So I have some questions to throw out:

1. Do people think that there is racism within the left (and left-leaning types like rabblers?)?

My experience has been yes. I'm mixed race, light skinned and people often assume that I'm white which leads me to be privy to many un-cool conversations about privilege and tokenism, for example, "We need a person of colour for this conference, let's ask X."

Aside from my own experience has been some of the posts here, like the Halloween costume thread which I found really problematic.

2. What exactly is racism?

I read some of the "anti-Quebec" thread and feel like we need some clarification about what the term means.

Racism is about a power imbalance. Everyone is racialized, just like everyone has an ethnic background. People of colour experience racism because Canadian society is racist. There are many references to groups of Europeans that were racialized in the past (Italians, Irish) that are no longer racialized. Some people are oppressed by this power imbalance, some people benefit from it.

3. Terminology (okay this isn't framed as a question...)

I despise the term "visible minority". It is inaccurate and I see it used here all the time. Visible to whom? Minority in what context? Canada? The world? What do people think about that term? I use the term "people of colour" which itself is not perfect, since we all have colour (unless we're saran wrap in which case, how do we post?). In the 90s I heard the term "world majority" which is at least more statistically accurate than "visible minority".

quote:

---

Do people think that there is racism within the left (and left-leaning types like rabblers?)?

My experience has been yes. I'm mixed race, light skinned and people often assume that I'm white which leads me to be privy to many un-cool conversations about privilege and tokenism, for example, "We need a person of colour for this conference, let's ask X."

---

Of course there is racism on the left. I would simply say there is more on the right than on the left, but that is no reason to be complacent.

As for the quoted comment: Some people claim that one cannot understand the experience of a person of colour if one is white. If that were true, it would follow that one needs people of a specific race to provide clarity on a given topic.

Myself, I think that's exaggerated. But it IS true that many of the problems of people of colour will be invisible to white people unless they make a huge effort to try to understand them.

To answer your questions

1. Yes. I do think that there is racism on the left.

Yes, I remember that Halloween discussion.

2. I tend to think about race in reference to racialization for several reasons, mainly because it clearly illustrates for me the way race is attributed to people, in ways that signify "racial meaning" within a context where that meaning was or became contingent on certain conditions and within certain relationships.

I don't really think about racism as just a power imbalance (and I'm not trying to imply anything into what you said if it seems like I'm misreading you—I'm just going on a tangent at this point), a big issue for me is difference seen as something "recognizable" within a relationship to power, I think it is also a question of how (racial) "difference" becomes defined within power and how power itself is able to create conditions of difference that sustain inequality and the way certain people are able to benefit from of that inequality.

Another issue is that racism is not always thought of as political and issues of race and racism often surface in situations that are depoliticized anyway. We can talk about what is "bad" about racism without talking about the implementation of race within state policy, or even the boundaries imposed on skin colour and other features as markers that prescribe racial meanings and the effects of those meanings. There is the issue of being in a position where one can recognize racism without having to recognize the political connotations of racism. Multiculturalism (to a certain extent) tolerates certain forms of ethnic/cultural/racial differences, but it has its own exclusions it can address some forms of racism and discrimination, but it doesn't necessarily challenge structural or political conditions that facilitate racism. I also think this has some bearing on how (some) individual experiences of racism are encountered.

Racism also has subtle effects an obvious one being the way people are able to maintain racist positions without ever really having to consider whether or not they are racist or whether or not they have benifeted from racism. Racism can be defined along intrests that maintain discrimnation based on race like when racism is brought up in a affirmation of difference there are cries of racism when visible minorities assert their identities in ways that don't happen to fit quite nicely within "colour-blind logic" when people are seen as being "too ethnic" or they are focusing too much on race when "we're all the same". [barf]

3. I have been ambivalent about it in someways...

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

quote:

---

there are cries of racism when visible minorities assert their identities in ways that don't happen to fit quite nicely within "colour-blind logic" when people are seen as being "too ethnic"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:
Could you give us a specific example of what you are talking about here?

