Racism? In Canada? Never!

[Sammie]

This is another manipulated statistic invented by some agenda-driven writer wanting to further their social engineering of Canadian society. I question the study because Canadians are far too tolerant for their own good already. They SHOULD be more discriminatory about who they let out of their prisons and who they let into their country.

I don't think there are many countries that treat people of different colors and ethnicities any better. It's time for Canadians to stop beating themselves up and start discovering their own self-worth. The truth is, it's time to transfer all social engineers of everything Canadian to Baffin Island where they can create their own silly little society.

However, if you need a scape goat. I discriminate. I'm VERY discriminatory about who I choose to be my friends. Not everyone who says "Hi." to me makes the grade and gets invited to share Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner with me. If that makes me a racist, so be it. Screw you all!!!

Furthermore, I don't have to like a gay person in order to tolerate them. I can get along just fine with them as long as they mind their own business because I'm certainly not going to climb into bed with them to appease them.

[Cain]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Mar 23 2005, 12:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Mar 23 2005, 12:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cain@Mar 22 2005, 04:34 AM
This is a country that is split on giving equal rights to homosexuals...Doesn't surprise me.

No. This is a country that is split on redefining long established words to appease a small but vocal minority. [/b][/quote]
Hate to break it to you, but those "long established" words already have different meanings depending on who you talk to.

Some say man and woman. Others say man and woman under god. Still others think that it is merely two people who love each other.

There was plenty debate as to what a marriage is before gays came on the scene demanding to be heard. The fact that the church and government both have different criteria for marriage, and always have says that there is not a single "established" meaning to the word.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 23 2005, 12:57 AM
This is another manipulated statistic invented by some agenda-driven writer wanting to further their social engineering of Canadian society. I question the study because Canadians are far too tolerant for their own good already. They SHOULD be more discriminatory about who they let out of their prisons and who they let into their country.

I don't think there are many countries that treat people of different colors and ethnicities any better. It's time for Canadians to stop beating themselves up and start discovering their own self-worth. The truth is, it's time to transfer all social engineers of Canadian to Baffin Island where they can create their own silly little society.

However, if you need a scape goat. I discriminate. I'm VERY discriminatory about who I choose to be my friends. Not everyone who says "Hi." to me makes the grade and gets invited to share Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner with me. If that makes me a racist, so be it. Screw you all!!!

Furthermore, I don't have to like a gay person in order to tolerate them. I can get along just fine with them as long as they mind their own business because I'm certainly not going to climb into bed with them to appease them.

The "we are good enough now, we don't need to change anything" line of thinking is a good one to lead absolutely nowhere but stagnation.

We can always improve, and I think that is what this article sort of implies. Yea you are racist if you require a person to be a certain color to be your friend. Yea you are discriminatory if all you can do is 'tolerate' homosexuals. You don't have to like every single one you meet, but you make it sound as if they don't have a chance to be your friend at all.

Discrimination on the basis of color/sexual orientation/religion is WRONG. Discrimination based on past actions (ie. crime, rape) is a whole different story.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Mar 22 2005, 05:57 PM
However, if you need a scape goat. I discriminate. I'm VERY discriminatory about who I choose to be my friends. Not everyone who says "Hi." to me makes the grade and gets invited to share Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner with me. If that makes me a racist, so be it. Screw you all!!!

Furthermore, I don't have to like a gay person in order to tolerate them. I can get along just fine with them as long as they mind their own business because I'm certainly not going to climb into bed with them to appease them.

This is funnier than that 911 call.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Cain@Mar 22 2005, 07:02 PM
The "we are good enough now, we don't need to change anything" line of thinking is a good one to lead absolutely nowhere but stagnation.

We can always improve, and I think that is what this article sort of implies. Yea you are racist if you require a person to be a certain color to be your friend. Yea you are discriminatory if all you can do is 'tolerate' homosexuals. You don't have to like every single one you meet, but you make it sound as if they don't have a chance to be your friend at all.

Discrimination on the basis of color/sexual orientation/religion is WRONG. Discrimination based on past actions (ie. crime, rape) is a whole different story.

