Gerald Butts stokes the fires of racism
- Thread starter Metaxa
- Start date
Metaxa, you are confused. Gerald isn't stoking the fires of racism - that is the kind of thing Trump does - he is doing the exact opposite! He is considering how race gives the white intruder privilege that wouldn't be offered to a Black, Indigenous or Muslim intruder.
Just the simple fact that Gerald Butts brought up the comparison to other ethnicities gives the impression he was trying to "stoke the fires of racism"
Please explain to me more about this so-called "white privilege."
I am curious...Does toting the line that white people automatically have "privilege," due to nothing more than their phenotype expression, actually help anything? Or does it only cause further tension and division?
Isn't bringing up "white privilege", in of itself, a form of expressing white supremacy? Hey, some people are literally saying white people have magical powers over others by claiming white people automatically have "privilege" and can't ever experience racism themselves
The way I see it, when people make claims that white people have a super power in the form of "privilege" that is racism in its purest form!
IMO..nothing screams "privilege" more than ignorant people, especially white privileged liberals, who have lead sheltered lives who don't understand the true struggle many other humans have to endure these days, regardless of their "race". But they jump on the social justice bandwagon in order to feel a sense of belonging while getting power drunk off of virtue signalling.
Last edited:
Can we all just grow up the fuck up and stop looking at others through a racial lens?
If anyone has taken any introductory biology classes, you should know humans have very limited genetic differences. What you see on the surface is nothing but a difference in phenotype expression.
Stop contributing to a race/civil war.
If anyone has taken any introductory biology classes, you should know humans have very limited genetic differences. What you see on the surface is nothing but a difference in phenotype expression.
Stop contributing to a race/civil war.
Stoking the fires of racism is en vogue these days.
Grow up and do some critical thinking, or jump blindly on the bandwagon. YOUR CHOICE.
Grow up and do some critical thinking, or jump blindly on the bandwagon. YOUR CHOICE.
Miss Hunter, Take a simple look at the disparity between the socioeconomic outcomes of white people and poc. Or outcomes of interactions with police. Or sentencing. Or health. Or education.
You are a student of Psychology, why don't you look at the small group studies on the influence of race on influencing decision making (or conduct your own?). You can do the same for gender.
Then we can talk about race and gender as a social constructs with real world influence. The evidence is overwhelming and undisputable. Is it really just coincidental that white men have the best socioeconomic outcomes, best experiences with police, the courts and the most influence in decision making whether it be at the political level, the corporate level or in small groups?
Disproportionate outcomes does not necessarily provide evidence of discrimination - why can't people understand such a simple concept??? Nursing is still a predominantly female dominated profession - no one would ever conclude that nursing is a sexist profession. The proportion of nurses that are female does not comport to the proportion of females in the general population, that's just an observation. Now, why is it that more females are nurses than males - I haven't the faintest idea. That said, that particular outcome (I would imagine) was based on people making individual choices - i.e. individuals wanting to become nurses, leading to them choosing to go to college/uni to study Nursing, etc., etc., etc. No one is stopping men from making those exact same choices nor should our health authorities hire more male nurses to achieve some "optimal" ratio based on the general population to make you feel better about "pseudo equality."
Income is no different. Here are some disparities that are observed (granted it's been over a decade since I researched this stuff so my stats may be somewhat outdated). Approaching 50% - the proportion of Canadians with some sort of post-secondary education. Less than 15% - the proportion of First Nations/aboriginal people with some sort of post-secondary education. Is it that surprising that a First Nations/aboriginal person in Canada earns about 33% less than the average Canadian, given these two observations???. An unequal outcome yes - but that is not necessarily racism. Now, as far I know, K-12 education in this country is still free - how one does throughout the K-12 system will determine if one can proceed onto college/uni, to get the education/skills/certification to get higher paying jobs. But no one is going to give that to you - you have to want it and make the appropriate choices.
Racism exists, but pointing out observations about "unequal" outcomes are not evidence of racism.
And what white privilege was enjoyed by the intruder?
