Kellie Leitch became a sitting member of Stephen Harper's Conservative government in 2011.She served as Minister of Labour and Minister of The Status Of Women.In 2015,the Progressive Conservative Party was defeated in the general election.Kellie Leitch,however retained her seat in Parliament.On April 6th she declared her intentions to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives.
It would be hard to argue that Kellie Leitch lacks the qualifications of someone seeking Canada's highest office.She is a doctor and a professor and has been involved in the Conservative Party from a young age,in addition to her experience as an elected Member Of Parliament.Indeed,some nations would do well to emulate Canada in their choice of leadership hopefuls,in terms of quality that is.
But we need to pay some attention to some of the rhetoric currently issuing from Kellie Leitch's corner.Specifically,she's asking if we should be screening immigrants for"anti-Canadian values".A politically fashionable,if not altogether politically correct question.And one that in 2016 is likely to gain a lot of political traction.
The problem with this question is that it's really pandering to populist views in a rather simplistic manner.Conservatives will ultimately be the ones to decide what constitutes policy in regards to this question.And perhaps they have a better understanding of the issue,being as they are more politically active and astute than the average Canadian.It's up to them to decide how to answer this question in a way that allows them to be as politically relevant to voters at large as they can be.The goal,after all is to get elected,whether led by Kellie Leitch or someone else.
But how will Conservatives define "Anti-Canadian values" in today's world? Most likely by looking to the south.Most likely by identifying populations who are predominately Muslim,as has been the fashion since 9/11.,as those most likely to offend our sense of values.
What exactly are Canadian values.Democracy?Liberalism? Multi-culturalism? Those would be some of the ones that most readily come to my mind,but there are others as well.The problem is that Canada is a very large country,and even those expressed values don't take the same form in every region,relative to every other region.That is no more true than in the realm of politics.For instance,the Province Of Alberta is culturally,and politically until just recently,very conservative.The Province Of Ontario is not.So,I tend to get a bit uncomfortable about the idea of conservatives defining "Canadian values" And I'm certain that conservatives feel likewise about liberals.Moreover,the bulk of the population of Canada resides in Ontario and Quebec and,consequently so does the voting power.There could thus be a regional bias in determining normal values.And,it should be noted,the regions farthest from those two provinces tend to be the regions most diverse in the values they hold.That is to mention nothing of the fact that we have over thirty million people living here,none of whom are going to see Canadian values in exactly the same way,even assuming a general sort of agreement on those values in a macro sense.
We really have no means to define Canadian values.Thus we have no truly definitive way of identifying "Anti-Canadian" values and applying them to immigrants.Is the ideal immigrant Christian? Surely not,at least in terms of necessity.Does the ideal immigrant hold secular views,to the exclusion of religious beliefs of any sort? Does modesty sufficiently offend Canadian values as to disqualify a would be immigrant? That question seems downright silly to me,but one only has to look at what's been going on in France of late.Should immigrants be liberal or conservative? I'm sure Kellie Leitch has her own way of answering that question,in a very broad sense,but should that answer ever impose a restriction on public policy to the point of denying some persons immigration status,while denying others the same? And of course that coin has two sides.How often have we heard that Liberal policy in this regard being criticized as vote stacking?
As far as immigrants are concerned we should be concerned that they are willing to be fully participating members of Canadian society,given that our society functions with a lot of division between us at times.That is not only implied by the term "Democracy",but it is also implied as being alright and even necessary to a well functioning democracy. Further,we should be concerned that would be immigrants will follow Rule Of Law in the Canadian sense.This may have to be explained to new Canadians,but I see no need to define certain values on immigrants apart from already existing laws.
In proposing this question,Kellie Leitch doesn't seem to be proposing particular values.But we can speculate that she is asking for permission to follow the lead of conservatives in other places regarding policy.And it should be pointed out,this pandering is taking place with very little risk to any given candidate.After all,there will be plenty of time for conservatives here to watch what has at times been a dog and pony show with respect to immigration going on south of our border,and to improve on that process.
I would much rather Kellie Leitch involve herself in a meaningful debate as to what exactly Canadian values are,or should be,than proposing restrictions on immigration based on conformity to ideals that we can presently only guess at,and will likely change in relation to their perceived value in terms of forming the next government.
blyndpapaya
Friday, 2 September 2016
Thursday, 1 September 2016
Are you ready for some football?
