Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Marocc

Racism in Canada

Recommended Posts

PM Justin Trudeau is back in blackface again....kneel for George Floyd !

 

Quote

Justin Trudeau kneels with protesters during an anti-racism rally in Ottawa - but social media users were quick to remind him of his blackface photos

  • Justin Trudeau took a knee while attending a protest at Parliament Hill in Ottawa
  • The prime minister made a surprise appearance at the rally on Friday afternoon
  • After making the gesture, social media was quick to bring up his use of blackface which emerged in photos last year 
  • During the rally, a heckler was heard shouting 'go home blackface' as he entered
  • Protesters also chanted 'stand up to Trump' after Trudeau's awkward response to the president's tactics  

 

29280798-8393515-image-a-12_159139663089

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8393515/Justin-Trudeau-takes-knee-protest-Twitter-immediately-calls-blackface-photos.html

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

He never misses the opportunity to exploit any or all issues to make it about himself for image shots. Its why I really have no time of day for this photo phony. As much as I do not like Trump I am not sure what is worse, a person rude to everyone equally or a guy who selects his moments to pose. You know with Trump its just spontaneous at the moment. Trudeau its scripted. You keep Trump but you can have this idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He never misses the opportunity to exploit any or all issues to make it about himself for image shots. Its why I really have no time of day for this photo phony. As much as I do not like Trump I am not sure what is worse, a person rude to everyone equally or a guy who selects his moments to pose. You know with Trump its just spontaneous at the moment. Trudeau its scripted. You keep Trump but you can have this idiot.

I would be ok with this posturing if he started each and every topic on the matter with: "First of all, let me start by reminding you that I, your prime minister, appeared in blackface multiple times so I am in no position to moralize.  "

Instead he appears to be whitewashing his blackface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

PM Justin Trudeau is back in blackface again....kneel for George Floyd !

When your name is bush_cheney, two individuals that in my estimation and opinion are responsible for war crimes, I would not talk about Trudeau. Hypocrisy much ?

Edited by Independent1986

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

When your name is bush_cheney, two individuals that in my estimation and opinion are responsible for war crimes, I would not talk about Trudeau. Hypocrisy much ?

 

Still doesn't change Trudeau's self inflicted wounds for blackface.    "Back in Black" is probably Trudeau's favourite AC/DC song.

In 1986, a nuclear power station in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded, but I won't hold that against anybody here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Still doesn't change Trudeau's self inflicted wounds for blackface.    "Back in Black" is probably Trudeau's favourite AC/DC song.

In 1986, a nuclear power station in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded, but I won't hold that against anybody here.

 

Have you ever apologized for invading Canada? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many third world countries it is the major source of revenue that their people living in rich countries send money back home. Even the unemployment-benefit in almost any western country is a huge sum in the third world countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In about two minutes Coleman Hughes calmly, simply, and quickly dismisses the current fad about 'systemic racism'. He points out that the term grew out of "institutional racism' which did exist. But as he said, there is individual racism, and institutional racism, but it's not clear what basis there is for the belief in widespread systemic racism. It's certainly not based on evidence but tends to be based almost entirely on different outcomes for different groups. Yet no one ever suggests systemic racism when 75% of the NBA are blacks. No one screams systemic racism at the higher economic outcomes of Asians. People accept that different groups have different behaviour, culture, etc.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2020 at 5:38 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Still doesn't change Trudeau's self inflicted wounds for blackface.    "Back in Black" is probably Trudeau's favourite AC/DC song.

In 1986, a nuclear power station in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded, but I won't hold that against anybody here.

We can completely ignore the plethora of allegations of sexual assaults by Orange Man.

Edited by New World Disorder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 9:02 AM, Argus said:

I Yet no one ever suggests systemic racism when 75% of the NBA are blacks. No one screams systemic racism at the higher economic outcomes of Asians.

So let us summarize:                                                                                                                          1-because the majority of NBA players are black there is no racism                                        2-because Asians are rich their is no racism                                                                              3-because you found a video of a black man expressing  a subjective opinion that you think you agree with racism does not exist.

