Systemic Racism in US and Canada

[Vena]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You are trying to straighten your hair, I am trying to curl my hair. We're both just damaging it!

Right?? So much time and effort invested in it only to fry it.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by Vena

I think the suit and hair straightening examples are responses of Nations/Cultures/Races responding to dominant and/or colonial culture.

If we dig deeply ...<snip>

Not looking to argue of this. I think we just need to be more thoughtful and intentional in our actions. It's not comfortable and it is not required of anyone, but don't be surprised when others challenge us to think.

I really like your thoughtful insightful post. Great stuff.
IMO, based on human history "colonialism" is not a Euro centric trait. Most recently obvious is Japan's attempt to take over China and surrounding Asian neighbors. It was really quite brutish. There are so many other examples, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Medes, the Mongols. I am pretty sure humans of all stripes are the same inside. and historically have tried to subdue their neighbors in order to gain power, land, wealth.
On a tangential note, I suspect there are as many nuances of "Africans" based on tribes then just saying 'black people." These differences resulted in unending tribal warfare, slave ownership and plundering. All of which seemed to occur in tribal cultures in pre Europe Africa and North America. (recent ex: Hutu's vs Tutsi)
Sadly I think deep down we are all savage.

[GirlySports]

In China

[Vena]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I really like your thoughtful insightful post. Great stuff.
IMO, based on human history "colonialism" is not a Euro centric trait. Most recently obvious is Japan's attempt to take over China and surrounding Asian neighbors. It was really quite brutish. There are so many other examples, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Medes, the Mongols. I am pretty sure humans of all stripes are the same inside. and historically have tried to subdue their neighbors in order to gain power, land, wealth.
On a tangential note, I suspect there are as many nuances of "Africans" based on tribes then just saying 'black people." These differences resulted in unending tribal warfare, slave ownership and plundering. All of which seemed to occur in tribal cultures in pre Europe Africa and North America. (recent ex: Hutu's vs Tutsi)
Sadly I think deep down we are all savage.

Agreed. One thing that has always heartened me is that there is always resistance to dominant culture whether it be outright or passive. I always have a little bit hope that is is not in our base nature to subjugate others.

[Firebot]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-...port-1.5761701

Again, this stuff happens all the time and we only get corrective action with todays phones capturing everything, and she got charged for the 2nd call we didn't hear about.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/white-...port-1.5761701

Again, this stuff happens all the time and we only get corrective action with todays phones capturing everything, and she got charged for the 2nd call we didn't hear about.

Yeah, people like that usually call multiple times, especially if they feel police aren't responding fast enough to their 'complaint', and end up with a Misuse of 911 charge.

[rubecube]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ttacks-mikmaq/

How are these racist #######s not being charged for hate crimes?

Nova Scotia RCMP are under fire for failing to stop an angry mob from attacking two rural storage facilities holding Mi’kmaq lobster, throwing rocks, setting a van ablaze and restraining fishermen in one of the most violent confrontations yet in a dispute over the fishery°

In Middle West Pubnico, two Mi’kmaq fishermen say they were followed and barricaded inside by the mob, threatened and saw thousands of pounds of Indigenous-caught lobster destroyed after the group ransacked the building. One of the fishermen, Jason Marr, said the crowd slashed his tires, vandalized his truck and threatened to burn the building down with him inside.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

The rcmp you mean?

For the fisherman I think this is more of an economic issue as they say their livelihoods are threatened. They’d be acting this way no matter who was on the other side IMO.

The RCMP though are clearly complicit and should’ve stopped it and probably didn’t because of race. Damn well know if it was a controversial Loblaws fishery they’d be defending it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The rcmp you mean?

For the fisherman I think this is more of an economic issue as they say their livelihoods are threatened. They’d be acting this way no matter who was on the other side IMO.

Uh, yeah, go check out some of the social media comments from said fishermen. Obviously doesn't reflect all of them, but you're fooling yourself if you think race isn't a factor in this.

