Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Because white people are still in the majority. The government do things to address social issues by, education as well as law enforcement. The Paris Hilton phenomenon has also been addressed in editorials and such. What are you suggesting we do?: Exile her.
The reason why it is right and proper to call out the Native communities in this situation is because they already demand separation from the larger group, self governance, and special status. They would have apologies and compensation from the larger group(Non-Native Canadians). They would also like a say in decisions such as environmental issues and industry development that go beyond that of people not of their ancestry. It is not racist to say they need some accountability for the actions of their own people.
|
I was being facetious about the Paris Hilton thing. And I think you kind of proved my point, picked up by IFF, in your comment about 'social programs'.
Still, realizing full well we will never agree, let me see if I understand you:
On the one hand, you're arguing that because white people are the norm, other races are inherently marked as different. Thus, to some extent, white problems and issues are just general or universal cultural problems and issues. They are the majority after all.
On the other hand, your problem, as I understand it, is when those other races/groups demand substantive political recognition along the terms/identifiers of that difference. Your reasoning is that in asking/needing assistance based on terms by which the majority identifies them, those minority groups actively set them apart from the general culture and take advantage of the majority.
Is that right? And which came first? The demarcation of difference from the norm/majority or the claim to specific rights that accrue to those markers of difference?