Horse droppings! I'm all for improving Canadian society but let the majority of Canadian society decide what's good for their country. Not some snot-nosed arrogant fool who just rolled off the turnip truck and doesn't like finding himself in a raspberry patch. The raspberry patch is just fine but, let's face it, the raspberries don't want to be turnips. After all, there are other turnips and they are welcome to share the garden with the raspberries.

[Hakan]

I'm sorry, but I have always known the black licorice candies as "******** babies". No doubt it's racist, but to label it as a thing of the past is blatantly wrong. I've never heard them called anything else. None of me or the people I associate with are racist, that's just what they've always been called.

So "no doubt it's racist" to use that term but "none of the people [you] associate with are racist." Right. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Because you've always done something that way doesn't make it any better or add any reason to why you should keep doing it that way. You have correctly identified your habitual racism but yet still continue to persue it. That is being racist. Like it or not. You can always change what you call those things to something that isn't racist but nobody going to tell you what to do right? That's fine, keep on being racist, but don't absolve yourself of what you are with the most vapid of excuses like your personal tradition.

What really makes me mad is the double standard that exists. There can be a Black Entertainment channel and an Aboriginal Peoples network but can you imagine the outcry if someone made a White Man Channel?

There are many white man channels in everything but name. Infact almost every single channel out there that doesn't cater to a specific minority group niche market IS a white man channel. Don't believe me? Go turn on any sitcom or drama and tell me how much white people are represented as opposed to other visible minorities. How many news anchors/reporters are white? How many game show contestants are white? The only reason that there isn't a specific "White Person Channel" is because the idea of a 'white' race is only ever invoked in racist dialogue. Whiteness is not an ethnicity or a group association but a way to impose power over others that are non-white. Otherwise, whiteness is just taken as normal and the basis where all group relations stems from. Think about it, where do you hear the term white being used to describe a group's interests? Always in some type of racist dialogue: white pride, white power, etc. That's because whiteness is meaningful ONLY in its racial relation to subordinate 'races.'

I read in today's paper the government is spending 56 million over the next five years on anti-racism programs. If that is not the biggest waste of taxpayers' dollars I don't know what is. That money should be going to education and health care, not towards telling Joe Blow from Surrey it's okay his city has turned into New Bombay.

This is ironic because it basically proves the necessity of this kind of funding.

[evman150]

Originally posted by Hakan@Mar 22 2005, 06:07 PM

So "no doubt it's racist" to use that term but "none of the people [you] associate with are racist." Right. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Because you've always done something that way doesn't make it any better or add any reason to why you should keep doing it that way. You have correctly identified your habitual racism but yet still continue to persue it. That is being racist. Like it or not. You can always change what you call those things to something that isn't racist but nobody going to tell you what to do right? That's fine, keep on being racist, but don't absolve yourself of what you are with the most vapid of excuses like your personal tradition.

There are many white man channels in everything but name. Infact almost every single channel out there that doesn't cater to a specific minority group niche market IS a white man channel. Don't believe me? Go turn on any sitcom or drama and tell me how much white people are represented as opposed to other visible minorities. How many news anchors/reporters are white? How many game show contestants are white? The only reason that there isn't a specific "White Person Channel" is because the idea of a 'white' race is only ever invoked in racist dialogue. Whiteness is not an ethnicity or a group association but a way to impose power over others that are non-white. Otherwise, whiteness is just taken as normal and the basis where all group relations stems from. Think about it, where do you hear the term white being used to describe a group's interests? Always in some type of racist dialogue: white pride, white power, etc. That's because whiteness is meaningful ONLY in its racial relation to subordinate 'races.'

This is ironic because it basically proves the necessity of this kind of funding.

There are plenty of black sitcoms all over television. Don't tell me they're not represented. In fact I would go so far as to say that there is a greater proportion of black sitcoms compared to the populations of blacks in America.

And why are there no black news anchors? Maybe it's because very few American blacks actually speak decipherable english. And this is not a race thing. Canadian black people speak perfect english. British black people speak perfect english. Australian blacks speak perfect english. But American blacks have real problems. I am not a linguist so I cannot tell you why, but it is the truth.

And I don't understand the game show comment. There are blacks on Wheel, Fear Factor, dating shows etc all the time.

