School shopping in Ontario; the sequel

124 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2009-04-08 18:38

remind

School shopping in Ontario; the sequel

Obviously going to continue, as the privileged want to defend their privilege, no matter what it seems, so here is the first, and we will continue with SGordon's last red herring.

stephen gordon wrote:
That's the whole point: making both sorts of data available makes it possible for people to see for themselves the extent to which socio-economic factors explain school performance. If you're going to claim that socio-economic factors are the reason a school performs badly. then you should be expected to back up that claim. And if you can't, then I don't see why covering up the performance of bad schools is in any way helpful.

Wed, 2009-04-08 18:40

Unionist

Yes, Stephen, we should also publish stats in real-estate ads on tendencies of people of different races and colours to commit break-and-enters. It's just a public service. It will "make it possible for people to see for themselves the extent to which socio-economic factors" explain damage to mansions.

Wed, 2009-04-08 18:47

remind

Unionist wrote:
Makwa wrote:
These were not the goals of the government ordered program. I don't believe that they found that the previously segregated kids performed in a demonstratively worse fashion. The goals were to break the educationally segregated stranglehold white parents had on the system, much to the chagrin of racist white folk who were unable to subsequently flee to whiter climes or private schools. However, as you so deftly point out, where there is a will to escape diverse schools and a wallet, narrow minded and fearful parents will have their way, bleating about how it's 'for the children!'

Bravo - thanks, Makwa.

When I opened this thread, I expected pretty unanimous agreement. My naïveté. I totally forgot about the desire of the privileged to reproduce their privilege - and to view that as their "right"!

I know shocking isn't it!

Wed, 2009-04-08 18:47

Bookish Agrarian

remind called it a red herring and that is exactly right.

Good and bad schools - whatever a 'good' or a 'bad' school actually is, do not exist in only certain neighbourhoods, or communities. Just like good and bad parents have nothing to do with ethnic, racial or economic background. It is specious to make such foolish claims and does not reflect what the data being made available to parents was.

Stephen you keep making the same statements in response to a claim no one is making. Making it over and over doesn't actually prove anything, other than perseverance I guess.

Wed, 2009-04-08 18:57

Stephen Gordon

*sigh*

My fault for thinking that an intelligent discussion of an important policy issue could still occur on babble.

Oh, well: I tried.

Wed, 2009-04-08 19:02

Unionist

Hi Stephen! Glad to see you back!

I've always admired your fresh take on old issues.

Racial and economic profiling of schools is good for ordinary folks, so that they can improve themselves in a better setting.

Tuition fees are good for the poor, because eliminating them is just a gift to the wealthy.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't cure poverty, so why bother.

Babblers are too stupid to understand your ingenious and well-documented arguments.

I've missed you!!

Ever thought of assembling your Thoughts in a book - say, small format in a red cover?

Wed, 2009-04-08 19:30

remind

tee hee, unionist!

Wed, 2009-04-08 19:47

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

lets break it down

"Well, it is publicly-available information: give me a postal code and a bit of time, and I can get it for you. And peer effects - which depend on income and ethnicity - are very important in determining education outcomes. That's how and why we target resources to schools where these factors make it difficult to generate good outcomes."

so you associate certain "income" and "ethinicties" with "good" and "bad" peer effects. Do the good ones have mansions and get sun burn?

Maybe parents of kids who are not rich and not white will be able to find schools where not-rich and not-white kids do relatively well.

What i get from this is you want poor not white ppl in dif schools then rich white kids.

parents to learn that the school their kids are going to is doing well or poorly, even after controlling for the obvious things. Maybe some schools do poorly because parents don't realise that they could be doing better.

As to 'going to the school in your comunity', people choose their comunities. And school quality is a factor in making that decision.

Get out of ur bubble and you realize a couple things. Ppl don't choose their communites, peers and public housing does. Most parents would look if their child is doing well not swtich commuities if the scool doing "bad" which from ur previous comments just means how rich and white it is. Some ppl have to work and don't have time to be finding that out, attending meetings and that stuff.

that maybe they do badly because parents don't know better seems to me like blaming the victim. Since ur so wise and rich why don't you pay the bills and we can figure it out in the hood? Sound good? :)

Well, it is publicly-available information: give me a postal code and a bit of time, and I can get it for you.

waht info send the info for the m9 area then. post it here or pm im interested as to what you can find out n if it barely anything practical or innacurate I reserve the right to Laugh my ass off

Wed, 2009-04-08 19:51

It's Me D

Quote:
Get out of ur bubble and you realize a couple things. Ppl don't choose their communites, peers and public housing does.

Yeah I noticed that to. Apparently some people do choose their communities; people like SSC and Stockholm. For the rest of us we make do with the people in our communities and work to improve our lot, together. Its hard to imagine that bubble is so thick they can't see that most people can not (and would not) choose to abandon their communities.