Speaking of fall,are you ready for some football?I sure am. Cornhuskers on Saturday.Packers on Sunday.
But there is an ongoing outrage in the NFL,and it's time it was resolved once and for all.It involves the team in Washington D.C.that I refuse to call by the name that owner Dan Snyder insists on using despite pressure to mend his ways.It's time the NFL either brings Snyder into line,or relives him of his franchise and manages it on his behalf. Neither tradition nor just plain stubbornness on the owner's,or fan's part is sufficient reason to continue with this racist name.
Washington is perhaps not the only team that should change it's team name.There are teams out there called The Black Hawks,The Seminoles,The Ragin' Cajuns,The Mohawks,The Utes,The Aztecs,The Fighting Irish and The Chippawas,among others.A few years back I was living in Calgary, Alberta.Western High School changed their long standing name,The Redmen,in favor of doing the right thing.I commended them then and I continue to hold them up as an example today.It's a shame one of the more storied franchises has to be beaten to the punch by a high school team in Western Canada,but,when you have a neanderthal for an owner...It's time to lay down the ego.
Most of the comments I've heard on this long running issue tend to focus on team names like The Braves,The Chiefs,or,of course The...oops,I said I wouldn't honor that name with a mention,so I won't.I have never heard much complaint about the Seminoles,for instance.That may be that I'm not a local of Florida and am not really up on the issue,or it may be that there is nothing as offensive about using that name as opposed to the one used in Washington,which is clearly a racial slur,and,as a word,has never existed to any other purpose.So,I wonder,would it be acceptable if Washington were to name their team after a particular tribe of the region,who could be portrayed in an honorable and historically significant way? That does seem slightly exploitative to my thinking,but perhaps it would be acceptable if some means of improving the lot of that particular tribe could be tied to team revenues.
All of that aside,however,the R word needs to go.In fact,notwithstanding the great wrong done to Americans of African decent,it's a worse word that the more famously offensive N word.Don't misquote me here,I'm not suggesting you should use the N word.Certainly were it up to me I would gladly cause it to cease to exist.I do note however,that the N word has,at different points in history,and in different contexts existed with a less offensive meaning than it currently does.For instance,some Africans have undertaken efforts to take ownership of,and re-define the use of that particular word. Nothing of a similar nature can be said of Mr.Snyder's R word-it is and always has been derogatory,a means of inciting fear and hatred,and has never in the history of it's usage been anything other that racist.Except,it is argued by some in the context of it's usage as the team name in Washington.But,if you could not,and should not name a team,The N-----S,you likewise cannot rightly continue to use any other purely racist name.
There really is no such thing as practicing racism,or indeed any other form of discrimination solely against one race.Discrimination can really only be an affront to all of humanity.It is just simply discrimination,always wrong,always requiring correction.In fact,it dehumanizes it's practitioners as well as those against whom it is being undertaken.
Every year I take a good look at every NFL team,as many true fans do.In the past I've looked at the team in Washington and thought they really should do better than they usually seem to.Having once been involved in coaching football,in a rather minor capacity,I often suspect a problem of organizational culture when a team continues to under perform year after year despite having decent talent.And I wonder if that is not what has been happening in Washington.The attitude starts at the top,or,at least accountability for the attitude should.It rolls downhill like you know full well what else does until everyone from the coaches,to the star players to the maintenance staff really don't want to be there,and consequently don't put in the effort anymore. Nobody usually says much when this is happening,but it can become the malignant reality just the same.
A few days ago,Colin Kaepernick decided to protest by sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem.I wonder if the ongoing atrocity in Washington figures in even some small way to the stand he took.And to be clear,I would not have pursued similar action to Kaepernick.However I continue to commend him for taking an unpopular stand.But it's time some others did likewise.So,if Dan Snyder is determined to be the next Marg Schotz,the NFL needs to step up and follow MLB's lead in that respect.Somebody stand up and right this wrong,because it continues to cheapen a game that many of us hold dear
blyndpapaya.
But there is an ongoing outrage in the NFL,and it's time it was resolved once and for all.It involves the team in Washington D.C.that I refuse to call by the name that owner Dan Snyder insists on using despite pressure to mend his ways.It's time the NFL either brings Snyder into line,or relives him of his franchise and manages it on his behalf. Neither tradition nor just plain stubbornness on the owner's,or fan's part is sufficient reason to continue with this racist name.