Why is Butt’s saying the story would be framed differently when the article he is referring to was written before anyone knew the perp’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference etc?
And if Trump started a tweet with “Fellow white people” how would Butt’s and his ilk react?
Why did Butt’s stay silent on blackface/brownface?
Last edited:
You obviously aren’t familiar with the timing. At the time the article Butt’s is referring to was written no one, including Mercedes Stephenson, knew the perp’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference etc. So what was his point?
Last edited:
And if everyone thought that way, you'd have a point. The point that's being raised is many people do not think that way. And the way they do think puts people of minorities at a disadvantage based on this very characteristic, which you and I would agree is arbitrary.
You seem to take offence to the term "white privilege". It does not mean white people have a life relatively free of strife. It means white people are not broadly subject to this particular arbitrary bias.
Object to the term used to describe it if you want, but I would hope you're observant enough to recognise the bias against non-white people is real and systematically pervasive in Western society.
So is the solution that extreme white privilege (Gerald Butts, not to mention his bff JT) be able to call out white privilege, where none exists, with impunity in the interests of garnering votes? Because hey, they are progressive dudes?
People stop paying attention when the messenger is crying wolf before he knows if there ever was one.
I would think he was reflecting on the inconsistent treatment of detainees for the same (or worse) crimes. The most extreme example that comes to mind is the peaceful takedown of Dylan Roof where the cops reportedly even stopped to get him Burger King on the way to his being booked for multiple homicides.
Butts' point might've been better received if he had juxtaposed this incident with an actual case of more aggressive treatment of a non-white person in a similar (or more benign) situation, rather than speculating about a hypothetical one.
There are flaws to your simplistic hypothetical argument. You are assigning with no evidence that individual choice is the determining factor for level of education without considering opportunity - education may be free, but a stable supportive environment to pursue education isn't.
And even once level of education is controlled, statistically white males enjoy better outcomes.
So maybe you need to be a little less like Donny and delve into doing some actual learning before lazily falling back on your 'common sense' explanations.
?Just the simple fact that Gerald Butts brought up the comparison to other ethnicities gives the impression he was trying to "stoke the fires of racism"
Please explain to me more about this so-called "white privilege."
I am curious...Does toting the line that white people automatically have "privilege," due to nothing more than their phenotype expression, actually help anything? Or does it only cause further tension and division?
Isn't bringing up "white privilege", in of itself, a form of expressing white supremacy? Hey, some people are literally saying white people have magical powers over others by claiming white people automatically have "privilege" and can't ever experience racism themselves
The way I see it, when people make claims that white people have a super power in the form of "privilege" that is racism in its purest form!
IMO..nothing screams "privilege" more than ignorant people, especially white privileged liberals, who have lead sheltered lives who don't understand the true struggle many other humans have to endure these days, regardless of their "race". But they jump on the social justice bandwagon in order to feel a sense of belonging while getting power drunk off of virtue signalling.
I don't even know what you mean by "stable supportive environment". In any event, the opportunity is the education, which you agree is free (at least as it relates to K-12 system). What one does with the opportunity IS up to the individual. Even "rich" people with every single opportunity imaginable can throw away all of those opportunities and royally screw up their lives - look at the bankruptcy rates of retired professional athletes (much higher than bankruptcy rates seen in the general population). Giving someone an opportunity is NOT (and never has been) a guarantee of a specific outcome. Hate to break it to you, but an individual can do everything "right" in life and still not get the outcome they desire/want - think about someone who works hard to become a doctor but can't pass the board exam or get into medical school, it happens. Given that even the "right" choices in life cannot guarantee ones desired outcome, that makes it even more important to not make the "wrong" choices in life.
You still don't get that disparity in outcomes does not necessarily provide evidence of discrimination. Here some more outcomes. 78% - the proportion of Canadians that complete high school. 83% - the proportion of Canadians that are visible minorities that complete high school. An unequal outcome - does that mean the high school system in Canada discriminates against non-visible minorities (i.e. white people)??? 60% - the proportion of Aboriginal Canadians that complete highschool. Does the highschool system in Canada both discriminate against non-visible minorities and Aboriginal Canadians??? Life is full of unequal outcomes - outcomes can be (and are often) a function of personal choice.
