|
ARACHTION posted:The BC Humans Rights tribunal could see definitive proof whether or not the French are rude assholes. You can't just be a bullying rear end in a top hat and say "oh it's just my culture". Workplaces have anti-bullying and harassment rules for a reason, and he should have followed them regardless of where he's from.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is just like how very few people openly admit racism is acceptable but if you put before them a scenario that is plainly racism they come up with rationalizations for why actually it's not. Ah this explains why white people are always putting their pictures on their resumes
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Ah this explains why white people are always putting their pictures on their resumes It definitely helps that you get hired based solely on the quality of your resume and not on job interviews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
I think part of it is also the fact that a lot of the people who insist that others 'check their privilege' essentially ignore the role that economic status plays in the hierarchy and focus almost exclusively on race and gender. There is definitely an advantage to being a lily white male in the west in this day and age but that alone does not make life suddenly easy mode, especially when someone who may have won the privilege lottery when it comes to their gender or ethnicity barely has a hold the lovely end of the stick when it comes to the economic side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
"Privilege" has always included economic status dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It definitely helps that you get hired based solely on the quality of your resume and not on job interviews. Wasn't being sarcastic, this is an actual trend I've noticed lately. White people love putting their face on their resumes
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I think part of it is also the fact that a lot of the people who insist that others 'check their privilege' essentially ignore the role that economic status plays a very large role in the hierarchy and focus almost exclusively on race and gender. There is definitely an advantage to being a lily white male in the west in this day and age but that alone does not make life suddenly easy mode, especially when someone who may have won the privilege lottery when it comes to their gender or ethnicity barely has a hold the lovely end of the stick when it comes to the economic side. Yeah, part of the hostility to social justice endeavours I think comes from people who get told they have privilege but, because of privilege's invisibility, interpret that against their own hardships--the jobs they didn't get or that they lost, the debt they've taken on, the failure of their business, the decline of their town or industry, whatever--and reject the idea of privilege, in part because the word's more traditional meaning is more or less synonymous with luxury. Leading a life of "privilege" used to mean leading a life of ease and luxury, typically that you were born into by having rich parents. Yet it's also true that even poor white people absolutely have advantages over, for example, poor black or First Nations people. Even a lovely job that a poor white man might end up with and hate every day, they probably had some degree of advantage in the hiring procedure if there were people of colour or women considered for that job as well, but that's a very hard pill to swallow when your own life is difficult every day. The other thing though, is that gender and, especially, racial privilege often accompanies economic privilege. A single father is likely to be able to provide a richer upbringing than a single mother. A white family, statistically speaking, is more likely to raise their children in a middle- or upper-class household than a family of colour, which leads to better economic outcomes. A white family has significantly more intergenerational wealth transfer that children benefit from later in life, and so on. Yeah on an individual level it's easy to point out poor white people and say "how is privilege helping them?" but on a societal aggregate level privilege of race, gender, and economic status tend to go together, which is exactly one of the problems we're trying to point out and find solutions for. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
In my experience the relatively small part of the population that actually becomes explicitly political - whether you're joining your parents to phone bank for the local conservative candidate, getting radicalized by your first year gender studies class, making friends with the members of your local campus Trot group, dumpster diving with food not bombs, making future political connections with all the Young Liberals on the college debate team - the bottom line is that if you actually think about politics and develop a semi-coherent ideological framework for interpreting the world then you're already an oddball. Also most of the time you're relatively young and new to the material. Unsurpringly these people often find ways to implement their new ideology that mostly flatter themselves. I don't think it makes much difference if you're a 20 year old college libertarian or a hardcore vegan SJW. The more important thing is you're young, opinionated and full of energy. People like that are often inclined to steer other people they talk with onto contentious topics or to try and police other people's language in pointless ways or to otherwise look for any excuse to deploy their new knowledge and beliefs or to generate controversy and attention. In many cases the vague notoriety you can get from being that person is probably part of the appeal. The result is a lot of normies or less committed politicos end up meeting a bunch of hardcore political believers who can be pretty socially obnoxious to hang around. I think it has less to do with the specific beliefs these people hold and more to do with the primary demographic of people who care about ideological politics, i.e. university students, academics, lawyers and people with certain types of advanced professional degrees. tl:dr politics is often just a social technology that gets deployed to dominate conversations, and the result is that people who are into politics often give any flavour of political ideology a bad name
