Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

[CivU]

Heatwave,

Part of what I didnt address directly in my previous statement was a prevailing notion that there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination.  The concept of reverse discrimination is a label addressed to acts that seemingly enrich oppurtunities for visible minorities at the expense of caucasian males; however, this lacks credibility.

If you offer programs to visible minorities who have been disadvantaged by a cycle of exploitation and subordination by caucasian males, you are not discriminating against white males, but eliminating the barriers implemented by this group in an attempt to place all persons, regardless of race (im not even going to entertain a discussion on the merits of the term race, as much of a hot topic as that could become), sex, religion on an equal playing field. You are therefore not discriminating against caucasian males, but simply removing the effects of discrimination imposed by them, by advantaging certain groups who have been discriminated against.  Proponents of affirmative action are not suggesting that all caucasian males be removed from their positions to make way for visible minorities, as that would certainly be discriminatory, but instead suggests that the discriminatory reasoning that in numerous cases placed them there over other eligible candidates are removed so all parties can compete on the basis of what Infanteer (if you dont mind me suggesting this) seemed to deem absolutely necessary, a meritocracy.

I offer this as one perspective on the concept of reverse discrimination.  I certainly don't take credit for it, but it offers an interesting argument to the fundamental problems of affirmative action, that is, advantaging one grouip by seemingly disadvantaging another.

 

[Infanteer]

It still seems stupid to me...I don't see how I, as a Caucasian male, am the perpetuation of a cycle of exploitation and subordination against others.    :

Your membership dues for the NAC come up recently?

Part of what I didnt address directly in my previous statement was a prevailing notion that there is in fact no such thing as reverse discrimination.   The concept of reverse discrimination is a label addressed to acts that seemingly enrich oppurtunities for visible minorities at the expense of caucasian males; however, this lacks credibility.

I'm not following this.   Just because it happens to be Caucasian males that are excluded from opportunities, all the sudden it is not discrimination?

If "affirmative action" exists (in the conventional sense where standards differ based upon race/sex/preference of deodorant) then by nature "reverse discrimination" exists.   By lowering the bar for some you are automatically making it more difficult for the group still held to the standard to succeed.   In the case of "reverse discrimination" you are just replacing the poor _________ (insert minority group of choice) with a guy who happens to look like another guy who owned a plantation, beat women, and stole land from Natives a couple hundred years ago.

Instead of dancing around in the realm of theory, lets look at some hard examples of where affirmative action has been used and see the empirical results (the most famous is probably California's post-secondary education system, and the controversy around that was thick enough).

[BTW, this has left the realm of recruiting, off to Politics it goes)

Infanteer

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You are therefore not discriminating against caucasian males, but simply removing the effects of discrimination imposed by them, by advantaging certain groups who have been discriminated against.

In all my 44 years this is getting close to the being the most moronic phrase I have ever read. So 10 years from now it will reverse and change the names around. :  DISCRIMINATION  It was wrong then and it wrong now! Slice and dice it how you want but if the best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc. does'nt get the job/promotion/etc. than its DISCRIMINATION

....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........


discrimination imposed by them

 

[Infanteer]

Well, at least we agree on something for a change, Bruce.

I guess it's a conspiracy of white guys like you and me to try and perpetuate millennia of oppression and subjugation.... :

 

[CivU]

"In all my 44 years this is getting close to the being the most moronic phrase I have ever read. So 10 years from now it will reverse and change the names around.   DISCRIMINATION
  It was wrong then and it wrong now! Slice and dice it how you want but if the best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc. does'nt get the job/promotion/etc. than its DISCRIMINATION

....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........"



I'm not quite sure whether to feel flattered, the most moronic? I suppose it could be worse...I digress.

