[Steve_D]

You missed the gist.

 

[Undying42]

I still don't follow. Discrimination is amoral and should not perpetraited on innocent people. Everyone should be given the same benefit of the doubt and not be singled out on the basis of their race, gender or other differential traits. At the same though we should hold accountable those who cheat the system, by pretending they're benevolent people but are just as bigoted as their nemeses. Hence "do unto others, as you'd want done onto you!" What exactly am I not getting that you think I should?

 

[EnviroTO]

I still don't follow. Discrimination is amoral and should not perpetraited on innocent people. Everyone should be given the same benefit of the doubt and not be singled out on the basis of their race, gender or other differential traits.

When does a person become non-innocent? When a person is singled out because he or she is causing you trouble or insulting you does the insult you hurl back at him or her matter that much because at that point you aren't singling him or her out because of race... you are singling him or her out as the person who is causing you trouble or is insulting you. Racism isn't about how you treat a specific individual in response to something they personally did, it is how you treat a person who you are singling out simply due to race.

Lets say that certain words are as harmful as bullets (an exaggeration of course) and add in a fictional condition that certain bullets can only harm certain races. If I shoot a specific person because they are shooting at me, does the fact I chose the bullet which would cause harm change the nature of why I am shooting back?

At the same though we should hold accountable those who cheat the system, by pretending they're benevolent people but are just as bigoted as their nemeses.

I'm curious what you mean by cheating the system.

Hence "do unto others, as you'd want done onto you!"

Do you think minority groups would be happy with white people creating a white school that focuses on white accomplishments? I completely agree with "doing unto others as you'd want done unto you". I see getting rid of race and faith based schools as key to that. As far as the 36 alternative schools I would certainly want to get rid of those that have nothing to do with academics. Having special schools for arts, for the gifted, and for the mentally handicapped has nothing to do with race obviously and provides a benefit to people without consideration of race or religion. If it is possible to fit those academic focused alternative programs in the existing regular schools that would be even better. I went to a high school which had 3000 students, which was highly multicultural, had ESL, had French Immersion, had a dance program, had a TV program, had tech and automotive, and a wide range of both advanced and general level classes. I see that high school as an example of what is possible in Canada when people from all walks of life, with varying skillsets and interests, and from various economic realities get together under one roof. That is the Canada I want my children to inherit. I don't believe that we can get rid of racism until we see race as simply a description... like blue eyes or long hair. You certainly wouldn't have a blue eyed school and a long hair history class.

There are problems to be dealt with but the way to approach solving them is not to start off by embracing an idea that is divisive and which leaves people who don't fit some predefined mould out in the cold. We should be hiring counsellors to work with problem youth, figuring out the reasons individuals make the independent choices they make. If an elective history or art course can be seen to add value to the curriculum then by all means add it to our existing schools as an African course rather than a "black" course because "black" is divisive and presumes black or white and doesn't allow for shades of grey. The history of Pacific WWII battles aren't taught as a "whites versus orientals" history class... it is taught as a history of people and governments. In all the history courses I ever took I never saw any focus on skin colour and eye shape. We shouldn't be starting that now.

 

[Tewder]

...Straight-acting gays however can blend in, while visible minorities are differentiated from a mile away.

That's the problem in of itself though. The racism/segregation here isn't as visible and recognizable as it is in the United States. Hence unless you're personally a victim of it, most citizens are unaware that such discrimination can and often does go on in Canada.

Isn't there a contradiction here? Racism is more problematic in Canada than in the USA because it is 'invisible'? Yet discrimination against invisible minorities is less problematic than discrimination against visible minorities because it is...'invisible'?

True, I agree. Personal biases can often compromise one's objectivity when examining these issues.

Exactly.

One racist that gets away with harming minorities can easily motivate others to attempt the same.

Well unless you're talking about Adolph Hitler here it is unbelievably reactionary to confer such power to an individual who uses the wrong word in a fight. I've said it before that 'witch hunts' are never very effective; red curtains in your window do not make you a communist...

I think minorities still have a very valid argument for being upset over racial/ethnic/gender inequity they face within a society that's nowhere near the racial parity asserted by talking heads.