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:06

#10

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

It's Me D wrote:

It doesn't matter what MOST people think. Especially when we are talking about minorities and their self-expression. Thats the point and you aren't getting it.

being a minority doesn't give one carte-blanche to say whatever they want without judgment. further, if you're not from the minority in question, it's a bit rich to be able to claim some sort of immunity using an offensive word directed at another group. I'm a minority (Jewish) as is my wife (Jewish AND Persian) so would you ahve no problem if we went around using the n-word?

you still fail to realize how shit works south asian and blacc are the same group w/ a division. Like jamacian and somalian I aint even gonna get into it with you it involves ur history which u proly in denial of but w.e that aint for this board. Just know this I am blacc, I am african it was yall who tried to change that not us we still hold our true history and true lineage yall try to make ppl forget it. I think it's rich that you can pretend to be a minority while gettin white privelege and facing no racism and no shit and being rich. plz stfu ty have a good day cuz

edit-

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I don't usually hear objections to woman using the word bitch around here.

i don't mind if women use that word, nor do I mind if gay people use 'queer'. A) because I think people within a group can use words that others can't and B) because there's a sense of 'reclaiming' the word in question and trying to use it as something positive.

However, even if someone is Punjabi, that is not the group at whom the "n-word" is directed (blacks of African descent) and I don't feel as if they have "permission" to use it in the same way. I'm not even particularly comfortable with black people using the word because I think that unlike words like "bitch" or "queer" the "n-word" is inherently degrading and can't really be used in a positive context. I think it would be pretty rare to find successful, respectable people using it. I doubt President Obama shows up at cabinet meetings and greets Eric Holder with the term.

if you don't know the history of punjabi ppl or south asians dont even say that right there. Fucc Obama I dont give a fucc what you think as for ur other post if you went around saying it? Ppl would proly stab you bro. Ur a religious minority aint the same.

edit- Actually ghilaine ye u right I was gonna say something but I just realized that even usin a dif word for a girl who likes to fucc a lot even if dis one aint used as a bad one still creatin a division between women. tru say b4 I couldn't get why yall had a problem with it I just got it randomly chillin lol.

edit- SSC like others said I sincerly hope you realize that no-one gives a fucc what you have to say about that it aint for you to discuss like I said I am what I am. Im not threatening you or nothing stating the reality that let's say on a bus right, and you bring this discussion up. If the bus driver is one of us he'll get up n kicc ur ass off the bus n the kids will chase ur ass off the blocc. Realize that plz. As for you not feeling comfortable and Obama doing this or that. ATM Obama is the biggest sellout not in history, yet Gandhi n a couple others might have still hold the title but he makin a good bid for it. Don't try to ask why this aint ur issue it ours str8 up. Don't try to ask lol south asia not africa don't say no stupid shit. You wanna know what answer ull get? You don't get to know our history you can stay with the changed version cuz of 2 things. 1. Obv it doesn't affect you n u don't care. 2. U obv aint down so it aint like id be educating a comrade. Sorry if im coming off as harsh but this shit pissing me off and ill be real with it.

edit- And hold the fucc up respectable, educated ppl? Hmm so we're not supposed to be like those let's use ur word "african-americans" you see on the street we're supposed to act like corporate up-tight white ppl? (shit there chillin ones but yall know which ones im talking about) we're supposed to be the ones who act like tanned europeans? and not act like there any issues and all that shit. Fucc that I got the respectable part down already if u n the type of ppl you hang with don't think im respectable w.e yall can fucc yalselves anyway. Im respected in the hood for the right shit str8 up. Not no bullshit over sellin poison to my ppl don't get it twisted. As for the successful we'll do that part too n we'll take bacc what ours u jus sit bacc n wait cuz "once lit the fire of revolution can never be extinguished".

edit - I said the last part because obv ur content with being a slave, thinking you free, and having some scraps and not gettin the fruits of ur labour. You have fun with that. I don't know if you take what I say as threatening or not Im not threatening you in anyway just saying it how it is.

edit- Question what you mean by blaccs of african descent? it 1 n the same.

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:07

#11

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

It's Me D wrote:

Quote:
Get out of ur bubble and you realize a couple things. Ppl don't choose their communites, peers and public housing does.

Yeah I noticed that to. Apparently some people do choose their communities; people like SSC and Stockholm. For the rest of us we make do with the people in our communities and work to improve our lot, together. Its hard to imagine that bubble is so thick they can't see that most people can not (and would not) choose to abandon their communities.

aint this the same SSC who had me n cueball pissed off on another thread cuz he was going on about how Oakland is becoming a better city bcuz young rich white families are moving in and forcing the poor blacc ppl out? I remember this man now why the fucc was I wasting my time with him lol how could I forget he a lost case.