To address how in ten years affirmative action policies will have reversed the situation, and the names will seemingly change around so as to place the average caucasian male in the position now held by visible minorities. I suggest you read literature, I recommend the American Journal of Sociology, Canadian Jounral of Sociology, Canadian Social Studies or the Perspectives released by Statistics Canada.  They should provide you with data that suggests the present disparity between minorities and caucasians in terms of per capita income, education levels, literacy rates, etc. is staggering.  Given the empirical evidence available it would be next to impossible for visible minorities to surpass the socio-economic standings of their caucasian counterparts in a decade.

As for the "best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc." getting the job...of course this is the aim of all persons, most certainly the Canadian Forces.  But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities, because that is the only reasoning that could account for the present discrepencies in most white collar and professional fields.  Playing devil's advocate, if this were the case and in all instances the caucasian candidates were superior, one would have to ask themselves why...and after doing so, would it not seem reasonable to try and eliminate any discriminatory factors that were directly corrolated to this inequality.

As for, "....and by the way, sunshine, I've never discriminated against anyone in my life so put this little gem and sti........", the eloquence is unparalleled.  I as a caucasian male doubt that I have not been directly afforded any advantages in my life as a result of discrimination.  This doesnt even begin to address the position caucasian males presently occupy as a result of a history (and ongoing) of discrimination that has resulted in our benefit over the suffering of many...I doubt you could argue against this in your own case. As for, "Well, at least we agree on something for a change, Bruce.  I guess it's a conspiracy of white guys like you and me to try and perpetuate millennia of oppression and subjugation.... " I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.

And Infanteer, if you consult my previous post regarding the two variations on affirmative action, you should recognize that I support a process that removes barriers to equality for oppressed minorities, and do not support an affirmative action that is merely quota filling at the expense of merit, and in our case in the CF, potential lives.

 

[Infanteer]

I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.

I think you need to put Noam Chomsky down and step back for a moment.  We shouldn't be forming policies along the lines of past injustices. 

"The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!"

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Infanteer, this IS getting scary, I'm going for the same arguement here.

Quote,
But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities,
There is the hitch for me, yes it happened, it was wrong,....BUT ITS STILL WRONG.
Why is that hard to wrap around?

 

[MissHardie]

CivU

I think history will attest to the fact that it has been white guys like you or I who have been, and continue to be, perpetrators of oppression.

"Perpetrators of oppression". I like that; its use reminds me of the distinction between one man's terrorist and another man's freedom fighter. The flip side being what, that us successful white caucasian folk today are the winners?

The question is, how can a past wrong be righted by another wrong?

 

[CivU]

As far as Noam Chomsky goes...I didn't know he wrote on affirmative action.  But on the topic of a process of disconnection from "the other", may I suggest the late Edward W. Said...

In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.  The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.  As for history, in which you decided to use an episode two thousand years ago as oppossed to a more recent and therefore relevant citation, "The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!", if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.

As well..."There is the hitch for me, yes it happened, it was wrong,....BUT ITS STILL WRONG."

I don't know how you can refer to a form of affirmative action in which marginalized groups are offered oppurtunities that eliminate barriers, such as education initiatives or bursaries and grants, to the discrimination of the past in which persons were exploited, assimiliated, subordinated and/or eradicated...the two hardly seem comparable.  

Miss Hardie, I don't think anyone is a winner in the aftermath of oppression, but that's not to say they are not benefactors.  As for two wrongs don't make a right, this is a compelling claim; however, the affirmative action I mentioned above is hardly a 'wrong' in attempting to even the playing field.  In addition, to use a contemporary example but at the same time not to try and deviate from the topic at hand, if two wrongs dont make a right, then how can persons on this board justify ousting a violent tyrannt who murdered countless civilians, by using means that have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians...seems analogous...I'd be interested to hear your view...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>It's funny reading how all you complaining probably aren't from a visible minority.

