Another racist facebook site...appreciate some help
Tue, 2008-04-01 07:21
#1
ElizaQ
Another racist facebook site...appreciate some help
Tue, 2008-04-01 07:21
#2
ElizaQ
Hey all, a while back someone posted about a racist group on facebook about immigration. Sorry I can't find the link right off. It was mostly high-school students.
I know many people reported it on facebook, as well as people even contacted the school. Interestingly enough the group was actually taken over as well which you can see if you go to the link. As well as you can see by some of the comments by some of the members that didn't leave that the cops even got involved.
[url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8511916049]http://www.facebook.com...
Anyways here's another one. I think the group description speaks for itself. I do know that there are some people who would very much appreciate the help with reporting it at least, in larger numbers.
[url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5664789921]http://www.facebook.com...
[i]FIGHT THE OCCUPATION!! - Stand up to the Indian invaders at Caledonia!
Type:
Common Interest - Current Events
Description:
The "native land claim" at Caledonia has been going on for far too long. All levels of government have failed to take the appropriate actions to protect the citizens of Caledonia and to stop the invasion of our country. The natives, a conquered people, have graciously been provided with their own land on which to live and have their own laws. Non-natives cannot just go onto a reserve and claim a piece of land. The government would not stand for it. However, when the natives decide that they want some more land, they just go out of their assigned areas and "claim" whatever they want.
NOT ONLY DID THE GOVERNMENT FAIL TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT BYSTANDERS, BUT THEY ALSO KISSED THE BUTTS OF THE CRIMINALS AND GAVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED WITHOUT ANY PENALTY!!
This situation has gone beyond an outrage. It has become a blatant violation of our rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens. Be afraid that someday these may suddenly be taken away by a government who is not only afraid to protect it's own taxpaying citizens, but will turn against them to protect the law-breakers.
WILL YOU STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT?? [/i]
Tue, 2008-04-01 09:53
#3
Done.
Tue, 2008-04-01 10:10
#4
laine lowe
Done.
Tue, 2008-04-01 11:01
#5
remind
yes, I did that too, before we took cat to vet, and am going to go back later, when I get a chance, and look at the groups members to get names of schools and write emails to their respective schools asking what they are teaching them in Canadian history classes, and informing them about their student's words in the group.
Tue, 2008-04-01 12:01
#6
I doubt there's much the school can do. Those kids probably hear that crap from their moron parents. And I don't doubt that some of their teachers believe it, too.
Tue, 2008-04-01 12:07
#7
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I doubt there's much the school can do. Those kids probably hear that crap from their moron parents. And I don't doubt that some of their teachers believe it, too.[/b]
In this situation it's likely true. I've probably actually met some of the parents.
On the other side though there are also kids that have rejected what their parents are saying and been quite vocal about it, even to the point of informing people 'that need to know' about some of the somewhat nefarious things their 'moron' parents are up to.
Tue, 2008-04-01 15:12
#8
Done
Tue, 2008-04-01 15:37
#9
I wonder if neo-Nazis are organizing on facebook.
At the height of the Caledonia conflict a year or two ago, white supremacists were documented among the protestors. They seemed to be the most visible ones putting out the line that natives were a drain on hard-working tax-payers etc.
The quote above kind of smacks of their kind of propaganda. It might be best to be vigilant.
Tue, 2008-04-01 16:44
#10
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]I wonder if neo-Nazis are organizing on facebook.At the height of the Caledonia conflict a year or two ago, white supremacists were documented among the protestors. They seemed to be the most visible ones putting out the line that natives were a drain on hard-working tax-payers etc.
The quote above kind of smacks of their kind of propaganda. It might be best to be vigilant.[/b]
Without making any statements that would be potentially libelous to this site as knowing and proving are different things, I will comment that yes I think your comment is an insightful one in reference to this issue and thread.
Wed, 2008-04-02 03:59
#11
Le T
What's the difference between neo-Nazi's and just plain old indian-hating Canadians?
Wed, 2008-04-02 04:32
#12
To me, nothing....
Wed, 2008-04-02 04:42
#13
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]What's the difference between neo-Nazi's and just plain old indian-hating Canadians?[/b]
I'd say organization mostly. Not that more plain old people don't easily interact with more organized and ideologicalized groups, which is the issue. The ordinary people prejudice/hate is definitly something that is taken advantage of, especially in situations of conflict and expanded upon, used and manipulated by people who have more organized views and agendas. I think, well actually I more then just think that this happens, sometimes without those people realizing who or what exactly is pulling the strings.
