Quebec's Racism

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Mr.Coffee;567697]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Sounds like your painting all white people with the same brush in the boldened sentences. Is that right or wrong? Sounds kind of like your stereotyping to me. But hey, I could be reading it wrong.

I understand what your saying for the most part I think, but the country's make up does have a lot to do with immigration patterns I would think and less so to do with our country being racist. The black slave trade was a product of the United States mostly, and I'm sure you know this, but Canada was the region for black people to ESCAPE TO via the underground tunnels. Somehow I don't connect with how a white person today should be punished for the deeds of a white person 100, 200, 300 years ago... but nonetheless it is something that is in the past. Canada has definitely had its documented past. If it is an issue of the present, then everything brought upon as as outrage is legitimate. My point is, however, that today's society is a far cry from the racial tensions of even just 50 years ago. That's not a whole heck of a lot of time and in my opinion I think our society has made progress in terms of understanding- and part of that ihas to do with the opportunities Canada has provided for minorities.

Maybe it is impossible for a world to be removed from racial intolerance, but we can keep trying to make it better by increasing our understanding and by learning. And there needs to be a balance. Not talking to somebody at a grocery store is a pretty sensitive line wouldn't you think? Frankly I'm not sure that we as a society will be able to overcome the friendliness that is natural between two humans who perceive commonality.

I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic or condescending or anything, I'm actually really interested if you could provide a link to that study that white people only hire white people. If you could that'd be great, thanks.

Umm....I didn't write whote you quoted me as saying...might want to check who posted that again before you start putting my name on it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Mr.Coffee;567711]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Canada's got a big problem on their hands with the aboriginals. To me, it's pretty much unsolveable at this point. Anyways... few random thoughts/questions..

what treaties weren't honoured by Canada?

Aboriginals get loads of governmental assistance (although I'm sure you and everybody else knows this) through the treaties struck long ago. These are deals that frankly I can't see either side giving up on- even though Canada may wish it could.

Most reserves are worse then 3rd world countries? You sure about that? I honestly don't know. Haven't visited many reserves... haven't visited many 3rd world countries. Have you?

Some of them were tricked into signing treaties? What? When?

Some diseases were also transfered to the European settlers, this was a product of two worlds literally coming into contact after hundreds if not thousands of years. Tolerances had been built up by members of both sides, and thus the other sides were defenceless. It wasn't just like Europeans sailed over and said here ya go... hope you feel better soon. Both sides got sick. As for alcohol... I understand through stories of people I know that it is a pretty big problem on reserves which is too bad. Natives traded tobacco to Europeans. See, not all bad things were transferring one way.

Do you think that Europeans should have just stayed in Europe and left North America alone?

"Over-running" North America needs to be thought of as more of a context of the time. This was a time when European cultures were into imperialism and expanding their influence. They traded with Natives and some groups even formed alliances. It's not like our planet was going to stay isolated forever.

What the hell is going on here???? Why are people saying I posted this when I didn't.

[jolinar of malkshor]

[quote=Footscray;567738]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

How does the context of time change the fact that one culture moved into another country, decided that the local culture wasn't as civilized or deserving as them and gradually took all the land from them, it's just not the right way to treat another group of human beings. It's pretty poor to suggest that because of timeframe and context being decent to another group of people suddenly doesn't apply - in my mind it always should if you are a good person. One culture that didn't even have a system of private land ownership was eradicated and completely replaced - using warfare, uninvited progression west; well before the treaties were even signed, and trading smallpox infested blankets to the natives to wipe them out which is pretty different from two worlds diseases just bumping into one another.

I mean no offence to you but I'd urge you to do a little more reading on the subject, not only about the history but maybe even firsthand visiting a reserve, there are a few rich ones and many sad sad reserves. People not trying to take your tax money but just find a way to survive within a framework of government and legality that their culture disagrees with, starting with private ownership of land to begin with. European cultures being into imperialism really does nothing to justify their actions as fair.

There is a point in time when one has to stop bitchin about the past and start focusing on ones future. If you keep dwelling on the past you will never get over it. Like someone else posted, every group of people at some point or another has been abused and conquored.