Washington is perhaps not the only team that should change it's team name.There are teams out there called The Black Hawks,The Seminoles,The Ragin' Cajuns,The Mohawks,The Utes,The Aztecs,The Fighting Irish and The Chippawas,among others.A few years back I was living in Calgary, Alberta.Western High School changed their long standing name,The Redmen,in favor of doing the right thing.I commended them then and I continue to hold them up as an example today.It's a shame one of the more storied franchises has to be beaten to the punch by a high school team in Western Canada,but,when you have a neanderthal for an owner...It's time to lay down the ego.
Most of the comments I've heard on this long running issue tend to focus on team names like The Braves,The Chiefs,or,of course The...oops,I said I wouldn't honor that name with a mention,so I won't.I have never heard much complaint about the Seminoles,for instance.That may be that I'm not a local of Florida and am not really up on the issue,or it may be that there is nothing as offensive about using that name as opposed to the one used in Washington,which is clearly a racial slur,and,as a word,has never existed to any other purpose.So,I wonder,would it be acceptable if Washington were to name their team after a particular tribe of the region,who could be portrayed in an honorable and historically significant way? That does seem slightly exploitative to my thinking,but perhaps it would be acceptable if some means of improving the lot of that particular tribe could be tied to team revenues.
All of that aside,however,the R word needs to go.In fact,notwithstanding the great wrong done to Americans of African decent,it's a worse word that the more famously offensive N word.Don't misquote me here,I'm not suggesting you should use the N word.Certainly were it up to me I would gladly cause it to cease to exist.I do note however,that the N word has,at different points in history,and in different contexts existed with a less offensive meaning than it currently does.For instance,some Africans have undertaken efforts to take ownership of,and re-define the use of that particular word. Nothing of a similar nature can be said of Mr.Snyder's R word-it is and always has been derogatory,a means of inciting fear and hatred,and has never in the history of it's usage been anything other that racist.Except,it is argued by some in the context of it's usage as the team name in Washington.But,if you could not,and should not name a team,The N-----S,you likewise cannot rightly continue to use any other purely racist name.
There really is no such thing as practicing racism,or indeed any other form of discrimination solely against one race.Discrimination can really only be an affront to all of humanity.It is just simply discrimination,always wrong,always requiring correction.In fact,it dehumanizes it's practitioners as well as those against whom it is being undertaken.
Every year I take a good look at every NFL team,as many true fans do.In the past I've looked at the team in Washington and thought they really should do better than they usually seem to.Having once been involved in coaching football,in a rather minor capacity,I often suspect a problem of organizational culture when a team continues to under perform year after year despite having decent talent.And I wonder if that is not what has been happening in Washington.The attitude starts at the top,or,at least accountability for the attitude should.It rolls downhill like you know full well what else does until everyone from the coaches,to the star players to the maintenance staff really don't want to be there,and consequently don't put in the effort anymore. Nobody usually says much when this is happening,but it can become the malignant reality just the same.
A few days ago,Colin Kaepernick decided to protest by sitting down during the playing of the National Anthem.I wonder if the ongoing atrocity in Washington figures in even some small way to the stand he took.And to be clear,I would not have pursued similar action to Kaepernick.However I continue to commend him for taking an unpopular stand.But it's time some others did likewise.So,if Dan Snyder is determined to be the next Marg Schotz,the NFL needs to step up and follow MLB's lead in that respect.Somebody stand up and right this wrong,because it continues to cheapen a game that many of us hold dear
blyndpapaya.
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Will this be the year?
Well,here it is,just before Labor Day.In a few short days kids will be back in school,if they are not already.So will this be the year that children are instructed in how to think,rather than just what to think? I'm talking about older children for the most part.Obviously a great deal more of the answers in the younger grades are of the simple right or wrong variety.There is only one right way to spell cat or to add two and two.But it's not really too early to begin instruction in basic logic.