It's funny how most of the people who have actually worn a Canadian uniform and been killed, or maimed in spirit and body, are not from a visible minority.  I will be quite happy to see everyone else ante up in proportion.  Those who want Canadian Values as currently constituted by the chattering establishment have the first duty to defend those values.  Those who thought earlier wars were not their business and those who have worked hard to erase and belittle the core, common sense moral values which came down to us over centuries of struggle need not look to me with a worried expression if someone else comes over the hill, well armed, with a different set of ideas in mind.

What are the systemic barriers, if any, remaining with regard to entry into the CF?  There are plenty of visible minorities in the large urban centres which have CFRCs.  Maybe the problem is - gasp! - self-selection.  I doubt very much that generations raised to exalt rights and privileges over responsibilities and obligations are going to line up for a profession which enshrines the notion of service before self.  Do we want a more socially balanced CF?  Start in the elementary schools.

 

[Torlyn]

In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.  The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.

Ah, you may want to re-check that statistic...  I agree with the .75-1 ratio, however you are forgetting something very important, and that is that us males don't get pregnant.  When you are taking 9 months time of work (that's the average mat leave in the federal government, probably different private sector, don't have stats on that, however), whether it be through a leave of absence, maternity leave, sick leave, whatever, you cease being eligible for raises or promotions during that time.

We had one lady where I used to work that raised a human rights complaint against the company because she got overlooked for promotions and raises during a 3- year period, during which she had taken 24 months of maternity leave.  She claimed that as she had still been an employee for 3 years, she should be father along both the promotion & salary scale than 2 people who were hired at the same time.  (1 of which was a female, had no kids, and was farther along than the guy, but that's another story)  God bless her for having children, and I'm glad that our company topped up her mat leave pay to equal her working salary, but it is fair that she should a raise/promotion during that time when she's only been present at work 33% of that time period?  Her complaint was tossed, BTW.

I am not trying to totally refute your statement, nor am I saying that such sexism doesn't exist, but it's not always that cut and dry.

T

 

[Inch]

As for the "best/fastest/fittest/most qualified/etc." getting the job...of course this is the aim of all persons, most certainly the Canadian Forces.  But are you suggesting that all caucasian persons hired in the past have been superior candidates to visible minorities, because that is the only reasoning that could account for the present discrepencies in most white collar and professional fields.  Playing devil's advocate, if this were the case and in all instances the caucasian candidates were superior, one would have to ask themselves why...and after doing so, would it not seem reasonable to try and eliminate any discriminatory factors that were directly corrolated to this inequality.

No, the reason there are more Caucasians in all jobs is the law of probability. Here's the stats according to Stats Canada from the 2001 Census:
Total population 29,639,035
Total visible minority population 3,983,845

So if 13% of the population are visible minorities, why should the percentage of minorities in jobs be any different than the society as a whole? We're talking about 1-2 people out of 10 that are not Caucasian. A little over 2% are Black for instance, so why would it surprise you that there aren't more Blacks in the military when they only account for 1 in 50 in all of Canada?

The law of probability holds true even at the Olympics, the USA is about 10 times the size of our country, is it any surprise that they win more medals than we do? They have a larger pool to choose from.  The same can be said with visible minorities versus the Caucasian majority.

So to answer your question, yes, the odds are that someone in the other 87% of the country is faster/bigger/more qualified to do the job than someone in the 13% visible minority. That's just the way it works.

I believe in equal opportunity for everyone and special treatment for no one regardless of race, period.

 

[Infanteer]

As far as Noam Chomsky goes...I didn't know he wrote on affirmative action.

No, he didn't.   I'm referring to that tendency of some Westerners to commit acts of self-flagellation due to the fact that in the game of civilization, we've ended up on top of the heap for now.

In terms past injustices, I think it is hard to overlook present discrimination in the workplace when, for example, a woman earns 75 cents on every dollar a man makes.   The basis for this disparity it certainly not based on gender superiority, but instead, a history and presence of gender discrimination.