I agree that everyone, whether they perceive themselves to be part of the so-called majority or the so-called minority, should be concerned about equality and human rights - to protect the rights of the minority is to protect the rights of the majority! - but these are issues for law and the courts, and the responsibility of the 'talking heads'. Concepts of racial/ethnic/gender equity in society, however, are so much more nebulous and problematic because they are about context and personal perspective which as we know is inherently distorted, and which is why crusades in these areas, no matter how well-intentioned, end up causing more harm and division than good. Enviro's examples show that not every black person being fired is being discriminated against and not every white person in this multicultural society is going to be welcomed with open arms by everyone in every situation. But once again our perspectives can be misleading, in that the white person being attacked by a minority group may be more likely to view it as an issue of assault than racism, and a black person being fired by a white boss may be more inclined to view it as an issue of racism than a labour issue.

The hope is that in time, the need for cultural sensitivity training won't even be necessary, because society as a whole will be litmus paper and watchkeepers in the cause to silence racists/bigots for good so that we can all move forward as one society, one humanity.

Yet you want to segregate schools? The failure of Canada's multicultural experiment was that it encouraged the segregation of multicultural communities and neglected to provide any tools for assimilation. Segregating schools will only add to this, and thereby add to issues of cultural or racial insensitivity. This is not a white 'majority' vs any-other-colour 'minority' issue, because any white person in a non-white community is also a minority. Again, it is about context and perspective.

We certainly don't want racism going unpunished but we need to define what is racism and what is not. We need to crack down on obvious racism but at the same time need to be optimistic that not everything negative which transpires between people of different races must be racism.

I agree, although I don't feel we need to 'crack down' on racism which would start to feel like a witch hunt. The rights and laws are in place if somebody truly feels like they have been the victim of discrimination, and when I last checked using the wrong language, even the 'n' word, or having negative thoughts, opinions or stereotypes about people are not crimes against humanity. If we start prosecuting and destroying people because of these things then we become a police state. Is that what we want?

We need to see that racism can be seen as something as simple as not having a diversity of races in your close friends, not saying hello to a member of a different race on the street, being fearful when a gang of youth approach you in the night, to calling someone a name when that one specific person made you upset, to disapproving of a marriage because of race, to bias when provided with two equal job applicants, to approving of a race or faith focused school, to painting all members of a certain race with the same brush, to seeking conflict with member of another race, and the list goes on.

Perhaps, but what you are describing above are normal human responses in certain circumstances, which may be unfair or unpleasant or unreasonable, but they are natural and will occur from time to time... Is a white person walking alone at night a racist if he changes his direction to avoid a group of black males hanging out in gangsta clothes? Is a white female being sexist if she prefers to wait for10 the next elevator rather than get on alone with a white male stranger? The very nature of human intuition is that it is informed by our unconsious processing of information which unfortunatly - or perhaps luckily - is extremely discriminating. Our intuition racially profiles all the time, and profiles according to gender or ethnicity or a whole host of other criteria. Again, it's all about context and perspective.

There's already 36 alternative schools in the TDSB system, what's one more going to do? No matter what becomes of the black-focused program, I'm at least glad there's a public outcry to assist these marginalized and underpriviledged students on the verge of dropping out. Increasing the number of black students that successfully graduate, earn a Bachelor's/Master's and join the workforce; the better it is for society as a whole. Doing next to nothing to help, only stagnates their progress and potential.

Segregating black people and giving them a differnt standard and a marginal scholastic experience will not help their situation longterm. Eventually they will have to inegrate and interact with the bigger, wider world. I am not arguing that the school system may be failing some kids in the black community, but if that's the case then fix the system rather than resorting to a questionable solution. We also have to be honest that it is not just the school system failing kids but that there are social problems within the black community that must be addressed. Sweeping them under the carpet and looking for scapegoats without will not help those kids in life.

 

[Steve_D]

I suppose double minorities have it the worst off though, as these individuals can never be fully accepted by any social norm groups within society: white or black [or another ethnicity], gay or straight.

That's an interesting supposition, thanks for vocalizing it. it's very close to the truth.

Increasing the number of black students that successfully graduate, earn a Bachelor's/Master's and join the workforce; the better it is for society as a whole. Doing next to nothing to help, only stagnates their progress and potential.

I think we should help everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexuality....why don't you agree?

 

[EnviroTO]

Perhaps, but what you are describing above are normal human responses in certain circumstances, which may be unfair or unpleasant or unreasonable, but they are natural and will occur from time to time... Is a white person walking alone at night a racist if he changes his direction to avoid a group of black males hanging out in gangsta clothes? Is a white female being sexist if she prefers to wait for10 the next elevator rather than get on alone with a white male stranger? The very nature of human intuition is that it is informed by our unconsious processing of information which unfortunatly - or perhaps luckily - is extremely discriminating. Our intuition racially profiles all the time, and profiles according to gender or ethnicity or a whole host of other criteria. Again, it's all about context and perspective.

