The Confederate Flag

[Kramodlog]

Well, no. Racism *is* considering the other person inferior due to his or her race. It *comes from* human tribal patterns, and the fact that we can be grade-A jerks.



When I think of "oppression", I think of my grandfather fleeing his homeland because the Soviets were coming to throw him, personally, into a gulag.

When I think of racism, I think of measurable income inequality. I think of differences in rates of police action. I think of being given second-rate service, or denied service entirely, due to what the person is. I think of candidates on the stump insulting your entire people as criminals. I think of lack of representation in government and major business. I think of people assaulting you for what you are. I think of public figures who are supposed to be role models insulting your people. But, I'm in America, and those are the things we deal with. My idea of racism may not match yours.

What's happening in Quebec that makes you feel oppressed, or the subject of racism?

A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality, second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us. Institutional violence as stopped recently, but if we aren't watchful it could come back. It isn't like Canada wouldn't send soldiers here and arrest people just for their ideas. It did it before in 1970. There are violent clashes between french and english people, often at night when they are drunk and exist bars.

But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany. things have improve, but it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.

 

[Kramodlog]

...but it DOES get annoying when those receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes complain that the national government is taking too much of their money,

Like Mississipi?

 

[Ryujin]

A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality, second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us. Institutional violence as stopped recently, but if we aren't watchful it could come back. It isn't like Canada wouldn't send soldiers here and arrest people just for their ideas. It did it before in 1970. There are violent clashes between french and english people, often at night when they are drunk and exist bars.

But it isn't a competition. I won't say that today we are in the same situation as black people in the US or Jews in Nazi Germany. things have improve, but it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.

It happened in 1970 because political figures were being kidnapped and killed, and bombs were going off in public post boxes. Terrorism isn't an "idea."

For those outside of Canada or who aren't old enough to remember our little IRA-style incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like Mississipi?

And my home state of Louisiana. Etc.

 

[Kramodlog]

It happened in 1970 because political figures were being kidnapped and killed, and bombs were going off in public post boxes. Terrorism isn't an "idea."

It isn't an excuse to do away with the rule of law and jail innocent people because they want Québec's independence (an idea).

More than 400 people were jailed for no other reasons than their thoughts.

 

[Ryujin]

It isn't an excuse to do away with the rule of law and jail innocent people because they want Québec's independence (an idea).

More than 400 people were jailed for no other reasons than their thoughts.

Instituting Martial Law because there are some murderous idiots killing people and randomly blowing up innocents? Yup, that pretty much defines when I would say that there is a valid excuse to put the rule of law into some form of abeyance.

 

[Kramodlog]

Instituting Martial Law because there are some murderous idiots killing people and randomly blowing up innocents?

The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law.

Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive.

Yup, that pretty much defines when I would say that there is a valid excuse to put the rule of law into some form of abeyance.

Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us.

I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.

 

[Ryujin]

The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law.

Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive.

Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us.

I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.

You made lots of assumptions

It's hard to argue with results.

 

[Hussar]

The bombings lasted for years and no marshal law was enacted before the kidnappings. At that point the bombings had stopped. Civilized countries like Spain have homegrown terrorism with bombs and do not suspend the rule of law.

Trudeau wanted to kill two birds with one stone. Try to catch the FLQ members and indimidate independentist. What he got was Québécois seeing the army once again enforce the rule of the anglophone majority, and the death of one of the hostages. Had Trudeau not been so in need of being "watched", Laporte would still be alive.

Yeah, from the other thread I understood that democracy and the rule of law weren't that important to you when Québécois were involved. You want to select the Québécois that can do politics and you ridiculed francophones being worth 7/10th of an anglophone so they could dominate us.

I guess you oppose bill C-51 because you can be affected by it too.

Wow, just wow.

So ten years of bombings, murdering and injuring hundreds of innocent people, is justified because of Trudeau? Are you freaking kidding me?

Again, what institutional violence? Even before the FLQ crisis, what violence? You, yourself, talk about the Catholic Church and the issues of education? Guess what? That's entirely your own issue. That's got nothing to do with English Canada. You wanted Catholic schools and you got Catholic schools.

But, again, you're talking about issues forty or more years old. Why drag this up?

Put it this way. You're fluently bilingual (I assume, your English is certainly very good). Do you think you would have any difficulties applying to any university in Canada? Would you be turned away because you are from Quebec? Do you honestly think there is, today, any impediment to getting an education, a job or pretty much anything you want, simply because you come from Quebec?

Good grief, the top ranked university, Laval, is IN Quebec. If there was this institutional discrimination, why would the best schools in the country be in Quebec?

Quebec has its own police force, unlike most provinces. Is the QPP targeting French Canadians and no one is hearing about it? And, if there was this institutional discrimination, why are French Canadians OUTSIDE of Quebec doing perfectly well? Why is there no disparity in wealth or quality of life for French Canadians outside of Quebec? Could it possibly be that the economic issues of Quebec are mostly Quebec's own damn fault? Try actually participating in the Federal process instead of sidelining yourselves for the past twenty or more years and see what happens. Stop trying to secede from the country and see what happens. Actually try being bloody Canadian for a couple of years and watch what happens.

It's a shame that Quebec is as poor as it is. There's no reason for it. There's absolutely no reason why Quebec is not a have province other than the fact that Quebec itself keeps shooting itself in the foot.

 

[Umbran]

A lot of what you said. Income and wealth inequality

My search shows that Quebec is on the lower-end of income inequality in Canada- meaning that the difference between high and low earners in Quebec is *less* than many other places in Canada.

I haven't been able to find statistics of how Francophones actually earn less than Anglophones, though. Do you have citations?

second-rate services or denial of them, insults, lack of representation in institutions, public figures saying were poopie or mocking or disparaging us.

As has been noted, your Prime Ministers come from Quebec more often than not, recently? Is inequality in other offices or branches documented?

You do get to a problem, though - some Francophones in Quebec have been trying to distance themselves from other Canadians for decades. When you actively try to sell yourselves as different and separate, can you really be surprised if they treat you as if you were different and separate? Minorities in America have been fighting for greater inclusion - it seems that Francophones have been fighting for exclusion. So, there may be some of what I said before in this - be careful what you wish for.

It did it before in 1970.

The FLQ were trying to bomb people and places since 1963, kidnapped government people in 1970, killing one of them when their demands were not met. You want to claim the following police action was unprovoked? Not that everything done by police in 1970 was justified, but what does one expect when people are dying? There comes a point when the opponent will not sit idle.

If you poke a bear enough, it is hard to understand being put out that it bites.

... it isn't like there is a level at which you can complain and before you reach that level you need to shut up.

On a metric by metric basis, these things could be compared, but there is no overall objective measure of racism, so I don't know about levels of it. I can only speak to whether I think a particular reaction is justified, given the situation as I understand it. My understanding in this matter is, of course, limited. There does come a point, however, where both sides are guilty of a great deal. At that point, trying to place blame, and say that you act because of Them, becomes a weak position*, and is no longer a constructive approach.

Ultimately the Golden Rule applies, and you reap what you sow.



*You acted because they did. But they did because you did. But then you did because of that thing they did 20 years ago. And that was for the thing you did 40 years ago... and it is turtles all the way down. There is a time when you must understand history, but stop blaming it or continuing it, if you want to keep the moral high ground.