|
Post by Ubereil on Jul 31, 2009 9:10:57 GMT
They brought that oppression onto themselves. Remember, the natives who are alive today, are the descendants of the natives who killed the other natives for the British. Their ancestors, Terror, not they. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 31, 2009 10:20:35 GMT
Hildor, alright. Then I won't call Terre a potential Nazi, I will "just" call him a selfproclaimed Rascist. Guess that's better. [insert head exploding smilie]
PS: Ube just made a very good point.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2009 10:45:49 GMT
Ube did indeed just make a very good point. It's the ancestors on ALL sides, isn't it? There's no reason to persecute anyone for the deeds done by others many generations ago - and that surely includes the NON-Native Canadians as well as the Native Canadians. How many generations must a people live in one nation before they are considered native to that land, anyway?
"My ancestors were hard done by" is no excuse for anyone, anywhere.
As I noted earlier, the real problem seems to be the Canadian govt being addicted to inter-generational stupidity caused by guilt at what their ancestors did (Or what they believe their ancestors did, which amounts to the same thing) and that's what needs dealing with.
It would appear that there IS a genuine problem here - or at least I have yet to see anyone refute that in any way. So how do you all think the actual problem should be dealt with?
|
|
|
Post by Hildor on Jul 31, 2009 11:13:03 GMT
That's a very tough one.
Whatever you will do, people will always complain. If you start up a "restructuring" program, the people will complain because they loose their free money. They WILL use the "your ancestor did wrong to my ancestor" argument. And there are still enough ears in the world that listen to that argument.
If you use Terre's argument that their own ancestor's brought the opression upon theirselves, you'll face even more unbelief and you'll probably be called a hypocrite. People generally don't use historical research before they start yelling that at governments.
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Jul 31, 2009 13:20:03 GMT
With due respect, I don't think that this problem will ever be dealt with properly, at least not until the balless, neutered, form of thinking which tries to find the easy way out by using money and perks as a form of apology instead of letting the victims and aggressors(or their descendants) work it out peacefully and fruitfully, goes away. And that thinking is never going away until non-politically correct solutions that may offend someone in the process, are allowed. Hildor: you make some very valid points. But most often than not, I find that people who complain about how others handled the “your ancestor did wrong to my ancestor" issue are often just as guilty too. And if we want to be cruel, machoistic b*stards, we can go back to over 150, 000 years ago when our own species were all tribes and happily well... fighting. Which includes the possibility btw, that they killed off a few other humanoid species. There, that makes all of us guilty for what our ancestors did, right?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2009 13:25:16 GMT
As a further point, is it not the case that any law which favours one group over another purely on grounds of their ethnicity is by definition racist?
If the facts are as Terror states, would this not mean that the Canadian system is systematically and institutionally racist?
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jul 31, 2009 15:00:45 GMT
As a further point, is it not the case that any law which favours one group over another purely on grounds of their ethnicity is by definition racist? Not necesarily racist. Definently discrimination, but not necesarily racist. Like I've said before, for it to be racism it has to be based on racism, and the case usually isn't "blacks/indians/whatever deserves more than others", it's "blacks/indians/whatever are disadvantaged in society so they should be given benefits to compensate for this". Which isn't really racism. It does work on the assumption that all X are the same, which is it's biggest flaw, together with the fact that we're helping the wrong group. We're not helping blacks/indians/whatever because they're blacks/indians/whatever. We're helping them because they're disadvantaged/poor. So the legislation should favour disadvantaged/poor pepole. That way white kids who grow up in poor circumstances will get the help they need as well. Trying to counteract discrimination based on racism with positive discrimination is usually a bad idea in the long run. Because eventually racism will go away (and we should work on that, but not with discrimination), and then we'll be fighting racism when we should be fighting social injustice. There's another issue with mental roadblocks when it comes to what pepole can and cannot be. For example, female mathematicians. Now, the problem isn't that we don't think females can't be mathematicians, not anymore anyway. We've moved past the "women can't think properly" stage. And it's not like we have pepole claiming they can't. But the thing is: men mathematicians are heavily overrepresented. Is this because male brains are more suited for math? Not at all, women are just as good as men in math. The problem is that society has a mental roadblock when it comes to female mathematicians. Everybody thinks it's alright with female mathematicians, but when women are considering their careers they don't really consider it. Breaking these are difficult, since it takes place subconciously. But here I believe it can be motivated to give the the "minority" gender (never really about race, these things) priority in schooling, just to break the norms. Of course there are problems with this (the most important being that in many cases no one outside of the loop will notice. If we ignore the obvious ethical problems with discrimination ;D). But anyway, that's doesn't really have much to do with native americans in Canada... Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Jul 31, 2009 15:23:36 GMT
IMO a lot of the issue we are having in schools today is down to restructuring the way that schooling is done to be more friendly to female minds. (that and the fact that teachers are held hostage by the law, as an unkind assertation by a few students could see the teacher sacked, or at least suspended and probably unable to get another teaching position ever again). While ignoring the way that most males need to be taught.
We're also no longer teaching the basics of the subjects, we're just teaching facts.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jul 31, 2009 15:30:13 GMT
Yes, Elliot, to the point it is based on ethnicity, I agree - any preference of one group is a discrimination of another. And don't we all have anti-discrimination laws in place?