You once again HAVE reduced your response to engaging in posing  inferences from subjective perceptions as your "rational" basis to proclaim "systemic racism" does not exist. Been there and done that..and of course your posing as a victim of misrepresentation and deflection through the hurling of personal epithets when challenged for doing this.

I again argue your continuing responses provide an excellent example of extremist ideology that leads to discriminatory belief systems including racism-a process whereby you or others project generalized assumptions as to behaviour on an entire group you  choose to target and then use that set of generalized assumptions to accuse that group of lacking credible or desirable qualities.  At this point I also contend your words are so  blatantly discriminatory you fail to grasp that the tactic of posting the subjective opinion of a black man is an example of tokenism and a transparent one at that in this ltst response targets all Asians and blacks which I argue is a continuation of your respones in regards to the Floyd incident and your earlier comments about Chinese immigrants..

I also argue our attempt to deny "systemic racism" is without any basis other than your subjective ones. I would argue psychology and neurology have now more than proven through objective methodology that discriminatory thinking and thought processes are part of every human's cognitive processing. To make sense of a non stop set of stimuli bombarding our brains at any given moment we label and categorize or label  the incoming information into generalized categories to try organize what would otherwise be chaos and fragmented thought. If our minds did not engage in discriminatory cognitive processes we would suffer very much the phenomena of schizophrenics bombarded with info they can't organize. So all of us unless we have a brain disease or illness preventing the organization of stimuli coming in, engage in apophenia the spontaneous perception of connections and meaningfulness of otherwise unrelated phenomena and also pareidolia where we misperceive stimuli coming in as clear and distinct when they may not be. Its who we are. We humans have brains that have a cognitive processing system subject to misperceptions. Our five senses we heavily rely on  are not necessarily accurate. Hopefully when our minds develop, we learn that the more flexible our categories of generalization and the more exceptions to the generalizations we can perceive, the more developed our thought patterns become and the more creative and positive we become. In addition this enables neurotransmission structures in our brain actually grow thick like branches in a tree. Inversely, those of us who do not develop our minds whether its due to congenital deformity, acquired damage, after-effects of diseases, chemical imbalances, experience underdeveloped neurotransmission development characterized by rigid thinking and inflexible stereotypes and generalizations that dominate what we think we see and understand.

Most of us Argus  realize whenever we label someone with  an "ism" or "ist" if we go too extreme in who and when we use such labels we trivialize and/or render the is of such descriptors as meaningless.

Once again Argus you are challenged to complete your accusations. If blacks are the majority of players in the NBA  how does this meanthere is no "systemic racism"? Explain  how one cancels out the other. Explain how if Asians are rich this means there is no "systemic racism".

Let me conclude Argus  by stating if your claim was "systemic racism" is not exclusive to one  group of people there would be no issue.  So let us also  make no mistake when you respond posing as a misunderstood victim denying what you said ... your denial is  not about being consistent and careful with how we make any claims or accusations of systemic racism its about denying it exists.  Let us also be clear. I made sure I stated systemic racism because your tactic otherwise would be to argue you only meant systemic racism, not racism. No Argue no back door to run from what you said this time. All "systemic" means is as an adjective is, "of, relating to or common to system."  You deny racism exists. You deny the experiences of others because you actually believe you can. The very fact you believe you are entitled to negate the subjective experiences of others means what Argus?

I argue it means your comments have become a racist parody in content, expression and intent.

Please let me add a bit  to your list of generalizations because you only mentioned Asians and blacks and I want to use your reasoning process here we go;

1-Jews are rich so they can't experience systemic discrimination                                            2-Ukrainians and Irish in Canada dominate hockey so they don't experience discrimination                                                                                                                                    3-gays are successful artists, businesspersons, politicians, so they don't experience systemic  discrimination                                                                                                                    4-aboriginals don't experience any systemic discrimination under the "Indian" Act                5-no visible minority  or women experiences systemic discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 8:52 PM, New World Disorder said:

We can completely ignore the plethora of allegations of sexual assaults by Orange Man.

