White Privilage

[White_Unifier]

So, the generalization "men tend to be taller than women" is disproved by a single incident of a woman who is taller than a man?



Yet, for some reason, non-whites in the U.S. make less money, have less education, are more often unemployed, are victims of crime more often, are more often sick, are arrested for drugs more often (despite similar use rates), and die younger than whites.

Must just be all one big coincidence.

Simple solution. Improve the quality of education across the board. If non-whites suffer from lack of education more than whites do, then they'll naturally benefit more. But don't slam the door in the face of a white person who lacks education on the basis of skin colour.

Improve social assistance programmes. Again, if blacks need it more than whites, then they'll naturally benefit more from it than whites will. But again, don't deny a white who needs help.

If more non-whites face more immigration costs to reunite with spouses and family, etc. than whites do, then maybe streamline immigration rules. But again, don't deny the same to a white who falls in the same category.

If you want to raise taxes on the rich, presumably whites will end up paying more taxes, but don't exempt the rich black guy from paying the same tax.

The same applies to 'male privilege.' You want to combat the rape epidemic, fine. But help all victims. If women benefit more from such a policy, so be it, but don't exclude men.

Sure one race, gender, etc. might have more advantages on a statistical level. But on a practical legal and policy level, governments should not think like that. They should try to solve the problem without discrimination.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Simple solution. Improve the quality of education across the board. If non-whites suffer from lack of education more than whites do, then they'll naturally benefit more. But don't slam the door in the face of a white person who lacks education on the basis of skin colour.

Historically, the door-slamming in the U.S. has gone the other way.

Improve social assistance programmes. Again, if blacks need it more than whites, then they'll naturally benefit more from it than whites will. But again, don't deny a white who needs help.

If more non-whites face more immigration costs to reunite with spouses and family, etc. than whites do, then maybe streamline immigration rules. But again, don't deny the same to a white who falls in the same category.

If you want to raise taxes on the rich, presumably whites will end up paying more taxes, but don't exempt the rich black guy from paying the same tax.

You really think there are special benefits and programs for non-whites in the U.S.?

The same applies to 'male privilege.' You want to combat the rape epidemic, fine. But help all victims. If women benefit more from such a policy, so be it, but don't exclude men.

Sure one race, gender, etc. might have more advantages on a statistical level. But on a practical legal and policy level, governments should not think like that. They should try to solve the problem without discrimination.

You really think the U.S. government passes race- and gender-specific laws and regulations?

That's so damn cute!

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

So, the generalization "men tend to be taller than women" is disproved by a single incident of a woman who is taller than a man?

Yet, for some reason, non-whites in the U.S. make less money, have less education, are more often unemployed, are victims of crime more often, are more often sick, are arrested for drugs more often (despite similar use rates), and die younger than whites.

Must just be all one big coincidence.

To stir up the masses it's always best to find a martyr.

I've been down to the states and seen the poverty. I've seen it here in the north with first nations people.
Discrediting a sweeping generalization is not not denying a social issue.
You can actually do both.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

To stir up the masses it's always best to find a martyr.

To comfort the comfortable it's always best to deny reality.

I've been down to the states and seen the poverty. I've seen it here in the north with first nations people.
Discrediting a sweeping generalization is not not denying a social issue.
You can actually do both.

Not by denying the facts, nor by reinterpreting a "most" or "tendency" statement as an absolute, to make refuting it easier.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

To comfort the comfortable it's always best to deny reality.

Not by denying the facts, nor by reinterpreting a "most" or "tendency" statement as an absolute, to make refuting it easier.

When white folk use sweeping generalizations about non white folks it's called racist. When sweeping generalizations are made about white folks it's called racist.

Case in point. When two Canadian soldiers killed a Somali teenager they had in custody, racial tensions rose and a sweeping generalization were made against the armed forces. I found myself and my 9-year-old son approached and threatened by a group of native men. They called me a racist piece of shit and the sad fact is that I thought what happened in Somalia was wrong and I was angry that these soldiers had disgraced the uniform I wore.

Here are the two that killed the young Somali kid.

Pte Kyle Brown

MCpl Clayton Matchee

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

When white folk use sweeping generalizations about non white folks it's called racist. When sweeping generalizations are made about white folks it's called racist.

History has consequences. White folks' sweeping generalizations got passed into law.

Case in point. When two Canadian soldiers killed a Somali teenager they had in custody, racial tensions rose and a sweeping generalization were made against the armed forces. I found myself and my 9-year-old son approached and threatened by a group of native men. They called me a racist piece of shit and the sad fact is that I thought what happened in Somalia was wrong and I was angry that these soldiers had disgraced the uniform I wore.

Oh, are we swapping anecdotes again? I get called "Chief" and "Washington Redskin" a few dozen times a year in professional settings, let alone on the street.

I learned to deal with it a long time ago. On the street I ignore it. In the professional setting I just add $1000 to their bills and hope it was worth it to 'em.