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:09

#12

Bookish Agrarian

Stephen Gordon wrote:

*sigh*

My fault for thinking that an intelligent discussion of an important policy issue could still occur on babble.

Oh, well: I tried.

That's right I must be stupid seeing as how I don't agree with a pointy head. Gosh, couldn't be I am actually steeped in public education in Ontario with 3 children in the system and involved with education issues besides. Must just be that when I think you are making the same fatuous point over and over and it is still wrong each time and I point it out that it must be ME that is not smart enough to understand all your big words.

What do we call that kind of view - oh yeah elitist. You know the kind of person that doesn't want their kids rubbing elbows with kids who don't come from my soci-economic or ethnic background. I thought that kind of thinking went out with Bloomer bathing suits.

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:17

#13

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Stephen Gordon wrote:

*sigh*

My fault for thinking that an intelligent discussion of an important policy issue could still occur on babble.

Oh, well: I tried.

That's right I must be stupid seeing as how I don't agree with a pointy head. Gosh, couldn't be I am actually steeped in public education in Ontario with 3 children in the system and involved with education issues besides. Must just be that when I think you are making the same fatuous point over and over and it is still wrong each time and I point it out that it must be ME that is not smart enough to understand all your big words.

What do we call that kind of view - oh yeah elitist. You know the kind of person that doesn't want their kids rubbing elbows with kids who don't come from my soci-economic or ethnic background. I thought that kind of thinking went out with Bloomer bathing suits.

bloomer bathing suits. Sounds like one of those things I would say the fucc are those? and you would say exactly and it would be the only point we need to make a lie? really tho the fucc are those lol never heard of that

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:30

#14

It's Me D

remind: I was under the impression Rexdale was comparing the whites' use of both African and Indian (slave) labour to build "our" nations here in North America (I could certainly be wrong though). Of course the land was stolen from the first nations but the labour worked on that land was stolen to. Do you deny they have a stake in this nation built on theft and oppression? Its not either or; whites screwed everybody

Wed, 2009-04-08 20:40

#15

remind

rex_dale punjabi have a read of this, and think about what it says and implies. Because if claim you are one in the same as a person of African descent, then so can everyone else.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm

Moreover, you are claiming to take what exactly back in Canada, to which you are an immigrant to, just like every other immigrant you have nothing to take back? So really you are resting on unsolid ground with that premise. The only people in Canada who can claim to take back anything are those whose historical roots are tied to this Turtle Island.

Oh and I forgot this link too:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=55570

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:19

#16

remind

Do you mean East Indian/South Asian, or indeed First Nations, when you say Indians, because that claim is hardly accurate when taken into conjunction/compare with the African enslavement and their forced development of NA, and mainly the USA. South Asians did not come to NA en masse as slaves.

Quote:
South Asians came to the U.S. in search of better opportunities, faced hardships, and have ongoing challenges today. For some, the U.S. was a secondary or tertiar y migration point that began in Africa, the Caribbean, or Britain.

Immigration Waves

Although, the first South Asians came in the 1790s, there were only 523 South Asians in North America in 1898. Between 1899-1913 the first immigration wave brought nearly 7,000 South Asians. These early pioneers were primarily Sikh farmers from the Punjab region who came to California and the Pacific Northwest to work the fields when white nativist hysteria excluded immigration from China, Japan, and Korea. South Asians, however, soon faced significant opposition from organized labor who petitioned to stop immigration from Asia altogether. Under such hostility, many left and by 1940 the number of South Asians decreased significantly, with approximately 2,400 remaining in the U.S.

World War II marked a second immigration wave and public support for South Asians increased as the prospect of India’s independence came closer to reality. In 1946, the Luce-Celler bill lifted the ban on South Asian immigration. By 1947, Mahatma Gandhi and the people of South Asia put an end to British colonialism, and many students came to the U.S. to study.

The third and largest wave came after the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, approximately 12,000 South Asians lived in the U.S. By 1990, the South Asian American population was 919,626 or a 7,600% increase.

http://www.capaa.wa.gov/community/south_asian_americans.shtml

Moreover, if you use that criteria, then poor whites who immigrated had their labour stolen too. However, I believe that expropriating the slavery and plight of antbellum African Americans, and indeed the exploitation of First Nations, and stealing of their lands, and comparing it to any willing immigrants is wrong and non-factual.

Yes, "Asians" paid a head tax to get into Canada, but they were not stolen from their homelands, and they were paid for their labours (though almost nothing), and they were not captured, sold and traded as chattal.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:19

#17

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

rex_dale punjabi have a read of this, and think about what it says and implies. Because if claim you are one in the same as a person of African descent, then so can everyone else.

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/2_6_99/bob1.htm

Moreover, you are claiming to take what exactly back in Canada, to which you are an immigrant to, just like every other immigrant you have nothing to take back? So really you are resting on unsolid ground with that premise. The only people in Canada who can claim to take back anything are those whose historical roots are tied to this Turtle Island.