Torlyn was spot on with the statistics and the sad personal example of the culture of entitlement.   I've seen other statistics that have shown that the reason for the lower income of woman is skewed by the fact that a greater amount of woman work part-time while raising a family.

The point is that for every statistic, there is a counter-statistic.   The fact remains that "affirmative action" and "reverse discrimination" are counter-intuitive to the notion of an equal citizenry that is judged on merit and ability.

Consider as well that 1/3 of the entire population of Canada lives in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto - which also happen to be where immigrants will flock towards.   Silly ideas on the workforce of Grand Prairie, Alberta being a mirror image of the Canadian population are out to lunch as they take no account of the distribution of population and the geography of Canada.

As for history, in which you decided to use an episode two thousand years ago as opposed to a more recent and therefore relevant citation, "The Romans burned the village of my ancestors down in Gaul, I demand retribution from the Italian Government!!!", if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.

So, what's the time frame for "atonement" then?

Should the American Government be forced to pay out Africans for slavery (which African tribes, selling their enemies, were equally complicit in)?

Should the Canadian Government be forced to give rights to Natives because we essentially displaced them, just as they had been doing to eachother before the "Fourth Wave" of people (Europeans) moved to the Americas?

Should we be forced to pay restitution to the Japanese for the unfair treatment and internment they received at the hands of our great-grandfathers?

What is the "statute of limitation" then?   I'm interested to here if one has been decided on, or if you arbitrarily decided who is oppressed and who isn't.

Miss Hardie, I don't think anyone is a winner in the aftermath of oppression, but that's not to say they are not benefactors. As for two wrongs don't make a right, this is a compelling claim; however, the affirmative action I mentioned above is hardly a 'wrong' in attempting to even the playing field. In addition, to use a contemporary example but at the same time not to try and deviate from the topic at hand, if two wrongs dont make a right, then how can persons on this board justify ousting a violent tyrannt who murdered countless civilians, by using means that have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians...seems analogous...I'd be interested to hear your view...

"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Thucydides

 

[MissHardie]

EDIT: repeats much of what Infanteer said; he got this thoughts out quicker than I.

CivU,

â Å“if we dont hold anyone accountable for the actions of the past, how can we expect anyone to behave any differently in the future.â ?

This statement cuts both ways. If those people we are claiming to 'undiscriminate' get used to all the anti-discrimination efforts, who's to say they'll ever stand on their own feet?  The human being is always drawn to the easiest choice. 

Furthermore, how long should 'we' be held responsible for past actions? A lifetime? Since the inception of our nation? Since we colonized? How can we adequately rectify past wrongs when those who produced what we now view as wrong and immoral actions were only doing what their society dictated as right?  For example, how would one go about recompensing those descendants of slaves? Is their national government responsible? Or are those African tribes who captured their ancestors and sold them into slavery responsible? Or maybe the European merchants who transported them from Africa to the New World? Who is to be held accountable? Should anyone be held accountable? How could be possibly make a difference in helping make better the life of one who was once a slave when they're all dead?

Not all wrongs can be made right.  Actually, I'd argue that no wrongs can totally be made right and the ensuing actions to rectify the situation are all attempts at the impossible â “ to make as if the wrong never occurred.  Such is life â “ as Hobbes wrote, it is brutal, hard and short.

What's wrong with assimilation?  Granted, immigrants should keep their culture to make Canada a richer place, but in moving to Canada they also imply they want to adopt the Canadian lifestyle and values as well to earn all the Canadian benefits. (Then again, what are the Canadian values?... But that's a topic for another thread.)

I'm interested to know why you're in the military if you don't believe that violence can solve international problems.  People die in armed conflicts, combatants and non-combatants alike.  It's a function of war and the assorted dangerous and life-threatening activities that occur in the locale where the fighting is.  War is a messy business; no one can predict when a civilian is going to start fighting back, or just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Granted, I think the Bush administration could have given much better reasons to the international community for going to war, but how can you say that leaving the Iraqi civilians to a future of terror, torture and oppression is better than a bloody regime change with plans to implement a free political organization?  I'd like to see where you drew the number of 100,000 civilian deaths.  Sources? Feel free to send me a whole pile; I will actually check them.  And no, I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be offensive; I've just not seen that number bounced around by any credible news source â “ perhaps I've been lax in reading my news.