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Wasn't being sarcastic, this is an actual trend I've noticed lately. White people love putting their face on their resumes Oh okay, yeah. That's weird, especially nowadays when the person can just see your face by looking you up on LinkedIn or whatever. I thought the conventional wisdom was to never ever do this unless your job depends on your looks like if you're an actor or a model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
There is a critical distinction to make too that privilege is never about saying life is easy, it is saying that people who have [arbitrary identifying trait] have it more difficult because of that/those trait[s]. e. typo Stickarts fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:There is a critical distinction to make too that privilege is never about saying life is easy, it is saying that people who have [arbitrary identifyig trait] have it more difficult because of that/those trait[s]. Yeah in this case I actually think the word "privilege" itself can harm rather than help, when compared to a word like "advantage" for example. Saying someone has privilege can sound like they have it easy, whereas saying they have advantages I think does a better job of conveying the meaning we're going for, which is that they have a relative leg up over people who don't have whatever trait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
It is the same with the alarmism on the right when they hear you can’t be racist towards whites. They take that to be some crazy out-of-touch hippie poo poo, but fail to understand that such a statement is working with a different definition of racism. Namely, one taken up in academia/Critical Race Theory where a necessary prerequisite of racism is that it has to “punch down” - that is, reassert and reestablish preexisitng racial inequality. Anybody can be hateful, discriminatory shitheads, but operating under this definition, racism has an explicit notion of power attached to it. Now, feel free to critique academia for creating their own definitions of common language if you want, but that’s a very different line of attack than what you see popping up on social media about this fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
That's the thing. 'Privilege' in this context is incredibly nuanced and telling one who doesn't understand that context and nuance to check theirs is a great way to alienate people. Same with concepts like systemic racism and the like. When privilege and systemic racism and the like are used to brow beat people who don't even really grasp the concept, or when the people doing the brow beating appear to refuse to admit that people who are privileged in one aspect of their lives may have had disadvantages to overcome in other ways, they aren't going to win people over ideologically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
So we're tossing Russian diplomats out as well. How long before Putin annexes Ukraine again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
69 days
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This is just like how very few people openly admit racism is acceptable but if you put before them a scenario that is plainly racism they come up with rationalizations for why actually it's not. Stickarts posted:It is the same with the alarmism on the right when they hear you can’t be racist towards whites. They take that to be some crazy out-of-touch hippie poo poo, but fail to understand that such a statement is working with a different definition of racism. Namely, one taken up in academia/Critical Race Theory where a necessary prerequisite of racism is that it has to “punch down” - that is, reassert and reestablish preexisitng racial inequality. Anybody can be hateful, discriminatory shitheads, but operating under this definition, racism has an explicit notion of power attached to it. We can't be racists if we're the ones in charge of the meaning of the word you see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
Yea - NZAmoeba a couple days ago talked about accessibility of ideas and helsing just touched on this too - a lot of the most fervent propagaters of these ideas - at least the most visible ones - in social media are youth. Which is great, but their passion makes up for their lack of nuance. Bucking historical inertia is to always be battling uphill. In terms of institutional disadvantages - I would say I don’t think it is a coincidence that that left has so totally lost the messaging war over the past two generations. Why on earth would a media conglomerate owned by members of the world’s ultra elite be interested in giving anti-establishment ideology a fair shake? Add on that leftist ideas do end up making you feel inherently uncomfortable and yea, it can be a tough sell if you go about it the wrong way. So you have these controversial topics being discussed in a broader media sphere, and neither the acolytes, opponents, or medium itself are particularly inclined to nuance and intricacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