To the best of my knowledge,this is the first time in my blogging career that I've ever recommended a book.But Normand Baillargeon's book A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense is a must read for any learner.When I first encountered the book,about eight years ago I wondered why I'd ever gotten out of Junior high school without encountering something similar too it.Certainly by the time I reached college I had professors who expected that I would have already acquired the skills that are so well laid out in this book.In short,it teaches readers how to think.How to recognize and avoid errors in logic and how statistics can be manipulated.It's aimed at those seeking a means of not falling for everything being presented by today's media or politicians and,as such has a pronounced political angle.But you need not be a savvy political observer to put this book to good use.It's well presented and simple enough for the average grade eight reader to understand and apply,and is not long and drawn out,so it does not demand a long attention span.Yet it outlines skills every learner needs.
Here in the province of Ontario,the sex education curriculum is back in the news.Last school year saw some parents,particularly Muslim parents opt out of having this subject taught to their children.Sex is,and most likely always will be a controversial,but necessary area of instruction.And,unless things have drastically changed since my school days,it's hardly the only source of controversy in school.My school days may be somewhat unique in that I had a gentleman named Malcom Ross for eighth grade history.That name will be familiar,if not notorious to many Canadians,as someone who denies or at least downplays the Holocaust.That was a bit after my time,but I was nonetheless presented by views in his class that generated a lot of disagreement.I truly wish I'd had a book to assist me in staying ahead of him,and others in terms of defending my own thoughts intellectually.
So,when you send your teen aged children off to school next week,take the time to slip a copy of A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense into their new back packs.And discuss it with them.This book will serve them as well ten years from now as it does today.Until there is a real commitment to teach them how to think...
To the best of my knowledge,this is the first time in my blogging career that I've ever recommended a book.But Normand Baillargeon's book A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense is a must read for any learner.When I first encountered the book,about eight years ago I wondered why I'd ever gotten out of Junior high school without encountering something similar too it.Certainly by the time I reached college I had professors who expected that I would have already acquired the skills that are so well laid out in this book.In short,it teaches readers how to think.How to recognize and avoid errors in logic and how statistics can be manipulated.It's aimed at those seeking a means of not falling for everything being presented by today's media or politicians and,as such has a pronounced political angle.But you need not be a savvy political observer to put this book to good use.It's well presented and simple enough for the average grade eight reader to understand and apply,and is not long and drawn out,so it does not demand a long attention span.Yet it outlines skills every learner needs.
Here in the province of Ontario,the sex education curriculum is back in the news.Last school year saw some parents,particularly Muslim parents opt out of having this subject taught to their children.Sex is,and most likely always will be a controversial,but necessary area of instruction.And,unless things have drastically changed since my school days,it's hardly the only source of controversy in school.My school days may be somewhat unique in that I had a gentleman named Malcom Ross for eighth grade history.That name will be familiar,if not notorious to many Canadians,as someone who denies or at least downplays the Holocaust.That was a bit after my time,but I was nonetheless presented by views in his class that generated a lot of disagreement.I truly wish I'd had a book to assist me in staying ahead of him,and others in terms of defending my own thoughts intellectually.
So,when you send your teen aged children off to school next week,take the time to slip a copy of A Short Course In Intellectual Self Defense into their new back packs.And discuss it with them.This book will serve them as well ten years from now as it does today.Until there is a real commitment to teach them how to think...
Monday, 29 August 2016
I won't stand for it.
It's almost Labor Day and that means summer is nearly gone.Time to get back to school.Time for football season to start.Time to write about-what else,education and football.
Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick,he has a conscience.He uses his position to speak his mind,on behalf of people who lack that ability.Colin Kaepernick is the backup quarterback for the San Francisco Forty Niners and,this season he has been sitting as the National Anthem was being played prior to team games.He says it's in protest of living in a country that discriminates on the basis of race,that oppresses black people.Let's be clear,Colin Kaepernick has the right,as do all Americans to express opinions others may find offensive.He is not insulting the Military,or the powers that be,or the establishment,or people of any identifiable race.He is stating a strongly held,which may cost him,as conscientious views often do.And he is willing to take a stand.Far better than saying nothing,because,in case you haven't noticed,America is deeply dysfunctional.So,when a professional athlete takes his position of role model seriously,he is to be commended,not vilified.
Colin Kaepernick is not the first football player to take a stand.The late,great Reggie White took a stand for Christ.His onetime team mate with the Philadelphia Eagles once took a stand against the KKK.Ricky Williams took a stand too,of sorts.He decided to stand for marijuana,rather than football.Taking a stand is not all that unusual.