As for experiencing natives first hand....I have. Our family ranches and farms. We rented sections and sections of land from natives off of the blood reserve. We dealt with them on a daily basis. These people did jack **** for work. We always had our rent payments paid more than a year in advance because they would come every other month wanting more money because they spend all of theirs. When you didn't give it to them they would go to the reserve and do numberous things to your livestock such as steal them, cut all the fences so that they would just walk off the pasture and go where ever they wanted. Lock the cows out of the watering hole so they couldn't get water.

These people would be at our house all the time trying to pawn off anything they had, cars, saddles, rings. My grandpa was even kind enough to hire some off them when they came and said they needed a job and wanted to make money like most people. You know what happened? EVERY time after working about two or three weeks, after they get their first check, they would never come back to work. They would never call...just not show up. Then maybe a month or two later...they would show up again and think everything is ok and they can have their job back. A lot of them have no idea of work ethic because everything is given to them.

Hutterites on the other hand...now there is hard workers. We would hire a bunch of the younger kids when harvest was done and they weren't needed at the coloney. These people would show up for work on time, every day and work their asses off. They would come into the farm house for dinner and take no longer than 30 mins and then they were back working has hard as ever. You want to see a group of people with work ethic, check out the hutterites.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

I want to get in on this Aboriginal issue. This whole thing bugs me to no end.
I challenge someone to come up with one ethnic group that hasn’t been oppressed sometime in history. As far as I can tell every group has been, at one time or another, and odds are at another time that same group oppressed another group. It has been human nature from the beginning of time. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just stating that this is the way it has always been.
Now I understand the point of "this was there land" and "they were here first", but how realistic is this? Under this belief I could go back to Norway or England and claim that I am the rightful owner of certain lands because of my ancestry. It's been 100+ years and we still coddle them, I have my doubts that any of the new generation of aboriginals wants to go back to living in teepee's or long houses, and living off the earth, I could be wrong but I doubt it. The way the system is set up we segregate them from the rest of society, which ultimately cause problems. Other ethnic groups are able to integrate into our country but yet keep they're background and identity, but because these hand outs are provided to them they develop a feeling of entitlement. So why should they go out and join society when they know that the government will provide for them. I realize I'm generalizing here, there are a large number of aboriginals are upstanding members of the community, I have some in my family, and they are just as upset at current system, and the way the culture is brought down because some don’t want to accept change.
If aboriginals want equality and to be respected, then stop dwelling on the past, stop feeling sorry for yourselves and join the rest of the world, go to school, get a job, pay your taxes, raise your family be happy.

Quoted for truth

[Footscray]

[quote=White Doors;567879]

Originally Posted by Footscray

Sounds like you are the one that needs to do more reading on it. Try 'Guns Germs and Steal' by Jared Diamond. What happened was inevitable. Living in the past only perpetuates the pain. Can I sue Germany for two great uncles dying in WW1? If not, why not?

I'm not living in the past or even tackling the modern issues natives face everybody has their own ideas about how much of the burden both today and during the period of conquest lies with the entire society and with the individual. The point needed to be made that the diseases didn't simply run into each other any more than the continents conquest was some sort of natural organic progression that would have happened no matter what time period and what culture discovered NA, there was human choice involved over and over again and you can't simply dismiss their action as an inevitability.

I've read Diamond and while well written the underlying manifest destiny theme hasn't left it without it's criticisms of european bias even from the academic community. I think that if you consult enough sources, you might not feel blame or anger but find a little more sympathy is all.

[MatsNaslund]

[quote=Footscray;567738]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Most reserves are worse then 3rd world countries? You sure about that? I honestly don't know. Haven't visited many reserves... haven't visited many 3rd world countries. Have you?

I've been to plenty of reserves in Alberta and other places. If you want specific examples. Visit Kluny or Gliechen which are both 1-2 hours from Calgary on Highway 1 East. Visit Brocket which is in between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge at the junctions of Highway 2 and 3, 2.5 hours drive from Calgary. Cardston which is south of the highway 3 and highway 2 junction is another. If you still can't find another one close to Calgary just goto Glenmore and 37th opposite the community of Lakeview and visit the Sarcee/T`suu Tina Reserve. It is a short walk from Mount Royal College.