The nature of racism is that it exists because of fear or because of stereotyping. That fear or stereotype often starts with something real that morphs into a generalization. Racism can be understandable in certain situations but at the same time it doesn't change the fact it is racism and that it is harmful. It may seem wise to avoid a gang of black youths but that doesn't change the fact it is racism because you have denied them their individuality, unless of course you have identified them as a threat because they are a group of people in a certain type of clothing. Unless you know those specific people are a threat then you have performed racial profiling if skin colour played any part in your decision making (i.e. identified threats based on race). It may be normal human nature to try and generalize and summarize based on what is easily seen but in doing so we close our eyes to the real reason things happen and close our eyes to the fact that each person is different and has free will.

 

[Undying42]

When does a person become non-innocent? When a person is singled out because he or she is causing you trouble or insulting you does the insult you hurl back at him or her matter that much because at that point you aren't singling him or her out because of race... you are singling him or her out as the person who is causing you trouble or is insulting you. Racism isn't about how you treat a specific individual in response to something they personally did, it is how you treat a person who you are singling out simply due to race.

That's dependent on both parties though. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a friend who you usually get along with well but one day he messes up and says something inappropiate, how'd you respond? Would you lash out the most vulgar obscenity you can think of to hurt the person's feelings? Or do you lead by example and not lower yourself to that level of behaviour? One's temperment and rationality differs from person to person, so too does their likelihood to spread racist propaganda, even if they're unaware they're doing it. When a person isn't looking a fight, but expressing their right to breathe the same air as their oppressors and obtain everything life has to offer, those individuals in my eyes are innocent.

Lets say that certain words are as harmful as bullets (an exaggeration of course) and add in a fictional condition that certain bullets can only harm certain races. If I shoot a specific person because they are shooting at me, does the fact I chose the bullet which would cause harm change the nature of why I am shooting back?

Words are worst than bullets. You shoot a man, if he lives, he can still go on about his life. A constant barage of negativity, a cloud of suspicion and malcontent isn't healthy for anyone. Words can never hurt you is BS, whoever made that up was never condescended or made to feel inferior their whole lives.

I'm curious what you mean by cheating the system.

Two-faced, duplicitous people who are even worse than racists that utter slurs to your face. When people infiltrate one's personal boundaries, then screw you over, that is the worst feeling ever.

Do you think minority groups would be happy with white people creating a white school that focuses on white accomplishments? I completely agree with "doing unto others as you'd want done unto you". I see getting rid of race and faith based schools as key to that. As far as the 36 alternative schools I would certainly want to get rid of those that have nothing to do with academics. Having special schools for arts, for the gifted, and for the mentally handicapped has nothing to do with race obviously and provides a benefit to people without consideration of race or religion. If it is possible to fit those academic focused alternative programs in the existing regular schools that would be even better. I went to a high school which had 3000 students, which was highly multicultural, had ESL, had French Immersion, had a dance program, had a TV program, had tech and automotive, and a wide range of both advanced and general level classes. I see that high school as an example of what is possible in Canada when people from all walks of life, with varying skillsets and interests, and from various economic realities get together under one roof. That is the Canada I want my children to inherit. I don't believe that we can get rid of racism until we see race as simply a description... like blue eyes or long hair. You certainly wouldn't have a blue eyed school and a long hair history class.

I really don't think the segregation in this case was to promote racism. The TDSB itself released to the public statistics showing Afro-Canadian students were fairing the worst off of all ethnic groups within the system. If the system itself decided to segregate the student body group by group, ethnic by ethnic to see which group preformed the worst, does that tell you that its a systematic agenda not by individuals, that seeks to instigate and prolong the class/ethnic divisions within society? We as individuals can only take what's mediated at us as fact, and evaluate and base our opinions around that.

The cirricula was designed in a time when the majority population was white. While its made accomodations to appease recent immigrant populations, overall its understandable why some pupils can't relate to the teachings. Everything needs to taken with a grain of salt. Demanding greater diversity in a system designed for white immigrants primarily, non-whites as an afterthought, is by no means a "witch hunt".

