The Confederate Flag

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryujin

Adventurer
10% of a budget is not chicken-feed. Many businesses run at or under 10% profit margin, for example. Lose 10% of your budget, and the thing can collapse.

Of course, a government is not a business. So, consider what happens if you lose that 10% - it means either having to cut 10% of everything, or cut a lot more of some things, and not others. When you start talking about essential services, this can be highly problematic.
In fact losing 10% of a budget equates to a fairly radical rationalization of government spending, large increases in taxation, increased indebtedness, or a combination of the three. I suspect that one of the first things to go would be Quebec's universal child daycare programme for which the users pay a maximum daily rate of $20.00 for families with a combined income greater than CAN$155,000.00 ($7.30 per day for families with a total income less than CAN$50,000.00).
 

Hussar

Legend
Goldomark said:
Yeah, no. Racism comes from considering the other person has inferior. That started from the conquest. And even if it was our desire to free ourselves from our oppressors that was responsable for it, well, that still doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. You're just making excuses for racists and helping racism continue.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465127-The-Confederate-Flag/page26#ixzz3ieDIbwfX
I really don't think you get the play the racism card.

In the past forty years, we've had about thirty years of Prime Ministers from Quebec - Mulroney, Trudeau and Chretien. If you want any federal job, you must speak French. I've never seen any data reporting difficulties of French Canadians attending university or any other education for that matter. Again, I've never seen any reports of French Canadians being targeted by police for special attention (well, other than during the FLQ crisis I suppose). Nor is being French Canadian any sort of an impediment to getting a job.

So, what racism? In what way are French Canadians being treated inferior to English Canadians? I'd say that the special treatment of Quebec is largely responsible for the negative reactions of the rest of Canada. You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right? That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars. Quebec isn't special here.

In what way is Quebec being oppressed? Your culture is strongly protected, far more than Aboriginal rights are and they DO have far more legitimate claims to oppression and racism. What oppression?
 

Hussar

Legend
Yeah, sorry, that took a left turn. Although the idea of racism and ethnic conflict is still there.

Rolling this back around. What is needed isn't reparations necessarily but reconciliation. How do the groups figure out how to come together and work past what happened in the past? And make sure that it isn't continuing in the present.

It's August, so, here in Japan, we're obviously talking a lot about the war and the bombs. But, it's a very different conversation. Not a pleasant one to be sure, but not really... hostile. For example, Truman's grandson is in Japan. One thing he gets asked about frequently is if he should apologise for what his grandfather did. His answer was pretty clear; what would be the point of apology? Would it resolve anything? Would it help? Better to spread information about the events, so that both sides can try to learn from the experience and move on. And, from the reaction from the Japanese people, that seems to be the right answer. It's not about blaming, it's about reconciling the viewpoints.

I wonder if that is a perspective that would make North-South relations in the States a lot more productive. Instead of blaming, or pointing fingers, accept that what happened did happen, and the try to move beyond those events.

Although, I suppose, the key difference here would be that racism in America is a very real and very current issue. Japan and the US going to war does have the benefit of a bit of historical distance to gain perspective. Then again, as this discussion with [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] has highlighted, sometimes events in the past have a way of staying fresh in people's minds. Time does not heal all wounds without reconciliation.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Yeah, no. Racism comes from considering the other person has inferior.
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.

That started from the conquest. And even if it was our desire to free ourselves from our oppressors that was responsable for it, well, that still doesn't justify racism. Nothing does. You're just making excuses for racists and helping racism continue.
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?
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Just to add a point about the hostility between have and have not provinces. [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], there's another reason you don't see quite as open hostility towards, say, Eastern Canada or Manitoba as you do with Quebec. Those places aren't actively trying to break up the country every twenty years and then spending the next twenty years stirring the pot so we can spend another couple of years and hundreds of millions of dollars on yet another failed attempt to leave the country. Nor have those parts of Canada seen terrorists laying pipe bombs and murdering politicians. So, there is a bit of history there that does change how Quebec gets viewed. There is some residual hostility from that.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right? That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars.
Which, as an aside, is pretty silly. Everyone puts money into a big pile, and then it gets doled out for various purposes. Even if every purpose is legitimate, what on Earth are the chances that everyone will be given back *exactly* what they put in? Nearly zero. Some folks will get more than they put in, some will get less. If you buy the concept of Federal funding for anything at all, this is the inevitable expectation you should have.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
...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,
 

Hussar

Legend
Which, as an aside, is pretty silly. Everyone puts money into a big pile, and then it gets doled out for various purposes. Even if every purpose is legitimate, what on Earth are the chances that everyone will be given back *exactly* what they put in? Nearly zero. Some folks will get more than they put in, some will get less. If you buy the concept of Federal funding for anything at all, this is the inevitable expectation you should have.
I'd point out that the US certainly doesn't do it. This isn't federal funding. This is equalisation payments. The federal money is given directly to the provinces and the province chooses where the money is spent. I'm not talking about the federal government building an army base somewhere, that's fair enough as that's a federal project. But, federal money goes to building provincially funded schools and programs purely at the discretion of the province.

