My dad was assaulted

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is up to me to decide. It is my vocabulary. There is still free speech(limited) in this country. Consideration of others is a factor but, there are other considerations as well: Is the person being unreasonably sensitive? Is the person making the request to change the subject? Is the word truly offensive? Do I want to offend them? Ect.

Personally I think the motivation for changing the word is political. The leadership wants the title "First Nation" because that is the basis of their legal arguments. That is why the average Indian you run into has no problem with the title and will use it themselves.

I don't think Jiri was saying you don't have "the right" to use whatever word you want. You also have the right to call people by whatever epithet you choose, no matter how much it may offend them.

It's just that continuing to use a term when someone has asked you to call them something else just isn't nice--or respectful. You have every right to be mean and disrespectful, if that's the path you choose. But you don't get to decide if the term is offensive to somebody else. If you choose to continue using it after that someone has asked you to use another--then I guess you've made your decision about where you fall on the "nice" and "respectful" continuum.

[JiriHrdina]

^Thanks....that's exactly what I was trying to say, and failing at.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Was intending to stay out of this one, but this is a valid question. I thought it was an odd statement also.

I just want to say that it's kinda funny GreenTeaFrappe would be the one to bring up a question about green foam.

Great last post Fotze, completely agree.

I too am confused about the correct term to describe First Nations/Natives/Indians/Indigenous Peoples is. I used to to think "Indian" was offensive (not to mention incorrect) until I heard it used so much during the federal apology. Are there not similar issues when trying to find an acceptable term to describe a Black/Colored/African American/Person of Color? In fact, is it even acceptable to describe a person by race in daily conversation anymore? I know I will try to find any other way to describe somebody in a conversation than, "you know, the black guy?", even though where I live, that would narrow the field a lot, and probably instantly jog the persons memory.

My father in law has the annoying tendency to categorize everyone into ethnicity, and it drives my up the wall. He is French Canadian, and I am pretty sure he learned his English on the rigs in the 50's and 60's, so he brings out some whoppers: Chinaman, Paki, Polak, Wop, Squa... the list is endless, and I cringe everytime. Sometimes he will hear a last name, and ponder out loud "what he is", and I snap at him, "pretty sure he's Canadian!". The thing is, I know he does have a heart of gold, and probably doesn't realize he is being insulting, but the day my kids think it's ok to use that language it is not going to be pretty.

[Azure]

I think we should call them all 'person of color' and be done with it.

[fatso]

The good: Some positive things I took thus far from this thread:

1. No one actually called anyone racist. There is a massive difference between pointing the way someone thinks about or discusses something is 'racist' and calling that someone a 'racist'. The former is civil and responsible imo, though the latter does have it's place. As far as I can tell it was only the former that happened here, but for some reason you can't do that without people screaming they're not a 'racist'... which brings me to my second point.

2. There's a kind of 'reverse race card' pulled through 'the p.c. card'. I have yet to see someone explain what 'truth' the politically correct conspiracy is concealing... what agenda the p.c. movement is trying to advance.... what inescapable, unalterable reality the politically correct knights templar are keeping hidden?

From what I can see in this thread, people pull the p.c. card as a rhetorical move: saying that they're unjustly oppressed and can't really speak the truth because the P.C.ers won't have it, automatically situates their point as beyond scrutiny... and those who would scrutinize it are beholden to some bleeding heart myth, and obviously misguided.

I've thought this for a long time, but wasn't sure how to phrase it... this thread is helping me see that, so that's been good.

The bad: A couple things I should let go but can't...

1. West Karma, though I genuinely feel bad about the situation, should really just stop posting. W K stopped making sense a couple pages back when he accused others of pulling the race card.

2. Calgaryborn, your right to call people what you want of course exists. I think, though, when we're thinking and talking about political identities, the individual/ group right to self-definition should trump others' rights to label those individuals and group. I think that's a big reason why there's such things as... you know... historical progress.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Good post, fatso. Your assessment of the "p.c. card" is especially apt, and I couldn't have put it better.

(I have to say though that it feels a little weird when one of the advocates for not calling people names goes by the handle "fatso"... Just because it puts me in the position of saying things like
"You're right fatso. We shouldn't call people names that might offend them. Good point, fatso.")

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fatso

1. West Karma, though I genuinely feel bad about the situation, should really just stop posting.

You're kidding, right?

People can post whatever they want, whenever they want. Who are you to tell them to stop posting just because YOU don't think he makes sense?

Plus, like fotze said, if a family member is brutally attacked by Natives, or any other 'group'....it will most likely tend to screw up your 'racism-meter.'

Seems to me there are people on here who are willing to acknowledge that a 'real problem exists, and that something should be done about it, and people on here who are more concerned about what we should 'call' them. Pretty sad.

Like CaramonLS said, there is a definite problem within the Native community, and its not 'racist' to point out the obvious. Unless you want to call me racist for saying that 100% of the homeless people walking the streets of Pincher Creek are Natives.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

All the others are the 'persons that are translucent'.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I saw Rouge cut out of this thread pretty quick. I'd really like to know what he thinks a "solution" to this issue might be, because it is quite clear that what is happening right now isn't working. Would giving First Nations access to more money somehow improve their living conditions? Or would it simply lead to more substance abuse. Rouge, you should be able to find the answer in a Sociology textbook which compares the demographics of those living on welfare to those who work for a living.

Ooooh, "called out"! I feel like Hulk Hogan.

I don't have a solution and the reason I "cut out" was that my point was made quite strongly by someone else.

The whole "cut them off" solution that has been proposed numerous times is just plain old foolish. And illegal. And impossible. That's it. That's all I've got. I don't have a solution or a sociology textbook. Do you have a solution?

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go put some tanning lotion on Brooke's thighs.

