White Man March: Khaki-clad men march for white pride
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
Regardless of what you think of that law, as it stands, having a seat at the table for aboriginal people makes a lot of sense given their different legal status.
Why not? You have a legally separate group that has a major interest in the issue that this organization deals with. Why would you not want to ensure that they had a voice at the table?
Last edited:
because canuck is of the opinion that injuns should be seen, if absolutely necessary, but never heard.
They didn't invite a group. They just left a seat open for an aboriginal.
...and even if they did invite a group, why that group over any other?
Don't be silly. I think they should have the same right to express their opinions as anybody else. I just disagree with your view that one's race should have a bearing on the validity of their opinions.
If you read the post I said "a voice". That is singular. They have a voice from that group.
I have already explained numerous times why there is a special position for them. They exist in a unique situation within the law.
Are you actually suggesting that a single aboriginal speaks for all aboriginals? What utter nonsense. Should they guarantee a seat for a black man or a white man so those "groups" can have a voice. I, for one, would be insulted if somebody even implied that some guy is a voice for me just because he's white. I understand you can't see the racism inherent in you comments but like Cliffy, you are part of the problem.
Yes, I'm aware of that. It's entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying but thanks for the input.
Last edited:
You might want it to be because you didn't think of it when you made the point, but it is obviously relevant because it is the reason that they have a seat on the board reserved for aboriginal people in the first place.
You need to learn to read. I said they had a voice from that group. I never said that voice spoke for everyone in that group.
Aboriginal people exist within a special place in the law. If you are going to try to make decisions on behalf of people in that group, it makes sense to have at least one person with personal experience in that area.
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't strengthen your argument.
The decisions of the SEAWA affect everybody in SE Alberta. You keep proving my point and for that, I thank you.
The movie title was White men can't Jump it didn't say they couldn't march.
Seriously why would white folks have to march they have run the society and
some say run it into the ground. If you are secure in your own skin you don't
need to march on racial issues regardless of what color you are.
Gays, and other marginalized folks in a society feel the need to march, are some
saying white folks are becoming insecure?
Seriously why would white folks have to march they have run the society and
some say run it into the ground. If you are secure in your own skin you don't
need to march on racial issues regardless of what color you are.
Gays, and other marginalized folks in a society feel the need to march, are some
saying white folks are becoming insecure?
Some of those people are aboriginal and some of the land affected is aboriginal land. As the law applies differently to aboriginal people...........
If you just reject basic concepts I kind of have to repeat them for you.
I'm not sure what "basic concepts" I've rejected. I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said. It not my faulty, though, if what your saying isn't relevant or backs up my views on racism. Perhaps you shouldn't refer to "aboriginals" as if they are all of like mind.
Last edited:
Please show me where I did.
You just are not reading my posts properly. You with I said something like that because it would help your argument, but it isn't there.
No. I'm Blackleaf.
I was thinking of setting up a White Pride Day of my own. I'd invite all my white friends and their multiracial familes and friends; our Arab and Persian friends whose cultures contributed to our vocabulary, maths, sciences, etc.; and our other friends whose cultures gave us the kayak, snow shoes, and other sciences, technologies, religions and cultures. Oh yes, and of course I'd invite local white supremacists who gave us White Pride Day. I'd invite them to present some White achievements too, like Mozart, etc. and see what they can present.
What's the point of having a White Pride Day and then filling it full of non-whites and get them to show off their "achievements"? It wouldn't be a White Pride day, would it?
White Pride Days should be events in which white people march through neighbourhoods showing their pride in being white. If there was a march in my town, in which people march through neighbourhoods to proclaim their pride at being white, heterosexual and protestant, I'd have no hesitation in joining it.
So in a thread talking about "white supremacists" rather than "pink supremacists" you call me, a white man, a pink man. You're a little confused.
When are the North Africans going to apologise and show some humility for the fact that North African Barbary pirates captured white people in Britain and Ireland in the 17th Century and sold them into slavery?
If, as an Evil Whitey, I can't be proud of being Evil Whitey because of my Evil Whitey past then surely this also applies to people of other colours.
You're more of a racist and sexist than I'll ever be.
Nonsense. I'm reading them and understanding them completely. You see aboriginal people as a group because the law sees them as a group.
I don't define people based on skin colour, race, sexual orientation, sex or thumb size. I understand the law does and I understand that people like you like to justify this behaviour but it really doesn't change what it is. Perhaps one day, we can move past the political correctness bull**** and end the racism, bigotry and double standards that currently exist.
Of course it is. You just don't like it because racism is a tremendously emotional subject. Nobody likes to admit that there are racist undertones at the core of their ideas.
How is that relevant to slavery, genocide, and discrimination committed by the Brits? Are you saying that if all incidents of mass human rights violation are not treated equally, none of them should be addressed? If so, isn't that a bit like saying if we don't catch all murderers, we shouldn't prosecute any murderers?
I've got no problem with your pride. Britain's achievements are colossal, and as a Brit you have every right to be proud of them. I would just suggest that if you are proud of and benefit from things the British, as individuals and as a country, did before you were born, then you should also own up to the not-so-nice things the British, as individuals and as a country, did before you were born.
Of course, this is more generic, not directed specifically at you. I understand that you, Blackleaf, are proud of Britain's racist, sexist, and religiously discriminatory past, and wish it were still the same way still.
Yuh-huh. Because you say so. Twat.