Oh and I forgot this link too:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=55570

I mean on a global sense and no see ur saying if u can claim it so can any1 else no. you don't get what Im talking about and you don't need to. This a blacc issue only. read what I said only. It's me D it bigger then canada. We gonna take bacc what ours examples.

Our history, our culture, our tradition. Which having been changed, maniupualted, and corrupted would cause you to even ask the question of how I can "claim" african descent as if I was "claiming" it the same way a european would. Take bacc what belongs to the workers the ppl, those who work their lives the 99% not the 1%. We will take bacc what been stolen from us, our land, our well being, our freedom, our relatives, our beliefs, our technology, our inventions. We will get credit where it due and just that part will make white supremist shut the fucc up who seem to think white ppl inventd and made everything when it so far from the truth I cant even laugh. We will get bacc our dignity, respect, and pride. We will get that bacc and all the been taken from us.And we will do it

Any

Means

Nessecary

Im done on this topic you can send me link Ill read them but don't ever try to say im "claiming" something and imply it some bullshit thing or that on the same level as if you were saying you something. You don't know my history, genetics, or lineage or that of my ppl. You need to step off this one because you don't know and you don't need to it aint ur issue it ours. Str8 up you proly don't even know urs. Step off I'm not gonna debate w/ ppl on this over my n my pplz history. It aint for this, like I said b4 ill say it for the last time. I am blacc, I am african if you don't know or understand why I'm saying this go learn it yourself but I'm not gonna explain it on this and no it doesn't have to do shit with every1 coming from africa. Every1 can come from a place but there still those who actually from there and still live there na mean All Ill say on that. If you really really wanna know go find out how the europeans and arabs managed to split africa into 3 parts and guess what they are. And even in canada ppl of color can take bacc a lot canada is americas partner dont forget that.

edit- Lets see what those links say the one from 99 is frankly outdated but commenting on that. One thing I can see about neanderthal's being included in the human species or not is the bias some scientists would have. From what I know most europeans esp north are supposed to have neanderthal blood in them and to say that they have non-homo-sapien blood in them esp when a lot of these scientists believe that we part monkey or some shit would fucc with their head. I personally dont care it wouldnt matter anyway. Id honestly look for a more recent study since 99 since a lot of the info has changed but some the stuff about the distance relative to each other males and femals would travel would hold true but the dna stuff wouldn't. And with the 2nd link it talks about eurasian descent for the orig natives and then east asians after. If ur trying to say white ppl were here 1st ill laugh bcuz by the time the spanish, british, etc got here the natives def werent white. And natives in the caribbean and close to the equator are darker. For example the Tainos and Caribs. And even the ones near mexico atleast some of them. Historically like the yamasee, wichitaw, etc because many of the slaves went and hid and blended with them. You can go find more about that checc RevolutionaryINK on youtube he has sources on that that one there a bunch more that the easiest to learn.

edit- And ur second link uses terms such as indo-european, aryan which both are jacced up terms used by the colonialists to try and steal indian and egyptian history and both the theories have been shown to be a bunch of bullshit. And I already knew that esp the very north asians like arond the russian border w/ china basically look like white ppl w/ dif eyes and a bit dif hair not even sure on that could just be mixed. The FN are def not white and if you tryin to say otherwise ppl will laugh at you bro. Even the other groups mentioned such as ainu alot of ppl wouldnt consider white as middle eastern arabs (even in the north where they aint as mixed cuz they stayed behind during the invasion proly) don't look european and while light they aint white.

edit - Yea looking at pics of the Ainu they def aint white both them and statues I seen of the jomon just look like africans esp east who went north and got lighter the features for the most part are about the same. (I know a lot of asians got the nose but not the lips or head)

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:26

#18

It's Me D

Remind: Well I think that distinction does more harm than good; but its not my place to say. Rexdale can speak for himself.

ETA: Rexdale, remind is FNs and certainly wasn't making the arguement that the first nations were white... oh and remind is female, btw

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:33

#19

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

Do you mean East Indian/South Asian, or indeed First Nations, when you say Indians, because that claim is hardly accurate when taken into conjunction/compare with the African enslavement and their forced development of NA, and mainly the USA. South Asians did not come to NA en masse as slaves.

Quote:
South Asians came to the U.S. in search of better opportunities, faced hardships, and have ongoing challenges today. For some, the U.S. was a secondary or tertiar y migration point that began in Africa, the Caribbean, or Britain.