With all due respect with your assertion of me "lazily falling back...." I've researched these issues (granted decades ago), can you say the same? I'm quoting stats, whereas as you are using generalities like "stable supportive environment" and broad statements such as "white males enjoy better outcomes." You criticize those that would dispute your "generalities" - it's more like you are preaching your own religious doctrine rather than trying to logically demonstrate your point with, you know, facts and reasonable/logical explanations.
I was going to dispute this, but then I realized that no non-white male could ever get to be Prime Minister with the following credentials:
1. part time drama teacher
Or without these credentials:
1. last name is Trudeau
And no non-white male could ever keep the job with the following credentials:
1. I took the free vacation because the Aga Khan is a personal family friend
2. I interfered with the AGs discretion to prosecute and fired her to protect Quebec jobs
3. zero tolerance for sexual assault or even a hint of impropriety unless it’s me because hey, sometimes people experience things differently
4. costume parties in India
5. almost $1 billion to a non-profit that has paid my family and promoted me without any parliamentary over site or any accountability going forward until I’m caught again in a conflict of interest
The hilarious thing is the number of Trudeau supporters who criticize Trump supporters. Both Trump and Trudeau are silver spoon, lying, narcissistic hypocrites
In Canada, the dominant ideological presumption about social inequality is that everyone has an equal chance at success. This is the belief in equality of opportunity, which can be contrasted with the concept of equality of condition.
Here is a citation from an introductory sociology text explaining social inequality in Canada :
'When he died in 2008, Ted Rogers Jr., then CEO of Rogers Communications, was the fifth-wealthiest individual in Canada, holding assets worth $5.7 billion. In his autobiography (2008) he credited his success to a willingness to take risks, work hard, bend the rules, be on the constant look-out for opportunities, and be dedicated to building the business. In many respects, he saw himself as a self-made billionaire who started from scratch, seized opportunities, and created a business through his own initiative.
The story of Ted Rogers is not exactly a rags to riches one, however. His grandfather, Albert Rogers, was a director of Imperial Oil (Esso) and his father, Ted Sr., became wealthy when he invented an alternating current vacuum tube for radios in 1925. Ted Rogers Sr. went from this invention to manufacturing radios, owning a radio station, and acquiring a licence for TV broadcasting.
However, Ted Sr. died when Ted Jr. was five years old, and the family businesses were sold. His mother took Ted Jr. aside when he was eight and told him, “Ted, your business is to get the family name back” (Rogers, 2008). The family was still wealthy enough to send him to Upper Canada College, the famous private school that also educated the children from the Black, Eaton, Thompson, and Weston families. Ted seized the opportunity at Upper Canada to make money as a bookie, taking bets on horse racing from the other students. Then he attended Osgoode Hall Law School, where reportedly his secretary went to classes and took notes for him. He bought an early FM radio station when he was still in university and started in cable TV in the mid-1960s. By the time of his death, Rogers Communications was worth $25 billion. At that time just three families, the Rogers, Shaws, and Péladeaus, owned much of the cable service in Canada.
At the other end of the spectrum are the Aboriginal gang members in the Saskatchewan Correctional Centre who we discussed in Chapter 1 (CBC, 2010). The CBC program noted that 85 percent of the inmates in the prison were of Aboriginal descent, half of whom were involved in Aboriginal gangs. Moreover the statistical profile of Aboriginal youth in Saskatchewan is grim, with Aboriginal people making up the highest number of high school dropouts, domestic abuse victims, drug dependencies, and child poverty backgrounds. In some respects the Aboriginal gang members interviewed were like Ted Rogers in that they were willing to seize opportunities, take risks, bend rules, and apply themselves to their vocations. They too aspired to getting the money that would give them the freedom to make their own lives. However, as one of the inmates put it, “the only job I ever had was selling drugs” (CBC, 2010). The consequence of that was to fall into a lifestyle that led to joining a gang, being kicked out of school, developing issues with addiction, and eventually getting arrested and incarcerated. Unlike Ted Rogers, however, the inmate added, “I didn’t grow up with the best life” (CBC, 2010).