---

I'm talking about non-whites being seen as "special interest" groups accused of reverse racism when their "interests" discriminate against whites or are "divisive"

A former friend once said to me that she was tired of "the constant bitching of ethnic minorities demanding special rights and privileges based on their race/ethnicity and if they didn't like Canada then they should go back to their own countries."

She was having this conversation with a visible minority.

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

A couple of months ago I was talking with a long time Iranian friend of mine. And I mean, I have known this guy for years. Anyway, he up and says the only time the "Jews" fought for any army other than their own, was when they fought on the Soviet side against the Germans in ww2.

I said: "Well my dad was in the US army of occupation in Germany, so I know you are wrong about that."

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
3. Terminology (okay this isn't framed as a question...)

I despise the term "visible minority". It is inaccurate and I see it used here all the time. Visible to whom? Minority in what context? Canada? The world? What do people think about that term? I use the term "people of colour" which itself is not perfect, since we all have colour (unless we're saran wrap in which case, how do we post?). In the 90s I heard the term "world majority" which is at least more statistically accurate than "visible minority".

---

I have to agree about disliking the term "visible minority." It ties (for me) in deeply with my dislike of using 'hyphenated'-Canadian to describe myself or others of the 'visible minority,' children of immigrants, born in Canada.

Why can't I just say that I'm Canadian? I've tried saying that here when asked by Australians and non-Australians alike - I say I'm from Canada. Then the next question is, but where are you from. Er... Canada? Then it goes on to, so where are your parents from, then?

When people of colour demand their own space, or are highlighted in hiring practices, or any other way in which we try to get a teensy bit more institutional/structural power, the cry of "reverse discrimination" is often the result.

Now here's a practical example. What if I were to suggest that there be a thread here on rabble for people of colour only?

quote:

---

I despise the term "visible minority". It is inaccurate and I see it used here all the time. Visible to whom? Minority in what context? Canada? The world? What do people think about that term? I use the term "people of colour" which itself is not perfect, since we all have colour (unless we're saran wrap in which case, how do we post?). In the 90s I heard the term "world majority" which is at least more statistically accurate than "visible minority".

---

Too often it seems that the 'visible' half of the term 'visible minority' is used as a sort of shorthand for justifying the exclusion (in activism, in civil rights law) of those of us who are 'less-visible.'

For example, it can sometimes be the equivalent of the old saw about how "I don't have a problem with gays... I just wish they wouldn't flaunt it so much."

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

Right wingers have this agenda where they will "recognize" the fact that there "was at one time" rascism, but their solution is "from this point on everyone is equal. The privileged retain all their privilege, and the discriminated retain all their disadvantages, but if we call them "equal" then what's the problem."! Thus we have the rediculious situation where they will scream like hell when the justice system tries to adjust the system to take into account a disadvantaged groups life situation, but simply shrug their shoulders and say "that's life" and accept that rich and famous "cultural royality" types get to buy their own justice.

Ahh, but no more talk of minority groups, visible minorities ans such, because they no longer mean anythng as we are now "all equal".

What they are really doing though is trying to preserve their "rightful" privilege... "sure I was born into royality, and now enjoy all the advantages that being royality brings, but if you really insist, then I will accept that the lowest of serfs are now my "equal", as long as no one trys to actually do anything that would address my undeserved advantages."

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Now here's a practical example. What if I were to suggest that there be a thread here on rabble for people of colour only?

---

That is something I've thought about too. It would be interesting to me to have even one thread for people of colour. A thread where we didn't have to justify or legitmize the existence of racism, or have white people tell us how racism should be defined and labelled or worry about whether speaking frankly about our real and painful experiences, feelings and ideas about racism hurt the feelings or comfort level of white people.

