - and where "going viral" has taken on a new meaning), thus G8.

I wish I could find the citation but I think it was based on combined public and private debt, not just federal accumulated deficit.

But: thanks for catching it anyway.

No problem.  Italy beat us also.

Share this post


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

Why not? Everyone who immigrates has a reason. I'm sure you know plenty of the possible reasons. I hardly need to enumerate them.

The culture. E.g. alcohol, nudity, sex, manners and dealing with the opposite sex.

Schooling may be okay. Environment is safe, health care works, the basic needs are met.

there's still problems. There are other children who have not been taught to respect their elders, speak politely, dress modestly, to not insult others, to be honest, to be just toward other people, etc.

What are you implying?

I’m directly saying that Canada doesn’t want to bring in people who want to extract benefits without investing in the society here.  It’s not just about business or money either.  Caring about and respecting the people here is essential for social cohesion. If you don’t like many cultural features of the country, it’s important not to come here, as our citizens shouldn’t share their wealth and safety net, paid for by their work, with people who disdain the culture, obviously.

I would also be careful about shaming the way women live here. Women have fought hard for their rights, not just to vote or hold positions of power, but to dress and express themselves how they wish.  They’re not giving that up for you, thankfully.

I also hope that you apply the same standards for modesty and respect to your own gender as women.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cannuck said:

It is not THEIR culture, it is OUR culture that should stand as what dominates in this country. 

That wasn't under discussion.

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

If you come here and don't like it here, for crying out loud, WHY ARE YOU HERE???? 

You don't have to make it sound so personal. Moving from one country to another isn't easy and most people don't do it in the west — or else you'd see a much bigger mass of Americans emigrating.

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

GTF out to where you feel welcome and comfortable, don't expect us

I think that's against what Canada states about itself. Just look at their newest plan for the middle East. It's a big plan if Canada is all about, "Don't expect us to..." :)

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

see what conservative Islam thinks about accommodating OUR culture within theirs

Well, when the Americans went to Iran they weren't appreciated much, as far as I've read.

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

BUT I would NEVER insult my Saudi friends or hosts by even suggesting they should bend to my cultural predilections when I am in their country.

Are you sure that's not because what you have from your culture isn't as good for them as what they have themselves? I'm not saying it isn't, but have you thought of what value your culture would have in their eyes?

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

to be economically productive

That should be the same for everyone. One can't reasonably demand immigrants to be more economically productive than one's own people.

It's also unnecessary to keep shouting about it to every direction — it can amount to abuse. Particularly those who work hard to earn their living might suffer of being constantly harassed by accusations of them "not being economically productive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I also hope that you apply the same standards for modesty and respect to your own gender as women.

I am a woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I am a woman.

If you’re married or in a relationship with a man, I hope he isn’t secretly or openly taking liberties that he wouldn’t accept you taking.  Such double standards treat women like second class citizens.  I wonder if you’ve seen such double standards afoot.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you’re married or in a relationship with a man, I hope he isn’t secretly or openly taking liberties that he wouldn’t accept you taking.  Such double standards treat women like second class citizens.  I wonder if you’ve seen such double standards afoot.  

Muslims don't have 'relationships' outside marriage.

I have been around for a while and know the definition of domestic abuse.

Share this post


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

Muslims don't have 'relationships' outside marriage.

No true Muslims anyway...

Share this post


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

Muslims don't have 'relationships' outside marriage.

I have been around for a while and know the definition of domestic abuse.

So there’s no question of getting to know a potential spouse before a woman is essentially locked into a marriage?

I’m glad you think you know what abuse looks like, but what about equality, not just before the law but in practical everyday relations?

It’s a worry to have such attitudes joining Canada’s social fabric, a step backwards.

Share this post


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

I wrote two sentences there and you're accusing me of pontificating, during this incoherent screed?

I've noticed many of your other posts (and those of likeminded friends and allies here), so I'm responding to a general theme that's very popular today among the capitalist elite: a dismal view of human nature as savage, and only kept from destruction by the fear of retribution and punitive laws. 

Quote

Capitalism is where humans contribute based on their own interests and abilities, their risk tolerance and effort level, and are rewarded for their success. Socialism is where humans are rewarded for being born, and where the reward for hard work or success is that you contribute more to society but get basically the same reward as anyone else.