Immigration Waves

Although, the first South Asians came in the 1790s, there were only 523 South Asians in North America in 1898. Between 1899-1913 the first immigration wave brought nearly 7,000 South Asians. These early pioneers were primarily Sikh farmers from the Punjab region who came to California and the Pacific Northwest to work the fields when white nativist hysteria excluded immigration from China, Japan, and Korea. South Asians, however, soon faced significant opposition from organized labor who petitioned to stop immigration from Asia altogether. Under such hostility, many left and by 1940 the number of South Asians decreased significantly, with approximately 2,400 remaining in the U.S.

World War II marked a second immigration wave and public support for South Asians increased as the prospect of India’s independence came closer to reality. In 1946, the Luce-Celler bill lifted the ban on South Asian immigration. By 1947, Mahatma Gandhi and the people of South Asia put an end to British colonialism, and many students came to the U.S. to study.

The third and largest wave came after the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, approximately 12,000 South Asians lived in the U.S. By 1990, the South Asian American population was 919,626 or a 7,600% increase.

http://www.capaa.wa.gov/community/south_asian_americans.shtml

Moreover, if you use that criteria, then poor whites who immigrated had their labour stolen too. However, I believe that expropriating the slavery and plight of antbellum African Americans, and indeed the exploitation of First Nations, and stealing of their lands, and comparing it to any willing immigrants is wrong and non-factual.

Yes, "Asians" paid a head tax to get into Canada, but they were not stolen from their homelands, and they were paid for their labours (though almost nothing), and they were not captured, sold and traded as chattal.

the carribbean ring a bell?

for america only http://www.indiacurrents.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=e26c1cc3b...

help a bit? indenturement? the slave ship? or no doesnt ringa bell? and willing depending on how you look at it. Forced into complete poverty and desperation thru colonziation aint exactly willing. Would you call a refugee willing? After all no-one "forced" them to leave they "chose" to come here

edit- And remind getting ur shit stolen on the other side of the world is the same as this side. Ppl in the colonies were effectively slaves in their own homeland. It the same and yes poor whites also had their labor stolen. All Workers do.

edit - Thinking you free without the power to be self-determined is triccing urself you aint a slave. Physical is there and you can get away from mental is another issue

edit- k it'e me d

edit- Remind you don't live in toronto do you? ask the ppl in the carribbean east or west african how they got there. (fucc the term south asian we never used it they did we always have and called ourselves by dif names which wont be revealed on this)

edit- Remind look past north america I aint against u im with u no point of us arguing on this you dont know that much about my tingz I dont much about your's we can both learn but we on the same side.

edit- And "Asia" and "Asians" too broad of a term even as you see it unless u wanna only use it for east. Cuz u got north asia which got turks, russians, etc. Got mid east which got arabs (still proly poccets of africans who werent raped left cuz it was stolen the invasion documented 7th century son), got southeast (cambo, viet, etc). got south which really aint a part of it historically. same w/ the mid east. You got the lil islands with the blacc ppl on them, etc. Only east asians mainly chinese and japanese paid a head tax

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:33

#20

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

bloomer bathing suits. Sounds like one of those things I would say the fucc are those? and you would say exactly and it would be the only point we need to make a lie? really tho the fucc are those lol never heard of that

I have no idea what this means, or much of what you write because of the style.

Maybe try splitting up thoughts a bit for those of us with older eyes. I may make it easier to follow the thread of your posts.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:33

#21

It's Me D

Quote:
I aint against u im with u no point of us arguing on this you dont know that much about my tingz I dont much about your's we can both learn but we on the same side.

This is really what Babble is (should be?) about.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:34

#22

It's Me D

BA he just wants to know what bloomers are... I was looking for a good pic but maybe you'd like to help us young people out

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:36

#23

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Bookish Agrarian]</p> <p>[quote=Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

bloomer bathing suits. Sounds like one of those things I would say the fucc are those? and you would say exactly and it would be the only point we need to make a lie? really tho the fucc are those lol never heard of that

I have no idea what this means, or much of what you write because of the style.
Maybe try splitting up thoughts a bit for those of us with older eyes. I may make it easier to follow the thread of your posts.

I meant you know of those things where you bring up something like you tryna say someone ignorant and they like what that? and you just have to say exactly and ur point proven. Here bloomer bathing suits means shit a long time ago me bein a youth askin would show that n ur point would be proven and stephen gordon would have nothing to say cuz all you would have to say is exactly and it done right there. You know what I mean

and It's Me D that aint always the case

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:37

#24

Bookish Agrarian

A bloomer bathing suit circa about 1880s

Older ones were often black and basically covered everything right down to the ankles and were based on bloomers which are elaborate gitch.

Sorry remind about the slowness inducing picture

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:39

#25

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

wow loll hey if a woman had a figure that would look crazyy still. Basketball in the front n bacc lol

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:40

#26

remind

Rexdalepunjabi, I agree you have a lot to take back, regarding your history, your culture etc, that is not in question in my mind and in fact I do know what inventions and technology has been stolen and sold as "white" inventions. However, I will for sure take exception to what I believe are erroneous suppositions on your part, as to your claim of being "African" and thus be able to use the "n" word with impunity.

Nor did I say First Nations were white, nor did my link. So please do stop putting words in my mouth. In as much as i do not know you, you do not know me.

Again, historically South Asians were immigrants to Canada and indeed the USA, period, while Africans were not, they were kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:42

#27

It's Me D

Quote:
and It's Me D that aint always the case

I know thats why I added should be, but we can help make it the case.

And thanks for the pic BA... these bloomers are not to be confused with contemporary Japanese burumas; although the root is the same they are quite different. I won't post a pic because BA pointed out the drawbacks for dial-up users.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:46

#28

It's Me D

Quote:
Again, historically South Asians were immigrants to Canada and indeed the USA, period,

I know you wouldn't appreciate it if someone else spoke for you and lectured you about your peoples' history remind. And Rexdale asked you not to use the term South Asian so there a lot of disregarding others going on here on all sides

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:47

#29

remind

Rexdale, I used the term "Asian" in quotes, in reference to the head tax in Canada, as all the areas you described were lumped together as "Asian" at that point in time in order to tax them. And I do not disagree that we are on the same side. However, there are things I do disagree with you about.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:51

#30

Bookish Agrarian

Well there's a life lesson - never type in the word burumas into google and just randomly click on a link

Holy yikes Batman. Thank goodness I wasn't at work. I think I need to go clean out my eyes now. It's going to take a lot of soap I am afraid.

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:53

#31

It's Me D

Sorry BA!

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:55

#32

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

remind wrote:

Rexdalepunjabi, I agree you have a lot to take back, regarding your history, your culture etc, that is not in question in my mind and in fact I do know what inventions and technology has been stolen and sold as "white" inventions. However, I will for sure take exception to what I believe are erroneous suppositions on your part, as to your claim of being "African" and thus be able to use the "n" word with impunity.

Nor did I say First Nations were white, nor did my link. So please do stop putting words in my mouth. In as much as i do not know you, you do not know me.

Again, historically South Asians were immigrants to Canada and indeed the USA, period, while Africans were not, they were kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

read the link, look at guyana, trinidad, suriname, and most caribbean countries. See you believe im not gonna post my history on this forum I am african. As for sayin nigga arabs say that n ppl dont care n they enslaved us too. You ever had shit about ur tingz that you wouldnt post on this cuz it aint for the ppl on this forum? My history, tradions, etc like that u gonna have to take my word for it or eventually if I do decide to post everything u will look like an idiot for arguin against the evidence. Str8 up I don't want to chill on it. You aint the one who decides who says it or not we wouldnt care for u but if you mixed and look white ppl would proly jump u still

edit- On top of the Remind ur using their sources do you take in that ur using their version of shit I know they came as immigrants but i just posted 1 link that shows another side to it. Remember that it like this north india in a historical context refers mostly to the parts that now more arab. Such as pakistan esp. Most of the population otherwise resembles ethiopians and somalis very closely. A lot of the instruments for example 1 time my boi from ghana was showin me drums from there and they look exactly the same as mine. The one dif in a couple was 1 more chord around the middle on the east african ones to give it a higher sound. Most of the east indians would blend in with the other slaves esp to white pplz eyes. Tru say cuz from anything more then close by even we have trouble knowing who somali, indian, or west african cuz the hair from far away still looks similar and the color and features similar too. the greeks conquered up to midway in pakistan and said basically any1 south is ethiopian esp cuz it was still the same kingdom at that time. Look up where ethiopia is and what they look like. I havent even started sayin shit about my history in our eyes yet just what white ppl say and they even agree with me wanna keep going? :) I know my history you dont chill on it I don't even wanna start going thru sources posting them, going thru books posting them n all that do you want that? ur fighting a losing battle b

edit - and no it was only east who had the head tax the way they fucced most of the world was the continous journey one

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:57

#33

Bookish Agrarian

Rexdale, why not just acknowledge that many of us find the N word repugnent. It lends nothing at all to the points you are trying to make. It is a simple issue of being polite really.

I hear people use the c-word too, including women, that doesn't make it any less offensive to most women I know and myself too. I would expect you to not use that word on babble either.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:08

#34

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Rexdale, why not just acknowledge that many of us find the N word repugnent. It lends nothing at all to the points you are trying to make. It is a simple issue of being polite really.

I hear people use the c-word too, including women, that doesn't make it any less offensive to most women I know and myself too. I would expect you to not use that word on babble either.

part of the vocab and sometimes aint no other way to say it or wit the same meaning good or bad. u can have a friend but dont mean they ur nigga. The way I c it is yo it the way we talk we takin the power out of it and will continue to do that. nigga is a dif word from nigger realize that.