Perhaps the most memorable stand taken by a pro football player was that taken a few years ago by Pat Tillman.Pat Tillman was a defensive back with the Arizona Cardinals.Following the 9/11 attacks,he decided that he could not in good faith continue to play football while others went overseas to fight The War On Terror.So he enlisted and was sent to Iraq,where he made the supreme sacrifice.And I honor that sacrifice.He's the only pro football player that I'm aware of who lived out his belief to the point of dying for it.Pat Tillman joined a long list of Americans who fought and died to defend the rights of Colin Kaepernick to take his stand.
Kaepernick's stand is a bit different from Pat Tillman's.But if Tillman's actions are to be fully appreciated,and not wasted,we have to accept Kaepernick's actions as well.Otherwise,sacrifice is meaningless.I believe,Colin Kaepernick loves his country. I've never heard him say otherwise despite his not standing at attention for the National Anthem.He is on record as saying there is a particular aspect of society that he does not wish to honor,and whether you agree that such is the case in America today,or differ with him on how to deal with that reality,he should not honor that which is wrong.So Colin Kaepernick is trying to be part of the solution.I can't say I would have approached this issue in the same way.And I equally believe that those who choose to demonstrate their patriotism by standing,hand over heart when The National Anthem is being played,love their country.But,if you love your country,you need to encourage it to be the very best that it can be.Is that not what Colin Kaepernick is doing?
blyndpapaya
Say what you will about Colin Kaepernick,he has a conscience.He uses his position to speak his mind,on behalf of people who lack that ability.Colin Kaepernick is the backup quarterback for the San Francisco Forty Niners and,this season he has been sitting as the National Anthem was being played prior to team games.He says it's in protest of living in a country that discriminates on the basis of race,that oppresses black people.Let's be clear,Colin Kaepernick has the right,as do all Americans to express opinions others may find offensive.He is not insulting the Military,or the powers that be,or the establishment,or people of any identifiable race.He is stating a strongly held,which may cost him,as conscientious views often do.And he is willing to take a stand.Far better than saying nothing,because,in case you haven't noticed,America is deeply dysfunctional.So,when a professional athlete takes his position of role model seriously,he is to be commended,not vilified.
Colin Kaepernick is not the first football player to take a stand.The late,great Reggie White took a stand for Christ.His onetime team mate with the Philadelphia Eagles once took a stand against the KKK.Ricky Williams took a stand too,of sorts.He decided to stand for marijuana,rather than football.Taking a stand is not all that unusual.
Perhaps the most memorable stand taken by a pro football player was that taken a few years ago by Pat Tillman.Pat Tillman was a defensive back with the Arizona Cardinals.Following the 9/11 attacks,he decided that he could not in good faith continue to play football while others went overseas to fight The War On Terror.So he enlisted and was sent to Iraq,where he made the supreme sacrifice.And I honor that sacrifice.He's the only pro football player that I'm aware of who lived out his belief to the point of dying for it.Pat Tillman joined a long list of Americans who fought and died to defend the rights of Colin Kaepernick to take his stand.
Kaepernick's stand is a bit different from Pat Tillman's.But if Tillman's actions are to be fully appreciated,and not wasted,we have to accept Kaepernick's actions as well.Otherwise,sacrifice is meaningless.I believe,Colin Kaepernick loves his country. I've never heard him say otherwise despite his not standing at attention for the National Anthem.He is on record as saying there is a particular aspect of society that he does not wish to honor,and whether you agree that such is the case in America today,or differ with him on how to deal with that reality,he should not honor that which is wrong.So Colin Kaepernick is trying to be part of the solution.I can't say I would have approached this issue in the same way.And I equally believe that those who choose to demonstrate their patriotism by standing,hand over heart when The National Anthem is being played,love their country.But,if you love your country,you need to encourage it to be the very best that it can be.Is that not what Colin Kaepernick is doing?
blyndpapaya
Friday, 26 August 2016
"StopWhitePeople2K16.
There are times I'd like to be a fly on the wall.I'd like to find out about something which wouldn't ordinarily be available be available to me and which the media doesn't seem to sufficiently explain.At least not yet.Such a time and place would be in the Binghamton,New York university that is offering a training course to it's residential assistants called "StopWhitePeople2k16.Because I'm not at all certain what is being undertaken here,but the title alone invites one to imagine some rather unpalatable things.Perhaps the days to come will make thing more clear.I would hope that would be the case,because when you describe something in what seems to be racially provocative language,a fuller explanation is in order.
Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.
But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.
Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.
Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.
Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.
Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.
blyndpapaya
Briefly this course is described as having to do with "race" and "privilege"presumably that would be in the context of the undertaking of one's duties as a residential assistant,that is within the residences of the college.So can I assume that this instructs residential assistants on how to intervene in potential racial disputes with sensitivity? Because there doesn't seem to be anything especially inappropriate about that.In fact,if that's all it were,most Police Departments,and in fact most organizations of any sort would benefit from such instruction,as would society at large.
But there would seem to be a political shadow lurking over this course.First,there is the mention of privilege,which may logically imply to reasonably minded people that what is being discussed is in fact white privilege,however that is being described.At this point I would ask just how applicable the idea of white privilege would be within the context of a state university.While I'm certain that there are racial divisions,state colleges,in my experience have generally been attended by middle class and even lower income people of all races.Moreover,they seem to be more liberally minded academically and socially than their private counterparts,though there are exceptions.So,in the context of CUNY Binghamton,is white privilege being identified as a problem,or as THE problem? Is it an assertion of "fact" that racial minorities are being disadvantaged or even abused by a group,namely white people,who cannot experience racism by virtue of some imagined privilege? And if so,is it proposing some particular kind of response in terms of social engineering? I really wish State University Of New York would provide a more complete explanation.And I emphasize here,they are a state funded institution, so some accountability is in order.
Among the questions I have are,what is it you are proposing to stop white people from doing? Without a clearer explanation I can accept this only as provocation.If stopping white people means stopping them from abusing the rights of others on the basis of race,sexual orientation,language,religion or any of the other criteria of human rights,or reasonable university policy,I'm all in.I just wish I knew,as a white person,what it is that this particular institution was requiring of me.Because my basic orientation is to treat humans,of any description as humans deserving of respect.I look at as basic interpersonal courtesy and wonder why such things need to be regulated.
Further,I'm wondering what will be the outcome of residential assistants having such training.How will it effect everyday campus life,and how will that be different than in the past,before the advent of such a course.Again that's a matter of accountability.
Looking at the actual title of the course,a rather cynical thought occurred to me.I tend not to be cynical in everyday life,but it's a shoe that fits rather well when I write op ed.It may even be necessary given the current nature of society.But,in any event,it's crossed my mind that such provocation might well be a response to the current top down debate among those wanting to be American leaders. Why call it 2K16 unless you were intending to associate it with the current electoral cycle? Surely addressing race issues would have virtue in any given year.In that sense,it could mean stopping would be leaders who have long records of racially charged speech,in the attempt to gain public confidence and,thus,public office.Those people,whom I am content not to name for the purposes of this discussion could hardly be misidentified given their current profiles,and I do not limit them in partisan terms.Nor are they limited solely to those seeking highest office.It seems a clever,if perhaps unintended negative response to those trying to rack up political points on the backs of those just trying to get by,educate themselves,and who could do so much more effectively and peacefully without creating a greater problem.And that applies to all races.It is important to consider how one's actions on the biggest stage there is will effect a society already struggling with racial issues.
Finally,I simply encourage State University Of New York to step up and explain themselves.Be part of a solution,not an exacerbation of current problems.Because it may be that I have things all wrong.But that's in the context of a rather thin explanation at this point.
blyndpapaya
Wednesday, 24 August 2016
What is Laurella Willis apologizing for?
Laurella Willis has been busy parading about the South Side of Chicago carrying a sign that says"Black America,I'm Sorry." I'm a bit unsure as to what it is she is sorry for.The video of her strolling about is a bit vague on that matter.It says she's apologizing for everything going on in America Today." And while I cannot deny that America seems to be living out an ongoing tragedy in terms of race relations,I'm not certain that Laurella Willis,or anyone else should be apologizing for everything and anything.I do salute her initiative,I do believe it's intended to add something positive to all that's going on today but not everything demands an apology from everyone.
America has a tragic history with race relations from African slavery to Jim Crow.to the attempted genocide of Native Americans.It continues today with the numbers of African American men being incarcerated,or even killed before due process is allowed to follow it's intended course.And for that we should all be profoundly sorry.So it's hard not to get behind Laurella Willis when she steps up.So far she's been walking about twenty miles everyday.The video does show mostly positive reactions from the black people she meets,though one does ask her what she's sorry for.