Another issue for me is the idea of 'airing our dirty laundry' where we may not speak openly about problematic issues in our own communities because we're afraid of adding to the mounds of negative information and images already out there. I have to admit that sometimes I get my back up when disparaging remarks are made about 'third world' countries by progressives on this board. Now I don't react this way because I don't think that the comments are not valid. I know a lot of shitty things are done in India to all kinds of vulnerable and marginalized people and it is vital to talk and do something about it but I'm talking about posters who otherwise never mention these coutries or cultures except to highlight the negative. Why? Why all of a sudden the interest- Is to reinforce the goodness of their white identity- i guess this is what you'd call the act of othering.

In a poc only thread- i would feel free to be critical about many issues. This is not because all pocs have great and perfect politics- but most progressive pocs I have worked with have a strong anti-racism analysis- although we may differ in many ways- we do have some common startig point and I'm interested in how other people of colour face/challenge/cope with racism.

Some issues I'd like to discuss in a poc space:

* barriers to pocs from diverse backgrounds working together- the hierarchies among people of colour- how some people of colour are viewed more favourably than others and how that is internalized- and on a related and historical note- a discussion about the west indies and africa where we saw conflicts and inequalities btw Africans and East Indians and how they were fueled by the white colonists. In a country like Canada, with so many immigrants, one can still see remnants of it.

* Discussion about internalized racism.

* how poc parents can protect/inoculate their children agains white supremacist culture/institutions.

* how to deal with racism on the left and how painful and frustrating it is when you can't explain this behaviour away as just ignorance because its not like these individuals haven't had exposure to antiracist education and theory- especially when they can apply it readily to other forms of discrimination like class inequality and sexism.

The term "visible minority" used in a Canadian context serves to re-centre white people and to continue to marginalize people of colour.

Idea: there's a school of thought that says "Hey, let's ask the group that we're talking about how they want to be referred to, rather than just name them." Not that there will always be consensus, but that such an act, even over something as relatively trivial as terminology, de-centres who can name whose experiences.

And I *never* use the word equal, except when doing arithmetic, as that word has a hugely problematic history for me, starting with the second wave feminist movement that popularized it. My one question about the use of that word is always "Equal to whom?".

periyar: thanks for your insight. I agree, there are many different ways that speaking together as progressive people of colour can be helpful, important and community-building, across the different cultural groups, immigration status, etc. that we come from. Having grown up in Toronto, I've had the good fortune to have friends, co-workers and activist allies in my life that are from many different groups and contribute a great deal to politcal action and change. But this kind of community that you're talking about needs to continue to be fostered, and maybe we can create something here on rabble.

quote:

---

No Yards: I completely agree with you about how terminology discussions can be used to erase the experiences of people of colour, but I'm not sure who you're addressing re. "no more talk of minority groups". (sorry, I'm new here and can't figure out the groovy quote function. )

---

I was addressing the right wingers who want to proclaim equality while preserving priviledge.

I can agree with redefining concepts like "visible minority", "equality" and such if it is for discussion purposes between people who can face their own "rascialization", but when dealing with the general masses, do you think using rarified definitions (and I don't think "people of colour" is any less "white centering" than "visible minority",) will serve much of a purpose.

We need to make the terminology more accessable to the average person ... I personally would love to have a simple straight forward way to explain how right wingers are using the term "equality" as a way to promote the lie that everything is fine now, and that there is no longer any need to promote affirmative actions because everyone is already equal ... the law says so!

Right now, being treated "equal" means that we will allow you to try and become as close as you can possibly get, to the "ideal form" of a white Anglo Christian male ... if you can make us forget that your are really a black, Islamic, female, then we will admit you to the "equality club", and call our job "accomplished".

No Yards makes a really good point about terminology and it highlightes my ambivalence about it.

Periyar: that was wonderful. I'm with you 100%!

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: periyar ]

Liberals have a bigger problem with the issue because they have a consciousness for it. Its like a blessing and a curse. We're clued in, we're thinking about it, fighting it, but many white liberals really twist themselves into knots trying to perform the "right" kinds of anti-racist activities.