No, that's how capitalism would work if humans were little automatons that act in predictable ways. Everything would flow according to supply and demand...although you would still have the problem of capital accumulation eventually reaching absurd levels like we have today, even if we didn't have the Wall Street charlatans and billionaire class using bought off politicians to change laws regulating their political and media influence. 

Quote

I get that you feel like working in a starter job for Cargill should get you the same income as a person who has invested most of what they have into a business, and put in 70 hrs/week. I get that you feel like the person who owns the company should only make a bit more than the workers. I just disagree. 

Those workers getting sick working in places like Cargill are a good example of how the profiteers face no criminal charges for putting workers lives in danger, just to keep their costs as low as possible/and profits as high as possible. They will only face very limited class action lawsuits at civil trials....if it ever actually happens. And, they have already calculated in the costs of any legal jeopardy and determined that sickening and killing a certain portion of their employees doesn't justify increasing spacing on line work stations and even providing employees with proper protective equipment....let alone getting danger pay for doing a shit job for low wages that endangers their lives! This is how wildcat strikes started over 100 years ago in the US and Canada, and worth noting also, how so many of the wealthy new capitalist class were sent to the guillotines along with the traditional oppressive classes of monarchy and landed gentry in France back when they had their big revolution a couple of centuries ago! The last ones who thought it could happen were the ones who got their heads chopped off!

Quote

Many businesses owners worked during covid just like shelf-stockers at Safeway did. Many of their businesses will close permanently due to covid. Those business owners didn't just lose their jobs, they lost their investments - their 70+ hrs/week just ended up putting them in debt. Their employees can just go and apply for another job without the albatross of debt on their back, they have also EI to help them hold it together. 

At best, those would be franchise owners, not real owners! They're like middle management in the new franchising system where corporations sell their name/while the local franchise operator has to cover all of the operating costs, while they are obligated to abide by standards set by corporate headquarters regarding how their stores or restaurants are set up, what they sell and how much, what they pay their employees, how they decorate the place, store hours etc.. And like the true capitalist the franchisor can sit back and just let the money roll in from all the franchises they own! 

So, that enterprizing owner you're celebrating is a glorified mid-management hack who's stuck having to cut his staffing to the bone during hard times and get out and do the dangerous and mundane jobs along with his employees.

Quote

You suffer from tunnel vision RtL. You see the world through the eyes of a person who gives the bare minimum through the first 18 yrs of their life and ends up entering the workforce as a bottom-feeder, and continuing to give the minimum. 

I may very well have given the minimum during my life regarding how I earn a living...certainly that could be said from what's been happening in our brave new era of neoliberalism, where education is career-focused and nothing else, and nobody (except for immigrants) goes to a local library and reads about things they find of interest, but aren't going to put any more money on the table for them! 

Perhaps I am lucky (as I've said a few times) that I grew up and came of age in the middle of the baby boom, before NAFTA had outsourced industry, and if you wanted to work with your hands, rather than do business deals, you could still make good money if you found a trade that you liked and worked towards a full apprenticeship. Sadly those days are long gone now, in an era where the only people who are respected are the great swindlers who manage money and create new ways to devour wealth...even destroying the wealth of others in the process....something they call "creative destruction" I'm told. Supposedly this makes a better, brighter world for us all!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's your opinion.

Some people starve in their countries. Part of the blame for that is on you.

Mmm, no, the blame is them. Muslim countries are universally poor and crappy places to live except for a few that have oil. They're that way because of the people who live there and their attitudes, their cultures and their values. What you people don't get is that without freedom, which includes the freedom to dress and act pretty much how you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, you don't get the entrepreneurial mindset that makes economies grow and flourish. Lebanese Christians have done very well in Canada. Lebanese Muslims, not so much.

The defeatist mindset of thinking everything is Allah's will tends to make too many Muslims simply accept their lot in life, to accept their misery, to accept their oppression - and all Muslim states are oppressive. You want to bring that mindset here and think it's going to result in anything different? It won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Marocc said:

Islam is not something that started from the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). Isa [Jesus] (alaihi salam) was Muslim, Musa (alaihi salam) was Muslim and Abraham (alaihi salam) was Muslim. The Old Testament today commands women to either cover their head or shave their hair. The New Testament prescribes covering the head to church at least.