Once you get to any one of these places compare the percentage of drug use and alcohol and education, unemployment as well as the general condition of houses, their water and bathroom conditions or lack of with that of what people in the posh areas of Calgary like Mount Royal are living like, which are almost all whites. Is it fair that whites took their land and live the good life while aboriginals live in such conditions. Government assistance for aboriginals is good but does not go far enough.

Another topic in itself is residential schools where aboriginal kids were taken by provincial and even the federal government away from their families and forced them into christian schools and to convert to christianity. The saddest thing is how many of the kids there were sexually abused by those running the Christian school. This is systemic racism ordered by the government and carried out by the white christian church.

[White Doors]

[quote=Footscray;568057]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I'm not living in the past or even tackling the modern issues natives face everybody has their own ideas about how much of the burden both today and during the period of conquest lies with the entire society and with the individual. The point needed to be made that the diseases didn't simply run into each other any more than the continents conquest was some sort of natural organic progression that would have happened no matter what time period and what culture discovered NA, there was human choice involved over and over again and you can't simply dismiss their action as an inevitability.

I've read Diamond and while well written the underlying manifest destiny theme hasn't left it without it's criticisms of european bias even from the academic community. I think that if you consult enough sources, you might not feel blame or anger but find a little more sympathy is all.

That's ironic! I'm not angry and I'm NOT blaming anyone. I am the one saying to quit blaming people. He won the pullitzer prize for it and all authors have their critics. But yes, diseases do just 'bump' from people who have some immunity to people that have none whatsoever.

I suspect that many of Diamond's critics merely have a political axe to grind. Namely, the perpetuation of white man guilt.

[Footscray]

[quote=White Doors;568063]

Originally Posted by Footscray

That's ironic! I'm not angry and I'm NOT blaming anyone. I am the one saying to quit blaming people. He won the pullitzer prize for it and all authors have their critics. But yes, diseases do just 'bump' from people who have some immunity to people that have none whatsoever.

I suspect that many of Diamond's critics merely have a political axe to grind. Namely, the perpetuation of white man guilt.

I really don't care about your or society's personal guilt or todays payments man. In a sense I agree with you because ultimately we need to find a way forward helping people out and dwelling in the past is irrelevant. It's just disrespectful to not acknowledge that first nations were consciously trod on for years and even the people who want no treaty rights and want to do it on their own will find that angers them. In this instance the spread of the disease was consciously promoted, though diseases do bump into one another if we use the phrase again, it was not that simple here.

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Once you get to any one of these places compare the percentage of drug use and alcohol and education, unemployment as well as the general condition of houses, their water and bathroom conditions or lack of with that of what people in the posh areas of Calgary like Mount Royal are living like, which are almost all whites. Is it fair that whites took their land and live the good life while aboriginals live in such conditions. Government assistance for aboriginals is good but does not go far enough.

So it’s the people’s fault that lives in nice houses in Mount Royal that the reserves are in such squalor? How so? As far as I can tell the natives manage they’re own reserves, which would make it they’re responsibility to use the money accordingly. How does throwing more money resolve this if they're not managing it properly anyway? It's always the "white mans" fault and natives never look at themselves in the mirror and ask what they can do to help themselves. You may be entitled to some land but not my tax dollars. And I think you got it wrong, it's not government assistance, it’s complete and utter government dependence.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Visit Brocket which is in between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge at the junctions of Highway 2 and 3, 2.5 hours drive from Calgary. Cardston which is south of the highway 3 and highway 2 junction is another.

Brocket is worse then a 3rd World Country? Perhaps you should visit it again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What the hell is going on here???? Why are people saying I posted this when I didn't.

Thats what happens when you don't use the quote button properly.

Above the actual quote is a name, thats the person you are replying too.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats what happens when you don't use the quote button properly.

Above the actual quote is a name, thats the person you are replying too.

Yes but I didn't write that. It says originally posted by Jolinar, I didn't post that. Is it something I am doing or them?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Yes but I didn't write that. It says originally posted by Jolinar, I didn't post that. Is it something I am doing or them?

You quotes are often screwed up.

[ quote ] this is the quoted text [ /quote ]

Thats how all quoted text should be entered (remove the spaces). If you forget the slash it won't work.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Let's see the link that has other parties saying give me tens of billions or else.