Another corollary is the concientious white liberal who will not cross the street when a group of minority teens are approaching, but will visibly sweat over the whole experience and then feel guilty about feeling that way when its over. Was the mere act of fear an act of racism, we might ask? Should I have said something? Would that be misinterpreted? What should I do, what should I have done, etc.

I know I can never in a million year imagine what it must have been like growing up as any minority. Hell, when I was growing up, we thought everyone was white and Catholic like us. When we were told differently, we were incredulous. My parents were racist, the nuns we had for teachers were racists, my classmates were racist and so on. My number one rule is to do 10 parts listening to 1 part talking when it comes to learning about race from people who racism has directly affected. Racist deprogramming really is a lifelong process for most people.

So many little things add up to very buried and subtlely expressed racism in so many otherwise well meaning people.

For instance, here's a second grade memory I will never forget. Our nun took us into the library (where the only TV was at the time) to watch an episode of PBS's Electric Company. About 5 minutes or so into the show, the nun had one of the kids turn it off saying "I don't want you children to bring that street language into this school."

This was 1971. We were in second grade and she was speaking in code and even then, the meaning - with all those black cast members - was inescapable. You tell me that doesn't burrow its way deep into any young child. It can't help but do it. And this was a Catholic school that was teaching we were ALL God's children!

Yes, racism has occured, golly me who would have thought! Some biggots to this day remain too self centered to give up their racial prejudices but so what if the right says let's get on with life?

Christians, Catholics were persecuted, the Irish were treated terribly by the English but how often do you hear christian catholics and the Irish yelling about history?

Yes, acknowledging history is a good measure but which would you rather, go on make it so everybody is equal or keep looking at the past and saying "yeah my ancestors used to use slaves", really sorry, I appologize on their behalf.

I would rather get on with life rather than look at the past and weep about terrible occurrences that I had no hand in. Acknowledge yes, tread on like it's going to be here for the rest of eternity no.

Yes the right "acknowledges" there was racism "at one time" just as we realize there were two world wars.

Learn from your mistakes and go on. I don't feel this need to keep addressing that some Germans were Nazi's. I'm unaware if Jews get treated specially even though Hitler tried to commit genocide.

So yes, everyone is treated equally and if you don't treat others equally you are a "racist".

Social programs should be set up to help those who are in need but do they really need to get a "special interest group" card.

An example I'd like to bring forward is certain rights. They just put in legislation that allows the metis to hunt year round without a license in B.C.

Is that equal? Is that not giving a group "special" rights?

If we are all supposed to be equal is that not putting a special interest group "higher" and giving them advantages, just wondering.

I'd like to know your definition of "equality" and whether "equality" is obtained by giving "special interest groups" priveledges.

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

quote:

---

"racism has occured"; Yes the right "acknowledges" there was racism "at one time"; how often do you hear christian catholics yelling about history; metis to hunt year round without a license in B.C.

---

Oh, my mistake, I was under the miguided belief that racism still existed in our society and that actions had to be taken to try and eliminate it ... I was unaware that the only racism left in this world was against those quietly suffering, brave, white Christians.

And how dare we allow the Metis to practice their tradition of subsistance hunting ... can't they learn to recognize real and legitimate traditions, like the Santa Claus parade, or Victoria Day?

Way to go Lukewarm, you've proven my point way better than I ever could by trying to come up with "strained" anologies and explainations.

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

They divided us up into groups of four by last name. In my group there were 3 white women (including me) and one black man.

We had one of the machine shop fellows take us around and show us things. "This is a lathe, this is a drill press," etc.

At the first machine, our guide showed us a drill bit. The other two white women were standing to my left, the black man was standing to my right. He showed it to me first, then turned and showed it to the two white women on my left. He did not show it to the black man. He made eye contact with each of us, but skipped the black man.

My first thought, being (ahem) of somewhat ample girth myself, was that I was blocking our guide's view and that he could not see that there was someone else in our group. So at the next station, I moved so I was standing to the right of the black man.