There are problems to be dealt with but the way to approach solving them is not to start off by embracing an idea that is divisive and which leaves people who don't fit some predefined mould out in the cold. We should be hiring counsellors to work with problem youth, figuring out the reasons individuals make the independent choices they make. If an elective history or art course can be seen to add value to the curriculum then by all means add it to our existing schools as an African course rather than a "black" course because "black" is divisive and presumes black or white and doesn't allow for shades of grey. The history of Pacific WWII battles aren't taught as a "whites versus orientals" history class... it is taught as a history of people and governments. In all the history courses I ever took I never saw any focus on skin colour and eye shape. We shouldn't be starting that now.

How can there be so much concern for non-black Africans feeling left out by black=African, yet so much disregard for the alienation of minorities, ethnocentric exclusion in general?

 

[Undying42]

Isn't there a contradiction here? Racism is more problematic in Canada than in the USA because it is 'invisible'? Yet discrimination against invisible minorities is less problematic than discrimination against visible minorities because it is...'invisible'?

I didn't mean the racism here was more prevalent but rather it's harder to prove. The very incident at the heart of this debate has the forum divided on whether or not the N-word is more taboo than asshole. In America this would be settled in like two minutes. In spite of gangsta rap, I don't think a vast majority of humanity need be reminded of slavery, inferiority, sub-human, meaningless existences- all disparages conjured up by the term. Whether you agree or disagree, I'd never let another human being know my thinking was that perverse and sycophantic.

Well unless you're talking about Adolph Hitler here it is unbelievably reactionary to confer such power to an individual who uses the wrong word in a fight. I've said it before that 'witch hunts' are never very effective; red curtains in your window do not make you a communist...

'Witch hunts' are one thing, but a systematic pattern of behaviours, mannerisms all pointing to the contrary, that in fact some individuals begrudge others just because of their physical attributes... well. Like it or not, everyone's a bigot in some form. Someone might hate fat people. Others detest the disabled. Still others might dislike people who can't speak English. The biases we all carry around with us, don't have to compromise the well-beings of members of the groups you dislike. We can adapt skills to overcome at-face stereotyping and get to know people by association not social distance.

I agree that everyone, whether they perceive themselves to be part of the so-called majority or the so-called minority, should be concerned about equality and human rights - to protect the rights of the minority is to protect the rights of the majority! - but these are issues for law and the courts, and the responsibility of the 'talking heads'.

Best statement I've heard yet!

Concepts of racial/ethnic/gender equity in society, however, are so much more nebulous and problematic because they are about context and personal perspective which as we know is inherently distorted, and which is why crusades in these areas, no matter how well-intentioned, end up causing more harm and division than good. Enviro's examples show that not every black person being fired is being discriminated against and not every white person in this multicultural society is going to be welcomed with open arms by everyone in every situation. But once again our perspectives can be misleading, in that the white person being attacked by a minority group may be more likely to view it as an issue of assault than racism, and a black person being fired by a white boss may be more inclined to view it as an issue of racism than a labour issue.

Chicken and egg scenario. Were the roles of history reversed, black/white relations would look very different. Skepticism around whether a minority's dismissal has to do with their race might be a valid argument for some people. I personally think job preformance and good work ethic trumps ethnocentric proclivities but heh, what do I know .

Yet you want to segregate schools? The failure of Canada's multicultural experiment was that it encouraged the segregation of multicultural communities and neglected to provide any tools for assimilation. Segregating schools will only add to this, and thereby add to issues of cultural or racial insensitivity. This is not a white 'majority' vs any-other-colour 'minority' issue, because any white person in a non-white community is also a minority. Again, it is about context and perspective.

I'm not fully convinced it's the right move to 'segreagte' blacks as this thread suggests it will. However I'm not ruling it out as well. Every black parent and concerned citizen will look at their kid's poor report card and wonder what's so special about Catholics, homosexuals, group home kids, the disbled, French/ESL immersions, First Nations and adult students that they recieve specialized accomodations and not the underachieving black students. In all fairness they'd have a point. In contrast to dropping out maybe this school will give them something they're lacking. So long as they graduate and enter the workforce, who cares where they go to get there and what semantics is attached to the venue?

I agree, although I don't feel we need to 'crack down' on racism which would start to feel like a witch hunt. The rights and laws are in place if somebody truly feels like they have been the victim of discrimination, and when I last checked using the wrong language, even the 'n' word, or having negative thoughts, opinions or stereotypes about people are not crimes against humanity. If we start prosecuting and destroying people because of these things then we become a police state. Is that what we want?