You certainly have a short memory. It was only last year when the NDP did the exact same thing to the Liberals

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bu...-ndp-deal.html

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

"they wouldn't be a very good political party if they didn't" my god.

Great point! Quoting me and adding "my god" on the end really solidifies your argument. Well done, sir.

The fact remains that the BQ are acting in the best interest of their voters. Do you dispute this fact or do you not agree that a political party should act in the best interest of their voters?

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

See, IN QC that's just politics, to the rest of Canada, and most of the developed world that's a bribe.

As I showed you above, the NDP did the same thing to the Liberals ... it is NOT just in QC. Every democracy where a minority government is possible functions in this way. Since a minority government needs the support of another party, they have to make certain concessions to that other party if they want to stay in power. I do not see what is difficult to understand about this.

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

So you may think banana republics only exist somewhere else, but if some party somewhere else pulled this one off people would say "typical of a banana republic"

Do you know what the difference between a minority government and a banana republic is? seriously...

New Zealand, and Sweden are two other nations that currently have minority governments. What a bunch of banana republics.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The fact remains that the BQ are acting in the best interest of their voters. Do you dispute this fact or do you not agree that a political party should act in the best interest of their voters?

Alberta could do the same thing...but we understand that we are a country and we need to work together. It's about everyone not just the people of one province. The way Quebec has played the system, does nothing more than push more Albertan's into a firwall idea, same as Quebec. And were would Quebec be without Alberta's money?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The supreme court of Canada has proclaimed the Quebec language laws unconstitutional. Quebec is the only province that has used and continues to use the notwithstanding clause in the charter inorder to maintain this law.

Your statement is very misleading and a half-truth.

You make it sound as if this applies all Quebec's language laws. In actual fact, the only law that has been declared unconstitutional is the law that relates to "exterior commercial signs". What a major issue!

All other language laws -- such as the language of instruction -- were found to be in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Wikipedia has a fairly good summary of the issues that have come up over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_dispute_over_Quebec's_language_policy

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Alberta could do the same thing...but we understand that we are a country and we need to work together. It's about everyone not just the people of one province.

I actually agree with you on this point. I don't think Quebec -- a province -- should be allowed to have a federal party. However, the post I was responding to was arguing that the people of Quebec are acting like a banana republic, and I was countering by stating that as a federal party, they are acting like all the other federal parties do in a minority government situtation.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The way Quebec has played the system, does nothing more than push more Albertan's into a firwall idea, same as Quebec.

Granted. But the fact remains that, the BQ is acting within their rights. If this upsets the other provinces, they should focus their frustration on the federal system that establishes these rights, not on the people of Quebec for acting in their own interests.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And were would Quebec be without Alberta's money?

I'm not sure what you expect .... gratitude? A bigger say? what? I'm not being condescending here, I'd seriously like to know.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Nobody feels that way about their future because nobody understands what it means to have your debt to be 50% of your GDP ... and counting.

Nobody understands, but you do? Please share you secrets then.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I'm not sure what you expect .... gratitude? A bigger say? what? I'm not being condescending here, I'd seriously like to know.

A bigger say would be nice. Would never happen untill all of NFD, PEI, and NS move to Alberta.

It bothers me that Quebec puts it's self into the have not province because of their fiscal policies and social programs. Hell we could all be have not provinces if we all just spent more money than we have. That really ****es me off.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

A bigger say would be nice. Would never happen untill all of NFD, PEI, and NS move to Alberta.

Well, if you support a bigger say based on the fact that Alberta contributes the most money, do you think that the rich should have a bigger say than the poor? Should the amount of weight a person's vote carries be correlated to how much money they contribute to the economy in taxes? After all, that is an extension of the same principle.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It bothers me that Quebec puts it's self into the have not province because of their fiscal policies and social programs. Hell we could all be have not provinces if we all just spent more money than we have. That really ****es me off.

That's just plain false. Equalization payments are determine based on a provinces capacity to earn revenue. How much a province spends on social policies does not factor into the equation at all. Otherwise, provinces would spend all their money to avoid the payments, as you suggest.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/gloss/gloss-e_e.html#equal

Also, if you're interested, Manitoba, Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia all receive about double, or in some cases more than, (per capita) what Quebec does in equalization:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html