Considering there are only three have provinces in Canada and seven have nots, and this has been true for at least the last forty years, it does build some resentment. My federal taxes go up to pay Nova Scotia fishermen to not fish because of moratoriums on certain kinds of fishing, for example. I understand the justification for it, and honestly, I agree with it. Being part of a society, particularly one with a strongly socialist bent like Canada, means that this is going to happen. It's 100% justfiable. But, that doesn't stop people from bitching about it. :D
 

tomBitonti

Explorer
Folks may be better off over all because of the cooperative arrangement, even withstanding unequal payouts. Measuring value gains only by looking at the payouts compared to an ideal distribution seems to be too small of an analysis.

Thx!

TomB
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Certainly.

Just from looking at the effects of government programs that are supporting healthcare, food distribution, training, etc., you find they improve the overall wellbeing of the workforce. That improves efficiency & productivity, reduces days directly lost to sickness or the healthcare of others, minimizes disease vectors, increases healthy lifespans, reduces training costs, and so forth.

That's good for everyone.
 

Hussar

Legend
Oh, hey, as a pretty strong federalist I completely agree with the above. I think it's part and parcel to being in a society that the society as a whole looks out for all its members.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Moderator
Staff member
Re: this comment by me:


Here's a nice article from The Atlantic pulling together a lot of those sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
As a quick flashback to the original topic, thank you to Colonel Ty Seidule, head of the history department at the US Military Academy at West Point for making a video that breaks it down nicely and explicitly:
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/12/9132561/civil-war-slavery-video
 

Kramodlog

Adventurer
10% of a budget is not chicken-feed. Many businesses run at or under 10% profit margin, for example. Lose 10% of your budget, and the thing can collapse.

Of course, a government is not a business. So, consider what happens if you lose that 10% - it means either having to cut 10% of everything, or cut a lot more of some things, and not others. When you start talking about essential services, this can be highly problematic.
Its our money. It just has a federal stamp on it. The federal government collected about 290 billion dollars in taxes and fees this year. Québec is about one fifth of the Canadian economy, so using gorilla math we can infer that about 58 billion dollars were collected in Québec. I'd rather have that than 9 billion dollars.

It has been an issue since Canada was founded. The money was in Ottawa, but the responsabilities in the provinces. The British North America Act of 1867 made sure education and health were provincial responsabilities, while Ottawa got the power to tax almost exclusively. So we've always been begging for our money to finance our programs.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
It has been an issue since Canada was founded. The money was in Ottawa, but the responsabilities in the provinces. The British North America Act of 1867 made sure education and health were provincial responsabilities, while Ottawa got the power to tax almost exclusively. So we've always been begging for our money to finance our programs.
In the basics, it doesn't seem substantially different from here. While our states collect taxes, they still have to go looking to the Federal government for resources as well - education, infrastructure, and social safety nets being major examples. And some get more funding from the government than they put in.

That's okay. My welfare is still tied to theirs - if their kids are poorly educated, my life will be impacted, for example. So, yes, some of my money goes to educate kids a thousand miles away. This does not disturb me in principle. It is only specific cases (where funding is used ineffectively, or on stupid stuff, f'rex) I might object to.
 

Kramodlog

Adventurer
I really don't think you get the play the racism card.
I'm pretty sure you can when you are the victim of it.

In the past forty years, we've had about thirty years of Prime Ministers from Quebec - Mulroney, Trudeau and Chretien.
It isn't because Obama was elected president of the US that the US doesn't have racism problems anymore. The situation improved when we took some power back. I won't deny that. But it isn't have if we are fully in control. This is why independence is important, as it is a means to get all the power that was taken from us back.