[ 02 April 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Wed, 2008-04-02 04:45
#14
ElizaQ
Just to add, hate is hate, I don't want it to seem like I'm saying one is better then other.
Wed, 2008-04-02 06:34
#15
Everyone's using Facebook to organize these days, so it wouldn't be surprising to me if neo-nazis were too. Especially since you can create completely private groups and events.
It also wouldn't surprise me if they're recruiting by starting or joining public groups that are "marginal" or maybe just over the line, and contacting or befriending the people who are posting the most racist stuff, or seem like they're the most alienated.
Wed, 2008-04-02 06:41
#16
ElizaQ
Well something has changed between today and yesterday. The group is now private. Last I checked there were people joining and speaking out against it and they were having to kick people out.
Wed, 2008-04-02 12:15
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]What's the difference between neo-Nazi's and just plain old indian-hating Canadians?[/b]
Organization and ideology. Some Canadians may be racist in their private lives; but neo-Nazis give hatred a public focus. That hatred is then cultivated until it influences or becomes public policy. The organization and "coherent" ideology of white supremacists makes this more likely to happen than with garden-variety racism.
Neo-Nazis are also more prone to violence against minorities because of group reinforcement and ideology. If they're recruiting on facebook, its dangerous.
Wed, 2008-04-02 12:35
#18
True.
However, there IS a resident group in Caledonia that is racist as hell against indigenous people, and they ARE organizing and trying to get media attention and affect public policy.
But they're not nazis or neo-nazis. Not saying that this makes them okay, but neo-nazis, it seems to me, have some specific ideological characteristics and roots.
Anyhow, I guess that's probably thread drift, sorry. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Like ElizaQ, I think any group that tries to mobilize support against marginalized groups are reprehensible.
Wed, 2008-04-02 12:38
#19
Le T
quote:
Organization and ideology. Some Canadians may be racist in their private lives; but neo-Nazis give hatred a public focus. That hatred is then cultivated until it influences or becomes public policy. The organization and "coherent" ideology of white supremacists makes this more likely to happen than with garden-variety racism.Neo-Nazis are also more prone to violence against minorities because of group reinforcement and ideology. If they're recruiting on facebook, its dangerous.
But when the same number of soldiers were deployed at Oka as there are now serving in Afghanistan and Canadians supported this were they not organized? It also seemed pretty public, no?
When Dudley George was shot in the head by a police sniper's bullet and most Canadians did not even skip dessert was that not a "coherent" articulation of white-supremacy?
When the Sweat Lodge was ILLEGAL in Canada until the 70's was that not hatred and white-supremacy being cultivated into public policy?
Thu, 2008-04-03 02:30
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Le Tйlйspectateur:
[b]But when the same number of soldiers were deployed at Oka as there are now serving in Afghanistan and Canadians supported this were they not organized? It also seemed pretty public, no?
When Dudley George was shot in the head by a police sniper's bullet and most Canadians did not even skip dessert was that not a "coherent" articulation of white-supremacy?
When the Sweat Lodge was ILLEGAL in Canada until the 70's was that not hatred and white-supremacy being cultivated into public policy?[/b]
Do you honestly believe Canada is being governed by neo-Nazis?
Thu, 2008-04-03 03:19
#21
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]Do you honestly believe Canada is being governed by neo-Nazis?[/b]
No, but Canada has a four-hundred year history of explicit white supremacist public policy aimed primarily at the First Nations peoples of Turtle Island. While the overt legislative aspects of those white supremacist policies have been largely purged in the past 30 to 40 years, the social legacies of those policies remain in place.
Thu, 2008-04-03 04:05
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]No, but Canada has a four-hundred year history of explicit white supremacist public policy aimed primarily at the First Nations peoples of Turtle Island. While the overt legislative aspects of those white supremacist policies have been largely purged in the past 30 to 40 years, the social legacies of those policies remain in place.[/b]
That is actually untrue as well.
For the first 150 years of Canadian history the policy of Europeans here was largely partnership with native peoples (as the fur trade was conducted). It was about 200 years ago that what can be called supremacist policies were started, including reserves, destruction of native culture and so on.
If you want to fight racism, broad generalizations that aren't true help no one.
Thu, 2008-04-03 04:19
#23
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]That is actually untrue as well.
For the first 150 years of Canadian history the policy of Europeans here was largely partnership with native peoples (as the fur trade was conducted). It was about 200 years ago that what can be called supremacist policies were started, including reserves, destruction of native culture and so on.