And then as these concepts start losing ground to the more easy to digest but much shittier ideas like garbage populism, the left is getting increasingly angry at the people they're failing to reach (which only makes it hard to reach these people in the first place), rather than directing that anger at their own failure to reach them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
The NYT did a really good stats piece on upward and downward mobility in class between whites and blacks in America. It was pretty surprising because I thought that in general racism just keep poor people poor and rich people were able to stay rich once they got there, but they found the opposite. Around 65% of whites born rich stayed upper-middle class or rich with only 20% going below middle class. 36% of blacks born rich stayed upper-middle class or rich while almost 40% dropped below middle-class by adulthood. Upward mobility in class was worse, 75% of black children born poor grew up to be lower-middle-class or poor adult, compared to 54% for poor white children. They come to conclusion that systematic racism in society and incarceration are to blame. I wouldn't doubt that the numbers are similar for PoC in Canada. https://nyti.ms/2GGpFZw
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Given that systemic racism and incarceration in Canadian society is directed more towards First Nations people than people of African decent, I'd say those US numbers probably match more with the class mobility in this country of the former than the latter. EDIT: that isn't to say that Canadians of African descent don't face systemic racism in Canada, just that I'd be surprised if it were at the same level as in the US.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
For Black People they're probably unnoticeably better or the same, for our Native population theyre almost guaranteeably worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Nobody wants to be told, for example, that they might have got their job because they're white or they're a man and that tipped them over the edge compared to an equally qualified, equally hard-working person of colour or woman, because in their personal experience their job is a recognition of their own hard work and accomplishments rather than their privilege, which is so intangible it might as well not even exist. It also needs to be careful to strike a good balance too, I'm personally frustrated when people go too far the other way. The Dalhousie VP of something opening, where only PoC's and indigenous people were allowed to apply/be considered strikes me as going too far. If I got the job, everyday I would wonder if it was because of my skin and not because of my actual qualifications. The optics too would be bad as everyone would naturally assume that I only got it because of my skin color, as Bob from halifax could have applied being a VP at say Acadia but was never considered because he was "unfortunate" enough to be born white
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:The NYT did a really good stats piece on upward and downward mobility in class between whites and blacks in America. It was pretty surprising because I thought that in general racism just keep poor people poor and rich people were able to stay rich once they got there, but they found the opposite. Around 65% of whites born rich stayed upper-middle class or rich with only 20% going below middle class. 36% of blacks born rich stayed upper-middle class or rich while almost 40% dropped below middle-class by adulthood. Upward mobility in class was worse, 75% of black children born poor grew up to be lower-middle-class or poor adult, compared to 54% for poor white children. They come to conclusion that systematic racism in society and incarceration are to blame. I wouldn't doubt that the numbers are similar for PoC in Canada. Pro-click quote from that article: quote:“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Just as an interesting aside - Caribbean or African-born immigrants new to America generally end up faring considerably better than African Americans/descendants of slaves. Which goes to show perhaps how much of this is in fact institutional/intergenerational. And yea, Canada’s Indigenous population wellbeing performs demonstrably worse than Blacks in America by almost every metric. e. That’s a good read. Adding that to the “evidence” pile. Stickarts fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
I'm a white guy who has several women and POC in the same position as me with a lot fewer technical (and personal) skills than me. It took me four years of scratching and clawing to get to the top of the pay rate in my position even though I've been training everyone else the entire time, and have numerous unique responsibilities. I actually had to listen to HR talk to me about the "optics" of giving me large raises several times. I never felt the need to get on a soap box and cry about my position. It was between me and my employer. I certainly didn't feel the need to deny the existence of white privilege. Even though I wasn't necessarily benefiting from it in the workplace, it may have helped me get there. poo poo, I'm 29 and have never been pulled over! However, it did suck... I can sort of see how some people start to lose it and get sucked into the talking points of the