Not being black, being inferior. The two engender very different connotations. Suppose you're Vietnamese-Welsh in origin and yet everyone you meet addresses you as the ‘Chinese guy’, does that not devalue your self-identity and self-worth, that a misnomer dictates how the world precognitively assesses your character, mannerisms, probable lifestyle and future inclinations?
If someone were to continually call you Chinese when you aren't Chinese you should only take offence to the term unless you view the idea of being Chinese offensive. They are probably looking you, seeing you look Asian, and assuming you are Chinese.
Take the example of Councillor Ford calling Councillor Mammoliti "Gino boy" which is obviously a racially insensitive remark. It damages Councillor Ford's reputation to be using a racially insensitive remark more than it damages Councillor Mammoliti. The public finds out Ford is racially insensitive and there is now evidence he might be a racist. The public doesn't find out anything about Mammoliti they didn't already know. He is Italian, we already know that. His career is unchanged by this incident. With the comments about Asian people by Ford we can be almost certain he is a racist. In those comments he didn't call one person a "Chink" or insult an individual, he characterized an entire race. Once you hold views you associate with an entire race that is racism. Fortunately for him he only characterized them as workaholics which will minimize the impact. Unfortunately for us though, I would like to see him not have a chance at being elected.
We are slowly getting off topic though. I think everyone can agree that the n-word is an insult and racially insensitive. The point being made is that saying a word doesn't make someone a racist. Being a racist means believing something about an entire race, treating people differently due to race, and has nothing to do with a word or feelings about one person. If the parking attendant has said "get out of the parking lot you dumb useless sack of sh*t bitch" I doubt she would feel any better about herself and think "thank goodness he didn't call me the n-word". The fact is he was insulting her not a whole race. There is reason to believe he was insulting her because they were in an argument and not because she was black. If he were to call her the n-word when there was no argument going on then we could be more certain he is racist. If he were to have said "n-words like you are all alike" then that is definitely racist. If Chris Tucker says "what's up my n-word" that doesn't mean he is a racist. If a white guy with a whole lot of black friends uses the n-word when he is in a heated argument there is no reason to believe he is all of a sudden a changed man and now looks down at and hates all black people.
The other point is that in today's society the public hearing someone is a racist harms that persons reputation more than hearing someone is an n-word, Gino-boy, or Chink. The public hearing Councillor Mammoliti is a Gino-boy will lead the public to think Ford is an ignorant fool who might be racist, and think Councillor Mammoliti is Italian and nothing more. Maybe that parking attendant has numerous black friends, maybe he volunteers at a shelter which helps black youth, maybe he has no negative opinion about black people at all but in the public eye he will be thought of as a racist. I'm not saying the parking attendant isn't a racist, he might be a racist or he might not be. I'm saying the only thing we should accept as fact is that he said a racially insensitive remark, and that is the only thing that should be publicized. Stating that he is a racist is a charge that has not been proven.
BTW how has black underachievers improved in test scores and overall performance and in social integration within the TDSB since the media leaked this story?
I don't know. I don't think this story was leaked though.
I'm fully aware these are universal social issues however The support system for non-black teens might stem from so many other sources that an institutionalized support network might not be of great relevance or significance to them. It's like taking meds, after a while you gradually forget to because you feel reenergized.
Regardless of the number of obstacles a one-on-one approach will be more successful because it will deal with the actual issues that particular person has rather than trying to generalize. A person who still has both parents doesn't benefit from group counselling dealing with not having both parents. If taking meds is working then you forget to take meds, the solution is not to change the medicine... it is to make sure they take their meds.
Parents who came from broken homes; whose peers come from broken homes and all they see and daily through is an existence of dilapidation aren't emotionally equipped to foster life experiences in their kids to counter the prevailing deathtrap of low income>crime/gangs>subsistence housing.