As for the analogous comment: how is engaging in a practice that will undoubtedly kill your citizens as well as those of the enemy in pursuit of a political goal analogous to giving grants or opportunities to 'disadvantaged citizens' (gotta love PC) to better their lives â “ at the expense of others, it seems? 

Anyway, I think I just bored everyone to tears with that little diatribe, so I'll finish that particular train of thought.

I think the Noam Chomsky reference made was statement made to imply that you, based on your posts and your wordings, follow the type of logic that condemns George Bush Jr. as a war criminal.  Just my thoughts, though.  Is your major sociology?

 

[NavyGrunt]

Every debt has to eventually be repaid. The notion that the repayment carry on forever is ridiculous. I have not oppressed anyone- and most(read MOST) now havent been oppressed in Canada. So why would they continue to be repaid? We are creating a system that will eventually create a bigger problem of entire cultures reliant on handouts.

If every barrier is erased and the playing field leveled then how is that discriminitory? I understand the education benifits for native people- as they and the government have created a society that is essentially unable to compete at all- because of the reliance on programs set up to pay them back for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......

Yes me must learn from the past- the past has also shown that this program isnt working properly- when will we learn from that?

You want the best person for the job period. You also want the person most interested in the job. Not just the guy whos there for the healthcare or paycheck. Is it so hard to believe that there are cultures that are not interested in certain job types? Why do we work so hard to recruit people with no interest in the job?

 

[CivU]

Well I step out to write an exam and the responses flow in...

As far as atonement goes, it would seem obvious that we can't address all historic prejudices and the events that follow them; however, that is not to say that we should accept them and not consider how we can change our behaviour in the present so as to not reflect a lack of concern, or an inevitability of repeating themselves...This can be done by addressing issues of inequality that perpetuate one groups dominance over another as not merely "the way things are" but an issue that should be addressed and equalized.  To merely pass the buck, "for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......" is not a solution to any problem.  Is it not the RCR who say to never pass a fault? 

In terms of, "while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".  At the expense of sounding too idealistic, with ideologues touting this message (sounds strikingly neo-con) how did Canada ever acheive a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about.

I think your attempt to promote assimilation (akin to the American melting pot) hit an impass when you failed to recognize Canada values...perhaps Canadian values are a sense of concern for inequality suggested by the above socialize methods to equalize society that many Canadians have come to rely upon in times of need, and the aspects of our country that make it an admirable nation the world over...

As for the 100,000 marker for the Iraqi death toll, considering you asked for it...consult a recently published article in The Economist (I guess you don't read what is essentially the most credible news source, not to appear sarcastic either) that discusses figured indicated in a report released by Lancet (arguably the most reputable British medical journal) entitled "Estimating the Iraq War's Death Toll".  As for my interest in the military, I hardly feel Canadian foreign policy and American foreign policy are comparable, and I support (under this government) the direction intended for the Canadian Forces.

As for Noam Chomsky...I guess it's a love-hate discourse...not unlike the opinons voiced on this site.

 

[McG]

how did Canada ever acheive a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about.

Hmmmm.  On that note .  .  .

Maybe it is not race/culture/penis size that sets the barriers to opportunities.  Maybe, just maybe, it is social class.  Are a disproportionate percentage of a given ethnic group living below a certain economic level?  Should we do something to help members of that ethnic group achieve more?  NO!  Maybe we could look at â Å“economic affirmative action.â ?  Aim to help everyone living below that certain economic level.

Affirmative action has the effect that minorities are given extra means to escape their social class.  However, the white Anglo-Saxon family can sit in that social class and that is okay.  We do not need to worry about them because they are white.