We kind of already live in a police state given how restricted free speech has become and the censorship of most media oulets by gov't/corporations. Maybe this one incident was blown out of proportion but think of all the untold stories of racism that doesn't have the benefit of a journalist degree and mass communication outlet to mediate it. Who's telling their story, their plight? Once we can get pass labelling people altogether- be it 'racist', 'nigger', 'victim', 'bigot'- then there'll be nothing left worth policing/censoring.

Perhaps, but what you are describing above are normal human responses in certain circumstances, which may be unfair or unpleasant or unreasonable, but they are natural and will occur from time to time... Is a white person walking alone at night a racist if he changes his direction to avoid a group of black males hanging out in gangsta clothes? Is a white female being sexist if she prefers to wait for10 the next elevator rather than get on alone with a white male stranger? The very nature of human intuition is that it is informed by our unconsious processing of information which unfortunatly - or perhaps luckily - is extremely discriminating. Our intuition racially profiles all the time, and profiles according to gender or ethnicity or a whole host of other criteria. Again, it's all about context and perspective.

I agree. Not everything someone does or doesn't do to others can be summised as intentional prejudice.

Segregating black people and giving them a differnt standard and a marginal scholastic experience will not help their situation longterm. Eventually they will have to inegrate and interact with the bigger, wider world. I am not arguing that the school system may be failing some kids in the black community, but if that's the case then fix the system rather than resorting to a questionable solution. We also have to be honest that it is not just the school system failing kids but that there are social problems within the black community that must be addressed. Sweeping them under the carpet and looking for scapegoats without will not help those kids in life.

Blacks comprise a small margin of the overall student makeup of the TDSB. Their marginalization is already innate. I would anticipate a community willing to further expose their disadvantages to the general public, would be equally as brave in the fight against gang culture, which as a binary points to church/community participation, family, education and employment as the right stuff.

I think we should help everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexuality....why don't you agree?

I do agree, but the thread subject revolves around black social issues. I'm just staying on-topic with my focus.

 

[Hydrogen]

Words are worst than bullets. You shoot a man, if he lives, he can still go on about his life. A constant barage of negativity, a cloud of suspicion and malcontent isn't healthy for anyone. Words can never hurt you is BS, whoever made that up was never condescended or made to feel inferior their whole lives.

If you believe that words are worse than bullets, that may signal a problem with you. I see no parallel between the two experiences. If the words don't fit, why pay them any heed? If they are irrational and without basis, then they are just that and no more. A physical attack and physical damage is quite different. For example, if EnviroTo would have had his skull caved in by someone wielding a baseball bat, he would likely not have woken up the next day feeling dandy and just brushing off the experience. Had someone let go with a long string of negative words, slurs and descriptives, he may have concluded that this was the specific view of a small group of people, nothing more, and that's it. He may not have liked the words, and have been angered by the words, but the words would never have killed him like a bat to the head or a bullet to the chest.

I don't understand the situation you are in if you are constantly exposed to a barrage of negativity and a cloud of suspicion and malcontent all the time. Honestly, does that actually describe your experience and life? If not, it sounds (and maybe I am wrong) that you assume everyone thinks the worst of you. If so, you have to ask the question if it is you who is actually generating this interpretation and experience.

Yes, words can hurt. But there is a point when one wakes up to the fact that they are, in the end, just words, and the words are the opinions of others, and that it is you who chooses to value those words or not. That is quite a difference from a bullet tearing flesh, muscle, artery and bone.

 

[EnviroTO]

That's dependent on both parties though. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a friend who you usually get along with well but one day he messes up and says something inappropiate, how'd you respond?

If you can mess up calling someone an a-hole you can also mess up calling someone a racially based vulgarity. Name calling is always bad. The debate is not as to whether or not calling someone an a-hole or an insult based on someones looks is good as both are obviously bad, but racism isn't about a words but is about actions and beliefs. Perhaps all insults should be made a crime the same way libel is, but this is a debate about what racism is and is not. A targeted attack on a single person which is not started by due to race but is started because that one person pissed you off is not racism. Such an attack can lead to name calling which isn't politically correct and thoughtful but that doesn't make it racism.

Would you lash out the most vulgar obscenity you can think of to hurt the person's feelings? Or do you lead by example and not lower yourself to that level of behaviour?