 

Allegations of sexual assault is not the topic...racism is the topic...and your prime minister is the proven and self-admitted blackface leader, not just allegations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Allegations of sexual assault is not the topic...racism is the topic...and your prime minister is the proven and self-admitted blackface leader, not just allegations.

So how is your racist POTUS doing these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, New World Disorder said:

So how is your racist POTUS doing these days?

 

Doing better than your racist PM...still has a UN Security Council seat and doesn't even want it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't want to pay aboriginal's living expenses, and then be insulted for not paying more when the typical aborigional squanders their time and money, while being the ones who abuse and disrespect aboriginals themselves. 

 

otherwise. Canada isn't congested, and we don't breed like swarms, but are financially reasonable.

 

We unionize against employers. Instead of working for cheap for a wage, at the expense of everyone else who would only be able to get a job by competing at the same low salary. 

 

and we lead the world in regulating our industry. having wrote a law in 1990 saying we can no longer dump raw sewage from mills and city sewers in the Great Lakes. 

Edited by Goorbekind
"sssss"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is born a bigot and therein lies the conundrum: like habitual subordination of women, most of it starts at the kitchen table; it's intergenerational which leaves education with the onus to teach against this colossal ignorance.

Share this post


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

No one is born a bigot

Aren't they? How do you define the term? Because it's fairly clear through multiple studies that human beings pretty much prefer to be around people like themselves. This is so across all cultural and national boundaries and is believed to be instinctive, related to a quarter million years of tribalism. That doesn't mean people necessarily dislike those who are part of 'them' instead of 'us' but they have less comfort with them, which can easily lead to dislike in some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 5:12 PM, Argus said:

Aren't they? How do you define the term? Because it's fairly clear through multiple studies that human beings pretty much prefer to be around people like themselves. This is so across all cultural and national boundaries and is believed to be instinctive, related to a quarter million years of tribalism. That doesn't mean people necessarily dislike those who are part of 'them' instead of 'us' but they have less comfort with them, which can easily lead to dislike in some.

However much tribalism is a natural instinct and may have served some useful purpose in the past, its pretty clear its not immutable.  People can work at minimizing or even eliminating this "natural" tendency, making the effort to get to know and understand "the other", to remind themselves that "different" is not "less", "wrong" or "unacceptable in my society". 

Bigots do not do this.  Instead they focus and build on anything that confirms their dislike of those who are different.  They minimize any indication that "the other" might have any redeeming quality.  They set "the other" as a class apart, assuming, and even insisting, that the majority are less honest, trustworthy, intelligent and moral than one's own group.  In the bigot's mind the essential humanity of "the other" is reduced so they may justify their own hatred.

Tribalism might be instinctive, but its a weak instinct and people, as individuals and societies, have overcome that instinct throughout history.  Bigotry is ultimately a choice people and nations make to embrace and build on that tribal instinct, to hate those who are different, to lead bigots towards individual and systemic bias against "the other", individual and legalized violence against them and if left unchecked, to genocide.  

"Instinctive" is not automatically "acceptable", and using that as justification for one's dislike of those who are different is a failed argument.

Share this post


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

However much tribalism is a natural instinct and may have served some useful purpose in the past, its pretty clear its not immutable.  People can work at minimizing or even eliminating this "natural" tendency, making the effort to get to know and understand "the other", to remind themselves that "different" is not "less", "wrong" or "unacceptable in my society". 

Most intelligent people who have an understanding of human psychology understand that in almost all respects we are creatures of our instinct. It's been compared to an elephant being ridden by a monkey - the monkey being our actual intelligence. And often times all the monkey does is rationalize a view which came from our instincts anyway. Unfortunately, the Left finds dealing with science troublesome whenever science disagrees with their views.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Tribalism might be instinctive, but its a weak instinct and people, as individuals and societies, have overcome that instinct throughout history.  Bigotry is ultimately a choice people and nations make to embrace and build on that tribal instinct, to hate those who are different, to lead bigots towards individual and systemic bias against "the other", individual and legalized violence against them and if left unchecked, to genocide. 