[RogerWilco]

Originally posted by evman150@Mar 22 2005, 12:51 AM

I read in today's paper the government is spending 56 million over the next five years on anti-racism programs. If that is not the biggest waste of taxpayers' dollars I don't know what is. That money should be going to education and health care, not towards telling Joe Blow from Surrey it's okay his city has turned into New Bombay.

As you can tell I hate political correctness.

[/quote]
The 56 Million is going towards education. I guess it is just not the type of education that you would like it spent on?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by evman150@Mar 22 2005, 07:31 PM
And why are there no black news anchors? Maybe it's because very few American blacks actually speak decipherable english. And this is not a race thing. Canadian black people speak perfect english. British black people speak perfect english. Australian blacks speak perfect english. But American blacks have real problems. I am not a linguist so I cannot tell you why, but it is the truth.

Not only are you not a linguist, you are not not a moron.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 23 2005, 12:19 AM
No. This is a country split on granting basic human rights and equality to a small but vocal minority.

Who is deprived of any rights?

No one in this country is unable to get married.

And in terms of same sex unions, no one is arguing that they shouldn't have the same rights as married couples. What they are arguing about, and wasting tax dollars at the same time, is about what they are calling same sex unions. Instead of calling it a same sex union or some other term they are lumping it in with marriage.

Because a small subsection of the population has nothing better to with their time, money is being wasted on something even more frivilous then the gun registry.

[Cain]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Mar 23 2005, 03:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Mar 23 2005, 03:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 23 2005, 12:19 AM
No. This is a country split on granting basic human rights and equality to a small but vocal minority.

Who is deprived of any rights?

No one in this country is unable to get married.

And in terms of same sex unions, no one is arguing that they shouldn't have the same rights as married couples. What they are arguing about, and wasting tax dollars at the same time, is about what they are calling same sex unions. Instead of calling it a same sex union or some other term they are lumping it in with marriage.

Because a small subsection of the population has nothing better to with their time, money is being wasted on something even more frivilous then the gun registry. [/b][/quote]
Why shouldn't it be called a marriage? As I pointed out, there are already two different forms of marriage. They aren't the same, so don't say that there is an 'established' term for what marriage means.

If the church can live with the government marrying people who are not religious at all, they can damn well live with two people of the same sex being married. The church shouldn't even factor into it anyway.

It might be frivolous to you...but you most likely aren't the one that is being denied the privilege. Easy to say in your position.

And I agree with you, money and time is being wasted on it. Problem is, it isn't the minority asking for the right to marriage that is the party that is wasting money. It is the other party that is against it that is putting up a big fuss over nothing and wasting time and money.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@Mar 23 2005, 03:12 AM

Who is deprived of any rights?

No one in this country is unable to get married.

And in terms of same sex unions, no one is arguing that they shouldn't have the same rights as married couples. What they are arguing about, and wasting tax dollars at the same time, is about what they are calling same sex unions. Instead of calling it a same sex union or some other term they are lumping it in with marriage.

Because a small subsection of the population has nothing better to with their time, money is being wasted on something even more frivilous then the gun registry.

Actually, from my understanding, not anyone in this country CAN get married. A marriage certificate is only issued to a man and woman. Married couples also enjoy tax benefits from the goverment and other programs that same sex couples do not qualify for.

And if they are fighting simply to call it marriage so what? Its the principle behind the matter. What if we told all black kids in Canada that yeah sure they have the right to an education, they just have to get it at their own schools. To me its a matter if being equally recognized.



edit for spelling

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Mar 22 2005, 08:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Mar 22 2005, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 23 2005, 12:19 AM
No. This is a country split on granting basic human rights and equality to a small but vocal minority.

Who is deprived of any rights?

No one in this country is unable to get married.

And in terms of same sex unions, no one is arguing that they shouldn't have the same rights as married couples. What they are arguing about, and wasting tax dollars at the same time, is about what they are calling same sex unions. Instead of calling it a same sex union or some other term they are lumping it in with marriage.

Because a small subsection of the population has nothing better to with their time, money is being wasted on something even more frivilous then the gun registry. [/b][/quote]
So it comes down to nothing more than the use of the word "marriage"? That's it? Who exactly is wasting taxpayers money then? Who cares if this small subsection of the population wants to be able to use the word marriage?