How do we make sense of the divergent stories? Canada is supposed to be a country in which individuals can work hard to get ahead. It is an “open” society. There are no formal or explicit class, gender, racial, ethnic, geographical, or other boundaries that prevent people from rising to the top. People are free to make choices. But does this adequately explain the difference in life chances that divide the fortunes of the Aboriginal youth from those of the Rogers family? What determines a person’s social standing? And how does social standing direct or limit a person’s choices?
The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) defined ones habitus as the deeply seated schemas, habits, feelings, dispositions, and forms of know-how that people hold due to their specific social backgrounds, cultures, and life experiences (1990). Bourdieu referred to it as ones “feel for the game,” to use a sports metaphor. Choices are perhaps always “free” in some formal sense, but they are also always situated within one’s habitus. The Aboriginal gang members display a certain amount of street smarts that enable them to survive and successfully navigate their world. Street smarts define their habitus and exercise a profound influence over the range of options that are available for them to consider — the neighborhoods they know to avoid, the body languages that signal danger, the values of illicit goods, the motives of different street actors, the routines of police interactions, etc. The habitus affects both the options to conform to the group they identify with or deviate from it. Ted Rogers occupied a different habitus which established a fundamentally different set of options for him in his life path. How are the different lifeworlds or habitus distributed in society so that some reinforce patterns of deprivation while others provide the basis for access to wealth and power?
As Bourdieu pointed out, habitus is so deeply ingrained that we take its reality as natural rather than as a product of social circumstances. This has the unfortunate effect of justifying social inequalites based the belief that the Ted Rogers of the world were naturally gifted and predisposed for success when in fact it is success itself that is “predisposed” by underlying structures of power and privilege.'
You claimed to have studied this decades ago, but don't display any grasp of basic concepts, even falling into the trap of trying to use nursing, a 'pink ghetto' occupation, to defend your argument when in fact it confirms the opposite. Maybe spend some time educating yourself before starting your arguments from a position of ignorance (ie. your total lack of knowledge on how Worksafe coverage works).
Equality of condition cannot be achieved without forcibly imposing it on a population. The concept is predicated on everyone having the same OUTCOME measured in material wealth - it's an asinine belief. Case in point, should the barista at Starbucks get a huge raise or should Lebron James take a huge pay cut? Because clearly their outcomes (based on material wealth) is clearly unequal and therefore a huge social injustice has occurred right? Should a kindergarten teacher make as much as a doctor so that you can feel better about "equality" - is it even inherently "wrong" that a doctor makes more than a teacher? I would so "no" - if you say that is "wrong" so be it.
Social standing is purely subjective - think about it. You fall into the same trap as many do - you think life is some sort of competition or race. You then merge this idea of life being a competition with a false concept of "equality" by stating that the competition is only "fair" if everyone finishes the race at the exact same time. This false sense of "equality" is more akin to "being the same" as opposed to the actual idea of people being equal - you are conflating - you believe for everyone to be equal we must all be the same. Life is not a competition, the more appropriate analogy is that life is like going to the gym. Some people go to lose 10 lbs, some go to work on cardio, some go to "bulk up", etc., etc., etc. Your outcome is largely what you want out of it and what you put into it. Ergo, it is a complete fallacy to say that they guy going to the gym to train for a charity 10k run is a "failure" because another guy at the gym can run the Boston Marathon in 4 hours - their outcomes are clearly unequal - and there's nothing wrong with that! Even if both are training for the Boston Marathon - chances are one is going to do better than the other. Again, there is nothing wrong with that. You set your objective/goal - you either achieve it or you don't, but if you're setting your objective by constantly looking at "what the other guy" achieves, you are totally missing the point of what going to the gym is all about.
Last edited:
