Poll looks at what Canadians think of one another

RevolutionPlease, all this poll has asked about is what do white folks across Canada think of Others (tm).

In my humble opinion, the findings are neither new or that interesting. 

Note that the ways the terms "Canadian" and "Albertan" and "French Quebecker" (a fascinating term all on its own) are used indicate that such identities are non-problematized white/anglo, since "What Ontarians think of Jews" certainly implies that one cannot be both an Ontarian and a Jew.

Etc.

Nor is there any indication that "Jews" were asked what they think of "immigrants". Or what "Aboriginals" think of "French Quebeckers" or "Immigrants" or "Jews". Of course, what the Others (tm) think of each other is hardly a concern isn't it? Cue sarcasm.

So who has agency, then? Who "matters"?

Knowing what white Canadians think of the ROC, including the Others (tm) that continually are not considered Canadians, is not news at all.

This link should actually be saved, for the next person that needs an example of how white supremacist values are embedded into Canadian understandings of identity.

RevolutionPlease, please clarify how you want the discussion to proceed.

I'm also not entirely sure it belongs in the Canadian Politics forum.

That does it. I want a Francophone Aboriginal PM. Then those Harper lovers might spontaneously combust.

Still think we should have an Aboriginal PM.

Seriously, maybe there is value in showing that racism is alive and well in Canada. Perhaps it was time to take it out and let people see it all out there in black and white. I'm tired of having to claim that there is a problem without having proof.

Canada has a lot of potential but it is not a place it is a political concept-- a group of people. It needs to earn pride and respect and on some days it just doesn't.

Oh and I'd like to see a poll of how many thought favourably of racists. Or is it that they are not a minority group in Canada?

Sean, good point re. leaving the thread here in Canadian politics.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 Seriously, maybe there is value in showing that racism is alive and well in Canada.  

Yes there is value, but unfortunately not everyone needs it "shown" to them that racism is alive and well.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 Oh and I'd like to see a poll of how many thought favourably of racists. Or is it that they are not a minority group in Canada?

This is what makes my work in my professional life so difficult. The language around race and racism is so highly charged (mostly for good hearted white folks, and I say good hearted without any guile or sarcasm) so that who is referred to as "racists" become a group of identifiable people who are actively racist (eg KKK) and therefore bad. Nobody wants to be known as a racist or called a racist. The conversation then becomes about how mean that was of someone to call Person A a racist, rather than addressing the racist behaviour or system that is going on. Since racism (individual, systemic and institutional) isn't about the extreme white supremacist folks, it's embedded everywhere.

Having biases isn't the problem, since yes, everyone has biases. The difference is that those who are biased and skewed towards thinking that being any of: white, male, heterosexual, middle class, straight, able-bodied is better than not being those things.... these are the people that made and continue to run, the country (Canada) that ALL of us have to live in. Those of us who aren't any of those things, or who aren't most of those things, bump up against being thought of as "other" and "non-normal" all the time.

Biases have created the world we live in, biases aren't just feelings one person has about another person, or group of people.

Sorry if that sounds too didactic.

LOL...Tommy.

Right on TP.  But it also points to the crowd that is most vulnerable to racism...the Great Unread, those without a pot to pee in and who live in fear of losing their livelihood.  We had better hope that our economy does not sag to the point that the "structural deficit" leads to  "structural unemployment."   (Jeremiah George ). (p.s.   and hope that our schools remain a beautiful social mix).

No Maysie not didactic.

Sometimes I wonder if we should not have two different words one for active intentional conscious racism and another for the unconscious structural racism that people often do not even recognize. The upside might make it easier to accept and challenge the unconscious when it is visible. The downside is the risk of minimizing the importance and effect of the less overt forms of racism and taking away the responsibility to do something about it. On balance I feel it is better to live with the single word.

The poll did also acknowledge that the more you have contact with any identifiable group the less likely you will respond in a racist way-- stereotypes don't get borne out with experience and stereotypes are the stuffing of racism.In fact the more you have contact with an identifiable group the less they are identifiable as a group.

If we are to move to a post racist world somehow we not only need to be more familiar with each other, but we also need to find a way to make what is unconscious conscious. I don't have an answer to how other than just by listening to each other and the reactions to this poll from different people can help. I often hear things so fundamental to someone elses' experience but because I never experienced or saw it that way, it will be new to me. This is not about being close minded but just being unaware.So hearing others speak about their experiences and how they see things can help greatly. To that end a poll like this-- even ill-conceived  may stimulate a useful discussion.

I am also struck by the poll at the rankings of who is thought well of-- if you place them in order you have the order of power in our country. We can't possible address racism without balancing opportunity and power. That Aboriginal people are the least considered favourably is not a surprise when we recognize that they are also the most dis empowered. We have what is theirs, and the only way out is for them to get some of what we have. No wonder they are feared and seen unfavourably when they need what we want to think is ours.

Yep, the death throes of an industry that at least had people talking to each other.  When they are gone (and I sure as shucks would be the last to defend that lamentable rag, the Sun - don't know how Fisher, the last civilized influence there, hung on so long ) I am just afraid that those who are without the means to make a decent living are going to call on someone to the right of Vlad the Impaler for help...because there is no place to turn other than to direct and violent action.  We must be able to move from abstractions to positive, concrete proposals. 

We don't all "play that game"in fct, TP, because we understand the implications of our and others actions and do not reduce to desperate measures. Not yet anyway.  Your point was that the Sun is not the source of thoughtful observation  : D, and is a reactionary rag appealing to those who are not up to "big words." Too true.  But what will "come slouching" to fill the void?

I have profound respect for your situation and thoughts, TP.  I think "the beast" will need to be assuaged not simply with convincing arguments from political economy, but actual proposals that  are seen to put people to work and look after them - right through their retirement.  And we are going to be a "service industry" nation in that way.  What really bothers me - because this seems very much like that legendary economy dependent on everyone taking in everyone-else's washing - is the question of how we pay for it in a world of corporations feeding on their ability to take their little red wagons and go play somewhere else. AND, the fact that those folks hold the pension card as trump. Their emergence as all-powerful entities  suddenly made things difficult for unions and the left generally beginning in the 1970s.

It is not true that all reporters are handmaidens to their employers, although there are many in that category.  I learned just yesterday that Graeme Smith's book on his Afghanistan ezxperiences ( he's the chap who blew the whistle first on the nasty things happening to detainees turned over by Canadian troops ) will be coming out in early 2011. Unfortunately, not many read the Globe.

I get the imagery, from the Charge of the Light Brigade (I suppose...I missed seeing it), but my father's very brief accounts of warfare in the First World War suggested that  not much had changed in British generalship over the intervening 65 years.

We may be "saved" in that the beast is acually a hydra, one that can't be mobilized as a single threat in a 1984 setting. But gosh I wish that it used its "heads" for more than a hatrack!  : D  But maybe you see its possible transformation in another direction?

I believe with Greg Mortenson (Stones into Schools; Three Cups of Tea) that "unless girls are educated, society will never, ever change." He's talking about the world of kids in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., but I believe that the transition and tendency toward female domination of the professions (and finally, politics) through scholastic achievement in a meritocracy will also be a revolutionary force.  Hope we've got time.

remind:

"Thus George, I see your words as acknowleging that this is happening, but  are seeing a need to offer them a soft landing, as opposed to outright revolution. A vision of what the world could be like, and their place in it."

Yep. I don't want a brownshirt reaction to either ethnic differences (i.e.our concern with fighting the Western Guard in the 7os) or a newer one based on frustration from growing unemployment.

As for the "books" thing, remind, take a boo at Mortenson on the revolutionary meaning for traditional societies of an educated female population. And that is one of the problems confronting  groups in Canadian society, of course. Clearly tradition should be able to provide the necessary education, beyond books. But we inhabit a meritocracy which has to depend on "certificates" to "certify" competency in professions and trades. Isn't this THE dilemma? It is my understanding that James Bartleman, the first FN lieutenant governor of Ontario , member of Minjikaning First Nation, gathered up many hundreds of thousands of books for FN readers in Northern Ontario in the belief that others could (and needed to) follow his example...he said reading opened up his world, one in which he could dream of/envision many different outcomes. I believe Tom King is in the same camp.  

I think it's sometimes interesting how other people see Canadians and Canada. A friend of mine taught English in Russia for a year. He brings back a Russian bride. She loves Canadians but wants to go back. She says there's nothing here.

Propaganda is like a gun with the barrel pointing backwards.   The perveyors always come to believe thier own lies, and become victims of their own hubris.   

No doubt the Ivey School of business and the rest of that ilk has come to believe it's own bullshit.   This train is already a runnaway.

What really bothers me - because this seems very much like that legendary economy dependent on everyone taking in everyone-else's washing - is the question of how we pay for it in a world of corporations feeding on their ability to take their little red wagons and go play somewhere else. AND, the fact that those folks hold the pension card as trump. Their emergence as all-powerful entities  suddenly made things difficult for unions and the left generally beginning in the 1970s.

Quite right, George, and like I said above, the venture capitalists and the financial gurus actually believe we can base an economy where everyone takes in everyone else's laundry. You don't need fancy degrees to know that this can't last.  Truly, as the nom de plume of a babbler reminds us, my cat knows better.

And while I don't doubt that even a majority in the main stream media are an ethical bunch,  we don't really know who they are.   It's like your deli meat with mold on it: surely, not all of it is bad, only a bit has mold on it, and you can cut around it.    But still, would you swallow what remains?

But maybe you see its possible transformation in another direction?

The first step is surrending any idea of control or power you think you have over such things.   There was a time were social democrats like me, or the rest of us actually had some standing.  I think those bad ass old money guys in the 50's and 60's understood our role, how we tweeked, made sure some largish crumbs rolled off the table,  and made their lifestyles sustainable over the long term.   But, the people who are in charge now, those who have come to believe their own publicity and propaganda, feel they no longer need our ameliorating influences. 

So be it.  That's out of our control.  

Segueing in a moment to one of Remind's points, one has to realize that people who have power rarely, if ever, reliquish it without bloodshed.  While I may seem an advocate of bloody insurection, I'm not, really.  Far too lazy, George for all that mess.   But that's not my choice.  People in power today have already made that choice, if not for themselves then for their hapless offspring who will be left holding the bag.

White male patriarchy and their global hegemony is coming to an end, how long that will take and how ugly it gets, will be determined by the white males et al insistence upon keeping it.

I'm not sure when, I would be surprised if it's in my lifetime, but yeah, it's going to get ugly.

There's a confluence of events swirling around right now.   An unsustainable economy.  Environmental issues that, if half the models are true seem ready to spiral out of control, and emerging nations and cultures that aren't as prepared to put up with quite as much shit anymore, and institutions that could once be relied upon to keep people convinced that the Emperor's New Clothes are simply smashing have increasingly declining credibility.   And running under all of it, a revolution in communications.    What happened the last time we had such a revolution in communications?

Note how, unlike so many main stream media hacks these days, I did not use the phrase "perfect storm".

Of course, I'd rather things move along nicely, where we educate the world, where power gets shared-- yes even my power-- (easy, because in my heart of hearts all I really want is to be left alone by people with swords and dogma)  and for RP (where the hell is that scamp, anyway?)  and Maysie and my daughters to get the same respect and service from everyone else that I enjoy.  

But, it is not to be, and that is not in our control.  It's up to the type of people who charge fees on relief money to Haiti, or give O'Leary unending podiums for his lemming like rush to the end of economic sustainability, and they ain't showing signs of change.