Agreed on the RCMP.

[Geraldsh]

But what about the lobster!?
Fishing/trapping seasons are set by law to protect the mating or molting routine of the species to ensure it’s survival. Then a judge determined that a particular race could ignore the established law and set their own season so yeah - it’s a racist mess now.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

But what about the lobster!?
Fishing/trapping seasons are set by law to protect the mating or molting routine of the species to ensure it’s survival. Then a judge determined that a particular race could ignore the established law and set their own season so yeah - it’s a racist mess now.

Both sides, many sides...

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by rubecube

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...ttacks-mikmaq/

How are these racist #######s not being charged for hate crimes?

So yeah...this is a very tricky situation...

Imagine you are a business with a very finite resource and quota of what you can catch and sell, but only able to operate 3 months in a year. This causes you to scrounge among fierce competition and yet you are in direct competition with a select number of people who are protected by law due to birthright to be able to operate 12 months a year with lenient quotas implemented due to special status.

Now imagine that those same select people decide that they are not bound by any rules including the special status already provided to them, and choose that they are self ruling and self regulating, starting commercial level fishing outside of conservation fishing restrictions with large amounts of waste directly impacting the businesses bound by the government restrictions.

I am very familiar with the plight of fishermen and the areas. Fishing, especially for lobster is quite strict. It's a very poor region impacted by quotas and overfishing It's an incredibly touchy subject. Anger has reached the tipping point clearly.

There's no question there is racism inherently involved, but it's not as black and white as it seems and it is 100% government generated racism.

I found these articles that preceded the current events that better explain why this is happening. The bolded in question speaks in much greater detail of the problem.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ille-1.5727920

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...oats-1.5742365

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/m...hery-1.5727622


At the same time I will be the first to say that native americans do need special status, but what does special status mean? That's the whole problem currently happening, as the group believes they are not bound by imposed 'colonial rules' no matter how lenient they are and no matter if they are done to conserve the fishing industry. There is no quick solution to this.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Firebot

So yeah...this is a very tricky situation...

Imagine you are a business with a very finite resource and quota of what you can catch and sell, but only able to operate 3 months in a year. This causes you to scrounge among fierce competition and yet you are in direct competition with a select number of people who are protected by law due to birthright to be able to operate 12 months a year with lenient quotas implemented due to special status.

Now imagine that those same select people decide that they are not bound by any rules including the special status already provided to them, and choose that they are self ruling and self regulating, starting commercial level fishing outside of conservation fishing restrictions with large amounts of waste directly impacting the businesses bound by the government restrictions.

I am very familiar with the plight of fishermen and the areas. Fishing, especially for lobster is quite strict. It's a very poor region impacted by quotas and overfishing It's an incredibly touchy subject. Anger has reached the tipping point clearly.

There's no question there is racism inherently involved, but it's not as black and white as it seems and it is 100% government generated racism.

I found these articles that preceded the current events that better explain why this is happening. The bolded in question speaks in much greater detail of the problem.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ille-1.5727920

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...oats-1.5742365

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/m...hery-1.5727622


At the same time I will be the first to say that native americans do need special status, but what does special status mean? That's the whole problem currently happening, as the group believes they are not bound by imposed 'colonial rules' no matter how lenient they are and no matter if they are done to conserve the fishing industry. There is no quick solution to this.

Its probably worth noting that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have exactly zero authority to regulate those waters (and indeed many if not all of those non-indigenous fisherman would not live in Nova Scotia) if not for the Crown entering into the treaties which guaranteed the MI'kmaq people certain perpetual fishing and hunting rights in exchange for ceding their traditional terrirtories.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Its probably worth noting that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have exactly zero authority to regulate those waters (and indeed many if not all of those non-indigenous fisherman would not live in Nova Scotia) if not for the Crown entering into the treaties which guaranteed the MI'kmaq people certain perpetual fishing and hunting rights in exchange for ceding their traditional terrirtories.