Again, our guide shows us something, a milling cutter I think. He shows it to the other two white women, making eye contact, skips the black man, and shows it to me. I took it out of his hand and handed it to the black man so he could have a look. He looked at it and handed it back to the guide.

From that point on, neither the black man nor I got any eye contact from our guide.

I have no doubt whatsoever that racism is alive and well in Canada. And as a white person, it is almost invisible to me.

On with the thread: Yes, the right does use the discourse of "equality'. It's not the first time they have co-opted langauge from a movement and it surely won't be the last. It's similar to the "We Love Freedom" crap about justifying the Iraq Massacre, I mean War. It's a way of silencing dissent and producing an ahistorical (lack of) analysis, hence posts like Lukewarm, who don't make any connections between what has happened historically and how that affects what's happening now.

AE: Thank you *so* much for your brilliant post. Some of what you said, particularly about lefties knowing better, trying to behave differently and then sweating, feeling guilty, etc, is exactly the kind of reflection that I wish more white people made.

Here's an idea: I would love to talk about the movie "Crash" which either just opened or is opening, which I heard touches on race and anti-racist issues in interesting and complex ways. I'll start that thread once I see the flick.

One question: would it be helpful for me (and others) to post real-life examples of racism that goes on? Now, today, in this city/country/planet? Will that help racism-denyers to see the world we live in? Or could it help groovy-lefty types as well?

quote:

---

Liberals have a bigger problem with the issue because they have a consciousness for it. Its like a blessing and a curse. We're clued in, we're thinking about it, fighting it, but many white liberals really twist themselves into knots trying to perform the "right" kinds of anti-racist activities

---

Great post EA. Sometimes when white progressives attempt to take on racism, they still manage to embed a whole series of white assumptions and prejudices within their work. Recently I read a great article about Michael Moore's inherent white liberal racism. Wait...here it is.

It's a little academic, but I strongly recommend it. It's fascinating because it demonstrates the subtle ways that Moore's film, Bowling for Columbine, actually replicates the racism that he is purpotedly attacking by consistently denying people of colour a voice in his film - something that I don't think the average white viewer would pick up on, even those of a progressive bent (I didn't!)

And yes, bigcitygal, I do think expressing the personal experiences of racism suffered by people of colour in our society is a wonderful way to raise awareness of racism in the left and elsewhere.

I know it takes courage, but, after all, the personal is political!

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

quote:

---

Too often it seems that the 'visible' half of the term 'visible minority' is used as a sort of shorthand for justifying the exclusion (in activism, in civil rights law) of those of us who are 'less-visible.'

---

I don't think so. I think the term was created to make clear the fact that certain minorities are discriminated against because they are "visible".

If they were not visible, presumably it would be hard for the population to distinguish them for the purpose of discriminating.

I do think there are forms of discrimination that are specific to those who can be seen right off as "other" as defined by the dominant group - whether the clues are visual, audible or other. "Driving while black" is a good example, as is systemic housing discrimination. In my tenants' association we did "testing" both by sending a "white francophone" prospective tenant and a "vis-min" prospect (some were Black, some Arab, etc), and by similar tests over the phone where the flat was often "rented" if the prospect had an "accent".

There is no perfect term for describing the people who are victims of systemic discrimination in such situations that should not exist, but do. "Non-white" obviously posits white as a norm - even in countries where the majority may be Black, Brown or any other race... In French anyway, when we say "gens de couleur" we are usually referring to people of African descent. Most people in the field of fighting discrimination have settled on the bureaucratic term "visible minority", simply because that is the basis of such discrimination.

quote:

---

I think periyar raised excellent talking points. But I would ask everyone here how on earth one could know who is a person of colour or on what basis that could possibly be determined. There are many people of mixed cultural and racial heritage, just as an example.

---

Me, too. And of course it would be mightily difficult to restrict participation on a thread to people of colour. We always get the "I'm left wing and I love Steven Harper types posting here."

quote:

---

And how dare we allow the Metis to practice their tradition of subsistance hunting ... can't they learn to recognize real and legitimate traditions, like the Santa Claus parade, or Victoria Day?