" A nigger is the slave hanging from the tree for fighting. A nigga is the brotha with a gold chain hanging from his necc for writing." - 2pac

realize that and str8 up not u but other ppl like elitists and classists will get more "offended" by the truth we post then me sayin nigga. Wether I say it or not that what I am in many of their eyes. so fucc it we use it a dif way in a dif context n meaning. if you dont get it then u proly wont still. I just type my shit out fast as im thinking it that a big reason why but I aint one to water down my shit cuz it wouldnt have the same meaning and to me it like sellin out in part cuz u aint being real with urself or others.

edit- Honestly I dont even like seein nigger nowhere that word honestly just looks disgusting n horrible n tru say sry for yall havin to see it 3x now in 1 post. it still carries poison and look ugly. racial memory shit lol

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:14

#35

Bookish Agrarian

Sometimes with maturity comes the realization that discretion is the better part of interacting with others. That maturity is not a function of age.

Just becuase you feel justified in using a term does not make it right, nor does the non-use of it water down a point. As well people who have grown up in an era when the word was often used freely and without notice by far too many react to the use of that word it that does not make people elitist. It simply means that people react differently to the power of symbols and the use of that word was a strong symbol of casual hate and prejudice for a great many of us. An aware person tries to understand this and act accordingly.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:20

#36

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I have no problem with R_P's use of language and I applaud him for the courage he's had on exposing babble's misconceptions of ghettoized youth. I take umbrage with all the attempts to silence a voice that is continuously silenced at babble.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:22

#37

remind

Even though I do not consider the Caribbean NA, I will address what Rexdale is sttaing, which for the most part I agree with, btw, except his contention that South Asians are African.

Quote:
In the 1600s and early 1700s, many white men and women were brought here as "indentured servants." They were not slaves for life, but they were not free either. They came with a document called an indenture. This was a written contract that said that they would have to serve, without pay, for a certain number of years. Like slaves, they could be beaten. They were not allowed to marry. They were not free to leave before the end of their term of service, often 5, 7 or 10 years. However, unlike slaves, when their term of service was completed, indentured servants became free. They could then move wherever they wanted to go and receive pay for their work.

Most American slaves did come from Africa. The majority of slaves who were brought to North America came from West Africa. They were captured and sold to slave traders. They were forced onto ships for the long journey to America. This journey is often called the "middle passage."

http://pathways.thinkport.org/about/about4c.cfm

Transformations in slavery
[quote]Today, May 5th 2008 marks the 170th anniversary of the arrival of the first Hindustani indentured servants from Hindustan (India) to British Guiana (Guyana). During the period of East Indian indentureship (1838-1917) about 239,000 servants were brought from the Indian sub-continent, (present day Bangladesh, India, Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and Nepal). The immigrants were mainly from the States of - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal in the North, and Madras in the South. Nevertheless, regardless where these servants hailed from or what dialect they spoke, they all developed a common kinship and bond on the voyage across the Kala Pani (black water) to British Guiana - referring to their fellow travelers as Jahaazi (Jahaaz is an Urdu word meaning ship), which later morphed into jahajji - ja means to go and hajji is a title conferred upon a Muslim male who has completed the pilgrimage to Mecca. For many of the servants the kinship that they formed on the boats - irrespective of which caste, religion or state they were from lasted throughout their lifetime, some even span several generations and a number of the servants even got married on the ship. Upon completion of their contract (five-seven years) the servants were entitled to a free return passage to their homeland. Many of them choose to remain in the colony and serve as free labourers.

The abolition of slavery in 1834 has had a negative impact on the workforce on the sugar plantations with the newly freed Africans leaving the plantations to seek better opportunities in the towns while many pooled their resources and purchased abandoned estates (Buxton and Victoria are two such examples). The plantation owners were forced to turn to different parts of the world looking for a cheap source of labor - in Southern United States, West Africa and other islands in the Caribbean, especially Antigua and Barbados. However, these early "experiments" to replenish a steady and reliable workforce were not successful and John Gladstone, the owner of Gladstone Estates, Vreed-en-Hoop, West Coast Demerara, the initiator of the request to recruit "hill coolies, who were considered ignorant and docile" knew that in 1834 a number of East Indians were sent to Mauritius as indentured servants; and in 1836 he solicited help from the British Crown representative in India to import East Indian indentured servants to Guyana.