Oh yes, we still had those customs also. I recall when I was young, and even though my parents rarely went to church, most of the older women of my mother's age always had these hats they were expected to wear in church. And my mother said that it was considered a major scandal in the early 60's when JFK's First Lady - Jackie started attending church without any hat or head-covering. That was deemed highly disrespectful by the older generation at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Marocc said:

You mean you don't find them staring and leering?

Not enough sexual assaults yet? Not enough involuntary pornograpic pictures?

No they were not staring or leering, it was outsiders doing all of that ,what has happened in a lot of Europe is they are flooded with people from the Muslim side of the world where the culture is much different... , which is where the problem is, public nudity is not part of their culture with most finding it offensive, and they forget they are not in their countries, that they are not submerged in their own culture, but someone elses...

Your not going to totally stop sexual assault in any country be it Christian or Muslim , part of immigrating to another country or visiting another country is you have to adapt to their customs and culture. the Host country is not looking for your approval, nor are they interested in your opinion....if you don't like it leave it really is that simple, . I have stayed in lots of Muslim countries and have always respected their culture even when I did not agree or understand it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

What if they come here with the same cultural values- to live in peace and harmony with your neighbours, and abide by the law. Is there anything else needed?

Your question is too broad. My Muslim neighbour lives in peace and harmony with everyone. But he's made it clear that if there were enough Muslims they would demand laws be changed to suit their Muslim values. And given Muslim numbers in Canada have been doubling roughly every 7-10 years I really don't like the idea of continuing to import more every year.

More to the point the Liberals are now importing more than 1% of the population every year. In 20 years foreign-born people are likely to be a majority of the population. At that point, since most come from corrupt, severe, and undemocratic states, their wishes will determine what laws and what kind of society we have here. If they don't integrate than we have no certainty that current democratic traditions and values will be respected.

 

Share this post


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

Mmm, no, the blame is them. Muslim countries are universally poor and crappy places to live except for a few that have oil. They're that way because of the people who live there and their attitudes, their cultures and their values.

NOOO, and history again; it was the US and the British Empire slightly before them, who deliberately shortcircuited the reform and democracy movements that were developing in Arab nations during the 19th century, because...as always, empires find compliant local dictators are more suitable for their objectives than democratic regimes that can be unruly and uncooperative for foreign opportunists! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No true Muslims anyway...

And among the other things 'true muslims' believe in are a hideous array of medieval social views with violent punishments towards those who transgress them.

Share this post


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

And among the other things 'true muslims' believe in are a hideous array of medieval social views with violent punishments towards those who transgress them.

Quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Right To Left said:

NOOO, and history again; it was the US and the British Empire slightly before them, who deliberately shortcircuited the reform and democracy movements that were developing in Arab nations during the 19th century, because...as always, empires find compliant local dictators are more suitable for their objectives than democratic regimes that can be unruly and uncooperative for foreign opportunists! 

NOOO, sorry but that's simply not true. Just to begin with the Ottoman Empire was in full control of most of the Arab world right through the end of WW1. To gain the aid of various Arab leaders in revolting against the Ottomans during that war those leaders were promised land and control afterward. This is what led, regrettably, to the creation of Saudi Arabia, among other states. There are only a couple of instances where western powers intervened against local democratically elected leaders - in part because democratically elected leaders were a rarity. One was in Iran, though that leader had a distinctly socialist mindset, and might well have been overthrown anyway, eventually, or simply installed an autocratic government himself. The Shah of Iran, remember, was not overthrown because he was a cruel tyrant but because he was considered too liberal and was not strictly enforcing Islamic values. Much like Marocc, the sight of women in short skirts infuriated the mullahs.

Most of the third world countries (former colonies) given their independence after the war and in the 1950s quickly succumbed to rule by strongmen because there was no tradition of democracy or compromise in those lands, and so whoever could gain the upper hand and take control did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

NOOO, and history again; it was the US and the British Empire slightly before them, who deliberately shortcircuited the reform and democracy movements that were developing in Arab nations during the 19th century, because...as always, empires find compliant local dictators are more suitable for their objectives than democratic regimes that can be unruly and uncooperative for foreign opportunists! 