---

I never knew "jacklighting" or using modern rifles was part of their tradition either.

Trollerific post. OK. The problem with extremists such as yourself is that you're one of the main reasons people get up on their high heels when racism is mentioned. I looked at that guy funny, I'm a racist, I talk about how I don't believe it's right to give people special benefits you guessed it! I'm a racist.

If I may be so blunt to say so racism is alot less abundant than you try to bring it up to be. But curse me for suggesting that.

Of course no yards also made no sense flipping the conversation on "the poor christians" when I was making a point that you don't see them up in arms about history that doesn't affect them today.

Yes, I am clear that racism exists and curse those too arrogant to get over themselves but when you attack people who disagree with your views in the slightest manner you're disregarded.

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lukewarm:
If I may be so blunt to say so racism is alot less abundant than you try to bring it up to be. But curse me for suggesting that.

---

quote:

---

Hmm. I think that would depend on your point of view. Discrimination can occur in many forms, from the subtle to the overt. Just because one person does not see it, does not mean it does not exist.

---

I'm content that racism is demolishing rather than making a comeback. Where I come from you don't want to slag a minority group or you will be highly frowned upon.

I don't think certain types of discrimination will stop either. It's not only to do with race but age, gender etc.

Hell, try walking down the street at 10pm as a teenage boy without getting hassled by the cops.
Been there

Try driving around in a honda civic with tinted windows.

The sad part is image. If you look like a member of the hells angels with tattoos, sadly most are going to treat you like one.

[ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

two (white) home inspectors entered the home of an asian man. they didn't show ID, he asked them to leave, they refused and he became upset. they left his house, called the cops who kicked down his door, arrested him and physcially assaulted him, in the car, in the station, so severely that he had to go to the hospital to be checked out. he was denied his right to make a phone call for 3 days. there was no suggestion at any point that an interpreter be provided, a small and simple solution that i assume would have diffused the situation. (at least there would have been a witness)

a nice, lefty white woman said to me, about an asian man we both know "oh, he's so wise! he just exudes this confucian wisdom."

wendy maxwell, a member of the community and out black woman, was targetted by ryerson security (wtf?!?) on the saturday before IWD and deported.

a south asian woman i know was accused of having a bomb in her shoe when trying to get on a flight recently. her large wad of keys was also questioned as to why they had "mysteriously" fallen to the bottom of her bag. (um, ever hear of a terrorist plot called GRAVITY?)
...
and just to throw out a monkey wrench into the "visible minority" debate, difference is socially constructed. in my earlier post i mentioned how the irish and the italian communites were targetted at the beginning of the last century, in ways that, in the context that they happened in, were racist. they generally lived in poorer neighbourhoods, they had less access to education, the boys and young men were stigmatized as "troublemakers", they looked to professional sports and crime as a way out of poverty. sound familiar?

all these references, by the way, can be found in anne mcclintock's "imperial leather: race, gender and sexuality in the colonial context", jessie daniels' "white lies: race, class, gender and sexuality in white supermacist discourse", and "white nation: fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society".

quote:

---

In Africa even the Africans sold their own people to greedy white men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lukewarm:
Yeah, they also tried to fight to make it legal for them to hunt at night.

I never knew "jacklighting" or using modern rifles was part of their tradition either.

---

And I never knew Santa rode around on a flat bed, or Jesus preached over loudspeakers, or peadophila was a Christian tradition.

What's you're point?

quote:

---

Of course no yards also made no sense flipping the conversation on "the poor christians" when I was making a point that you don't see them up in arms about history that doesn't affect them today.

---

The main point being "you don't see them up in arms about history that doesn't affect them today.

Are you suggesting that racism based on skin colour, or being of Arab or Muslim heritage doesn't affect anyone today?