I agree. Dealing with the issue successfully would involve working with parents as well. There are teachers that work their butts off trying to create successful and polite children only to have the work they do undone by a bad home life. One only has to watch a show like Super Nanny to see quick evidence that parenting has a major impact how a child behaves.
These experiences however aren't universal and largely depend on the social services and networks at the recent immigrant's disposal. Someone coming here with guaranteed shelter and instantaneous job offers beckoning them, not the other way around, is a far removed reality from encouraging existing minority populations to remain welfare babies and not have the ambition to strive for more as that'll only lead to greater defeatism as the doors slam in your face and the glass ceiling thickens with contempt.
That is true. Some tools are made available to new residents specifically. There are many tools that are made available to the general population as well though. A refugee and an immigrant are different too. A refugee is unlikely to have a higher education or speak English whereas most immigrants would have advanced qualifications. Do you actually think that any part of the system is designed to encourage a group to remain on welfare?
What if you're in a crowded area with friends/colleagues nearby and someone then chooses to utter a racial slur at you? If I didn't have feelings of outrage, shame and embarrassment then I'd be inhuman as no one with human thoughts and emotions could go on as if they weren't just belittled.
I think the reaction would be similar to someone yelling "hey loser" or "hey look at that retard". I would be a little embarrassed being singled out. I would be a little pissed that such rejects exist in the world. I wouldn't feel differently about myself. I doubt it would change the opinion my friends/colleagues have of me. I'm pretty sure the conversation with my colleagues would be along the lines "what was that about?" and "what a bunch of fools they were" and some jokes about what we should do to get back.
Yes I still contend the curriculum isn’t intentionally designed to be Eurocentric, that's just the reality shaped by a history of white imperialism over racialized subordinates.
So you are saying it is a Eurocentric curriculum? Which course is tainted by "white imperialism"?
Seung-Hui Cho- South Korean in origin
Kimveer Singh Gill- Indian (Sikh) in origin
I rest my case.
A total of two cases rests your case?
Patrick Sherrill, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Marc Lépine, Valery Fabrikant, Charles Carl Roberts, Charles Joseph Whitman, Eric Houston, Mitchell Johnson, Andrew Golden, Jeffrey Weise, Steven Phillip Kazmierczak.
I guess based on your logic the problem is that the curriculum isn't teaching them enough about Europe?
So you admit that the original proponents of this concept had a racist agenda to remove 'unwantables' from corrupting their poor, naive, pious children?
No, I make no such admission. I have no idea why it is being proposed. Maybe it is being proposed because some racist white folks want the black folks out, maybe it is because some racist black folks want to rid themselves of white folks, maybe some racist white folks blame all the problems that occur in their schools on black youths, maybe some racist black folks blame all the problems that their black youths have on white folks. Regardless, a black school being created is ensuring that racism will not be going away anytime soon and ensuring things will probably get worse. Black people going to the new school will feel even less a part of mainstream Canada than they do now, and white people will see them as not accepting of mainstream Canada. You can't create a race based school to get rid of racism any more than you can open a boys school to get rid of sexism or a private school to reduce poverty.
Is it not only fair to accept this distinction and utilize it to the advantage of dropping out youth? Would you want your kids to remain in an environment that's ensuring their failure by doing everything short of outright saying aloud that they really aren't welcome there and would be better off elsewhere?
I cant read these sentences. I have a really hard time believing you aren't Dentrobate.
Just because it colludes the mention of race, doesn't mean it's not encompassing of it. I'd hardly consider Jazz a 'black' genre anymore anyway.
But it shouldn't be seen as racial or labelled as black or white. The fact that Jazz isn't seen as a black genre anymore is a good thing. It is bad to label a subject white or black. If you were to read a curriculum that said "Black courses: Music - Rap, Dance - Carribean. White courses: Literature, Geography, Science. Asian courses: Philosophy, Computers. Middle Eastern courses: Math, Medicine"... wouldn't you find that to be a bit offensive? Doesn't labelling courses in that way suggest what students should automatically be interested in? We shouldn't be labelling any course or school as black, white, or asian.