I agree with you that it is a waste of money, I just lay the blame elsewhere.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Mar 22 2005, 07:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Mar 22 2005, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evman150@Mar 22 2005, 07:31 PM
And why are there no black news anchors? Maybe it's because very few American blacks actually speak decipherable english. And this is not a race thing. Canadian black people speak perfect english. British black people speak perfect english. Australian blacks speak perfect english. But American blacks have real problems. I am not a linguist so I cannot tell you why, but it is the truth.

Not only are you not a linguist, you are not not a moron. [/b][/quote]
Mesa actuallys agreean with yus. Me nevars herd a smartered bleack juy in meas lifes.

Come on you can't be serious.... can you? I pray to god that you are not serious, but I am saddened to say that I think you are. That would be like me reading your post and saying well this Evan is a biggot, therefor all evans are bigots.

[evman150]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Mar 22 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Mar 22 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Not only are you not a linguist, you are not not a moron.

Mesa actuallys agreean with yus. Me nevars herd a smartered bleack juy in meas lifes.

Come on you can't be serious.... can you? I pray to god that you are not serious, but I am saddened to say that I think you are. That would be like me reading your post and saying well this Evan is a biggot, therefor all evans are bigots. [/b][/quote]
Their intelligence is not tied to the way they speak. You're the one making that leap not me.

Who's the bigot?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by evman150+Mar 22 2005, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evman150 @ Mar 22 2005, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Mesa actuallys agreean with yus. Me nevars herd a smartered bleack juy in meas lifes.

Come on you can't be serious.... can you? I pray to god that you are not serious, but I am saddened to say that I think you are. That would be like me reading your post and saying well this Evan is a biggot, therefor all evans are bigots.

Their intelligence is not tied to the way they speak. You're the one making that leap not me.

Who's the bigot? [/b][/quote]
Based on this comment? You.

"very few American blacks actually speak decipherable english"

I'm sorry dude. But you come off extremely ignorant with a comment like that. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a bigot but you clearly have som set ideas about African Americans that I would find questionable.

That's a perfect example of making a broad stereotype and generalization about a group of people without the information to back it up.

[evman150]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina+Mar 22 2005, 08:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JiriHrdina @ Mar 22 2005, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Their intelligence is not tied to the way they speak. You're the one making that leap not me.

Who's the bigot?

Based on this comment? You.

"very few American blacks actually speak decipherable english"

I'm sorry dude. But you come off extremely ignorant with a comment like that. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a bigot but you clearly have som set ideas about African Americans that I would find questionable.

That's a perfect example of making a broad stereotype and generalization about a group of people without the information to back it up. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps very few is a little harsh.

But I don't know how you could object to "most" don't.

?

[JiriHrdina]

Well. You are the guy stating that claim. Back it up. Show me something that proves that "most" African Americans can't speak proper English. Its a bold statement so the burden of proof rests with you.

[RogerWilco]

He went so far as to say "few speak decipherable english". I think you watch and believe way to much TV. I lived in the US for over 8 years. I never once met a black person that spoke un-decipherable english. Where are you getting your information?

edit: for un-decipherable spelling

[flamingchina]

[quote]Originally posted by Agamemnon@Mar 22 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse,Mar 22 2005, 04:05 PM

He is? Other races? I assume this is meant to imply that white North Americans are more tolerant than non-white North Americans (first generation or otherwise)? Or non-white non-North Americans? What about the fact that this is many white person's 'home country'.

Have you ever been to a country that wasn't white?
(vacationing in mexico doesn't count)
Ever hear of students at a university in Canada rioting because of a White student dating a student of a different colour?
How often do you hear a compnay breaking a contract halfay through because they found a person who was a different skin colour than you?
How bought being refused service in a hotel because of your colour?
Being charged 3-4X the amount of a person of the native colour?
Having people yell at you on the steet?
Having people making motions, acting like the way you look, because it's different than them?
Having people constantly making fun of you in because they think you don't understand?

I will agree though, that here, it's mostly first generations that really have the problem, although I've met enough second generations that have the same issue (to a lesser degree however)