Why wouldn’t they live there? You think indigenous lands would’ve remained independently sovereign for the last 300 years?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why wouldn’t they live there? You think indigenous lands would’ve remained independently sovereign for the last 300 years?

Who knows? But for various reasons, the Crown chose (primarily) to acquire traditional first nations territories in Canada through treaties rather than other methods (for example, conquest). Canada's courts have consistently found that the Crown cannot now resile from the bargains struck in those treaties (unless it can clearly demonstrate that it is justified infringing on treaty rights).

Who knows if the federal Crown can meet that (onerous) burden in the case of regulating this fishery?

And in any event, nothing justifies the violence being reported.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Its probably worth noting that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have exactly zero authority to regulate those waters (and indeed many if not all of those non-indigenous fisherman would not live in Nova Scotia) if not for the Crown entering into the treaties which guaranteed the MI'kmaq people certain perpetual fishing and hunting rights in exchange for ceding their traditional terrirtories.

You are correct, and that's the issue at hand.

The Mi'kmaw side

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-new...ishing-rights/

Basically the premise is: they are a sovereign nation and can do what they want.

Most Mi’kmaq, and Wolastoq bands in the Atlantic region signed commercial fishing deals after the Marshall decision – but Moderate Livelihood has never been defined.

A Moderate Livelihood is supposed to allow a Mi’kmaw individual to make a living off resources. As a sovereign nation on unceded territory, the Mi’kmaw have jurisdiction and that is the basis to make their own rules for their fishery and that is what they’re asserting right now.

The Food, Social and Ceremonial fishery allows that catch to be eaten or used in ceremony – but it can’t be sold.

Canada has rules for FSC and Commercial – but Mi’kmaw want a third fishery – but there are no rules for it so they’re making their own.

The problem is because fishing is heavily restricted, this causes a case of two competing factions with one side having no restrictions.

That's why it's such a touchy subject, when you have 'countries' within countries. Middling weak government's failure to act one way or another and kick the can down the road (as we saw with the blockades which resolved nothing with Trudeau's weak handling of the situation) causing situations like the vigilantism that just occurred. Mi'kmaw took matters in their own hands feeling government was doing nothing, and the non-aboriginal fisherman took matters in their own hands.

Obviously going out with pitchforks isn't an answer, but to those fisherman who weren't alive 260 years ago this is felt like an injustice. At the same time, the Mi'kmaw are legally correct but governments hate to govern, so here we are. Government generated racism.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Why wouldn’t they live there? You think indigenous lands would’ve remained independently sovereign for the last 300 years?

This is an impotent point, one I feel is often overlooked. The notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I’m also intrigued by the thought of treaties vs. conquest. I have no idea about the particulars of the treaty, but an agreement in perpetuity is a bad idea. If conquest were in fact the only way to change this...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 81MC

This is an impotent point, one I feel is often overlooked. The notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I’m also intrigued by the thought of treaties vs. conquest. I have no idea about the particulars of the treaty, but an agreement in perpetuity is a bad idea. If conquest were in fact the only way to change this...

Well, it is open to the parties to renegotiate a treaty or negotiate new ones.

With respect to conquest to extinguish (constitutionally-protected) treaty rights, I suspect the group of Canadians who find this to be a remotely palatable option in 2020 is vanishingly small.

[Flamenspiel]

The fishing rights thing is unique, really the goal is to address conservation, if you kill all the animals there will be nothing left. Going forward, it does not matter which group is destroying the resource, it can’t continue.

Are the Masai given special permits to kill elephants in Kenya?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by 81MC

This is an impotent point, one I feel is often overlooked. The notion that the native lands in Canada would have been left alone, and the indigenous people free in their own territory in 2020 is rather naive and totally unrealistic.


I’m also intrigued by the thought of treaties vs. conquest. I have no idea about the particulars of the treaty, but an agreement in perpetuity is a bad idea. If conquest were in fact the only way to change this...

Can you expand on what you mean?