Are you suggesting that Arar, or some Aboriginal abused as a child in some reservation "deprogramming school", should shut the fuck up because the Christians don't go on anymore about being easten by lions?

quote:

---

a nice, lefty white woman said to me, about an asian man we both know "oh, he's so wise! he just exudes this confucian wisdom."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Ha ha! I'd like to see how hepped up this "nice lefty woman" is about Confucian wisdom after spending a few years in a country where Confucianism is actually the dominant social ideology.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Ha ha! I'd like to see how hepped up this "nice lefty woman" is about Confucian wisdom after spending a few years in a country where Confucianism is actually the dominant social ideology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much like Christianity is the dominant ideology of the USA.

---

Well, in the USA, the religious right tries to outlaw abortion. In Korea, abortion is de facto legal but widely used to increase the propagation of much-valued male offspring, thus leading to a major imbalance in the male/female ratio. Any such problems affecting Christian countries with legal abortion?

quote:

---

So what "sin of idealogoy" is worst? Forcing a child of either sex into the world where they will be abondonded and driven to a life of poverty, crime, and a young and violent death ... or using abortion to bring a child of a particular sex into a family where they will be loved and brought up to be a functioning member of society?
Neither one is an "ideal" solution, but I don't think one can be judged ojectively better or worst than the other.

---

Well, in the years that abortion has been legal in the USA, I am unaware of it being used on any large scale as a means of sex selection. The fact that it is used in such a way in Korea might indicate something about the importance in a Confucian society of producing sons as opposed to daughters.

And anyway, my original post was in regards to someone's anecdote about a left-leaning person who praised "Confucian wisdom". I should say that I would also find it rather strange if a leftist praised "American fundamentalist wisdom".

[ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

The fact that it is used in such a way in Korea might indicate something about the importance in a Confucian society of producing sons as opposed to daughters.

---

Testing for sex is easy, but as you note, it's not that huge a thing in N. America.

quote:

---

I never said it was used in the USA to choose sex ... but abortion, or lack thereof, has been used in the USA to bring unwanted children, who end up suffering for years, into the world. I'm asking which is worst? Personally, to me both are pretty piss-poor idealogies.

---

Granted. However, the PURPOSE of outlawing abortion, stated or otherwise, is not to foist unwanted children onto the world. It's either to protect human life or preserve traditional gender roles, take your pick. So we can't really conclude that fundamentalists LIKE the idea of unwanted children being born, it's just one unfortunate by-product of their ideology(among others).

Whereas in the case of gender-specific abortion, the whole idea behind it is to beget male offspring, it's done for no other reason than that. So we can reasonably conclude, I think, that people who utilize the procedure value male offspring more than female offspring(or at least male heirs more than female heirs).

quote:

---

I think your anology is a little bit flawed. It is not a matter of comparing "Confucian wisdom" with "American fundamentalist wisdom". it's a matter of comparing "American fundamentalist wisdom" with "Confucian fundamentalist wisdom".

---

Good point. More precisely, however, it would be a comparison of "Christian fundamentalist wisdom" and "neo-Confucian wisdom", since most of the nuts and bolts of Confucian family theory were added some time after Confucius wrote. I guess in my original post I was using the term to mean "the social system in countries that identify themselves as Confucian", with an implied contrast between "the social system in countries that identify themsleves as Christian".

[ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

I'm sure that with the way things are going in the USA, that a gene test for liberalism would instantly change the religious right stance on abortion.

---

quote:

---

Trading in slaves continues in parts of Africa to this day, seemingly without being driven by any greedy white men.

---

quote:

---

can you concede that your overly sarcastique posts may not be the best method to put forth your arguments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lukewarm:
Yeah, they also tried to fight to make it legal for them to hunt at night.
I never knew "jacklighting" or using modern rifles was part of their tradition either.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I never knew Santa rode around on a flat bed, or Jesus preached over loudspeakers, or peadophila was a Christian tradition.

What's you're point?

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that racism based on skin colour, or being of Arab or Muslim heritage doesn't affect anyone today?