 

[captain morgan]

Sometimes impossible to prove. You only need to show one exception to disprove the generalization. That even one white might be homeless disproves the idea of white privilege.

White privilege

 

[Cliffy]

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Oh, are we swapping anecdotes again? I get called "Chief" and "Washington Redskin" a few dozen times a year in professional settings, let alone on the street.

Why do they call you that?

I learned to deal with it a long time ago. On the street I ignore it. In the professional setting I just add $1000 to their bills and hope it was worth it to 'em.

I ignored it so that I could get my son to safety.

60 years for driving with a suspended license? Please, give your head a shake, Cliffy.

 

[EagleSmack]

60 years for driving with a suspended license? Please, give your head a shake, Cliffy.

And he really does believe it!

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

And he really does believe it!

God, I hope not.

 

[petros]

They'll just call him a white privilege drug addict who threw it all away.

That's a subclass.

 

[Decapoda]

Native privilege!!

Responsible stewards of the land.

 

[White_Unifier]

Historically, the door-slamming in the U.S. has gone the other way.


You really think there are special benefits and programs for non-whites in the U.S.?


You really think the U.S. government passes race- and gender-specific laws and regulations?

That's so damn cute!

No, I don't. but if we're going to moan about white privilege, then let's propose solutions instead of complaining about whites.

 

[captain morgan]

No, I don't. but if we're going to moan about white privilege, then let's propose solutions instead of complaining about whites.

It's easier to blame an entire group which ultimately leads to a solution that punishes/vilifies that body.

far easier than going after a solution that addresses any root cause

 

[spilledthebeer]

It's easier to blame an entire group which ultimately leads to a solution that punishes/vilifies that body.

far easier than going after a solution that addresses any root cause

In the interest of promoting Cdn culture- her are a few uniquely Cdn expressions:

Idle no more:

The native political movement known as `Idle no More` will continue to be `irrelevant forever` until such time as its leaders recognize that their first task is to clean up corruption and gross mismanagement on the reserves. Once this is done `Idle no more` will find that accomplishing a larger list of political goals will be much easier.

native discrimination:

Natives will continue to be jailed in disproportionate numbers just so long as they continue expressing their contempt for white society by engaging in criminal acts such as theft, drunken and disorderly conduct, theft, and the smuggling of cigarettes, guns and other illegal contraband.

Native jobs:

Only about 25% of natives graduate from high school and an even smaller proportion goes on to higher education. Since over 75% of all jobs currently on offer in Canada require post secondary education natives are guaranteed to continue having serious employment problems until they understand that getting an education is not synonymous with selling out to white society.

Boil water advisory:

This is a common feature of life on a typical reserve. LIE-berals want to portray this as a sign of racism but in doing so LIE-berals display their OWN Racism! In summer, 2016, CBC news reported that THREE reserves out west were able to cancel their boil water advisories AFTER a local man graduated from high school, then went on and graduated from college with suitable training and certificates and came back to the reserve area and promptly used his new training certificates to start up the water treatment plant that had been sitting IDLE for 20 years because no local person was qualified to operate it! LIE-berals do not want to admit that no educated white person is excited about going to live on a native reserve/third world pest hole to operate the equipment for the drunken, violence prone and to often drugged up natives!
Systemic racist: Any person who undertakes a serious analysis of conditions on reserves and, as a result, comes to the conclusion that the vast majority of problems on the reserve are the result of drunken violence, drug addled nonsense, a remarkable lack of useful education and a startling level of wide spread band council corription will be deemed a `systemic racist` by natives and LIE-berals.

Native land claims: A legal process by which natives claim to be owed more gravy than they are currently getting. LIE-berals respond to this native demand by posturing in a submissive and servile way and offering up major lumps of tax money to appease natives- who will later use most of the money for drunken and drug fueled binges and for the purchase of gas guzzling pick up trucks and ATV`s. This new transportation fleet will then be used to carry natives to various sites to protest the production of the fuel their new transportation fleet is using. Conservatives ignore this LIE-beral designed system of native bribery.

 

[DaSleeper]

What percentage do you need to be considered a person of different ethnicity
Is it the one drop rule of early America when it came to blacks
Or 1/32 nd as for Elisabet Warren in her Cherokee claim.
Since my mother was 1/2 or 1/4 native can I claim racism if someone looks down at me even if I look on the outside like a bald-headed white guy!

 

[petros]

According to current Canadian Law if a Native woman marries a white man, she loses her and her children's Status but if a white woman marries Native man she and their kids get Status.


Native women and their interracial kids get screwed.

 

[captain morgan]

White woman privilege strikes again

 

[DaSleeper]

According to current Canadian Law if a Native woman marries a white man, she loses her and her children's Status but if a white woman marries Native man she and their kids get Status.


Native women and their interracial kids get screwed.

Actually children born to native women "After" 1985 retain native status but not second generation...then you have only métis status

https://www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-and-womens-status-discrimination-via-bill-c-31-bill-c-3