CivU,
Can you show me that Canadian born minorities have a harder/easier time of escaping their social class? 

 

[CivU]

These are merely a selection of brief synopsis' from various scholarly sources, as you requested.  I do suggest you read them at length, as the amount of data is overwhelming and my cut and paste is essentially insulting to the work of these academics.

"We found that the ethnicity and racial factors were just as important, in line with Shevky and Bell's predictions that heritage and colour would act as boundaries to regulate access to opportunities. All three factors-class, ethnicity and race-are important reasons why some residents live near the centre or on the periphery of these urban systems."

from - Changing Boundaries: Sorting Space, Class, Ethnicity and Race in Ontario
Leo Driedger. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Toronto: Dec 2003.Vol.40, Iss. 5;  pg. 593

"Our findings, which are generally consistent with the findings in earlier studies, affirm the designation of visible minorities as one of the disadvantaged groups in the Canadian labour market, but not without major qualifications. Minority immigrant men experience a significant wage disadvantage relative to white immigrant men."

from - The relative earnings of visible minorities in Canada: New evidence from the 1996 census
Robert Swidinsky, Michael Swidinsky. Relations Industrielles. Quebec: Fall 2002.Vol.57, Iss. 4;  pg. 630, 30 pgs

"Using the 1991 and 1996 Canadian census data, the present study addresses the issue of poor or low-income immigrants, a topic largely overlooked in previous immigration research. The authors found that, compared to native-born Canadians, immigrants were consistently over-represented among the poor, and that this over-representation had a clear ethnic and racial colour with visible minority immigrants experiencing the most severe conditions."

"Racial discrimination is another problem that deserves more attention. Although the findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive (due to the inherent measurement limitations in the data used here), they are consistent with the findings of many previous studies and also with the trends observed in other immigrant-receiving countries. If left unchecked, the problem of race is only going to intensify."

from - The changing colour of poverty in Canada
Abdolmohammad Kazemipur, Shiva S Halli. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Toronto: May 2001.Vol.38, Iss. 2;  pg. 217, 22 pgs

"Besides the income variations due to possible discrimination as implicitly suggested by Model 5, various factors also strongly influence the income differentials among ethnic groups. The difference between Model 1 and Model 5 reflects the effect of immigration status. Among the four European minorities, only the Polish group is in a disadvantaged position due to its composition in age at and period of immigration, as indicated by the fact that its income level increases after controlling for this variable (from - 389 to +781). Meanwhile, immigration status is detrimental to the income level of all the visible minorities, with recency of immigration depressing their earnings."

from - The integration of visible minorities in contemporary Canadian society
Hou Feng, Balakrishnan, TR. Canadian Journal of Sociology. Summer 1996.Vol.21, Iss. 3;  pg. 307

If you wish to have me cite any more scholarly documentation on the matter please ask.  I have access to plenty of material as it is well within my stream of study.

As far as, "Affirmative action has the effect that minorities are given extra means to escape their social class.  However, the white Anglo-Saxon family can sit in that social class and that is okay.  We do not need to worry about them because they are white." The above mentioned articles address the ability for non-visible minorities to more easily move out of class defined conditions of socio-economic inequality.

 

[McG]

The above mentioned articles address the ability for non-visible minorities to more easily move out of class defined conditions of socio-economic inequality.

Not in any of your quotes.   They talk of immigrants, not of Canadian born citizens escaping their social classes.   One quote adds that â Å“findings of this study on the effect of racial discrimination are far from definitive.â ?   Your quotes talk of ethnic minorities being traditionally disadvantaged, but do not state that this advantage is unlinked from those minorities traditionally starting from lower economic classes.   In fact nothing you have shown presents a comparison between minorities and â Å“non-minoritiesâ ? of Canadian birth within the same social class.