I'm wondering,specifically if Laurella Willis is apologizing for being white,and ,if so is she doing so for white people collectively.If so,I must say she does not speak for me.Let me just say,I am not ashamed of being white.I have not owned slaves,nor has my family going back in history.I have and always will support human and civil rights.I will regard any and all people without respect to their racial background.And if I am not doing so,I am receptive to having this pointed out to me because we all hold sub-conscious attitudes that are usually less than flattering.So in short.I will not apologize for being white,nor do I accept anyone else doing so on my behalf,or anyone's contention that I should provide such an apology.Now,I should note that I have,in the past,when I was possessed of much less maturity than I am now,done and said things which were not altogether right,in terms of race relations.I have,for instance,used the N word,and for that I should be,and am sorry.But this idea that we need to apologize for past wrongs committed by generations long gone is stopping anyone from moving forward.
Behavior is what may demand apology.But ones existence does not.But then again behavior may be changed with the diligent efforts of all people,without regard to race,or any other aspect of an individual's or community's existence. So,develop a good value system in relating to others.It's called respect.It needs to be accorded to all people without exception.Apologize when it's called for,but not when it is not.Apologize for unacceptable behavior,then get on with life.It's called repentance.And we all have a ton of things to repent of.
I wonder how black people feel when they encounter Laurella Willis.I don't really know and I don't want to attribute any one sort of thought to all.I would think that there would be a wide range of different reactions,and indeed,that is viable when you see Laurella's video.But I can make note of how I would regard someone doing something similar to me.And again,I'm not black.But were a black person apologizing to me in such a general way for,say high crime rates or the fact that certain communities are not safe,I would have two distinct reactions.First,I would tent to be embarrassed that some well meaning person might think that such an apology was necessary or even demanded.And,to a somewhat lesser degree,I would feel that it was just possible that I was being patronized.Neither reaction is especially helpful in moving forward with the hard work of improving race relations today.
What is needed today cannot be accomplished by means of general,non specific and uncertain apologies.There is a certain counterproductive political correctness to Ms.Willis actions,and that is limiting debate on a great many painful things that must be discussed if we are to leave our children with a better state of race relations than we now have.We need to ask hard questions like how do we combat gang violence,how do we insure better outcomes between black people and police,and why do we see such high rates of incarceration among young black males.We need to take on open expressions of racism too,wherever we find them,be they from the man in the street or our would be leaders.First we need to agree among ourselves that we are going to commit to these discussions with honesty and with respect to those who are not like us and who have very different experiences than we do.Then we need to get on with life and believe that we can make that life better,unapologeticly.
blyndpapaya
America has a tragic history with race relations from African slavery to Jim Crow.to the attempted genocide of Native Americans.It continues today with the numbers of African American men being incarcerated,or even killed before due process is allowed to follow it's intended course.And for that we should all be profoundly sorry.So it's hard not to get behind Laurella Willis when she steps up.So far she's been walking about twenty miles everyday.The video does show mostly positive reactions from the black people she meets,though one does ask her what she's sorry for.
I'm wondering,specifically if Laurella Willis is apologizing for being white,and ,if so is she doing so for white people collectively.If so,I must say she does not speak for me.Let me just say,I am not ashamed of being white.I have not owned slaves,nor has my family going back in history.I have and always will support human and civil rights.I will regard any and all people without respect to their racial background.And if I am not doing so,I am receptive to having this pointed out to me because we all hold sub-conscious attitudes that are usually less than flattering.So in short.I will not apologize for being white,nor do I accept anyone else doing so on my behalf,or anyone's contention that I should provide such an apology.Now,I should note that I have,in the past,when I was possessed of much less maturity than I am now,done and said things which were not altogether right,in terms of race relations.I have,for instance,used the N word,and for that I should be,and am sorry.But this idea that we need to apologize for past wrongs committed by generations long gone is stopping anyone from moving forward.
Behavior is what may demand apology.But ones existence does not.But then again behavior may be changed with the diligent efforts of all people,without regard to race,or any other aspect of an individual's or community's existence. So,develop a good value system in relating to others.It's called respect.It needs to be accorded to all people without exception.Apologize when it's called for,but not when it is not.Apologize for unacceptable behavior,then get on with life.It's called repentance.And we all have a ton of things to repent of.
