babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
The very fact that you have people questioning how you can be both colonized and colonizers having given up your sovereignty only to take that of others indicates that you may be using the wrong example.
The right example is not only more fitting, it is likely the model for Canada.
That example is Scotland.
It was built on a much earlier example: the Roman empire.
There is not only no need to get in to comparisons with Puerto Rico, you can simply look at the foundations of Western civilization and later the British empire to see how this works:
You invade and take over a territory. You then use its resources human and otherwise to invade and take over others. With respect, anyone with any Western history should understand that the key to keeping one country subservient is to get them involved in colonizing others. You strip them of the resources they would use to develop and satisfy their own people and use them to your ends. You supply employment to the very people that could rise up in rebellion against you using them to keep down others in other places.
You rank the parts of the empire by power so some do much better than others and make sure the rest of the world is so impoverished that being in the empire pyramid can look more attractive than being out of it (in perhaps the way all pyramid schemes work, there is an illusion about the potential for success.
But there is a difference for Canada. Some of us are so steeped in the Western civilization colonizing pyramid that we do it willingly. That is one of a few things that irks people looking at this model when it is compared to the oppressed people of the world. In previous versions, the empire would use force sourced in another part of the empire to keep control of the local in order to get them to participate. In Canada it is a stretch to say this. While we certainly do have foreign (mostly American) powers keeping us down the reality is we cannot pretend that they are the strongest force in that. Canada has all the ability it needs to change direction. The power controlling this country, delivering it to the empire is home grown. This is the richest of Canada. Our governing class has the power to make Canada independent but chooses not to. this is what makes the idea that we are both colonized and colonizers somewhat debatable even if the concept itself is not. The governing class in Canada would find some foreign power to align itself with-- if the US were not there they would find another. In that sense the root of our problem and source of the power we are fighting with, is actually here and could be removed if Canadians wanted to. We even have institutions that as screwed up as they are, remain potent enough to change things but we choose not to make that change.
In this sense the idea of Canada being as subservient to the US as its small fairly powerless colonies, is unreasonable. It diminishes the experience of countries where the populace is not (or not as) complicit in their participation in the empire, denies that we do this by choice and it therefore excuses Canadians for their inaction. So it is a problematic argument.
On a side not, I really like you Fidel but I can't agree that it is impossible or not worthy of effort to find other language that does not offend to make your point. Not only is it possible by not doing so you give up on allies that otherwise might agree with you.
I am no fan of banning, preferring to have the conversation rather than sweep it away. The way this is now being discussed here is the right way a group should handle it rather than through suppression of other voices. But when we consider the suppression of voices we have to acknowledge that there is a balance here-- heavy handed banning is a problem but not all oppression comes from above people can be oppressed by a majority not listening and respecting. This is why avoiding things that are found to be offensive is so important-- not avoiding those things after they have been identified is oppression.
Fidel, check your PMs.
I go out to the country for a few days, and some great storm blows up in Teapot Babble.
Seriously, a falling out over 'Northern Puerto Rico? It's not worth the candle, and pity the mods who are making calls on the fly. they're not machines...and somehow getting ugly post-facto only inclines people to dig in further maybe, I dunno. I don't see the problem with northern Puerto Rico as a term, if the intention was to compare Canada to another colonized subsidiary of Empire America.
We flatter ourselves, not entirely falsely that we have a cultural identity that separates us from the United States. Proximate as we are to the leading global economic/political actor of the last century, with what, a tenth of the population on a massive resource base - just as global stocks are dwindling - and a history we can measure in a couple of dozen centuries, yeah, that's gonna have a MAJOR EFFECT on our domestic material and political culture.
Also, fuck it, Fidel is indispensable to babble.
Nonsense. Good thing it was communicated in private. And I will be discrete about it because it's nothing that hasn't been repeated already. Lord help us.
The electoral system is fraudulent. No Canadians are asked whetyher or not we should send troops anywhere in the world. The decisions are made behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. The NDP can certainly demand transparency and accountability to the public, but the stoogeaucracy is having none of it. The public is kept in the dark concerning issues of torture. Those orders come from the imperial master nation where they have perfected torture techniques since the cold war era. Americans are told that torture is something new and that is done for the sake of National Security. It's a lie. Torture has no intelligence value whatsoever, and it is done for other reasons of propping-up a military dictatorship and American inquisition. Ottawa is merely a subserviant colonial outpost. Transparency and accountability to the public is anathema to dictatorship.
Why do we not equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism?
And we do not use mild references to Israel but highly controversial ones which surely offend many ethnic Jewish people there and around the world. Why is it permissible to openly offend Jewish people and their rabidly anti-Semitic right wing Christian supporting cast in the imperial master nation? It's a complete mystery to me.
