Systemic Racism in US and Canada

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Whatever, there's no point in discussing this with you. The idea that Indigenous are criminals with alcohol and drug addictions is an established stereotype in Canada that needs to be corrected, not perpetuated by the likes of you. There was just no reason to bring it up and then to try to justify it based on number of kids and the article not mentioning she had a husband is asinine.

The next time you hear of a Black man getting unjustly shot by the police and you get mad that the alt-right racists are suggesting he was a criminal without any reason, just remember that while you're absolute right to be mad at them, you did it yourself to Ms. Echaquan.

And I honestly think this about you:


I'm not saying you're evil but you need to change your perspective on Indigenous people and their struggles too. They have negative stereotypes that are associated with them, you don't need to bring them up as a "possibility" just because. I mean, imagine if there was an article about a Black man and his child and I just brought up the possibility he was a deadbeat dad because it didn't explicitly say he was married. You would, rightfully, call me out for being a racist. So don't do the same to Indigenous people by suggesting the possibility that they fit your stereotypes of them.

I won't bother responding to you anymore. I think your hypocrisy about racial issues is on full display, and there's no reason to keep arguing with you.

Dude, you're the only person in this conversation that thinks sex work is wrong. And I mentioned drugs once because like it or not drugs and prostitution have a correlation. I will admit that was inadvertently insensitive and I never thought about those stereotypes.

You clearly have no idea what my perspective of Indigenous peoples are, despite making it very clear that I think they are the most persecuted group in Canada.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Look I don't want to get into it on an issue this foolish, you know full well they wouldn't, seriously stop digging, we are talking about a gaggle of racists, it's perfectly ok to label them racists, they deserve nothing less.

The ####ing double standards on this board are so disgusting.

A white dude calls a black guy a racist, hardly anyone says a word. I call a white guy a racist and 50 people jump to his defense and attack me for being an ####### and subsequently attack me every post I make.

Another poster says similar things to what I said about the nurses, and no one says a ####ing word. But I get dog piled on and I'm now I'm the "racist".

I so ####ing done with this place and the very thinly veiled bigotry. This thread is nothing but white folks trying to make people think they actually care about anyone but themselves, but we all know when push comes to shove you won't jeopardize your white privilege.

Funny thing is, the first time I told a member of this board that I was black in PM, I told him I didn't want to advertise it for this very reason.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Dude, you're the only person in this conversation that thinks sex work is wrong. And I mentioned drugs once because like it or not drugs and prostitution have a correlation. I will admit that was inadvertently insensitive and I never thought about those stereotypes.

You clearly have no idea what my perspective of Indigenous peoples are, despite making it very clear that I think they are the most persecuted group in Canada.

This is the exact point here. In my opinion, given your point and the fact that this event at the hospital occurred to an Indigenous individual, it is not that difficult or far fetched to put two and two together.

We also know this is not an isolated event in the medical industry regrading Indigenous folk.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's difficult for me to think of any other motivation but racism when a nurse thinks its appropriate in an ER to make repulsive comments about a complete stranger they know nothing about other than the fact they are a mother in pain and native, I'd truly be interested to hear what other motivation you guys think these comments might have been caused by other than race, is it common for nurses to insult people with stomach pain, is that some medical prejudice I'm unaware of?

Compassion fatigue and misplaced/inappropriate gallows/black humor are two that come to mind that are often associated with Emergency fields.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Read the Indian Act and report back.

Could you expand on your point?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Could you expand on your point?

There's literally a law named after a race of people... got it?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

There's literally a law named after a race of people... got it?

That’s not it at all.

Indigenous people need the Indian act. It’s very important to establish their autonomy.


It’s the origins that are racist.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

The ####ing double standards on this board are so disgusting.

A white dude calls a black guy a racist, hardly anyone says a word. I call a white guy a racist and 50 people jump to his defense and attack me for being an ####### and subsequently attack me every post I make.

Another poster says similar things to what I said about the nurses, and no one says a ####ing word. But I get dog piled on and I'm now I'm the "racist".

I so ####ing done with this place and the very thinly veiled bigotry. This thread is nothing but white folks trying to make people think they actually care about anyone but themselves, but we all know when push comes to shove you won't jeopardize your white privilege.

Funny thing is, the first time I told a member of this board that I was black in PM, I told him I didn't want to advertise it for this very reason.

It wasnt my intention to call you racist, if that was how it came across my apologies, my intention was to point out that your argument was actually a proof of racism not an argument against it and I thought that was a point worth making.

I dont think you're a racist, I do think you've dug in to a position that is shaky at best

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That’s not it at all.

Indigenous people need the Indian act. It’s very important to establish their autonomy.


It’s the origins that are racist.

That’s what I meant. If there wasn’t systemic racism the Indian Act wouldn’t need to exist.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

That’s what I meant. If there wasn’t systemic racism the Indian Act wouldn’t need to exist.

That's a circular argument.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's a circular argument.

No, you are.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

That’s what I meant. If there wasn’t systemic racism the Indian Act wouldn’t need to exist.

Gotcha. For some reason I thought you meant the name was racist.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

No, you are.

It's called "begging the question". It's a logical fallacy which means that you need to assume the conclusion is true in order to make the argument reasonable.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's called "begging the question". It's a logical fallacy which means that you need to assume the conclusion is true in order to make the argument reasonable.

Is it?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That’s not it at all.

Indigenous people need the Indian act. It’s very important to establish their autonomy.