If you want to fight racism, broad generalizations that aren't true help no one.[/b]
Racial profiling, also known as the targetting of specific groups of (mostly) men because of a racist construction of their "danger to society" affects, disproportionally, Black men and First Nations men.
Poverty rates, racist hiring practices, racist school practices like "zero tolerance", the lies taught in public school history classes, the list goes on.
There's a difference between White Supremacy and white supremacy. Canada was founded on, and continues to be a white supremacist country. This is a very harsh and intense thing. So is genocide, stealing land, rape and murder.
Thu, 2008-04-03 04:27
#24
quote:
For the first 150 years of Canadian history the policy of Europeans here was largely partnership with native peoples (as the fur trade was conducted).
In partnership? Doesn't this imply some sort of equality between the two partners? There was no equal partnership. The settlers took, the FN people gave. The settlers continued to take. They felt they were entitled to not only take, but kill, convert and destroy FN culture.
That is no partnership.
Thu, 2008-04-03 06:49
#25
Le T
quote:
For the first 150 years of Canadian history the policy of Europeans here was largely partnership with native peoples (as the fur trade was conducted). It was about 200 years ago that what can be called supremacist policies were started, including reserves, destruction of native culture and so on.
There are accounts by clergy and Crown reps just after contact using an incredibly racist analysis to maintain a Eurpean "right" to take up space on this land. You can even read journal entries of Jesuits planning residential schools 75-100 years before the first one opened up.
I think that there have been historical alliances between settlers and Indigenous peoples but they have always been mediated by Eurocentrism and white supremacy.
Thu, 2008-04-03 07:24
#26
ElizaQ
There were alliances and earlier agreements such as the Two Tow Wampumn implied that 'officially' their were 'partnerships.' From the perspective of the specific Nations entering these agreements and understanding I have little doubt that on their side they perceived them not only as equal partnerships but held respect for the other (at first). When you read them now, they sound great and all warm and fuzzy.
Then all one has to do is as Telespecteur has commented on the views of the people who on the colonial side on the 'supposed' equal partner and then the history of how these 'partnerships' played out in reality as time went on and the 'unofficial' understanding from the POV of the colonizer of these 'partnerships' is plain as day.
One side took their 'word' seriously, the other did not.
[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Thu, 2008-04-03 09:56
#27
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]For the first 150 years of Canadian history the policy of Europeans here was largely partnership with native peoples (as the fur trade was conducted).[/b]
You are dreaming. Certainly there were military and trade alliances in certain places, and FN people were critical in supporting intra tribal euro warfare, but there was also mass enslavement and active genocide in others. Please do a little research before you try to demean FN and POC with your grade ten textbook limited awareness. Ta.
Ed. to add: what from one side appears to be 'partnerships' from the other is neo-feudal serfdom. The forcing of FN people into the primary harvesting labour force for the big-water-rat (read the nickel plated beaver) hat craze of the English was not a partnership, but a piecemeal slave labour system. FN people who were more and more disposessed of their historical harvesting spaces were more and more forced into this limited and demeaning trade. The end result of this was the loss of every historical economic venue, only to end up as beggars for the first welfare system of lard and wheat from the overlords, hence the development of the much praised, 'authentic' fry bread tradition. I say, no thank you very much.
[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Thu, 2008-04-03 10:17
#28
Le T
quote:
Please do a little research before you try to demean FN and POC with your grade ten textbook limited awareness. Ta.
I was hoping that your new moderating powers would not take away from your famous one-liners. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
I think some of what s/he is referring to is not from a grad ten text book but parts of the RCAP. What is lacking from that analysis IMO is the intentions and worldview of Europeans. If you read some of the ideas about "the New World [sic]" coming out of Europe around that time you see all the horribly racist and Eurocentric intellectualizing of colonial conquest. For instance Locke and Hobbes. There is also the de-humanizing of Native people and cognitive dissonance of newcomers like Columbus, who on one hand wrote in his journal that he believed the Indigenous peoples he encountered to be "of God" but at the same time didn't flinch when his crew murdered, raped and attacked people with dogs. The same mindset is alive today when settlers marvel at the [i]indian[/i], dancing with leather and feathers and saving the Earth while at the same time not even flinching at suicides, incarcerations, extreme poverty, dirty water, forced relocation, stealing children, murders, PCPs in mothers' milk, military deployments, pepper spraying of children, etc.