right, especially if they are regularly exposed to young activists telling them how bad they should feel all of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:It also needs to be careful to strike a good balance too, I'm personally frustrated when people go too far the other way. The Dalhousie VP of something opening, where only PoC's and indigenous people were allowed to apply/be considered strikes me as going too far. If I got the job, everyday I would wonder if it was because of my skin and not because of my actual qualifications. The optics too would be bad as everyone would naturally assume that I only got it because of my skin color, as Bob from halifax could have applied being a VP at say Acadia but was never considered because he was "unfortunate" enough to be born white Isn't it funny though that when that gets made explicit it's a big deal but when it's only implied it's fine? Let's compare a few scenarios: 1. A job opening that says "only whites apply". Only white people apply, only white people are interviewed for the job, and a white person is hired. 2. A job opening that says "everyone apply". A diverse mix of people apply, only white people are interviewed for the job, and a white person is hired. 3. A job opening that says "everyone apply". A diverse mix of people apply, a mix of white people and people of colour are interviewed, and a white person is hired. 4. A job opening that says "everyone apply". A diverse mix of people apply, a mix of white people and people of colour are interviewed, and a person of colour is hired. 5. A job opening that says "everyone apply, diverse candidates encouraged". A diverse mix of people apply, a mix of white people and people of colour are interviewed, and a person of colour is hired. 6. A job opening that says "only people of colour apply". Only people of colour apply, only people of colour are interviewed, and a person of colour is hired. What is the most common out of these six options? Probably number 3, for reasons of both population makeup (white people are the largest demographic) and implicit racial bias in the hiring procedure. But on a systemic scale, we don't tend to get bothered by white people having a proportionately higher chance of being hired, and on an individual level every single one of the hiring decisions in a #3 scenario can be justified by that person being "the best candidate" for that job. #1 is obviously unacceptable and would be sued for racial discrimination. #6 is unacceptable because it makes white people uncomfortable to think that they might be disadvantaged by the colour of their skin, and may cause, as you point out in your post, people to dismiss the person who is hired for that job as a pure diversity hire who wasn't the best candidate. But curiously enough we tend to be fine with #2 and #3 (and also #4 and probably #5 in the other direction), where any racial bias in hiring outcomes is implicit instead of explicit. We're okay with white people being hired if we can justify it by saying they were the best candidate, and (key point here) those white people never question if they only got the job because of their skin colour, because we never mentioned skin colour. Bias in their favour might exist and might even be the actual tipping point deciding factor that means they get the job instead of someone else, but no one talks about it, and so we all go through life saying it's fine because they didn't get the job because of race, whereas when we make bias explicit in either direction it suddenly makes us very uncomfortable to think that race has a direct influence on hiring. Sometimes we have to be explicit to counteract implicit racism. I don't think the best way to do that is a hiring mechanism like #6, but I do think there have to be explicit attempts to increase the chances of disadvantaged groups, because otherwise there is a lot of research data that says we end up perpetuating and reproducing inequalities--and, in the process, we may also end up worse off because we're not actually recruiting, hiring, or promoting the best people for each position because implicit biases that have nothing to do with competence are influencing our decisions at every stage of the educational and vocational process. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
And when you're in an environment where both the majority of the population is white and the scales of systemic racism are already tipped in their favor, the damage done to the discourse of correcting this unbalance by one high profile position opting for method #6 is immense and does a massive disservice when it comes to getting people to acknowledge that #2 and #3 are potentially problematic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
That comes a little too close to letting whites/whitey/wypepo off the hook for their own lovely behaviour for me. The onus has to remain on the individual to acknowledge how they have benefitted from and perpetuated these systems, even while we critique the messaging. We have golf courses in Canada that are still men-only. Why is that not similarly rage-inducing for these people? (The answer is carefully cultivated ideological blind spots.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