Ah, there's not going to be agreement on any of the Indian Act. There could be arguments that it favours their autonomy (didn't get 'assimilated' by Europeans by giving specific lands) and those against it (like literally having to go to the minister for approval of anything on the reserve, who has pretty much absolute power but also replacing their council with democracy instead of their established hereditary chiefs in some cases).



But to BoLevi's point about these things being "historical", prior to Bill C-3 in 2011, the Indian Act was gender-based (and much more prior to 1985). Indian-status favoured male lineage, someone with an status-grandfather would continue to pass on status, but someone who got their status from their grandmother with status would not.

And before 1985, a woman marrying a non-Indian man or non-status Indian would lose her Indian-status (losing basic rights like the ability to live on the reserve etc.).

It was actually 2019 when Bill S-3 took place and, I believe, finally got rid of all the gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act. I know that's more systemic sexism, but to a specific status of people.

But as mentioned earlier, the Indian Act pretty much gives control to the minister. Virtually anything built on the reserve needed minister approval (because reserve land is owned by the Government), even if often times it meant rubber stamping, but now some of the reserves are opting for land management framework agreements to give them more autonomy. But none of the reserves in Alberta have got it yet, these are ongoing changes occurring today. Right now status-Indians on reserve don't own land, they aren't allowed to thanks to the Indian Act.

But I think regardless of how you look at the Indian Act, the fact that there's a separate law for specific people based partially on their race has to show some form of systemic racism.

We are, in my opinion, heading in the right direction but these things have been changing because of the racism that they were based on.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Ah, there's not going to be agreement on any of the Indian Act. There could be arguments that it favours their autonomy (didn't get 'assimilated' by Europeans by giving specific lands) and those against it (like literally having to go to the minister for approval of anything on the reserve, who has pretty much absolute power but also replacing their council with democracy instead of their established hereditary chiefs in some cases).



But to BoLevi's point about these things being "historical", prior to Bill C-3 in 2011, the Indian Act was gender-based (and much more prior to 1985). Indian-status favoured male lineage, someone with an status-grandfather would continue to pass on status, but someone who got their status from their grandmother with status would not.

And before 1985, a woman marrying a non-Indian man or non-status Indian would lose her Indian-status (losing basic rights like the ability to live on the reserve etc.).

It was actually 2019 when Bill S-3 took place and, I believe, finally got rid of all the gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act. I know that's more systemic sexism, but to a specific status of people.

But as mentioned earlier, the Indian Act pretty much gives control to the minister. Virtually anything built on the reserve needed minister approval (because reserve land is owned by the Government), even if often times it meant rubber stamping, but now some of the reserves are opting for land management framework agreements to give them more autonomy. But none of the reserves in Alberta have got it yet, these are ongoing changes occurring today. Right now status-Indians on reserve don't own land, they aren't allowed to thanks to the Indian Act.

But I think regardless of how you look at the Indian Act, the fact that there's a separate law for specific people based partially on their race has to show some form of systemic racism.

We are, in my opinion, heading in the right direction but these things have been changing because of the racism that they were based on.

This is an important point. Policies which are deemed beneficial to minorities tend to get a pass when it comes to systemic racism.

The problem is that policies designed to be beneficial can often (always?) run into the law of unintended consequences. This can lead to tremendous inequality and unequal outcomes (which then get mislabelled as evidence for systemic racism).

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And before 1985, a woman marrying a non-Indian man or non-status Indian would lose her Indian-status (losing basic rights like the ability to live on the reserve etc.).

This was originally to prevent bands from being taken over by non-native men who would marry into a band for financial gain. Keep in mind, at the time almost all indigenous Canadians were illiterate, and opportunists with a bit of legal or financial knowledge could exploit a band's resources ruthlessly.

Bill C-31, passed in 1985, overturned these sexist provisions. But do you know who fought against Bill C-31 tooth and nail right through the 90s? Indigenous leaders. They asserted the federal government had no right to determine who could or couldn't belong to a band roll, and opposed efforts to restore indigenous women and their children to band membership (and with it recognition as Status Indians). Many legal battles had to be fought by the federal government on behalf of indigenous women to get all First Nations to conform to C-31.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Could you expand on your point?

No,

You can put some effort in and become knowledgeable about the various provisions in the Indian Act and if you find any aspects of it that lead to disproportionate outcomes between First Nations communities and those who are not status Indians.

[81MC]

Here’s a question for those enlightened:

If you are point blank told you didn’t get a role because your not a minority, and then sat there while your colleague was told they got it because of their nationality, is that not the most ass-backwards, discriminatory thing? And is there no law preventing that?

If both were equivalently skilled, sure I suppose. But if I am named at director level as best fit for the roll, can I then be told directly I am not visibly minor enough?

And does it change if I were in fact of middle-eastern descent and clearly not an Anglo whitey?

This can’t possibly be the reality we are hoping for with this DIE stuff.

[81MC]

Here’s a question for those enlightened:

If you are point blank told you didn’t get a role because your not a minority, and then sat there while your colleague was told they got it because of their nationality, is that not the most ass-backwards, discriminatory thing? And is there no law preventing that?

If both were equivalently skilled, sure I suppose. But if I am named at director level as best fit for the roll, can I then be told directly I am not visibly minor enough?

And does it change if I were in fact of middle-eastern descent and clearly not an Anglo whitey?

This can’t possibly be the reality we are hoping for with this DIE stuff.