Tell that to the residents of south Syria who fell under the control of Islamic State.  I also seem to remember a German Treaty of Friendship with Turks during WW2.  I wonder if southern Spain felt colonized by the Moors.  What about the invasion of Constantinople?  How about the treatment of Yemen and the violence between Islamic sects in Iraq?  What about treatment of Christians in Egypt and Pakistan?  How far back do you want to go?  Are people at all accountable for their behaviour today?

Share this post


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

Muslims don't have 'relationships' outside marriage.

 

This is not true, at all, here in the USA when it concerns negros (for example) in the Nation Of Islam.

In places like Harlem NYC or Chicago or Detroit or Houston or Compton CA you can always see groups of young people socializing during events, mixed gender, and that's likely because getting acquainted with a potential mate has to start somewhere long before marriage.

Edited by Tdot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Read some history, psychology, and anthropology, then you'll have some grounding before getting up on your soapbox and trying to pontificate about human nature. Then you'll understand that capitalism is a perverted economic system that values the worst aspects of human nature....the stuff we have to set aside during times like this as we become 'socialists' on the local level at least, and try to look out for others. That is why, faced with a pandemic, it's the capitalist nations like the US of A.

Well some of us have real life experience. Like I could tell you stories about the Eastern European bloc how my grandma used to get up in the morning and wait 2 hours in line to get 1 egg. Milk was gourmet food. All because we have to show those capitalistic countries that we have no debt! Oh sure, that is just a dictatorship you will say, but if you read some history and have the ability to do critical thinking you will realize it all starts with the same garbage: "equality, everyone together to sing kumbaya". And regarding the healthcare my grandma put it well: "Healthcare was free then, yes, but when your number 1 concern was to not starve do you think I had time to get sick" ?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, who would not want in theory for everyone to be equal, but in a practical term humans beings are unique, different, some are lazy some are hard workers, some have ideas that provide the work. Sure there are problems in capitalism, companies are becoming more monopolistic but please stop with the workers of the world unite. The definition of insanity is to try the same thing all over again and to expect different results. I am sure you will do it differently this time and you will show those capitalistic pigs how is done. Not sure which system created more victims: communism or fanatical religion, both examples of systems in which people lose their rational thinking.

Edited by Independent1986
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

NOOO, sorry but that's simply not true. Just to begin with the Ottoman Empire was in full control of most of the Arab world right through the end of WW1. To gain the aid of various Arab leaders in revolting against the Ottomans during that war those leaders were promised land and control afterward. This is what led, regrettably, to the creation of Saudi Arabia, among other states. There are only a couple of instances where western powers intervened against local democratically elected leaders - in part because democratically elected leaders were a rarity. One was in Iran, though that leader had a distinctly socialist mindset, and might well have been overthrown anyway, eventually, or simply installed an autocratic government himself. The Shah of Iran, remember, was not overthrown because he was a cruel tyrant but because he was considered too liberal and was not strictly enforcing Islamic values. Much like Marocc, the sight of women in short skirts infuriated the mullahs.

Most of the third world countries (former colonies) given their independence after the war and in the 1950s quickly succumbed to rule by strongmen because there was no tradition of democracy or compromise in those lands, and so whoever could gain the upper hand and take control did so.

Yes, but the Ottoman Empire was in decline, long before they decided to get involved in a European war and fracture into a million pieces. Maybe because they were struggling to maintain their empire, the Turks allowed a lot more leeway than the French and British colonists who came later, and told them how they were going to develop their economies. The British and French had more to do with spawning the Islamic reactionary movements than any mullah or ayatollah trying to gather a crowd. 

And speaking of lack of awareness of history, didn't you even know that a democratic government - Mossadegh was overthrown, with the Shah imposed by the US as a favour to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company(later BP) and the Brits, to ease the transition from England to the USA as pre-eminent world power. The Iranians suffered under a brutal dictatorship for decades, and while communists and other movements were murdered and suppressed, the Shah's government and secret service (SAVAK) could only go so far when it came to opposition from the Ayatollah.

So, "succumbing to a strongman" is not from inborn weakness by the locals in any of the colonies that have become US commercial colonies since WWII, but because the forces of imperial capitalism unleash the CIA, who seek out locals who can serve their purposes, and if an obstinate government is more difficult to overthrow, the US Gov. has not been averse to outright invasion and removal. They would prefer otherwise because of the costs. But the goal is to keep everyone under the boot of US and international institutions that maintain neoliberal capitalism around the world.

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...