I think men only golf courses are stupid. But those are private members-only clubs and it's probably impossible to mandate that they change. I mean, gently caress, we can't even mandate that public accommodations be inclusive, as evidenced by gender-specific spas and gyms. If we made a law saying this kind of discrimination was illegal, would anything of value would be lost?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Stickarts posted:That comes a little too close to letting whites/whitey/wypepo off the hook for their own lovely behaviour for me. The onus has to remain on the individual to acknowledge how they have benefitted from and perpetuated these systems, even while we critique the messaging. What's the correct frame of mind for the individual to acknowledge the benefits? I tend to think of it like a lottery winner, eg it's lucky as hell and I couldn't do it again if I tried. I'm not going to give it all away but I will try to spend it on luxuries and trinkets that I enjoy in a not racist way. I feel like that would make us happier anyways, like my lottery winner taking a minute with his family before dinner to say "hey, we acknowledge that we didn't really earn this prime rib but thank you to the giant roulette wheel in the sky that made it possible" or acknowledging their shakespeare play or golf game about to happen on unceded native land. Attitude of gratitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Take a look at the top of Ottawa's sunshine list. I'm sure these guys use a lot of sunscreen and cialis. Maybe these guys are the most qualified for their positions. Or maybe they're old white men. I'm sure an analysis of the Ontario sunshine list would find a greater share of white men than would be expected given population breakdowns. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/health-executives-again-top-provincial-sunshine-list-of-100000-plus-earners-in-2017
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I think men only golf courses are stupid. But those are private members-only clubs and it's probably impossible to mandate that they change. I mean, gently caress, we can't even mandate that public accommodations be inclusive, as evidenced by gender-specific spas and gyms. These are two separate issues. Men-only golf clubs exist to exclude women because their boobs get in the way of proper golf or whatever. Women-only spas and gyms exist to exclude creepy, leering rear end in a top hat men, who became enough of a real, consistent problem to create a need in that market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:What's the correct frame of mind for the individual to acknowledge the benefits? I tend to think of it like a lottery winner, eg it's lucky as hell and I couldn't do it again if I tried. I'm not going to give it all away but I will try to spend it on luxuries and trinkets that I enjoy in a not racist way. I feel like that would make us happier anyways, like my lottery winner taking a minute with his family before dinner to say "hey, we acknowledge that we didn't really earn this prime rib but thank you to the giant roulette wheel in the sky that made it possible" or acknowledging their shakespeare play or golf game about to happen on unceded native land. Attitude of gratitude. Everyone in Canada would benefit from a stronger understanding of the way race, class, gender, etc intersect to produce and reproduce inequity. Why are our communities so segregated by class (and race)? Why don't I have any friends outside of my own socioeconomic class? Why do we complain about all the "free handouts" and funding FN reserves get, when that funding (specifically the chronic, continued UNDERfunding) is precisely what keeps reserves trapped in generations' worth of cycles of poverty? If we really think prisoners/refugees have it so easy, why don't we join them? Pursuant of DariusLikeWise's NYT article, the cycle of poverty is a real and inescapable fact of life in Canada (I know I have posted this graph before):  Wealth accumulation remains a zero sum game. So to have your Scrooge McDuck pool of gold very explicitly means there are heaps of people beneath you with nothing. And the two are not unrelated data points, as they are so often viewed in society. Rather, they are intimately linked cause and effect, two sides to the same coin. In Canada, the richest 86 people had accumulated the equivalent wealth of the lowest 34 percent of the country’s population ($178 billion). However, this zero sum game means there is no neutral ground. In this sense, awareness and gratitude are absolutely important, but on their own are simply not enough. ~**~~*Middle class*~~**~ people like you and me? There is a very personal impetus to adjusting your own beliefs, lifestyle, and actions to mirror a more equitable society. Probably some combination of volunteer work, charity, public and private advocacy for disenfranchised populations, and supporting progressive political candidates. Consider those questions I offered above. How do your own beliefs and habits mirror or reinforce social divides? How might you start to erode these internal barriers? Similar to how "thoughts and prayers" condolences are roundly mocked, action is needed, not simply awareness. Maybe the most important thing you can do is honestly just sit and think about it. What are your talents and passions? What are you skillsets? How can you apply those in a positive way? What can you, personally, do to help build momentum in the right direction? Starting to examine how you, as an individual, can utilise your own knowledge and expertise towards these ends is huge to developing a sense of personal responsibility. But this doesn't mean that your lifestyle or my lifestyle are the main culprits (though they may be not so poo poo hot, and our individual ideologies may very well be really, really bad). Yes our lifestyles are unsustainable, and we should all drive less, eat less meat, and maybe find a hobby or two other than frenzied, hand-shaking consumerism. But Canada's chapter of the international capital class is what needs to get trust-busted first and foremost - not your maple syrup-infested bee farm. Remember that an estimated 10% of Canada's annual GDP is stashed in offshore bank accounts. This means that, ultimately, much bigger fish need to be fried to affect the kind of change needed than can fit in any proverbial frying pan you or I have at our disposal. HOWEVER, that does not excuse or justify inaction, merely that we should constantly keep our eyes on the prize and direct our energy. There is no neutral observer status here. Just because I feel like sharing: Canadians universally don't understand how bad inequality is in Canada. Peep these stats: 