The relationship of equality that some say existed should always be examined in the context of these ideas.
It's actually interesting because the relationship that is being hypothesized between settlers and Native people in "the old days" is kind of similar to contemporary alliances. When the settler social justice movement has achieved their aims they fuck off. Happens all the time, look out for the number of settler people who continue to crusade for Indigenous rights after they can rest assured that there won't be a Uranium mine in their backyard.
Thu, 2008-04-03 10:29
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]You are dreaming. Certainly there were military and trade alliances in certain places, and FN people were critical in supporting intra tribal euro warfare, but there was also mass enslavement and active genocide in others. Please do a little research before you try to demean FN and POC with your grade ten textbook limited awareness. Ta.Ed. to add: what from one side appears to be 'partnerships' from the other is neo-feudal serfdom. The forcing of FN people into the primary harvesting labour force for the big-water-rat (read the nickel plated beaver) hat craze of the English was not a partnership, but a piecemeal slave labour system. FN people who were more and more disposessed of their historical harvesting spaces were more and more forced into this limited and demeaning trade. The end result of this was the loss of every historical economic venue, only to end up as beggars for the first welfare system of lard and wheat from the overlords, hence the development of the much praised, 'authentic' fry bread tradition. I say, no thank you very much.
[ 03 April 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ][/b]A Mi'Kmaq historian tells the same stories as my Acadian ancestors.
quote:
During the wars of self-defence that the Mi'kmaq often engaged in with the British, many young Acadian men joined with the warriors to do battle. In fact, the bounties issued by the British for Mi'kmaq scalps were worded in such a way that it was permissible, if Acadians were found to be helping the Mi'kmaq, for bounty hunters to take Acadian scalps. The record shows that this was actually done.In retrospect, seeing as our ancestors saw fit to welcome them with open arms, how can we say today that the ancestors of the Acadians were not welcomed to our land and accepted? They were, and they interacted very civilly. Therefore, we must continue the welcome.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the arrival of many other Europeans; some were bloodthirsty. For instance, it would be akin to Jews celebrating Hitler for the Mi'kmaq and other First Nation peoples to celebrate the arrival dates of such individuals as Christopher Columbus and Edward Cornwallis. The genocide they begot mark them as true savages. There is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between their conduct and that of the Acadians!
[url=http://www.danielnpaul.com/Col/2004/Mi'kmaqAcadiansFriendsThenAndNow.html]Daniel Paul Website[/url]
quote:
This Site is dedicated to the memory of the Mi’kmaq who perished resisting the invasion of Mi’kmaq territory by Europeans. The awe-inspiring tenacity and valor they displayed in the face of virtually insurmountable odds has assured the survival of our Nation’s Culture!Biography
Dr. Daniel N. Paul, C.M., O.N.S.
I was born December 1938 to my late parents, Sarah Agnes and William Gabriel Paul, in a small log cabin on Indian Brook Reserve, Nova Scotia, during a raging blizzard. I was the eleventh of fourteen children. The doctor arrived two weeks after the fact on snowshoes. I now reside in Halifax in semi-retirement with my wife Patricia. We have two daughters, Lenore and Cerena. Lenore and husband Todd have made us grandparents twice, Jenna and Julia. I also have a son Keith by a previous partner, whose children have made me a Grandfather and great-Grandfather many times over.
Thu, 2008-04-03 10:37
#30
Makwa
I for one, give respect to Dr. Dan, and his legacy. Hihi.
Thu, 2008-04-03 13:49
#31
To summarize the replies to my post:
Canada has been a racist project since its founding 400 years ago in New France.
This is what you believe?
Thu, 2008-04-03 18:19
#32
Le T
Yes, racism is necessary to facilitate colonialism - which was the intention of European exploration and expansionism.
I think that there was also resistance to colonialism then as there is now.
Thu, 2008-04-03 19:07
#33
Maysie
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]This is what you believe?[/b]
Speaking for myself and myself only, no, this is not what I believe. This is what I know to be true.
Fri, 2008-04-04 15:47
#34
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
Speaking for myself and myself only, no, this is not what I believe. This is what I know to be true.[/b]
If the European colonists were racist, then why did so many in New France intermarry with natives?
Intermarriage was such a problem that the Quebec governors had trouble staffing their garrisons. French immigrants would marry into local native families, and then go off to be a part of the fur trade.
These weren't "country marriages" -- they were the real thing, to the point that a whole new culture was created, that of the Metis. And it wasn't just the French, there was a sizable anglophone Metis component as well (usually Scottish).