The stage was thus set for the commencement of a new form of slavery; one can only imagine the shock and alienation the servants felt, most of whom left their ancestral villages and birth places for the first time. Many from different castes/tribes - speaking in different dialects (such as Koshali, Braj, Koeli, Bagheli, Hundeli and Bhojpuri, the latter being the dominant language of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar), their physical characteristics also appeared foreign, while their ways of eating, mode of dress and other habits - all looked alien to their fellow jahajjis. They were forced to pick up the lingua franca at the depot in order to understand each other - "the emigrant was now immersed in a process of deculturisation, almost dehumanization right in their homeland."...[On the 31st January 1839 Special Justice Coleman was sent by the British Crown to inspect conditions on the five plantations. He found evidence of extremely harsh treatment with many of the immigrants suffering from wounds inflicted by the overseers and drivers (some of whom were former slaves)./quote]

http://www.guyanacaribbeannetwork.com/ourfeature.05.05.08.htm

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:24

#38

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Sometimes with maturity comes the realization that discretion is the better part of interacting with others. That maturity is not a function of age.

Just becuase you feel justified in using a term does not make it right, nor does the non-use of it water down a point. As well people who have grown up in an era when the word was often used freely and without notice by far too many react to the use of that word it that does not make people elitist. It simply means that people react differently to the power of symbols and the use of that word was a strong symbol of casual hate and prejudice for a great many of us. An aware person tries to understand this and act accordingly.

And sometimes wisdom comes from seeing the intricacies of the maturation process. If R_P's not there yet, who are you to take it from him? Fuck.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:26

#39

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

The hate still exists BA. I hear it from white folk all the time. Jeez y'all act like anythings really changed.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:28

#40

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Respectfully, you don't get it remind.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:31

#41

Bookish Agrarian

There is no need to use words that cause some of us a great deal of hurt. I remember quite clearly my best friend as a youth called the n-word as a nick name from the rest of the all white members of the team. Back then it was seen by a great many as just fine and dandy. His father, who worked with my mother, in a large business was called Toby. He was expected to just accept it as a joke. That is the context some of us are coming from. That should be something that should be considered when someone asks to please not use the term.

Simply honouring a request to not use the word is just being a polite human being. It has nothing to do with the general points he is trying to make.

There is nothing on babble that gives Rexdale the right to use terms like that. It is not courage. If he wants to to reclaim a word, that's fine. But when others are asking him, for legitimate reasons, to please not use it in this context the continued use is just rudeness not empowerment.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:35

#42

Bookish Agrarian

RevolutionPlease wrote:

The hate still exists BA. I hear it from white folk all the time. Jeez y'all act like anythings really changed.

Well no guff, but if you think the casual racism of the past is anything like today, you are wrong. Things today are not that great, but they are slightly better than it was. Slightly.

You really think any of us are so stupid to not know we have only taken baby steps down the anti-racism road?

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:36

#43

It's Me D

remind wrote:
I do not consider the Caribbean NA

Its a minor aside but remind how can you "not consider" part of the continent? What is the Caribbean then???

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:38

#44

Makwa

I hope this is the last we see criticizing R_P for form rather than content. I expressed my personal discomfort on the issue, and I think that this was considered respectfully. I don't think that the use of the common urban oriented use of 'nigga' among Afro-Caribbean Canadian youth is exceedingly distressing, nor should I think R_P self-identification among this group is a form of cultural appropriation. I would hope that over time his communication with others here will become more compatible, and I really hope that he can get other connected young people to contribute. Origin stories are interesting, although perhaps better suited to other threads. Anthopologists have lots of fun debating issues of origins all the time, and such stories are often politicized and may come into conflict with traditional and popular origin stories.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:44

#45

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I'd like to repeat that white folk should realize it is not their debate to own, although I'm sure this will go unheeded again.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:56

#46

Bookish Agrarian

Well I think this thread has gone about as far off topic as it can go.

Wed, 2009-04-08 22:58

#47

It's Me D

Quote:
Well I think this thread has gone about as far off topic as it can go.

What don't womens' undergarments and the settlement of North America have to do with school shopping in Ontario?

Wed, 2009-04-08 23:01

#48

remind

It's Me D wrote:
remind wrote:
I do not consider the Caribbean NA

Its a minor aside but remind how can you "not consider" part of the continent? What is the Caribbean then???

I guess you do not know geography then, as the Caribbean is not North America, it is not even Central America.

The Caribbean is a region consisting of the Caribbean Sea, its islands (most of which enclose the sea), and the surrounding coasts. The region is located southeast of the Gulf of Mexico and Northern America, east of Central America, and to the north of South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean

Revolution Please, oh I get it alright. Perhaps you are not getting what I am saying.

Wed, 2009-04-08 23:03

#49

Bookish Agrarian

Well the discussion of gitch is always on topic tis true. Perhaps we could discuss the merits of full longjohns vs an undershirt plus long underwear.

Wed, 2009-04-08 23:05

#50

Unionist

This thread isn't even in North America any more.

Wed, 2009-04-08 23:20

#51

It's Me D

BA: I feel so uncanadian, I have so much as worn longjohns in years!

remind: I do know geography and am aware the Caribbean has its own plate. However on this issue (and many others) Wikipedia is at odds with itself; here is the wikipedia map of North America (green):

North America

Pages

Topic locked