If you want any federal job, you must speak French. /quote]Officially, but not in practice. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-cuts-hurting-bilingualism-languages-watchdog-says-1.1201720

Harper nominated non-bilingual judges to the supreme court. The supreme court! He nominated an unilingual Auditor-General. And that language ain't french. He nominated an unilingual minister of *drumroll* culture. I guess there is just one culture in Canada.

Canada has two languages on paper, that's it.

I've never seen any data reporting difficulties of French Canadians attending university or any other education for that matter.
Now, but before the Quiet Revolution is was very different. The Catholic Church didn't really value education and promoted a slave mentality. Ambition was evil and if you were born poor, you were ment to die poor. Born for a small loaf of bread was the expression. The government was under Church control, so it didn't manage education. It just gave money to the Church to manage it. Except for priests, our elite returned to France after the conquest of 1760, so we didn't have rich people who finance prive universities or education. It is more of a British tradition. Loyalists did finance universities. McGill come to mind, but those were english insitutitions. It wasn't in anglopohone interest to finance french schooling either. First we were a dumb inferior ethnicity.Second, we were easily exploitable cheap labor. This in why in 1960 only 3% had a university diplomas and most bureaucrates were anglophones.

Money was needed to change that. Lots of it.

Again, I've never seen any reports of French Canadians being targeted by police for special attention (well, other than during the FLQ crisis I suppose). Nor is being French Canadian any sort of an impediment to getting a job.
Violence as stop, but it isn't the only criteria for racism.

As for jobs, well, that has improved. Before the Quiet Revolution, not being bilingual ment you couldn't get some jobs. You couldn't talk in french at work and to customers. A The Bay clerk who was french couldn't talk to a french customer. Speak white, remember? This is why laws against that sort of discrimination needed to be implemented and still need to be there to prevent the return to systematic discrimination. Regulating signs comes from that time period. People need to know what is written on them, so they need to be in french.

That being said, only speaking french is still an impedement. There are still job environments where english is the only language used. You're not bilingual? Too bad, no job for you. The provincial Liberals have been blamed for shrugging at the situation.

It is also why we need institution that are in french. This way unilingual people can get good paying high qualification jobs, and unilingual people can get services in a language they understand. Take Québec's Financial Markets Authority. It is responsible for financial regulation in Québec and provides assistance to consumers of financial products and services. I think each province has one, but Harper wants to merge them into one, and most provinces are ok with it. We, as usual, oppose that for the reasons I've mentioned above. Plus it becomes a tool of passive assimilation. Learn english or be excluded from jobs and services.

Building institutions from the ground up cost money. This is why we wanted in the constitution a clause that let Québec refuse to join in national institution and programs with full financial compensation.

So, what racism? In what way are French Canadians being treated inferior to English Canadians? I'd say that the special treatment of Quebec is largely responsible for the negative reactions of the rest of Canada.
This response makes me think of some comments about black people in the US. A lot of people see black people as a class with special benefits and rights when it is the oppiste. Québécois do not face the same blight as black people in the US do, but we too face the perception that we get special benefits and rights when we do not.

You mention Manitoba and other provinces that receive considerable equalization payments - you do realise that people DO call them freeloaders right? That the Have provinces resent everyone for taking their tax dollars. Quebec isn't special here.
Oh we have a special place in haters' heart. Just tune in some talk radio show or read a Sun newspaper, and you'll hear Québec bashers.

In what way is Quebec being oppressed? Your culture is strongly protected, far more than Aboriginal rights are and they DO have far more legitimate claims to oppression and racism. What oppression?
It isn't a competition. There isn't a level of oppression that needs to be met before someone can object to it. Any oppression is bad. Some have it worse than others. Aboriginals have it pretty bad, that is for sure. Right now e face racism and continued passive assimilation tactics.
 
Last edited:

Ryujin

Adventurer
Regarding the comment about being able to speak both official languages (English and French) in order to get a Federal job, I can somewhat support that statement. Straight out of college (1986, so not exactly yesterday) I took part in a competition for placement in the Ministry of Transportation, in which 5,000 applicants were accepted from across the country. Of the 5,000 applicants, the judged positions of the top 1,000 were published. Having not used French in a decade or more, at the time, I didn't feel that I could claim any level of fluency. I did, however have the top marks in my class and had earned the only bursary available to us. I came in at #199. Someone from my class with significantly lower marks than myself, but who claimed fluency in both French and English, finished #16.

It is very unlikely for someone Toronto, Edmonton, or Vancouver to have French as a second language. It is far more likely for someone from Montreal, Quebec City, or somewhere in northern New Brunswick to speak both official languages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement

Top