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the U.S. Puerto Ricans do not vote in federal elections and are thusly disenfranchised at the national level. Puerto Rico was transformed into a plantation for the benefit of American agribusinesses and then an export platform for US corporations subsidized by US taxpayers similar to the way Canada is used as an export platform for US corporations and especially so since FTA and NAFTA. The difference is that Puerto Rico was never observed by their imperial masters to be a nation and therefore economic and trade issues dictated to them from the beginning.
Puerto Rico is a virtual colony of the U.S. I'm thinking fourth world status, like China pre-1949. (1970's if you subscribe to US imperialist opinions rooted in "colonialist and racist thinking" wrt China and other regions existing outside the sphere of imperial influence and control).
And you are warm with leading us to comparisons of northern unincorporated territories exploited by US corporate raiders - the actual context of the comparison made and nothing conjured-up in the minds of white bourgeois, hair in dreadlocks anti-racists with colossus egos talking past, over and above us lesser and inferior anti-racists and leftists all of the time non-stop. I respected your decision not to use an abbreviated term to refer to a bunch of violent right wing misogynists in the hire of the US government from the 1980s forward, even though I don't agree with it. How about recognizing a valid argument for a change?
The ringing could be something else. When I think of banana republic I think of the original banana republics, namely Guatemala and Honduras - actual countries in Central America where US corporations have raided their resources and cheap labour while corrupt U.S.-backed dictatorships brutally oppressed the people with right wing death squads and paramilitaries and bankrupting the country in the process. Puerto Rico is not that, and the list of differences between Puerto Rico and the banana republic is a long one. No comparison, and I have no idea why you would associate Puerto Rico with Guatemala. I think it's not helpful to confuse banana republics with virtual colonies of the US where the situation is significantly different in a number of ways.
US-backed military dictatorships slaughtered a few hundred thousand indigenous people under a series of repressive national regimes in Guatemala in the recent past. If we apply the reasoning behind a fallacious straw argument similarly, Guatemala is an imperial power and not a banana republic exploited by US corporate colonizers, which is absurd. Yes, Canadian apartheid is very real. No one is saying that it is not. Canada has done things in the name of the Queen, land speculators and corporations in the past that would shock and appall any democratically minded person believing they live in a sovereign country.
Wow.
I guess that was my fault, bringing up offensive terminology, framed specifically as offensive terminology, to attempt to offer a reason why gringos in Canada should stop using racist terminology.
Apologies.
Enjoy the thread.
Thanks.
Welcome back to Babble Fidel. I guess I'll have to step in again and back you up on this, since noone else is.
It's amazing that anyone here is still under the illusion that Canada is a full and independent partner in the latest expression of imperialist stupidity -for lack of a better more up-to-date term- particularly those who consider themselves socialists. It's hardly unusual for nations which have colonized others (almost all of them at some point) to be colonized themselves by other greater powers - it happens all the time. The FTA, NAFTA and all the other 'assimilationist' deals that have been foisted on the majority here, specifically limit the ability of Canadian citizens to excercise our sovereignty in any meaningful way, except in ways which serve the dominant partners strategic aims. Canadian elites have always kowtowed to leading AngloSaxon powers, although with Merry olde England they did serve some utility keeping their Yankee cousins out and generally held limited interest in us beyond minor industries like the fur, fish and lumber trades. Maybe the confusion here is between nationality and mercantile interests that use nationalism to divide and conquer for their own narrower benefits.
Looks to me like most of the offence here wasn't over the somewhat backwards term 'banana republic' but its application to us independent minded Canucks.
Okay that's too much firepower for two babblers, ERik. Good observations, though.
They simply aren't considering anything we have to say I afraid. We must cater to the whims of the Homer Simpsons and those who think in terms of invalid and just plain wrong stereotypes rooted in racist thinking, which probably works to validate absurdly wrong and false stereotypes rooted in colonialist-racist thinking. That's what I get from all of this.
I think it's time to lay this issue to rest. They aren't budging and neither am I on the issue itself. I've been given two options: either go with the flow or be suspended and/or banned at some point I guess.
I will be posting on a reduced basis from hereon out. Not because I am wobbling but because I should pay attention to my real life here in the matrix. Er? Yeah!
I think it is problematic to fail to distinguish between servile nations that have elections and an ability to change their course and territories controlled by military power. To do so diminishes the responsibility of citizens to vote for change and place other priorities than tax cuts in the ballot box and diminishes the difficulty of people that do not have the option to change their national course.
Yes, there is power brought to bear here and if our society is split it can make a difference but if Canadians decide to act and present different priorities we do have options. To suggest we are a conquered people is almost nihilistic as then there would be no point doing anything faced with the US power. That is not the case. As well, such a statement denies the other reality that if the US itself were to change course Canada would necessarily. There is no guarantee of that. The Harper government reflects a point of view that exists here in Canada and we have to face that rather than pretend we have no role in our future because we are conquered by a foreign power.
I think Canada was passed around like a coveted prize by three imperialist powers since the French and English barged in on North America. Napoleon thought that more focus on Europe was needed and so ceded the place to the British and then America turned its gaze on us in 1812-14 and vowed never to try that again. And so they colonized Canada by other means.