Careful now, I don't believe Africentricism is a brainwashing tool. Unless you fear lobotomies would occur behind closed campus doors, it's apparent to me that students would still have the free will to accept or reject anything they wish to learn.
The minds of youth are more open to suggestion than adults. Youth wear clothing and choose music because society suggests they should like it and that they would fit in best if they followed a certain stereotype. Most students seek to fit in and if you suggest fitting in is taking a certain course then that is the course most will take. Peer pressure and the power of suggestion leads many youth down bad paths such as drugs, gangs, crime. Youth may still have the free will to accept or reject anything they wish to learn, but they have the same free will to stay in school, study hard, not have a teen pregnancy, and to avoid crime and gangs. That free will obviously isn't enough to have students properly evaluate all their options and choose the right path for themselves.
If you live in Tennessee you are more likely to enjoy country music than someone in New York, but there is no genetic reason for it. More people believe in the same religion as their parents than any other religion, but there is no genetic reason for it. If you are surrounded by a culture or belief through your development you are more likely to adopt it as your own. This nurturing can pass along positive beliefs and values, neutral beliefs and values, and detrimental beliefs and values. We should surround youth with a wide variety of options and don't taint their decision making process with expectations and labelling so they will have a better chance at finding who they really are, what they enjoy, and what they can succeed at.
That sounds like a democracy to me. Mandatory courses, like I said before may have little to no basis of students' future career paths. Math for instance is a challenging subject for a lot of people. Being force fed it actually makes it more confusing. What's sad is whatever can be preformed by a dollar-store calculator is probably the most arithmetic some people will ever need. Why stack the odds against the number challenged?
What does getting a high-school diploma mean? Surely it is more than just a piece of paper. Surely it means that graduates have successfully reached a common standard. If it really is just a piece of paper then we might as well just hand them out to everybody. The point of a mandatory curriculum is to have an OSSD mean something. If someone who is incapable of math, basic scientific reasoning, and creating an English document can get a diploma that makes the diploma meaningless. It is hard enough to get a job with only a high-school diploma, it will even be harder if the high-school diploma becomes anything students want it to be.
I knew very little of my parent's home country until I was forced to live there for several years. Things I otherwise would not have been exposed to, have helped me to develop a distinct self-identity. There are many things I could care less about, including from the motherland. Others I've become so specialized in I could be considered an expert. We, the individual, make our own path.
I'm curious what you were exposed to that helped you find your self-identity. I have found that trying as many different things as possible, to find what you are best at or to find what motivates you, is the best way to find yourself. I have found that the best way to loose yourself is to try and fit a mould, to set goals not based on what you are good at or enjoy but instead focus on goals set by family or what is seen by society to be an ideal job. If you work on something you are good at and enjoy you will tend to reach a level of proficiency which is much greater than those who do it "as a job".
Africentricity, if looked at as the antithesis to poverty, crime and subordination, suggests who they ought to be.
I don't know how that can be the case. If they are taught that they are different than non-blacks and that somehow the history of blacks is relevant to their future then won't that do the opposite? Shouldn't we be teaching them they are the same as everyone else, to forget about the past, and to aim for a future brighter than what existed in the past? To be successful shouldn't one study success and say that anyone of any colour can do it? How can Africentricity tell someone who they ought to be? A course in Africentricity can't possibly know them as individuals.
But there is community solidarity. Chinatown's a great example of this with merchants/primary shopping base comprised of immigrant populations from China, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia.
I haven't seen anything other than Chinese, Vietnamese, and a Jamaican shop next to the parking garage in Chinatown. I haven't noticed any Filipino, Japanese, Thai, Korean, etc there. If they were there you would certainly be able to pick it out because the character sets are completely different. There is a separate Koreatown on Bloor.
Ditto immigrants from the nations of the Caribbean come together every summer to celebrate their heritage in Caribana.