Unfortunately people act in haste. When people call people names in anger or result to violence it is rarely logical or well thought out, it is often the survival instinct kicking in. If you hit someone hard enough you don't need to deal with them hitting back at you. In the heat of the moment when civilized behaviour has been thrown out the door, the goal is to win the argument or fight.

One's temperment and rationality differs from person to person, so too does their likelihood to spread racist propaganda, even if they're unaware they're doing it.

Sure, some people have a greater likelihood to become a hot head and explode into expletives or violence and to retaliate rather than to seek to diffuse the situation. An expletive is not racist propaganda. Propaganda has content and substance. Propaganda would convince people to believe something about people based on race. If someone was to say black people are the cause of certain problems or that white people are the cause of certain problems that is racial propaganda. It seeks to have an entire race seen in a negative light when people are individuals and your skin colour or race or cultural history is not a burden than people who are innocent should be burdened with.

Words are worst than bullets.

Nonsense. If he had shot the lady that would have been better? Maybe a campaign to shoot people rather than call them names makes sense to deal with this problem... or at least improve the situation? You missed the point of the whole statement.

Two-faced, duplicitous people who are even worse than racists that utter slurs to your face. When people infiltrate one's personal boundaries, then screw you over, that is the worst feeling ever.

I understand that it is better to know where people stand. I'm not sure I get what you are saying in your second point as that sounds like you are discussing rape which isn't on topic.

I really don't think the segregation in this case was to promote racism. The TDSB itself released to the public statistics showing Afro-Canadian students were fairing the worst off of all ethnic groups within the system.

Just because the policy has good intentions doesn't change whether or not it is truly racist. The US Government in seeking to secure itself from terrorists (no doubt a noble cause) can provide statistics that show that the terrorists are primarily from middle eastern backgrounds, but that doesn't make racial profiling non-racist. The policy of racial profiling was to secure the country and to do so without the wasted expense of scrutinizing people statistics showed were less likely to be terrorists. Statistics are dangerous because they make people act on things on a grand scale when the real way to deal with a problem is to deal with individuals. If statistics show that 70% of people in a hospital ward are in a coma they will never come out of you don't pull the plug on the whole hospital ward. If a business doesn't hire a person of a certain race due to statistics that show they are more likely to commit crime for the sake of protecting his business, he might not be doing it to promote racism... but it still is a racist policy.

If the system itself decided to segregate the student body group by group, ethnic by ethnic to see which group preformed the worst, does that tell you that its a systematic agenda not by individuals, that seeks to instigate and prolong the class/ethnic divisions within society? We as individuals can only take what's mediated at us as fact, and evaluate and base our opinions around that.

That is the danger of statistics. Their very nature, when collected along racial lines, is that they are divisive. They are summarizations and not facts. Statistics don't tell you why things are the way they are and they don't tell you the solution. A professor at UWO, Philippe Rushton, collected statistics by race on IQ, brain size, and penis size. What good does it do for society to have statistics like these which fuel stereotypes and deny individuality? We shouldn't act on racially based statistics.

The cirricula was designed in a time when the majority population was white. While its made accomodations to appease recent immigrant populations, overall its understandable why some pupils can't relate to the teachings. Everything needs to taken with a grain of salt. Demanding greater diversity in a system designed for white immigrants primarily, non-whites as an afterthought, is by no means a "witch hunt".

I never took any "white" courses. Can you explain to me how the curriculum is white? Here is the requirements for an Ontario Secondary School Diploma:
* 4 credits in English (from Grade 9 - 12),
* 3 credits in Mathematics (from Grade 9 - 11),
* 2 credits in Science (one in Grade 9 and one in Grade 10),
* 1 Grade 10 credit in Canadian History,
* 1 Grade 9 credit in Canadian Geography,
* 1 credit in the arts,
* 1 Grade 9 credit in health and physical education,
* 1 Grade 9 credit in French as a secondary langugage,
* 0.5 Grade 10 credit in career studies, and
* 0.5 Grade 10 credit in civics

English is the language of the country. Math is the same everywhere in the world. Science is factual and has nothing to do with race. Canadian History is the history of the country we are in right now and is a study of the important events that occurred here and as a result of decisions by the Canadian government. Canadian Geography is about the landscapes of the place we are living in right now. Arts was many a breezer class painting and making things or playing a band instrument. Health and Phys Ed is certainly not racially based. French is the other language of our country. Career studies and civics is about getting jobs here and how our society works. How is this curriculum white? Which of these courses is not relevant to living in the English and French speaking country of Canada?