All of the problems mentioned can be found in all countries - and while the respective ethnical background differs, they're all under-priviledged in their environment.
Solutions?
Well, two things appear significant to me: 1. education/adaption While there is absolutely no need to renounce on one's cultural background and traditions, if one wants to live in a country, I see nothing wrong in making the learning of the official language mandatory and to require a certain minimum level of schooling. That means that equal access to education should be available. The success from that education may be individual - but that is true for anybody.
2. cost of living A social system which allows you to get more money net in your pocket than you make when you work for your living is prone to fail.
I'm currently faced with the situation (while hiring people) that there is a minmum wage for house cleaners - but I'm looking for house wardens, which should have a technical, journeyman level education, even though cleaning is a part of their job. Now for those there is no minimum wage, and such, their 'market price' indeed drops below the pure cleaners, resulting in wages one can hardly live off.
I find the German system of having minimum wages for certain professions only (because they were heavily exploited and yelled loudest) and not for others similarily low paid counter-productive.
IF there are minimum wages set by law, it should be for everybody. And it should be higher than welfare benefits.
That does certainly not resolve the problems of unemployment, and in any social system (and I believe there should be one for those who, for any reason, cannot work though they would want to) there will be some abusing the system.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2009 16:11:57 GMT
I agree with you, Glance.
I'm totally in favour of helping the truly disadvantaged to get a leg up (Which I'm fairly sure is what Ube is actually suggesting), but in a way that is race/ethnicity blind, rather than assuming all people who share a certain physical characteristic (Whether it be gender, ethnicity or anything else) are automatically disadvantaged. I think this also comes back to Glance's earlier point about the laziness of govts in wanting to wish away problems by throwing money at them rather than creating genuine solutions.
To me, though, it is most of all about using the school system to teach our children to aspire. A child who wishes to be a great artist, or scientist or writer or anything else is far less likely to end up trapped in the kind of life that no parent should ever want for their children, simply because they want more for themselves.
Right now, though, there are whole areas of many countries that are effectively ghettos of low ambition, low achievement and low aspiration. Where the children are simply allowed to think of themselves as worthless and never encouraged to believe they might be so much more than they could ever imagine. I blame the govts for this. It's an urgent social problem and it needs tackling badly.
***
As for the unemployment issue, I think there will always be unemployed people, sadly. What every country really needs in order to thrive, though, is a minimal state sector, low taxes and minimum interference with businesses. high taxes, high regulation and a large state sector will always hurt the economy and cause unemployment to be higher than it has to be.
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Jul 31, 2009 16:41:07 GMT
I'm totally in favour of helping the truly disadvantaged to get a leg up (Which I'm fairly sure is what Ube is actually suggesting), but in a way that is race/ethnicity blind, rather than assuming all people who share a certain physical characteristic (Whether it be gender, ethnicity or anything else) are automatically disadvantaged. That was pretty much what I was saying. To a point, anyway. Because I believe that gender roles are something that disadvantages the different genders, especially women. Of course, I'm not sure counter discrimination is the way to deal with this either. So, if we take away gender then I definently and fully agree. If we keep gender then I'm not as sure, but I still suspect it's the wrong way to go. As for the unemployment issue, I think there will always be unemployed people, sadly. What every country really needs in order to thrive, though, is a minimal state sector, low taxes and minimum interference with businesses. high taxes, high regulation and a large state sector will always hurt the economy and cause unemployment to be higher than it has to be. This is countered by the fact that the state needs money to run all it's supposed to run (school, health care, police and social security are the most important parts). That takes taxes. Also, we still need to ensure workers rights and we can't trust the market to regulate itself. The market will do that wich pays the most and that is far from always not what benefits pepole the most. It's a difficult balance, because doing both what you said and what I said at the same time isn't exactly a walk in the park. Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 31, 2009 17:50:09 GMT
That's why I said 'minimal' rather than 'no', Ube The state has an important role to play, but it should never be allowed to grow so large that it stifles the productive part of the economy through OVER taxation. And yes - it IS a hard balance to find. I'm not convinced any country really has it right, yet.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 31, 2009 23:35:25 GMT
I'm currently faced with the situation (while hiring people) that there is a minmum wage for house cleaners - but I'm looking for house wardens, which should have a technical, journeyman level education, even though cleaning is a part of their job. Soooo... *wiggles thumb innocently* are you still searching?
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 1, 2009 13:00:40 GMT
Yes, the search still is in process - why?
(innocently wiggled thumbs make me - think of a sleeping tiger's tail)
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 2, 2009 2:34:11 GMT
^ Well, I might have someone who fits your requirements.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Aug 3, 2009 5:24:28 GMT
racism in my country is not that all different from any other. for example, the majority (by approximately 60%) are Malays. originally they were underprivileged, thanks to the Brits' divide & rule methodology. so when Malaysia got its independence, the Malays naturally tried to set things straight. one of the ways is affirmative action. thing is; it's still going on.
now, how is that after 52 years, the Malays are still behind in just about every aspect; economics, education etc even though this race has been in the majority when it comes to political power?
one thing i know is this; the ruling Malays perpetuate the divide & rule scourge, with education as one of the tools to keep the masses docile.
one can even be racist towards one's own.
|
|