|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
...people of the same race (normally defined as skin colour) are superior to those who are different, and that anybody different is beneath them, then that person becomes a racist.
...
Racism is not slight discomfort at being surrounded by other races and cultures. |
Based on your definition, GQ is definitely a racist. By referring to Canada as "his" he is projecting a sense of superiority. If this kid has trouble meeting white people in Caledon (according to jennypie's image dated Aug/05), he needs more than an education of the principles upon which Canada evolved during each milestone dating back to Confederation in 1867; he needs his eyes examined. A discussion of these principles (which Shelley and Ania hit on) is a lot more relevant than your simple refutation of Ania's argument re: natives.
Also, I don't see the relevance of your comment re: "slight discomfort" when this kid wants to leave the country. That's not "slight discomfort" by any definition that I've heard of 
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Ania, but actually, white people do own this land. Canada was still a constitutional monarchy last time I checked (so says even your precious Wikipedia) and that means we answer to Queen Elizabeth II of England. That makes us - say it with me now - a white English colony that just recently became a truly independent nation, in 1982. |
Your stance isn't clear here. Are you saying that Canada is truly an indpendent nation, so there is no line of ownership? or are you standing on an extremely weak argument that we actually answer to a Queen, following that she owns Canada?!! LOL!!!
What a load of horse shit. The British monarchy has fuck-all to do with running the UK or any of the Commonwealth nations. They are simply a side freak-show whose isolated wealth should be repatriated as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the tolerance that the Commonwealth political systems show the royal family is indicative of the tolerance we have embedded in all facets of our economic/political/legal/social systems.
Obviously, I am arguing that the concept of ownership of a nation is not as simple as you are making it to be, and that one aspect of determining ownership is the activeness of said "owner" in maintaining the nation.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
More to the point, the first people to occupy a land physically do not necessarily own it for all eternity. There is no "finders keepers" clause in either Canadian Law or U.N. statutes. I get tired of hearing people beat the long-dead horse of how the white man took the land from the "Natives" (or whatever the politically correct term is these days - Aboriginals?). Yes, we took their land, and now it's ours. Boo hoo. People don't just return shit after fighting a bloody war for it. We fought, we won, and now we own the fucking place. |
I've never been a proponent of the "who was here first" theory, which is the reason why the Palestinian (and various other ethinic territorial) issues are failing so spectacularly. No one can argue against Canada's global reputation as a nation of tolerance and multicultural peaceful co-existence, which is much more relevant to the immigration issue than an over-simplified discussion of the British monarchy.
I'm seeing the pattern of your posts, Diginut: you spend a lot of time redefining concepts in an attempt to change the premise of the argument to favour your own over-simplified pespective.
A more refined argument (which I can't be bothered to write up right now) would be to acknowledge the weakness of GQ's concept of "ownership" and then to point out how no such concept can exist in the liberal democratic system we have in Canada. The monarchy is irrelevant, but I agree with you that so are the Aboriginals (in isolation).
Last edited by on Dec-03-2007 at 07:47
|