How can there be so much concern for non-black Africans feeling left out by black=African, yet so much disregard for the alienation of minorities, ethnocentric exclusion in general?

It has nothing to do with being left out... it has to do with being defined by skin colour. When you learn WWII history you don't hear how the Orientals sneakily bombed the Whites in Pearl Harbour and how the Whites nuked the Orientals. Whites weren't at war with Orientals, Americans were at war with the Japanese. Focusing on race is perpetuating a false reality and fuelling racism. There shouldn't be "Black History". There might be "African American History" or "Nigerian History" or "Rwandan History" or "African History". "Black History", "White History", and "Oriental History" aren't histories... they are racial divisions. The history of Ethiopia is not the history of African Americans.

 

[Undying42]

Sure, some people have a greater likelihood to become a hot head and explode into expletives or violence and to retaliate rather than to seek to diffuse the situation. An expletive is not racist propaganda. Propaganda has content and substance. Propaganda would convince people to believe something about people based on race. If someone was to say black people are the cause of certain problems or that white people are the cause of certain problems that is racial propaganda. It seeks to have an entire race seen in a negative light when people are individuals and your skin colour or race or cultural history is not a burden than people who are innocent should be burdened with.

Which is precisely where I was heading with my innocent people remark. People who didn't ask to be born into a minority ethnicity/racial group shouldn't be slandered for who they biologically are. Nigger is derivative of Negro which comes from Negroid, the anthropological definition of the black race. So as a insult you're persecuting on the basis of not only one's appearence but their very being. Present-day blacks are no more accountable for their slavery legacy than whites but still are at a disadvantage due to social issues stemming back to slavery. People can only evolve so far if there's a systematic unwillingness to accomodate and appease in the name of racial parity and social equity.

Nonsense. If he had shot the lady that would have been better? Maybe a campaign to shoot people rather than call them names makes sense to deal with this problem... or at least improve the situation? You missed the point of the whole statement.

That's a hyperbolic reaction to a metaphor. Words ARE bullets, only with butterfly wings. Weapons are recognizable dangers. Word usage can con and manipulate the timid; criticize and irritate the righteous and most poignantly viscerate and accost the naive. The unforseen hazard of words leave the bigger impact.

I understand that it is better to know where people stand. I'm not sure I get what you are saying in your second point as that sounds like you are discussing rape which isn't on topic.

I meant 'friends' betraying you, talking crap about you behind your back, sabotaging or upstaging your projects. No rape was involved.

That is the danger of statistics. Their very nature, when collected along racial lines, is that they are divisive. They are summarizations and not facts. Statistics don't tell you why things are the way they are and they don't tell you the solution. A professor at UWO, Philippe Rushton, collected statistics by race on IQ, brain size, and penis size. What good does it do for society to have statistics like these which fuel stereotypes and deny individuality? We shouldn't act on racially based statistics.

I very much agree with this too. I read up on some old anthropology books that tries to make claim on the differences between human subspecies by their facial attributes, hair texture, shape of head (tieing in with your brain size example I guess), average height, etc. These "4 out of 5..." modes of taxonomy group people together by arbitrary 'facts' without allowing individuals to make these discoveries on their own. Association shouldn't be catalouged but a free-choice. Only when associations or dissociations can be detrimental to the individual and the society at large should committee intervention step in and more clearly define one's options.

I never took any "white" courses. Can you explain to me how the curriculum is white? How is this curriculum white? Which of these courses is not relevant to living in the English and French speaking country of Canada?

Okay maybe it's not "white" but look at it from this perspective. How does it appeal to minority youth? The history/geography/art of Canada isn't intentionally made to feel that way, but very well may not grasp the attention of a Congolese or Brazilian 2nd gen as readily as a kid from Bathurst, NB. Maybe an elective World History course in leiu of Cdn History would be of more excitement and intrigue to them. Show how Canada relates to the rest of the world and hence the various nationalities represented to most GTA classrooms. Make those connections and maybe the TDSB cirricula will become less alienable. Isn't Canada apart of an increasingly globalizational world? If half the effort was put into implementing these electives in public schools that the TDSB exhausts in racially profiling the students it's supposed to have in its trust, then the issue of black-focused schools would never need be arisen.