I wonder how black people feel when they encounter Laurella Willis.I don't really know and I don't want to attribute any one sort of thought to all.I would think that there would be a wide range of different reactions,and indeed,that is viable when you see Laurella's video.But I can make note of how I would regard someone doing something similar to me.And again,I'm not black.But were a black person apologizing to me in such a general way for,say high crime rates or the fact that certain communities are not safe,I would have two distinct reactions.First,I would tent to be embarrassed that some well meaning person might think that such an apology was necessary or even demanded.And,to a somewhat lesser degree,I would feel that it was just possible that I was being patronized.Neither reaction is especially helpful in moving forward with the hard work of improving race relations today.
What is needed today cannot be accomplished by means of general,non specific and uncertain apologies.There is a certain counterproductive political correctness to Ms.Willis actions,and that is limiting debate on a great many painful things that must be discussed if we are to leave our children with a better state of race relations than we now have.We need to ask hard questions like how do we combat gang violence,how do we insure better outcomes between black people and police,and why do we see such high rates of incarceration among young black males.We need to take on open expressions of racism too,wherever we find them,be they from the man in the street or our would be leaders.First we need to agree among ourselves that we are going to commit to these discussions with honesty and with respect to those who are not like us and who have very different experiences than we do.Then we need to get on with life and believe that we can make that life better,unapologeticly.
blyndpapaya
Water For Pigs
It's true that no good deed goes unpunished.Some time last year Anita Krajnc,a human rights activist had a run in with a couple of truck drivers who were transporting pigs to a slaughterhouse west of Toronto. While the truck was stopped,Ms.Krajnc gave a drink of water to some of the pigs.For her trouble,the owner of those pigs had Ms.Krajnc charged.He objected to anyone touching his belongings.The case comes to court today.
Ms.Krajnc's politics are not my politics.While I do believe animals,including the pigs in question should be treated humanely, I have no problem at all eating pork,or any other meat product,though I do try to purchase meat that is ethically raised and slaughtered.By that I mean that I will not purchase meat if I know it's been raised in inhumane conditions,and I trust our agriculture authorities to ensure that it is.Perhaps that's not enough for some people.Generally I believe certain animals were intended to feed us.
Having said all that,I also have no problem with someone giving water to pigs,or any other sort of animal,and I wonder why the courts are being used to convict this woman,at the expense of taxpayers.Obviously,one would suspect that there were some basis for charging this women,or the police would not have done so.But I'm very curious as to what she did that is so wrong.Was any damage done to these animals as a result of the simple kindness offered by Ms.Krajnc? I fail to see how.It seems as though there is some history here.Something of a difference in ideology between Ms.Krajnc and the owner of these animals.There would seem to be a matter of dissent about business as usual.So,if that's true,I'm not surprised to see the law coming down hard on Ms.Krajnc.There is a price to dissent.
Property rights are not supposed to be absolute.That's especially so when you count as your property things which may incur suffering as a result of not being properly handled.Pigs are certainly not persons and therefor do not have the same rights as persons.Neither are they machines or some other class of inanimate object.You are therefor not free to do with them as you might like,without regard for their well being.And there is no real indication,so far as I've been able to determine that these pigs were being mishandled,though it was a hot day and it would be reasonable to think that they welcomed a cool drink of water. If these animals had been dogs found locked in a hot car we would now be applauding any effort made on their behalf,up to and including breaking a window to relieve their distress.And I'm all in on that one.Yet Anita Krajnc finds herself charged for undertaking an action that saw no damage done.Where is the sense in that? Why should the courts be using as much as one cent of tax dollars to prosecute a person for providing a simple kindness? Is winning that one point in a war between animal rights activists and the meat industry so important that we must spare no help to business? I guess some people feel that there is a point to be proven here,but I fail to see what exactly that point is or why it matters.From my perspective the incident in question was win win.A few pigs were provided with a comfort they would not otherwise have had on their way to be slaughtered.No harm,no foul.There was no attempt to stop that slaughter and indeed those pigs went on their way and inured no loss of value.So do the right thing.Leave Anita Krajnc alone. Stop using my tax money on pointless prosecution.
blyndpapaya
blyndpapaya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)