How can you reconcile this fact with the idea that the original European culture in Canada was monolithically racist?
[ 04 April 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]
Fri, 2008-04-04 16:03
#35
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]
Speaking for myself and myself only, no, this is not what I believe. This is what I know to be true.[/b]
You are denying the existence of a community that lasted 150 years, a period longer than the time from Confederation till now. The Mi'Kmaq and Acadians were both friends and allies and there is no historical basis for saying they were anything else. To now hundreds of years later rewrite their history is an insult to both parties.
There is lots of racism to choice from why denigrate the North American settler community that was not racist? Maybe instead we might want to study it to look for ways to improve our modern relationship with the FN's.
Fri, 2008-04-04 16:33
#36
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
[b]If the European colonists were racist, then why did so many in New France intermarry with natives?[/b]
Sigh. This is usually the kind of issue that I go ballistic on, but then again, I thought that it is such a real issue of confusion within the dominant culture that it deserves a thoughtful response.
And as an aside, yes, kropotkin1951, we know from dozens of your posts that the Acadians were the "good" white folk, ok, jeeze. I have no information to the contrary, so unless someone else wants to prove otherwise, can we all agree that we excuse kropokin's Acadian folk from any accusation of historical systemic racism.
So, granted that everyone else is a potential racist bastard, how do re reconcile the problem of those who 'went native'? Historical writings demonstrate that so-called 'puritans' had the same problem as the French colonists that differentmathematicalsymbols points to.
And how do we reconcile that even under Canadian and American slavery and Jim Crow legal systems some apparently consensual relationships occured among black and white folk? Even the enslaved Marie-Joseph Angйlique, who was brutally tortured and executed in Montreal in 1734 (on suspicion of burning a significant part of Montreal in her escape attempt), had confessed (under torture, mind you) to be trying to escape with her white French ex-conscript soldier lover.
This leads us with a few possiblities. Perhaps the history of racism is merely a figment of imagination in the minds of a group of difficult, cunning FN and POC who want to make life difficult for white folk today, by using 'guilt' as leverage. This is a popular theory for most right-wingies, like Malkin et al.
Or perhaps many white folks who develop relationships with POC remain racist, yet still enjoy maintaining power and control over their partners for their own sick desires.
Perhaps white folk who develop relationships with POC and FN people are so isolated and disreputable within their own society, that they are forced to the margins.
Or perhaps the legal and systems which have opressed POC and FN people is not respected by some white folks in different periods of history.
If I could, I might have asked my father what he saw in a First Nations' woman in the late 1950's, of course, if he had bothered to stick long after I was born, so, I guess, other than engage in speculation, we might as well conclude that structural racism can exist in a virulant and powerful form, even if all white folk do not wholeheartedly support it at all times.
Fri, 2008-04-04 17:00
#37
Le T
With respect to the opening post, is racist the right way to describe this Facebook group?
I'm hesitant to roll this kind of thing in with racism, while at the same time I would say that there are racist elements.
Fri, 2008-04-04 17:08
#38
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]Sigh. This is usually the kind of issue that I go ballistic on, but then again, I thought that it is such a real issue of confusion within the dominant culture that it deserves a thoughtful response.
[/b]
With all respect Makwa, you are cherry-picking from my post.
The rest of the post explains that European-native marriages in New France weren't sexual abuse, or even "country marriages" i.e. over when the European trader left the bush. They were family alliances that formed the backbone of the fur trade, and created the mixed-race Metis culture.
Again, this is the point I made in my original post that was shouted down.
In the first 150 years or so of Canadian history the mainstream of European-native relations were one of partnership and alliance (differing from genocidal wars to our south). It was really the end of the fur trade and the coming of true "settler" cutlure i.e. farmers that imposed the racist system of reserves, Indian agents etc.
If we truly want to build a non-racist Canada, why wouldn't we reach back into the past for traditions that show partnership, tolerance and respect?
Fri, 2008-04-04 17:16
#39
Le T
I think that Makwa was pointing out the diversity of experiences and interpretations of these relationships which you seem to think were all dandy.
Can we say that because divorce rates were much lower in 17th century Europe than 21st century Canada that sexism didn't exist back then? Of course not. When I say that 17th century Europe was a patriarchal society does it mean that every single person in Europe at that time agreed with and actively support heterosexism? No. Does it mean that patriarchy had an effect on relationships and every other aspect of European society? Yes.