The 20th century saw the sudden collapse of half a dozen or so empires. And I think the last vicious empire is on the wane in this one. According to Raoul Duke history is hard to know because of all the hired bullshit. I agree.
You know, this is a little bit like arguing whether Santa or the Easter Bunny is more real.
And whatever one's position on the original question - what should be done when someone takes offense at something - it is about as relevant.
Canada isn't Puerto Rico; they don't get snow down there. Whatever metaphor was being made has been beaten to death by this attempt to prove it as a statement of fact.
Or like babblers never ending contrast and comparison of an incredibly tiny country in JF Dulles' "Middle East" versus a former British colony in South Africa. Did you know that our imperialist master nation incarcerates black people at six times the rate of apartheid
Israel, I mean, Pic Botha's South Africa? Nsuh! For some reason I always confuse the two apartheid nations even though there are as many differences as similarities.The past creates the present, Smith.
I realize that I'm not the most objective person in the world on this question, but I think something needs to be pointed out here:
For someone who has left babble for good six days ago, Fidel sure has been posting a lot.
It's pretty clear what's going on here. Fidel clearly had and has no intention of leaving. He was just upset over his suspension, so he pretended to be leaving in a huff to create this big production where other babblers would praise his glorious contributions to the forum and hold a little "we love you, please don't go!" party.
It's reminds me of a six year old who gets a time out and threatens to run away from home just to get some sympathy and to "show" his parents something.
And as a bonus he gets to get in the better part of a thread's worth of "parting" shots against the mod team.
I don't care if Fidel stays or goes, but I don't think it's a good idea for the babble community to be rewarding this kind of behavior.
Oh, and I am quite well aware of the predictable response of that I'm sure my post will receive. I just thought it was something important to throw out there.
And that reminds me. For those who feel they are the unwanted focus of attention by certain non-NDP or otherwise "non-partisan" babblers from time to time, and mods are either too busy or perhaps even ignoring your flagged complaints for whatever reason, there is always this script for ignoring babblers comments. It blanks the comments of any poster you choose.
Since when is despising the NDP grounds for flagging a post?
I just assumed the NDP were slightly more hated than the Harperites because of their treachery and hypocrisy and general devious nature.
Try to focus on the topic of discussion, Smith. And to summarize it's about appeasing Homer Simpson types who wrongly associate Puerto Rican workers with mainly agricultural workers in Guatemala and Honduras or "the banana republics." We must avoid the slightest possibilities for offending those guys, which will probably only work to validate insanely wrong stereotypes of Puerto Ricans the likes of which i've never observed before until babble. Does that make sense? Scuse I have to go post some comments about Israeli apartheid while never worrying to offend ethnic Jews around the world.
powder keg
Yeah. How about that.
More babblers should take advantage of that script...
Thanks, Sven. Think I'll take advantage of another approach.
Happy travels, all. My time here is done.
sorry to see that writer.
it's just nfwi. the white men have got their way again soon as women start postin more. what with this crap thread allowed and the ironic sexism thread containing the callin of women ghouls. allowing this stuff combined with the laments of no diverse voices here. kinds rings fake.
You mean done with the thread, or with the whole kit and kaboodle?
Canada is a US lackey, this is not in dispute. Comparing Canada to a non-country, about whom there are (yeah I'm going to say it) myriad of racist stereotypes (Latino/a country, in the south, poorly paid workers, etc) is not fucking okay. Not because Canada isn't racist itself (it damn well is), but because racist analogies are not okay. Kinda like saying "Third World shit-hole", another phrase I remember arguing with you about, Fidel.
I get that you don't get it, Fidel. I think we all get how much you don't get it. Every post you've made in this thread screams how much you don't get it. The cost? The loss of the founder of babble. Yeah, for those who don't know, writer was the influence for rabble to have an interactive discussion forum in the first place. Someone who put in countless hours for over 10 years here.
So is that a victory? Another feminist gone? Someone with a significant history here? I guess it is. Fewer people to actual inject some kind of analysis that extends beyond "We're all oppressed by class, so of course white men are the natural leaders of our movements and have license to say whatever the fuck they want because they're on our side".
Way to go.
We are supposedly allies in the battle against the right. Allies bring diverse experiences to the table. One of the hardest things about worrking with diverse groups, and i suffer from this myself, is listening. Really and truly listening. I have been following this thread and trying to listen. I'm still left at wondering at what cost should a metaphor be defended. The metaphor may be apt (I'm agnostic on that question) yet people have said when they hear it they are uncomfortable and do not believe it should be used at Babble. Are our language choices so important that people will knowingly use phrases that offend our allies? I know I have done it before and i shouldn't have and for that I apologize. Can we all just listen and be sensitive to the lived expeience of others?
This place has become toxic and beyond repair now.
I was sick over writer's departure even without knowing any of this.