---

Not nearly as much as you seem to want to think.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that Arar, or some Aboriginal abused as a child in some reservation "deprogramming school", should shut the fuck up because the Christians don't go on anymore about being easten by lions?

---

Which brings up a point. What percentage of natives like living on a reserve? When living on a reserve you are exempt from quite a few decent things like taxes. They have the choice to move off the reserve but they lose their priviledged living. If the conditions are that poor they do have the choice to leave.

What are you implying? that there's sick fucks in this world? Hulllooooo! Those sex offending priests were not persuaded to become evil by religion but because they were put into a position of power, which they abused (although the whole sweep it under the rug attempt made me mad). If you're suggesting we get rid of all the sick people in this world you can try.

quote:

---

Of course, it is stupid to demand actions to fix no longer existing descrimination, but I don't see how you can actually have the balls to suggest that descrimination no longer exists.

---

I would like to know how you intend to solve the world's problems since you liberal tone is always compelling me to become more and more like yourself.

Yes, I understand racism and discrimination exists. I would beg to say it doesn't stop at simply race. Like what "Action" do you want to be taken?

Afghanistan pride month? Musilum pride month?
European pride month?

Let me kno your wisdom towards achieving social equilibrium and I'll listen up.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

Every since 9/11 there is an Egyptian fellow who told me that he's been treated differently ever since.

I find that both sad and hillarious that one's ignorance could dwell that deep.

"He's definitely not caucasian , I smell a terrorist"

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]

quote:

---

I'm content that racism is demolishing rather than making a comeback.

---

racism toward whom? where? i beg to differ with you. from where i'm standing, after 9/11 racism against arabs and muslims is rising rather alarmingly. conservative white christians don't even bother trying to understand the difference between being an arab and being muslim.

racism is still very prominent. i can't say that i have directly experienced racism from the left though. unless you consider being asked for my opinion because i'm a certain colour as racism. i'm usually happy sharing my viewpoint as a colored person for reasons that egalitarian american put so well in his 4th para.

bigcitygal, i think it's an excellent idea to "post real-life examples of racism". i'm not sure where you would post them though. i believe they would go a long way in making think twice before they behave a certain way toward someone of a different race. EA uses his story of the racist nun to help him understand and empathise with oppressed groups. i have examples of my own that i have to remind myself of every now and then so that i don't subconsciously discriminate against somebody with an accent. (Although I never adhered to it, i was brought up with the teaching that anybody with a non-british or non-american english accent can't be terribly smart!)

sub lite, i know EXACTLY how you feel about being asked where you're from!! i hear ya, sister! man, oh man, ain't that a pisser? here's how a conversation went between a white person (W), and a non-white (NW) friend of mine:

W: where are you from?
NW: canada
W: no, where are you originally from?
NW (being obstinate ): Canada!!
W: oh, well, where are your parents from?
NW: canada as well, as were my grandparents
W: oh, then you're almost like a canadian.

!!!!!!!!!! gawd, the ignorance!! (I hope people don't get upset with me for using the term "non-white". It was convenient, it was used only to distinguish between W and NW, and I am not implying that being white is normal ) I also get raised eyebrows when i say that i was raised as a christian.

btw, here's an interesting definition of 'white', and a rather scary reaction to the definition from Christians in Exile who are worried about whites becoming a minority, and who think that non-white=non-christian. (i'm not white, but i was raised as a catholic). they claim to reject racism though. they say racism is dangerous because it could prevent non-whites from converting to christianity. hmmm....

[edited because URL link didn't work]

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

[ 12 May 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reynald de Chatillon:
In many cases, people with a leftist leaning are so determined to prevent any mistreatment of minorities that they are prepared to tolerate a certain degree of injustice against majorities, considering these to be the lesser of two evils.

---

Eh? What?

NW : So, where are you from?
W : Canada
NW : No, what are you really?
W : I'm Canadian, born and raised.
NW : I mean what is your cultural background?
W : Canadian. My ancestors were here before it was a country. Why isn't that enough for you ?