Btw: I am generally unimpressed by quotes even from scholarly articles.   Present me with the arguments and present me with facts.   Obviously you've read, understood, and agreed with these arguments.   So argue them.   Don't just give other people's conclusions.

 

[Infanteer]

As far as atonement goes, it would seem obvious that we can't address all historic prejudices and the events that follow them; however, that is not to say that we should accept them and not consider how we can change our behaviour in the present so as to not reflect a lack of concern, or an inevitability of repeating themselves...

Yeah, we did that; it's called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

This can be done by addressing issues of inequality that perpetuate one groups dominance over another as not merely "the way things are" but an issue that should be addressed and equalized.

The crux of the matter is who is being oppressed?  You sure love to use that term, but I fail to see what relevance the term and all the whimsical spin-offs you've derived from it has to reality.

Are Natives oppressed?  They can walk off the reservation anytime they want and there is a plethora of programs to assist them (not at the expense of others) in entering the information age economy (we've both agreed that those programs are good).

Are Woman oppressed?  I don't think my mother (Margaret Thatcher's got nothing on her) would think so.

Are Minorities oppressed?  There is a reason people come to this country from around the world as opposed to leaving it.

So who really is it that the big bad white man is oppressing anyways?

To merely pass the buck, "for people that "oppressed them" before I was born....and my parents were born....and their parents......" is not a solution to any problem. Is it not the RCR who say to never pass a fault?

Neither is the self-flagellation of our society because we, in the past, didn't follow the golden rule.

In terms of, "while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". At the expense of sounding too idealistic, with ideologues touting this message (sounds strikingly neo-con) how did Canada ever achieve a system of social safety that ensures the weak, be it the unemployed struggling for work and needing employment insurance to get by, the single mother needing social assistance, the lower class family who without socialized health care would suffer immensely or the elderly person who lives month to month off CPP, come about.

I am not to sure one could classify Thucydides as a neo-con.

It was in reference to the Iraq analogy you attempted to draw out.  Comparing the clash of societies to relations between the Canadian government and it's citizenry is apples and oranges.

I think your attempt to promote assimilation (akin to the American melting pot) hit an impass when you failed to recognize Canada values...perhaps Canadian values are a sense of concern for inequality suggested by the above socialize methods to equalize society that many Canadians have come to rely upon in times of need, and the aspects of our country that make it an admirable nation the world over...

Are you sure about that.  Like she said, that is a topic for another thread, but I think you're making a broad assumption in assuming that socialism is an "Canadian value" and that it is "admired the world over".

As for the 100,000 marker for the Iraqi death toll, considering you asked for it...consult a recently published article in The Economist (I guess you don't read what is essentially the most credible news source, not to appear sarcastic either) that discusses figured indicated in a report released by Lancet (arguably the most reputable British medical journal) entitled "Estimating the Iraq War's Death Toll".

Like any statistic that is hot off the presses, it should be taken with a grain of salt.  Looking at the article, it says that:

"The centre of its estimated range of death tolls - the most probable number according to the data collected and the statistics used - is 100,000.  And even though the limits of that range are very wide, from 8,000 to 194,000, the study concludes with 90% certainty that more than 40,000 Iraqis have died."[/i].

Although it doesn't change the fact that many people have died, between 40,000 and 100,000 looks pretty loose to me.  Real fresh statistics like this (which was done with random sampling) aren't always a good thing to bank your reputation on, as "Prime Minister" Steven Harper found out the hard way.

Anyways, what difference does it make.  Iraq is in the middle of a civil war (catalysed by an invasion) that has been brewing for decades - of course there are going to be alot of casualties.  What do you think happens in wars?

As for my interest in the military, I hardly feel Canadian foreign policy and American foreign policy are comparable, and I support (under this government) the direction intended for the Canadian Forces.

I'd love to hear what you think that direction is, because alot of us here haven't managed to figure it out yet.


McG

"Economic Affirmative Action"

We call that Welfare, don't we?