What is in our control is to keep harping, keep talking, like water dripping on a rock just who and where the enemy is, and hopefully the wave of inevitable retribution heads in that general direction.

TP:

"What is in our control is to keep harping, keep talking, like water dripping on a rock just who and where the enemy is, and hopefully the wave of inevitable retribution heads in that general direction."

That's a part of the education process I thought, TP.

AS for those "bad ass old money guys in the 50s and 60s" who gave us crumbs " (the building of the noweroding social safety net ) did not have to dispense crumbs with the appearance of the Chicago School (as Robert REich shows us in Supercapitalism (the external, international face of which has been described for us by Naomi Klein in schock doctrine. With that, and our new dependency on corporate largesse with their holding our savings for retirement time, social democratic, anti-corporate rhetoric came to sound very hollow...tax the corporatation that is going to shut down and move elsewhere, leaving you jobless and without pensions. Sure... But now that we see the naked results, surely it's time to promote specific actions, like more public pensions. And I think we have to stop saying things like "it's out of our control." Sorry, but that's the case only for an unread citizenry, TP.

george, had a long discussion yesterday with my daughter, about this thread, and  the ensuing discussion between.

And she seems to think, that the male ego  pursuits have been skewed and need to be realigned, paraphrased of course.

...her example was of a husband of a friend of hers, and the comments he publically made about having to relinguish a second vehcile, as they could not afford it.

He took it personally that they could not afford it, and that he had to relinguish it as a blow to his masculinity. As such, he made every excuse in the book to people about why they  returned it, other than noting the reality they could no longer afford it, like 100's of thousands of other people. That people knew in actual fact that they could no longer afford it, did not sink into him and he thought he was saving face, while actually he was only self-soothing, and lost more face for not being real about what was happening.

And she gave a couple of other examples of where male ego responses to what they believe public perception of them would be and how their choice of action is irrational and would actually directly harm their family and themselves.

She is busy with her network of friends and associates teaching them what she was taught by her grandparents who lived through the depression and by her parents, about  many things like; not using credit, and that credit is not a good thing, that an actual lving wage with responsible consumption is, and about self sufficient and environmentally sustainable while living in a urban environment.

Finally after all these years she gets "it" and is putting it into action, after the hormone driven years of "why can't you people be like everyone else"..

She believes programs and iniatives geared to show people, not tell people are needed, and that  then the soft landing will be achieved by the people themselves.

Hope I worded that so you could get the nuance...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That does it. I want a Francophone Aboriginal PM. Then those Harper lovers might spontaneously combust.

Still think we should have an Aboriginal PM.

Seriously, maybe there is value in showing that racism is alive and well in Canada. Perhaps it was time to take it out and let people see it all out there in black and white. I'm tired of having to claim that there is a problem without having proof.

Canada has a lot of potential but it is not a place it is a political concept-- a group of people. It needs to earn pride and respect and on some days it just doesn't.

Oh and I'd like to see a poll of how many thought favourably of racists. Or is it that they are not a minority group in Canada?

I am serious when I say that the Minister of Indian Affairs should be a First Nations person by default.  It does not even have to be an elected person, they can be nominated by the Council of First Nations as their representative,  It would guarantee a seat at the Big Table and hopefully a coherent, effective voice.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree.

Should there be a certain number of seats in the House reserved for Aboriginal people?

I can't think of any reason why not and they could be added to the current seats.

I am inclined to not like the council idea but require they be elected  just like anyone else though.-- thoughts?

Nt in favour of the Minister of DIAND being elected, that is what happens now and the results is not satisfactory.  Actually, Cabinet Minsiters are not elected by the electorate and never have been.

I do not agree with the idea of saving seats for First Nations people. 

There is another context and reason appointing a First Nations person as Minster: increased accountability.  It is well past time for everybody to shit or get off the pot.