|
Racism
Nov 24, 2010 21:02:33 GMT -5
Post by Kristopher on Nov 24, 2010 21:02:33 GMT -5
All my life I have thought of Canada as being a non [glow=black,2,300]raciest [/glow]country, but now you have taught me that Canada was very [glow=black,2,300]raciest[/glow] it all started with the Canadian Pacific Railroad, with the all the Chinese people coming over to build the railroad. There were so many Chinese people working on the CPR and after it was finished the amount of immigrants were crazy. The use of head taxes were a brilliant idea it made Canada money and reduced immigrants but with less and less people coming to Canada the economy wouldn't grow as fast. I don't get why they didn't want different people to live in Canada. With more cultures and more people more things could get done and there would be more possibilities.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 25, 2010 10:56:58 GMT -5
Post by laglaeske on Nov 25, 2010 10:56:58 GMT -5
Agreed, Slind. Wasn't pretty much the whole world pretty racist at that time? Also, if slavery was abolished in Britain in 1833, why would they support the slave-owning South during the American Civil War?
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 25, 2010 11:04:49 GMT -5
Post by Mr. Delainey on Nov 25, 2010 11:04:49 GMT -5
Racist not raciest. Canada isn't any different than any other country, in that, we've had redneck and backward policies just like Britain, Germany, France, Russia or the USA. No country is perfect; however, it would be a mistake to say that Canada in the 21st Century is identical to Canada of the 19th. We've changed. We've progressed. We're one of the most pluralistic societies in the world--tolerant and accepting of differences. We have the rule of law in place (and it isn't just the wealthy dictating to us the terms of rule). So, yeah, we've got some issues in our history with respect to discrimination but take consolation in the fact that all countries have problems like this in their history. These problems with race are usually a product of the ruling class (or majority) being intolerant of minorities (or ignoring the needs of minorities). You might even say it's human nature that people look after themselves and their specific group first and foremost. In fact, one of the things you can do to become historically literate is to quit thinking your country is the best. Instead, love your country with an objective eye to the truth. Understand there are things we do well; but there are things other countries do well, too. Also, there are things we do not do so well. For instance, I know I'd raise a lot of eyebrows by saying this but I can appreciate why the Arab World is upset with the West (and why a group like al Qaeda would be attractive). Consider the Age of Imperialism (colonial period) in the 1880s to 1940s. European and North American countries have meddled in and colonized and taken resources from all sorts of Middle Eastern, Asian and African countries. All of this done for the benefit of the so-called "mother" country. So, yeah, Arabs, Africans, Asians, etc. are anti-colonialists. They no longer accept or tolerate interference in their affairs by outside powers. Instead, they react...sometimes violently. Why violence? Hmmm, I wonder if al Qaeda were to ask America to, "Please Saudi Arabia. Thank you." Would the Americans leave? Not likely. So you use bombs, terror, etc. and make it bloody expensive for your enemy to remain in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Eventually the enemy will have to leave... Over the last 175 years or so western countries have interfered both in the internal and external affairs of muslim countries like Iraq, Iran (former Ottoman Empire), Egypt, etc. Arabs no less than Canadians or Americans do not want other countries interfering with their governments or societies, i.e. America supported a Shah in Iran from the 1950s on. They supported him with weapons, information, money, etc. In exchange, American corporations were given a free hand to develop resources (oil for instance). The shah's government received money from this resource being developed. Moreover, stock holders in the USA would've received benefits from the sale and extraction of these resources; however, the Iranian people themselves were left out entirely (with the exception of a few belonging to the political elite). The shah used violence against his own people to control them and maintain America's hegemony over the region. Question: if I wouldn't want Iran establishing a puppet government in charge of my own country, why would I think it's acceptable for the Americans to do this in Iran? Iraq? Venezuela? Guatemala? Cuba? Because "we're the white guys"? Our country is the best. Our group is the best. "Our" group might have the weapons; but we're morally bankrupt if we think that by exploiting peoples with less technology and organization than us we somehow deserve what we take from others. Nah-uh. I can appreciate why the Muslim world would be upset with America being present in Saudi Arabia (basically the Holy Land in Muslim terms when we consider the importance of the two cities of Mecca and Medina). My point of view would not be all that popular with so-called "true patriots" I suppose. But I'm a scientist first and foremost. I am then a Canadian. I don't change facts to fit opinions. Instead, I let facts speak for themselves and act accordingly. I also believe in democratic first principles like the "self determination of peopls" or "equality" or "liberty". In the case of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, I wonder by what right are we there trying to change that regime. Shouldn't the Afghan people determine their own government or lack thereof? I understand that if we leave Afghanistan alone there is concern that that country may very well become a hotbed of terrorism, a place for terrorists to organize and then strike out; however, if Canada's corporations and Government (and the West in general) were to treat Arab/Muslim countries equitably and as equals and end the occupation and exploitation then maybe there'd be no reason for terrorism to exist in the first place? Just a thought...idealism...but a thought nonetheless.
|
|