Before I begin, let me provide you with a couple of definitions from my Oxford dictionary:
Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.
Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.
The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.
The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.
This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.
I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.
The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!
The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?
Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?
According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.
Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.
This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?
The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.
The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.
The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.
Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.
Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:
Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.
Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.
Wings Over The World
November 27, 2006
November 24, 2006
Reverse Onus a Constitutional Challenge?
I think not.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
November 22, 2006
Buying Votes...Selling "Traditional Family Values"
The Canadian Conservative government never ceases to amaze, and delight me (in a forehead slapping “DOH!” kind of way).
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
November 21, 2006
The “N” Word
Michael Richards, a.k.a. “Kramer,” is in hot water for sure! If you haven’t already heard, then watch it on YouTube.
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
November 10, 2006
Democratic Anarchy
Voter intimidation. Closed polls. Long line-ups. Long waits. Confusion. Ballot box stuffing. Voter fraud.
Scenes from a ‘Banana Republic’ in Latin America? Some sub-Saharan African nation trying its democratic legs after a generation of dictatorship rule? Nope. This was what was reported during the electoral process in the good ol’ U. S. of A. last Tuesday! What is happening in this self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the face of the planet?
Add to this the attack ads promulgated throughout the campaign using half truths, and you’ve got one outrageous democratic process! You would think that this would only happen in one of those countries, not in the well-developed democracies of the West. Sad, but true.
What drives people to resort to such tactics in order to win? Are they that desperate to retain power, or gain it? Are there mob and/or big business connections? Are campaign workers looking for a cushy bureaucratic appointment after their candidate is voted in? Are candidate policies so hollow, their messages so vague, their party affiliation an albatross around their neck that they think dirty tricks would be the only way to win? Do they think that voters would be susceptible to such tactics? In this age of the Internet, did they not think that information would not only flow to the voters, but that voters would be able to easily pass along information to other voters? Did they not think that someone with a critical eye could take a few minutes to upload a video to Youtube.com and show the world (or at least several million Americans) just what kind of candidates they really are? Did they actually think that their message would influence the computer keys of someone with an Internet connection and a Blogger.com account? Maybe the voters are smarter than the politicians think.
If you think that this is par for the course in the American frontier, apparently Canada is not immune either. Voters will be going to the polls on Monday to vote for their municipal leaders. What of those crazy, but polite, Canucks? Crazy, yes. But some are not so polite. Similar accusations of dirty tricks are cropping up. It will be interesting to see if it is translated into votes on election day.
Ancient Greece was the cradle of Western civilization. From there, our notion of democracy had its genesis. Unfortunately, political corruption and backstabbing, literally rather figuratively, also had its start. Have we really progressed? We should have. In this age of political correctness, equality, and technical achievements occurring in an exponential fashion, you would think candidates and/or their campaign workers would be above such unethical behaviour.
The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Wikkipedia has quite the backgrounder on democracy. If the people that employ dirty tricks are voted into office, then it is a sad state of affairs that these people represent us, or even represent what we stand for, in front of the citizens of other countries.
Who are we to export, or even preach, democracy, when we are so fallible when employing it? Charity begins at home.
If we are to achieve true democracy, then we have to show these sham candidates that we will not tolerate their antics. This is your government. How do ensure they truly represent you to the world, in an ethical form? Write to them, or tell them in person…file a complaint with a police authority…or just vote for the guy that didn’t sully him/herself with such tactics, regardless of their political affiliation. That would teach future candidates that voters will not be intimidated, nor have the wool pull over their eyes. Hey, the only reason they do it in the first place is because someone can show that it was successful in the past. Then we might, just might, see some good, wholesome democracy in action. Maybe the movie V for Vendetta taught us more than we thought.
Just remember, voters get the government they deserve. And if you don't vote, you can't complain.
Wings Over The World
Scenes from a ‘Banana Republic’ in Latin America? Some sub-Saharan African nation trying its democratic legs after a generation of dictatorship rule? Nope. This was what was reported during the electoral process in the good ol’ U. S. of A. last Tuesday! What is happening in this self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the face of the planet?
Add to this the attack ads promulgated throughout the campaign using half truths, and you’ve got one outrageous democratic process! You would think that this would only happen in one of those countries, not in the well-developed democracies of the West. Sad, but true.
What drives people to resort to such tactics in order to win? Are they that desperate to retain power, or gain it? Are there mob and/or big business connections? Are campaign workers looking for a cushy bureaucratic appointment after their candidate is voted in? Are candidate policies so hollow, their messages so vague, their party affiliation an albatross around their neck that they think dirty tricks would be the only way to win? Do they think that voters would be susceptible to such tactics? In this age of the Internet, did they not think that information would not only flow to the voters, but that voters would be able to easily pass along information to other voters? Did they not think that someone with a critical eye could take a few minutes to upload a video to Youtube.com and show the world (or at least several million Americans) just what kind of candidates they really are? Did they actually think that their message would influence the computer keys of someone with an Internet connection and a Blogger.com account? Maybe the voters are smarter than the politicians think.
If you think that this is par for the course in the American frontier, apparently Canada is not immune either. Voters will be going to the polls on Monday to vote for their municipal leaders. What of those crazy, but polite, Canucks? Crazy, yes. But some are not so polite. Similar accusations of dirty tricks are cropping up. It will be interesting to see if it is translated into votes on election day.
Ancient Greece was the cradle of Western civilization. From there, our notion of democracy had its genesis. Unfortunately, political corruption and backstabbing, literally rather figuratively, also had its start. Have we really progressed? We should have. In this age of political correctness, equality, and technical achievements occurring in an exponential fashion, you would think candidates and/or their campaign workers would be above such unethical behaviour.
The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Wikkipedia has quite the backgrounder on democracy. If the people that employ dirty tricks are voted into office, then it is a sad state of affairs that these people represent us, or even represent what we stand for, in front of the citizens of other countries.
Who are we to export, or even preach, democracy, when we are so fallible when employing it? Charity begins at home.
If we are to achieve true democracy, then we have to show these sham candidates that we will not tolerate their antics. This is your government. How do ensure they truly represent you to the world, in an ethical form? Write to them, or tell them in person…file a complaint with a police authority…or just vote for the guy that didn’t sully him/herself with such tactics, regardless of their political affiliation. That would teach future candidates that voters will not be intimidated, nor have the wool pull over their eyes. Hey, the only reason they do it in the first place is because someone can show that it was successful in the past. Then we might, just might, see some good, wholesome democracy in action. Maybe the movie V for Vendetta taught us more than we thought.
Just remember, voters get the government they deserve. And if you don't vote, you can't complain.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)