Stickarts fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:These are two separate issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:You misunderstand entirely. My bad. quote:The public accommodations are clearly in violation of the Human Rights Act, but have a sort of extra-legal exception carved out by the judiciary for them. (Unless there is an explicit legal exception for them of which I am unaware.) My understanding, helped along by this HRT decision on s.20.3 of the Ontario Human Rights Code ("The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed where a recreational club restricts or qualifies access to its services or facilities or gives preferences with respect to membership dues and other fees because of age, sex, marital status or family status."), is that they're both on equal footing: quote:[12] Section 20(3) allows a recreational club to restrict access to its services or facilities because of sex. In my view, a “recreational club” clearly includes a fitness facility such as the respondent’s clubs. I do not agree with the applicant’s argument that this provision does not apply to the respondent. The fitness club's reasons are valid, and the golf club's reasons are odious, but if my reading of this is right, they're both protected. I think that's some poo poo, and the way to fix it would be to correctly call the men's only clubs the echoes of terrible misogyny that they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
And one other thing - just keep learning. I swear learning is the ultimate subversive act. Indigenous affairs in Canada are maybe my favourite example of this because everyone has an opinion, but remarkably few people have any real understanding of the history that has brought us to today. Read the Executive Summary of the TRC, or at the very least the section titled "The history". There is a huge difference in effect (tying back to trying to establish a sense of personal responsibility and agency in these matters) between knowing something was bad and being able to explain specifically what and why: http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Exec_Summary_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
So many of those men-only golf or social clubs are still full of rich old-school dudes who do so much of their networking deals there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Given that systemic racism and incarceration in Canadian society is directed more towards First Nations people than people of African decent, I'd say those US numbers probably match more with the class mobility in this country of the former than the latter. Sorry I was referring to Indigenous people especially when I said you could draw parallels to Canada Stickarts posted:Everyone in Canada would benefit from a stronger understanding of the way race, class, gender, etc intersect to produce and reproduce inequity. Why are our communities so segregated by class (and race)? Why don't I have any friends outside of my own socioeconomic class? Why do we complain about all the "free handouts" and funding FN reserves get, when that funding (specifically the chronic, continued UNDERfunding) is precisely what keeps reserves trapped in generations' worth of cycles of poverty? If we really think prisoners/refugees have it so easy, why don't we join them? I think this is most important part and should be the starting point for any discussion when it comes to fixing Reserves and FN living conditions in Canada. Underfunding has been an issue since the beginning of this country and it's created a massive deficit of infrastructure on reserves and our governments continue to hand wave about how much they are doing and kick the can down the road and exasperate the issue. Then you have people like Senator Beyak who is pushing the false narrative that Indian Status grants you more privilege then anyone else in the country and the only possibility for reconciliation is if FN people give up status, any (small) benefits they receive currently and give up all and any bargaining power they have now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Also I gotta give credit to Helsing, I was wrong, I hope everyone gets used to hearing "Prime Minister Scheer"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Also I gotta give credit to Helsing, I was wrong, I hope everyone gets used to hearing "Prime Minister Scheer" Normally I don't get excited about Conservatives climbing in the polls but in my heart I know this is because of the Liberals completely cynically ignoring the agenda they were elected on and it makes me smile. gently caress the Liberals. If the weed shops were already open, if electoral reform had actually been pursued in a meaningful way and if they'd properly taken steps to scale back C-51 they'd be 10 points higher in those polls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:14
|
|