Well it is "Caribana" and the Caribbean has a shared cultural heritage.
Hindus, Jains ans Sikhs can worship together in shared temples.
That is basically India, a single country. Those are all Dharmic religions.
That's only three examples of how ethnocentricism dictates the survival of these communites.
They don't survive because they are together. They can survive by themselves. It makes no sense to say that somehow Chinese ethnicity requires being mashed in with Vietnamese ethnicity to survive as Chinese people and Vietnamese people have totally different histories, languages, and cultures. By mashing them together and saying they are the same you are denying their actual culture. There can't be Oriental music because they all speak different languages. For some reason you believe that Canadian is too inclusive, Nigerian is too exclusive, and somehow black is just right. Black isn't a culture though, it is a colour. Some people who say they are black are actually lighter than some latinos, and one summer a vietnamese friend of mine was out in the sun a long time and he was darker than some black people, so we are really going to have to figure out how black black is to qualify for this new "culture club" that you plan on creating. What is the language of black culture? There are too many languages. What is the music of black culture? There are too many types. Who are the leaders of black culture? You think remembering Canadian Prime Ministers are tough, trying naming the leaders going back centuries in all the countries which have black people. Trying to group all these histories and cultures as one is impossible.
Imposed, inflexible inclusivism coerces minorities into adopting 'types' as they're put in a positon of becoming the cultural ambassadors for their ethnicity to broader society. The in-group isn't in a position to impress each other, hence formalities can be dropped and people be made to feel comfortable in their own skin.
You are definitely Dentrobate. This doesn't make sense at all. How can you be a cultural ambassador when you didn't even learn your own cultural history? I can see the black history class now:
Teacher: "The blacks came over as slaves."
Billy: "My family just came over last year."
Teacher: "Shut up Billy, don't argue. This is your cultural history."
Black remains apart of labeling vernacular because of self-preservation. One, one dark-complexed groups cannot possibly compete on a national yet alone international scale socio-politico-economic marketplace. Pooling individual funds together creates a nest egg that can go towards social infrastructure of black interest.
Self-preservation? Are they at risk of dying off? Social infrastructure of black interest? So we can do the same to create social infrastructure of white interest? What happened to do unto others as you would have done unto you? Should we start allowing white food banks, white scholarships, and white welfare?
I get that traditionally segregation was a bad thing, but at what point does one stop pleading with the establishment for acceptence and validation? If kids are told they'll never amount to nothing and may as well drop out, they'll do it. If they're compassioned and nurtured, being encouraged to give learning another shot, chances are they will. When dealing with impressionable minds one has to be accomodating not authoritarian.
Traditionally? It is always a bad thing. Who keeps telling there kids they won't amount to anything? We need to find these people and lock them up. Shouldn't it be parents that tell their kids to give learning another shot and to get to school? When dealing with impressionable minds one has to be accommodating and not authoritarian? Super Nanny has got it all wrong then. Don't create structure, create a lack of structure. No parents around for the kids... excellent because you don't get more accommodating then that.
That's a given. However there are very noticable distinctions between people and ignoring these distinctions is equally as racist as using them to morally justify superior/inferior race dynamics.
How can ignoring race be racist? Give me an example of a situation where ignoring a person is black would have a negative outcome.
We can tolerate physiological differences for the blind, deaf and dumb; the crippled, obese and deformed; the Goth, punk or other eccentric from the norm- there's so many differences we think nothing of or at least have been conditioned not to think bad of. Why can't the same be applied here? Celebrate diversity, don't use it as a platform for victimizing the unsuspecting, naive and pure-of-heart, I say.
We
tolerate them? That makes it sound like we have issues with them and find them annoying. How are you celebrating diversity by making a school all black? That doesn't sound very diverse. I think a non-religious multicultural public school sounds more diverse than a black school. How are you celebrating the diversity of black histories by pretending that all the African cultures are all the same?
!