It has nothing to do with being left out... it has to do with being defined by skin colour. When you learn WWII history you don't hear how the Orientals sneakily bombed the Whites in Pearl Harbour and how the Whites nuked the Orientals. Whites weren't at war with Orientals, Americans were at war with the Japanese. Focusing on race is perpetuating a false reality and fuelling racism. There shouldn't be "Black History". There might be "African American History" or "Nigerian History" or "Rwandan History" or "African History". "Black History", "White History", and "Oriental History" aren't histories... they are racial divisions. The history of Ethiopia is not the history of African Americans.

In all irony, breaking down the black community into further regionalist or nationalist divisions even further alienates and marginalizes these youth from any sort of community self-identity. Every ethnicity has something to be proud of and come summer present that face to the whole GTA with countless weekend festivals. Where's the black ethnic specific ones? Caribana- oh wait that's a collective representation of all Caribbean nationalities, not broken down into individualistic imagery .

 

[Undying42]

If you believe that words are worse than bullets, that may signal a problem with you. I see no parallel between the two experiences. If the words don't fit, why pay them any heed? If they are irrational and without basis, then they are just that and no more. A physical attack and physical damage is quite different. For example, if EnviroTo would have had his skull caved in by someone wielding a baseball bat, he would likely not have woken up the next day feeling dandy and just brushing off the experience. Had someone let go with a long string of negative words, slurs and descriptives, he may have concluded that this was the specific view of a small group of people, nothing more, and that's it. He may not have liked the words, and have been angered by the words, but the words would never have killed him like a bat to the head or a bullet to the chest.

I don't understand the situation you are in if you are constantly exposed to a barrage of negativity and a cloud of suspicion and malcontent all the time. Honestly, does that actually describe your experience and life? If not, it sounds (and maybe I am wrong) that you assume everyone thinks the worst of you. If so, you have to ask the question if it is you who is actually generating this interpretation and experience.

Yes, words can hurt. But there is a point when one wakes up to the fact that they are, in the end, just words, and the words are the opinions of others, and that it is you who chooses to value those words or not. That is quite a difference from a bullet tearing flesh, muscle, artery and bone.

I wasn't referring to myself specifically but I can see your point. Sometimes paranoia makes something trivial seem almost life-threatening, magnifies an insult out of proportion.

About the bullet-word analogy. What I meant was that if you're shot, it occurs only once, one instance. It's a physical wound that over time can heal (not to minimize the agony of getting shot or anything, but just follow through on my analogy for a sec). Things that happen in our adoloscene, formative years, can stay with us for life. Having the same juvenile slurs uttered at you later on in life only recycles the turmoil you've supressed and buried inside. What's more it makes all your accomplishments meaningless if you still live in a world where people can assert superiority over you at the drop of a word.

I can ignore certain things but when it starts to become a compounded problem and others share their tragic accounts, you start to question your whole identity. That's more or less what my crusade's been about. Sorry if I offended anyone along the way in my search for self-clarity, redemption and absolution.

 

[Disparishun]

TThe TDSB itself released to the public statistics showing Afro-Canadian students were fairing the worst off of all ethnic groups within the system.

You know, I have been curious about this from time to time. I suspect that they looked at racial statistics, not statistics for ethnic groups -- student performance for all "whites", all "blacks". I just did a quick Google search that came up with this, which is indeed race-based. Do you know whether statistics actually exist showing how all ethnic groups within the system?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

People who didn't ask to be born into a minority ethnicity/racial group shouldn't be slandered for who they biologically are. Nigger is derivative of Negro which comes from Negroid, the anthropological definition of the black race.

there is no such thing as a black race or a white race. all we have are ethnic populations and cultures that are byproducts of geographical isolation that resulted from human expansion out of africa.

a wise person once said that ethnicity isn't something you should be proud of. pride should be reserved for something you had a role in accomplishing. being born with light skin or dark skin or either coming from france or china is a genetic accident. it's something you had absolutely no part in. would you be proud to have nipples? would you be proud to have a genetic predisposition for colon cancer?

i shouldn't even be proud to be canadian. it just happened by accident! i'm happy to be canadian. only immigrants can be proud.

if we were to teach the above in school, we'd have less problems in society.

 

[Steve_D]

I do agree, but the thread subject revolves around black social issues.

It involves a white person as well....did you miss that, or doesn't it count?

People who didn't ask to be born into a minority ethnicity/racial group shouldn't be slandered for who they biologically are. Nigger is derivative of Negro which comes from Negroid, the anthropological definition of the black race.

This was pointed out earlier in the thread, but I guess you just 'skimmed' over it.

BTW, do you believe in racial purity?