[Azure]

I don't think you need to 'cut them off'....unless of course you want to deal with mass protests.

But they should be slowly brought back on an even playing field.

[MccM]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think we should call them all 'person of color' and be done with it.

It's funny you should say that...
When you bruise, you turn black and blue.
When you burn, you turn pink and red.
When you're done with the burn, you turn brown.
When you're liver fails, you turn yellow.

Yet, under all those situations, we 'person of color' stay the same

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by MccM

It's funny you should say that...
When you bruise, you turn black and blue.
When you burn, you turn pink and red.
When you're done with the burn, you turn brown.
When you're liver fails, you turn yellow.

Yet, under all those situations, we 'person of color' stay the same

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

You should attach a flowery picture of a bunch of different coloured stick people holding hands and this would be the next big internet forward that I could delete.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MccM

It's funny you should say that...
When you bruise, you turn black and blue.
When you burn, you turn pink and red.
When you're done with the burn, you turn brown.
When you're liver fails, you turn yellow.

Yet, under all those situations, we 'person of color' stay the same

Some people on here have serious, serious issues.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think we should call them all 'person of color' and be done with it.

How about we just call them people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How about we just call them people.

Racist.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by fatso

1. No one actually called anyone racist. There is a massive difference between pointing the way someone thinks about or discusses something is 'racist' and calling that someone a 'racist'. The former is civil and responsible imo, though the latter does have it's place. As far as I can tell it was only the former that happened here, but for some reason you can't do that without people screaming they're not a 'racist'... which brings me to my second point.

Actually the first time someone was called racist was post #18 and it happened several times. Others like you were less forthright and just called some comments racist. I don't think you were any more noble by avoiding addressing specific people either. Cowardly perhaps but, certainly not noble. A person who lies is by definition a liar. A person who says racist things is by definition a racist.

Originally Posted by fatso

2. There's a kind of 'reverse race card' pulled through 'the p.c. card'. I have yet to see someone explain what 'truth' the politically correct conspiracy is concealing... what agenda the p.c. movement is trying to advance.... what inescapable, unalterable reality the politically correct knights templar are keeping hidden?

a. When someone identified the obvious problem with Indian violence within Canadian society the conversation never got off the ground because people like you were more concerned about the use of the word "Indian" and hijacked the conversation.

b. When I suggested that Natives needed to take some responsibility for the actions of their people the conversation never got off the ground. People like you thought such comments were not politically correct and therefore deemed them racist. So once again instead of talking about another valid issue the conversation turned into a discussion of whether or not it was PC to say.

c. When someone else suggested that the Canadian government carried some blame for Native violence because of the segregation of reservations and for giving Natives no personal responsibility but, rather handouts it was deemed a racist comment by people like you. So instead of discussing the validity of the statement the conversation was turned into a discussion of whether or not it was right(PC) to say such things.

So are three enough examples for you fatso?

Originally Posted by fatso

The bad: A couple things I should let go but can't...

1. West Karma, though I genuinely feel bad about the situation, should really just stop posting. W K stopped making sense a couple pages back when he accused others of pulling the race card.

Well it looks like you've provided yourself a fourth example. So you reason that because WK says things you find offensive he should remain silent. People like you have got a lot of gall. Perhaps he should be instructed to email all his future posts to a person like you so he can be corrected on what to feel, think, and type.

Originally Posted by fatso

2. Calgaryborn, your right to call people what you want of course exists. I think, though, when we're thinking and talking about political identities, the individual/ group right to self-definition should trump others' rights to label those individuals and group. I think that's a big reason why there's such things as... you know... historical progress.

Historical progress is always preceded by frank and open discussion with people who are seeking solutions to the problems rather than the status quo. You, and people like you on this thread have demonstrated admirably why such open communication is difficult to achieve.

Move along folks... Nothing to see here... No progress at all!

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ooooh, "called out"! I feel like Hulk Hogan.

I don't have a solution and the reason I "cut out" was that my point was made quite strongly by someone else.

The whole "cut them off" solution that has been proposed numerous times is just plain old foolish. And illegal. And impossible. That's it. That's all I've got. I don't have a solution or a sociology textbook. Do you have a solution?

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go put some tanning lotion on Brooke's thighs.

The point was actually made pretty poorly by the other poster, but at least you admit you've got nothing. Honestly Rouge, do you just post in these threads in order to be confrontational?

Might be nice of you to bring something to the table that at least attempts to address the social problems of First Nations rather than just trying to assassinate someone else's idea. I went after you on that point because you added nothing to the discussion.

The solution lies in the fact that the people who live on reserves have nothing to do, have an income and have poor leadership/role models. I think a full fledged 'solution' to this problem is far too complex to lay out in a single post, but overall, reducing the power of First Nations band leaders by restricting where/what they can spend their money on would be a start, and overall reduction (eventual elimination of segregation of First Nations) and reintegration into the greater society. Government money right now is doing the exact opposite of preserving First Nations culture.

[West Karma]

nm

[flylock shox]

^^ If (and hopefully it does happen) these folks are convicted and sentenced, you may find yourself surprised to discover they were raised in pretty difficult circumstances after all. I know this is a personal thing for you, and understandably so, but I wouldn't assume their lives (or their parents' lives) were a bed of roses. And I wouldn't suggest involving yourself on a personal level either - you'll just end up worrying about any possible repercussions that might one day be headed your way, or your dad's way.

Glad to hear they've been caught though, if they've got the right people.

[Vulcan]

I was in P A a week and a half ago as I was invited to attend the graduation for SIAST. It seemed to me that a large proportion were natives. A lot of them are taking advantage of their educational opportunities and changes are happening as more realize they can have a future. This wasn't the case for years but change is happening although it may not be apparent by walking down the streets of a large city and jumping to wrong conclusions.