And this is something else which some people do, which is to take issue with a minor behavioural trait and blow it up out of all proportion. So someone who has a suspicion of someone 'other' or disapproves of certain elements of that other group's behaviour then leads to GENOCIDE. And of course, you had to use the Left's new favorite word  'hate'. Because the Left has to catastrophize everything, demonize anyone who disagrees, and allows no nuance. Either you're 100% open to all peoples or you 'hate' them.

Tribalism is not a weak instinct, and no society has ever overcome it, else they would not be a society in the first place. How many want to open our borders up and allow anyone who wants to move here come and live here? Most people, other than white liberals, feel a sense of nationalism in their pride of country and its history and traditions. And that adds a sense of meaning, of belonging. That is what binds them together as a people. And no country has ever abandoned its borders nor ever will.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to be extremely wary of accusations of systemic racism when there is absolutely nothing inherently racist in the hiring and employment policies of an organization, which is what Lucki’s point was when she said she struggled with the idea of systemic racism in the RCMP.  The problems are not with the policies and official positions of that organization and the vast majority of organizations and businesses in Canada.  The problem is with individuals who have racist attitudes and biases. When enough of these individuals influence their coworkers, the local culture is poisoned.  However, it isn’t clear that in most cases of police brutality towards racialized individuals that the behaviour/attitudes of the aggressors are found in the aggressors’ coworkers.  Sometimes the coworkers are surprised by the aggressor’s behaviour and are suddenly made to decide in the moment whether to back up their coworker or resist.  The decision isn’t always easy.

Our PM hasn’t helped, undermining the head of the RCMP by claiming there’s systemic racism without reference to investigation or evidence.  His taking a knee is an easy and empty gesture that has zero to do with how someone interacts with minorities on a daily basis.  The gesture has some symbolic value, nothing more.

I have always respected and enjoyed the influences of our big variety of cultures in Canada   Do I have unconscious bias? Perhaps, and I certainly try to be mindful not to be unfair towards people because of race, socioeconomic or other factors, but no one else knows what my biases are either.  I think we should be very wary of any inquisitors who are empowered to determine what is politically correct in our organizations, because we’ve seen the dangers of such purity tests in the Salem witch trials, the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, the Spanish Inquisition, Bolshevism, and Macarthyism.

When there isn’t a clear and simple metric of what is unacceptable that most people would agree makes good sense, we blindly give such deciding authority to someone who may not be as kind, educated, or knowledgeable as many other people, but who has the fervour and cruelty of the angry zealot.  Such tyrants create black lists and happily preside over firings and hangings.  They scream injustice until their own injustice becomes so apparent that the society finally shuts them down in counter-revolution and moves on to, eventually, a reasonableness that allows for free, open debate without fear of reprisal for saying the wrong word or not going far enough in support of the cultural revolution.

We should be wary of the chill created by some of the equity officers who have been given outsized authority.  We should be wary of new forms of pledges such as land acknowledgements and other proclamations that members of organizations have been told to make without discussion or consent.  We should be wary of attempts to override merit and force equality of outcome by taking away people’s jobs or taking people’s property/money and redistributing It in the name of reparations.

If we want true equal opportunity we need to see each other as equals and listen to each other’s opinions, even when we disagree with them, without shouting them down and claiming that they have broken some unwritten code that means that these people are no longer acceptable and should be canceled. Wendy Mesley and Conrad Black are just a couple of the latest targets of the inquisition to be cancelled, but certainly not the last.  I hope for the sake of progress that the zealots leading this charge realize that they are in fact undermining the important cause of police reform and other progressive work.

The attack on education is another problem, as we see the founders of public education, a truly progressive initiative in its time, being slammed as not progressive enough by today’s standards.  Egerton Ryerson in Ontario comes to mind. It seems that today’s youngest students need to learn much more history in order to see beyond their present context.  The distractions of our current media technology seem to have robbed the current younger generations of a sense of a wider perspective beyond the latest memes and Youtuber mashups.

 

 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 10:06 PM, Marocc said:

Maybe, but there's different levels to it. I created an impression with one strong word so I didn't have to describe further.

That would be silly. Most people who dress like it are just trying to look like one. They don't actually want to be one.

Well, yes, I would deem it inappropriate if I had to be a client to someone wearing a skirt that doesn't cover her knees. I'm not referring to someone selling news papers, but to someone working in a bank for example.....

Just curious, do you think this is acceptable 

Freeland sitting.png

Share this post


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

We have to be extremely wary of accusations of systemic racism when there is absolutely nothing inherently racist in the hiring and employment policies of an organization, which is what Lucki’s point was when she said she struggled with the idea of systemic racism in the RCMP.  The problems are not with the policies and official positions of that organization and the vast majority of organizations and businesses in Canada.  The problem is with individuals who have racist attitudes and biases.

My understanding of what "Systemic" racism is supposed to be about is that it is neither "institutional" racism nor "individual" racism, but exists in some other place,  which can't quite be pointed to, but which results in a minority group having a worse  statistical result than they ought to if all things were equal. The problem is it presumes every sub-group has exactly the same culture, values and interests, which is patently untrue.

58 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Our PM hasn’t helped, undermining the head of the RCMP by claiming there’s systemic racism without reference to investigation or evidence.

All media have made that claim. You aren't allowed to deny it. Look at Stockwell Day. He had the nerve to respond, on a political panel show, that he didn't think there was systemic racism in Canada, though of course, there was still individual racism. He's basically been cancelled since then, not allowed back on the show, forced to resign from Telus and from a law firm.

58 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

His taking a knee is an easy and empty gesture that has zero to do with how someone interacts with minorities on a daily basis.  The gesture has some symbolic value, nothing more.

It's basically nothing but a capitulation to the mob. Remember that the taking the knee is supposed to be a sign of the belief that police are racist and disproportionately target people of color, and there's simply no evidence of that. it's a media driven narrative without factual basis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, scribblet said:

Just curious, do you think this is acceptable

No.

Edited by Marocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a column about London England. But it's something you rarely  ever find anyone talking about and that is the fact that racism is not an aspect of whiteness.  But the woke crowd, which includes our major media, like to pretend racism is only an aspect of power. That's bullshit, as any reasonable person knows. Racism exists in all countries and is inherent in all people's. But you never hear about racism in Canada unless it's white racism. It's as if all other races and ethnicities are immune. We all know that's bullshit, too. In fact, given two thirds of our 'visible minorities' are immigrants from countries where extreme racism is the norm, we can pretty much surmise that racism is far more a characteristic of Canada's visible minorities than its whites.

I don’t know for certain if it ever will be thus. But I do know that it was ever so – or at least it has been during my half-century lifespan living in a London full of micro-populations that often tolerate each other at best, and, at worst, engage in actual gang warfare.

I grew up on a council estate in Hackney. We were a Jewish family (yes, a very poor Jewish family – my folks never got the memo), and our estate was mostly white English and Irish, with a mix of many other minority groups. Racism was rife. I was spat at and called a ‘dirty Jew’. My brother got beaten up a few times, and we had to endure swastikas painted on our front door.

What is interesting is that – with the exception of the swastikas – much of the spitting, beating up and vicious name-calling was not from white English people. Some of it was, of course. But, increasingly, it would come from people who could, like me, be categorised as ‘BAME’. (black, asian and minority ethnic is the British version of 'visible minorities')

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/29/the-truth-about-racism-in-london/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2020 at 5:12 PM, Right To Left said:

Historian- Gerald Horne, makes a good case that the primary reason for the 13 colonies' revolt against the British Crown was anger over laws stopping them from expanding their territories into Indian lands on the other side of the Mississippi River,

I think you mean the Appalachian Mountains.

  • Like 1

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...